posted by
cmn32480
on Sunday May 08 2016, @11:49PM
from the I-can't-solve-DiffEq-with-a-computer dept.
from the I-can't-solve-DiffEq-with-a-computer dept.
This just in from the front lines of the War on the Unusual:
University of Pennsylvania economics professor Guido Menzio was solving a set of differential equations on a plane departing the Philadelphia airport when the woman next to him surreptitiously passed a note to a flight attendant telling them she thought he was a terrorist because of the strange things he was writing on a pad of paper. The plane returned to the gate where he was questioned. At least this time the pilot had enough sense not to kick him off the flight.
Remember folks, if you see something say something!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UPenn Professor Solving DiffEQ on Scratchpad Causes Plane to Return to Gate
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 107 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 09 2016, @12:00AM
As any college student knows.. equations are the sign of pain and anguish. So she was right! ;-)
In other news an anonymous woman from Philadelphia has been awarded a MCSA for free. :P
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @12:48AM
You can't really blame her for worrying that he was Osama bin Addin, leader of Al-Gebra. After all he was handling weapons of math instruction right in front of her.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @01:26AM
(Score: 4, Funny) by CirclesInSand on Monday May 09 2016, @05:38AM
Apparently she couldn't differentiate between terrorists and those prepared to integrate into society. Wasn't separable to her at all.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Monday May 09 2016, @08:06AM
At first I thought you were saying an anonymous woman from Philadelphia was awarded MRSA for free...which wouldn't have been as funny, but probably better for society.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 09 2016, @12:30PM
It's a certification from some big company in Seattle ..
Nothing with viruses..
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Monday May 09 2016, @12:00AM
I am a terrorist.
Just boarded the plane.
Better alert the lady next to me of my intentions by scribbling arabic invocations on a pad.
Well done, lady.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @12:02AM
Obviously a member of Al Gebra.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday May 10 2016, @02:55AM
Did he have to take a different flight? I doubt a diff eq prof would mind making a completely impossible to understand substitution.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday May 09 2016, @01:32AM
Yes, she screwed up, but she wasn't alone. She's not the one who delayed the flight and questioned the man.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday May 09 2016, @01:45AM
Came here to say the same thing.
What could you possibly write down on a note pad that would pose a risk?
Boom?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Monday May 09 2016, @05:19AM
Well, if he had written "I have a bomb.", that she read, then yes, that would pose a risk to the flight.
But not being able to understand what a person is writing is not.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Monday May 09 2016, @08:41AM
Well, if he had written "I have a bomb.", that she read, then yes, that would pose a risk to the flight.
How? I would assume the fact that someone writes a statement like this down is not, or if at all then negatively, correlated to the possibility of actually having a bomb. If I had a bomb, I'd never write it down before lift-off. On the other hand, if I haven't got any, I might write it down while working on a comic, a punch-line for a joke, fooling around, working on a plot for a novel, whatever. And lift-off would be the time to get inspiration about such topics.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @12:58PM
> If I had a bomb, I'd never write it down before lift-off.
Because people with bombs are never looking for attention and are never conflicted about what they are doing.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday May 09 2016, @03:22PM
Getting a bomb into an aircraft shouldn't be that simple nowadays; I guess it would at a minimum require some cold-blooded planning and execution. Not the type of person who loses the nerve just before lift-off. To get attention with a bomb-threat, no bomb is necessary at all.
That said, I acknowledge that some other people are probably better at guessing how lunatics "think", I have no experience in that way of thinking :-)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday May 09 2016, @05:02PM
(don't confront this guy)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Kilo110 on Monday May 09 2016, @05:04AM
The crew has to follow procedure. I don't blame them for not wanting to risk their jobs.
Although I wish thy kept the woman on the flight and forced her to bear all the dirty looks from every passenger.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday May 09 2016, @05:56AM
Someone etched that particularly stupid procedure into stone and so deserves ridicule for failing to take an obviously likely situation (a less than credible report of danger) into account. Abject stupidity on autopilot.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Monday May 09 2016, @07:30AM
It's all about CYA. No one in a position of authority can afford to not overreact if someone expresses concern over a possible danger. If they underreact they'll be lambasted and fired. If they overreact, well they were just being cautious. That's the stance that we need to change.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday May 09 2016, @09:47AM
Agreed, and it's a hard problem. At one time as a society we looked down on cowardice, now we seem to have enshrined it.
(Score: 2) by captain_nifty on Monday May 09 2016, @02:58PM
The big problem is that we have as a society lost the concept of personal responsibility.
It's not seen as cowardice it's seen as just doing your job or following procedure, with the assumption that whoever wrote the procedure knew better, and the human cog in the machine cannot be responsible for making a decision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @05:28PM
That started happening the moment "personal responsibility" lost all meaning except for victim-blaming. The only time I've heard anyone make any mention of "personal responsibility" in the past decade is when they were blaming a victim for being a victim.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday May 09 2016, @03:41PM
Satire and Memes-of-mass-destruction?
I mean, what else is available with a proven track record?
Always respond in kind, rhetoric to rhetoric never cross the streams of rhetoric and dialectic, at least in weaponized form.
That woman needs to be made internet-famous...
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday May 09 2016, @05:59PM
Sounds good. If you do one up I'll spread it.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Funny) by q.kontinuum on Monday May 09 2016, @08:26AM
Well... He did wield a weapon of maths-destruction, didn't he?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by devlux on Monday May 09 2016, @12:05AM
What I don't get... If this was a differential equation, isn't most of that Greek symbols?
So even the lame "well he was using Arabic numerals" joke wouldn't seem to apply here, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @12:14AM
They thought he was a Muslim but it turns out he's a Numerical Methodist.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @12:26AM
You expect the average uneducated american to know the difference between greek and arabic?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday May 09 2016, @02:54AM
No, but between paper and a bomb? yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @07:34AM
Paper covers bomb.
Bomb smashes scissors.
Scissors cut paper.
None of these are allowed aboard the aircraft. 💣🎫💇
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 09 2016, @03:02AM
Yeah, naah... it's all greek to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 4, Funny) by frojack on Monday May 09 2016, @01:50AM
Perhaps she knew he was an Economics professor?
They aren't exactly the type you expect to find wielding differential equations.
Much beyond a Chi Square, and they are out of their league.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Monday May 09 2016, @03:10AM
I modded you funny, because I had this *exact* conversation with a retired Econ Professor at dinner.
Me: "So do many are many of your theories backed by models with different equations denoting the various economic actors".
Prof: "Well not exactly..."
Me: "So you can see why a lot of us (physicists but you can insert "folks who do loads of maths") think it is all made up".
Prof:" Well to be honest, that's a great deal of it. Emotion and intuition substitute proper model analysis and probability outcomes. So, can you explain why the universe is expanding..."
Verbatim, honest ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @03:16AM
FYI, economics is a branch of psychology, not math. Math comes into play, like it does in practically every discipline, but fundamentally it is about how humans behave under various conditions.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Non Sequor on Monday May 09 2016, @04:34AM
The actual reality is at the same time a bit better than that and a bit worse.
There are differential equation models. They are in wide use. But the simplifying assumptions needed to make them tractable also reduce them to the role of illustrations for different narratives which can be postulated. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_stochastic_general_equilibrium [wikipedia.org]
The problems of statistical inference in economics are much deeper and more fundamental than those in physics. Isolation of variables is impossible in economics. In theoretical physics, in some cases model selection is focused on mathematically minimal objects, no such hope exists for economics. Most macroeconomic variables are heterogenous aggregations (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_capital_controversy) [wikipedia.org] rather than quantities denoted in a single pure unit.
Physicists who model heterogenous systems are called chemists. Chemists who model heterogenous systems are called biologists. Things kind of branch off from there, but you get the point. The lack of your rigor isn't because everyone in the other fields are lightweights (well, economists are lightweights, but that's another thing), but rather it's an effect of a level of aggregation of subsystems underlying each field.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @08:25AM
Psychologists think they're experimental psychologists.
Experimental psychologists think they're biologists.
Biologists think they're biochemists.
Biochemists think they're chemists.
Chemists think they're physical chemists.
Physical chemists think they're physicists.
Physicists think they're theoretical physicists.
Theoretical physicists think they're mathematicians.
Mathematicians think they're metamathematicians.
Metamathematicians think they're philosophers.
Philosophers think they're gods.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Lester on Monday May 09 2016, @09:08AM
Variable correlation may be casual because there are many other variables, moreover they don't say what's cause and what's effect, or if there are just proxy data. Inference, in economics world, is the final proof and evidence. And that's the problem, inference, in any science, is a good point for formulating an initial hypothesis to start research, but not a fact to build a whole theory on.
If you can't isolate variables, you can't prove things. So it's not science. There are zones of physics that are not demonstrable, contrary to economist, theoretical physicians know it, the economist don't or at least ignore it.
The main problem of accepting as science something that is not, isn't that you can't prove things, but that you can't refute anything. No matter how reality shows results against theory, there is always an unknown, hidden variable that can explain it. There is no progress, no revision, everything is petrified.
When I read "The undercover economist" I thought "What this book proves is that economy at this level is psychology and at nation level is sociology". What a bunch of unproven nosense. i.e. "more abortion, less crime" Excuse me, there are so many variables involved that such statement makes no sense. The problem is not that there are too much variables, the problem is that this guy dared to connect them and write it in a book.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday May 09 2016, @11:08AM
So how do you solve that problem without asking people to stop living? Most human decisions are made on matters for which there is no hope of grounding them to clear, demonstrable evidence. The physicist who seeks to apply methodologies that offer clarity in their field and the economist who remains blithely unaware of problems relating to the nature of knowledge both suffer from a form of impotence against the problems of life.
Yet we do know that problem solving strategies exist in these kinds of limited knowledge settings, although no a priori best approach exists (see the no free lunch theorem). This is heuristic reasoning and people use it because, theoretically there are circumstances where it can be effective, and because we've picked an arbitrary strategy out of a range of strategies for which the evidence is not sufficient to identify a clear, overwhelming winner.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 1) by Lester on Monday May 16 2016, @10:45AM
You are completely right. We have to make a lot of decisions with limited data and knowledge.
You can use science or you can use... let's call it intuition. It's amazing in how many cases intuition works well, not only well, but sometimes faster than science. In fact, "What are the scientific facts behind this intuition that seems to work always?" is a common topic of research.
If you can't apply science, because science for that matter doesn't exist, or because a quick acceptable decision now is better than a perfect solution latter, uses intuition. Nevertheless intuition has also a lot of pitfalls and sad record of wrong decisions. So, whenever If you can apply science, apply science. It's the safest bet
So, the first problem is when you insist in using intuition instead of science. And the really big problem is when, instead of using science or intuition, you use bad science or intuition disguised of science.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday May 09 2016, @10:37AM
The actual reality is at the same time a bit better than that and a bit worse... There are differential equation models. They are in wide use. But the simplifying assumptions needed to make them tractable also reduce them to the role of illustrations...
In other words, the model only works for spherical investors in a vacuum.
2-3 Decades ago a multi millionaire ($1M was a lot of money back then) in Oz made millions by saying he was thinking about using his group of companies to buy some other company out. Couple of weeks later he made some more millions by publicly changing his mind. A small number of major investors makes using statistics difficult.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday May 09 2016, @03:17PM
but those of us that work with statistical mechanics that forms the basis for molecular dynamics simulations, have a giggle at the over-simplistic models.
The point about economics, is that the models are based to a certain degree, upon rational actors.
If there's one thing that we know about the population at large, they do not always act in their best interests (viewed from global point of view).
I suspect strongly, this is why a dart board is at least as a effective as a stock-broker...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday May 09 2016, @03:52PM
The point about economics, is that the models are based to a certain degree, upon rational actors.
If there's one thing that we know about the population at large...
Actually, that reliance on rational actors is a myth. If it were that easy you could solve all economic problems sitting in a chair. Economics is all about actively measuring what happens. Actors don't have to be rational, because you don't care about Joe, just Joe Average, and his ilk.
And the assumption that the entire field of economics has anything at all to do with stock brokers is another huge misconception.
Its as much about cheese prices and the flow of money than anything else. All very measurable things. Which is why economists end up being stat-heads. Economics is a "descriptive" science, not an "experimental" one. There is actually very little work done in the way of experimental protocols,
Its more about noticing that when too much milk is produced, one of the ways the market reacts is to store milk for leaner times by making cheese. Governments may want to tinker with the demand for cheese to help dairy farmers, but that's not the economist's fault, any more than it is the Ornithologist's fault that tinkering with the amount of sunflower seeds in a bird feeder can be used to attract more gold finches.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by opinionated_science on Monday May 09 2016, @04:45PM
Well my point about "rational actors" is the dogma of low-price , higher volume.
My main criticism of the models used, is the lack of time-dependent effects, and the complete ignorance of entropy (in a closed system).
In molecular systems where we couple microscopic movements to macroscopic properties, we have a configurational integral that defines the partition function of a system.
In economics there are far less stringent couplings, that for example, do not recognise the fundamental limits of human activity - the implicit sampling timestep, that causes inequalities of rational action.
Anyone ever wondered why the news on a sunday is so slow? Or why the markets close at certain times? Obviously this is accommodates human behaviour and as a result, this manifests discontinuous trajectories for the economic system. But for global, continuous processes (interest rates are only calculated at a certain time - the rates are continous), how does one account for zero-inflation processes?
We have anti-inflation in technology, due to the exponential growth of computational power at constant cost. A side-effect is the infinitesimal cost of second item e.g. software, music, video etc....
Time-delayed differential equations oscillate - and I hypothesize the huge diversity of modern time-constants (where some things are slow, others ultra fast) has reached beyond previous decades of thought in this area, due to the lack of new tools.
I know how to prove my molecules are behaving right - I do not think the econmists can say the same thing...
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Monday May 09 2016, @06:54PM
I know how to prove my molecules are behaving right - I do not think the econmists can say the same thing...
But its just your unfamiliarity with the entire field of Economics that leads you to the false assumption that they care to make such a determination, - and more importantly - that economics operates with an assumption that there is such a thing as "behaving right".
You might just as well grouse that the fish don't pedal the bicycle in the most efficient way as complain that the Economist can't measure the "rightness" of individual behavior.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday May 09 2016, @07:26PM
I modded you funny, because you're right! I know nothing formal about economics, but when a professor cannot defend themselves with anything other than hand waving, I feel my grasp of precision is perhaps moot....
There's always room for improvement, and I'm holding out for some computer models ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @01:23PM
His hand waving made her suspicious.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @12:06AM
The flight attendant was concerned that the passenger's use of Lagrange multipliers seemed inappropriate for the given minimization problem.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Monday May 09 2016, @03:33PM
...the passenger's use of Lagrange multipliers seemed inappropriate for the given minimization problem.
Well, he was an economist, after all.
That is all.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @12:10AM
Yep, that's strange. An economist using differential equations - all the rest use chicken bones and a ouija board.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @12:23AM
Shouldn't that math-illiterate tattletale get fined, or something? If she had paid a little bit of attention in high school math she would realize what algebra (etc) looks like. Or, you know, broken the ice by asking, "Gee that looks interesting, what are you working on?" Sheesh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @08:12AM
Or publicly shame her; give us her name!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @02:56PM
yes, she's a mindless rat but the staff she contacted should have been able to make a slightly better determination as to the threat. When i used to fly(shortly after 9/11) they would act like i was the jackal or some shit. i don't have anything serious on my record. one time some jackass who had mentioned that he had just returned from a whole list of disease ridden countries hacked all over me. i made a face like "wtf is wrong with you" and some stupid lady looked at me like i was some sort of asshole. she probably ratted me out for whatever her ignorant-ass suspicions were b/c when i got to the plane door, the pilot and two staff had blocked the entrance. the pilot realized fairly quickly that i was no threat and made the decision to let me in. then an air marshall sat behind me watching me the whole freakin' flight like i was a prisoner being transported. the airports are full of pigs and rats. @$% the airlines for letting the airports and planes be turned into occupied checkpoints and prisoner transport or all the well-to-do douche bags who kiss ass, rat and act like turning our country into a dystopian nightmare is just fine by them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Monday May 09 2016, @12:25AM
Henceforth, whenever you see someone on a plane with a Bible or crucifix, take the flight attendant aside and whisper that you think they're Christian fundamentalists, and you're worried that their planning to fire-bomb an abortion clinic.
Especially since you saw them praying before take-off.
Then there are the Pastafarians....
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday May 09 2016, @12:28AM
Hey the worse a Pastafarian will get you is slightly bloated after a very good meal.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday May 09 2016, @07:36AM
I'm gluten intolerant.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday May 09 2016, @10:19AM
Have some potato gnocchi then...
(Score: 4, Funny) by Rivenaleem on Monday May 09 2016, @08:28AM
Yeah, goddamned ragu heads
(Score: 3, Funny) by Snotnose on Monday May 09 2016, @12:39AM
I'm really glad I graduated in '90, before all this bullshit got to be all to common.
/ diffy-Qs were a real bitch
// wasn't until I took the class after it (heat transfer, etc) that I "got" them
/// this is the wrong forum for slashies, isn't it?
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 09 2016, @12:44AM
How does your graduation year makes this terror madness easier to dodge?
(Score: 2) by jimbrooking on Monday May 09 2016, @01:10AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday May 09 2016, @01:17AM
Officer! Officer! There's a slasher in the forum!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @05:20PM
Why do all the officers suddenly seem so alert? They thought you said a flasher...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @01:30AM
Get out. Diff-eq was all about the right recipes. Either you are lying about being math major or your school sucked.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday May 09 2016, @03:24AM
As a CS/Math/Engineering triple major I'll say that if all you got out of *any* math class is "recipes" then either the class sucked, or you did. Any competent idiot can apply equivalencies, it's the comprehension of underlying principles that's actually worth something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @04:46AM
No, you are either a moron or haven't taken diff-eq. Diff eq basically lists classes of diff eqs for which known recipes can apply. If you actually went past freshmen year and you still haven't figured this out, you should ask for your money back from your lousy excuse of school.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday May 09 2016, @06:16AM
Diff eq basically lists classes of diff eqs for which known recipes can apply.
That "teaching" technique is used, but only in nonmathematics classes.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday May 09 2016, @01:08PM
I have a math degree, of course I took DiffEq. And yes, I remember well the massive appendices full of equivalencies and solved forms. But if that's all you got out of the class, then it was a waste of your time - those were just the "cheat sheets" to save you untold hours of tedious grinding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @01:58PM
There is no coherent set of underlying principles, and that's why there is no general solution to various classes of diff eqs.
You are full of shit.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 09 2016, @05:54AM
we could summon bevets if you want..
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @02:07PM
the heck is a slashie and what's all this slash nonsense you're doing
(Score: 5, Insightful) by devlux on Monday May 09 2016, @01:06AM
Ok I'm really slow on the uptake here, so forgive me if this has been called out already but...
What if it HAD been Arabic he was writing in? So what? How does writing in Arabic or any other language suddenly make you a potential terrorist?
Same with reading a book. What if this man had a copy of the Quran in one hand and a pad of paper in the other, copying verses out? Maybe studying scripture and/or i dunno practicing Arabic? Learning a new language is good for the brain. The more distant it is from your birth language, the harder it is to learn and the more your brain begins to "re-organize" in order to optimize the way it processes language and concepts.
But just going back to the original idea. What if he had been an Imam or even a student of Islam?
How would this have been any different from your average clergy preparing for a lesson? Or your average bible thumper getting their Jesus on.
Why would any of that be anyone's damned business? He supposedly made it through the already draconian screening procedures to board the plane; how would his religious views have mattered?
My God the level of ignorance that the world suffers from at this point in history is just astonishing to me!
I hate to say it, but this is one of the few times I think that a serious law and/or lawsuit should come from an innocuous event. There needs to be a bill of rights or something that lays out specifically what they can delay a plane for and religion, color, race or other closed minded, bigoted bullshit should be explicitly prohibited.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @02:49AM
You're looking at this all wrong. Europeans have always known about alchemy, and various magical conversions. But, the thing is, all that magic only works when it is scratched out in the Devil's tongue - Arabic. If an Arabic imam were to be permitted to write chicken scratches on a notepad during takeoff, he might turn the engines into vulture wings, which wouldn't be strong enough to lift the aircraft, resulting in a crash. Everyone knows that you need roc wings to lift an aircraft.
Crazy talk, you say? Well, my observation is very valid for a population of superstitious, uneducated fools. And, for that reason, if I ever board another plane, I'll leave my writing instruments in my luggage. I'll definitely not pull out an electronic device, and fire up a terminal.
Which one of the famous (busted) hackers was it, someone reported that his computer didn't run Windows, but had a strange black screen with strange runes on it?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @03:36AM
he might turn the engines into vulture wings
What sauce should I use? Would incorporating rice wine or just plain vinegar be appropriate? As far as the scoville rating, should I restrain myself to the realm of the jalapeño pepper, or should I create a nuclear-class sauce?
These vulture wings are gonna be delicious when I get done with them!
Everyone knows that you need roc wings to lift an aircraft.
Even better! I'll prepare my best sauce for the occasion! Just add some molasses here, some serano peppers there, and ah! There we have it. Just needs a little butter to help it stick to the wings. Cook at 375°F for 35 minutes, turning once.
I think an egg mission is in order.... For science!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @04:56AM
Cognitive dissonance alert!
Cognitive dissonance alert!
Post contradicted by sig.
User brain pressure approaching critical levels!
Fatal head assplode event in 5 minutes!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @05:42AM
Oh, how cute! The tiny AC with his tiny mind has attempted to enter into an adult discussion!
Well, AC, allow me to point out that Islam is predicated upon superstitious bullshit. Eating a bacon bit will dirty your soul for all eternity, and Allah will blast you out of existence? Feel free to rephrase that in the meaningless modern Progressive vernacular. Doing so may prevent your head from assploding.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @06:52AM
Eating a bacon bit will dirty your soul for all eternity,
Well, at least they agree with the Jews about something!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @01:22PM
> Well, AC, allow me to point out that Islam is predicated upon superstitious bullshit.
> Eating a bacon bit will dirty your soul for all eternity, and Allah will blast you out of existence?
Warning!
Warning!
This area contains dangerous levels of cognitive dissonance!
Permanent mental impairment detected!
Seek treatment immediately for fatal levels of teh stupid!
Leviticus 11:7-8
and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you.
Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @01:30PM
And . . . ? You're still attempting to make some kind of a point? Well, please, spell it out for us. All of Soylent is waiting expectantly, just hoping that you are capable of making a point.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @03:13PM
The point seems clear, your religion is just as much whackdoodle superstition as your enemy's religion. Denial ain't just for egyptians.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @03:59PM
No matter how whackdoodle it is, or however whackdoodle you think it is, Christians today do not run about shooting little children for cursing - http://aranews.net/2016/05/isis-extremists-execute-7-year-old-boy-syrias-raqqa/ [aranews.net]
Or, paying blood debts with their virgin daughters - http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/baad-afghanistan-virgin-slaves-given-away-end-disputes-n567696 [nbcnews.com]
I could go on all day. Oh - another gay man was thrown from a rooftop in Raqqa, yesterday I think.
Christianity seems to have matured, while Islam clings to those old tribal superstitions to justify the rivers of blood they love.
I'm not much into relativism, but relatively speaking, which system would you rather live under?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Monday May 09 2016, @05:55PM
No, they just go around planting bombs to kill doctors who provide medical care and executing people for showing affection towards someone of the wrong gender...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @06:17PM
Check out the crazy shit american christians [deathandtaxesmag.com] have exported to uganda [theguardian.com] because they didn't have enough of a majority to make it happen here. And of course there is all the shit in christian majority Russia.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @06:10PM
You are a broken record dude.
You cherry pick the worst of the worst and pretend it is the common case.
Someone else comes up with equally bad shit done by people of your religion and you hide behind the no true scottsman fallacy - one rule for your tribe, another rule for your enemy's tribe. You proclaim ethical superiority by demonstrating mental inferiority.
You may now proceed playing your record:
50,000 children abused, tortured, sometimes to the point of murder [ibtimes.co.uk] by christians in the congo (and London) for being inconvenient.
In 87% christian Brazil: 300 LGBT people murdered in 2012 [washingtonblade.com]
Gay youth stoned to death by mob [gaystarnews.com] in 69% christian Jamaica. They then post video to facebook. Not really [hrw.org] anything new. [archive.org]
WRT to ba'ad in afghanistan, your own citation says:
"It is contrary to Islam and humanity"
...
Mohammad Salim Hassani, a Shiite cleric backing the campaign, said baad encourages "the culture of immunity" among rural communities.
If it were islamic, rather than tribal, that shit would be going on in all the muslim majority nations, not just the backwaters of one backward country.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 09 2016, @02:04PM
I doubt either Islam or Judaism say you're screwed for eternity after one pig incident. You just need to ceremonially cleanse yourself (i.e. take a bath) and ask for forgiveness or something.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @07:48AM
magic only works when it is scratched out in the Devil's tongue - Arabic
[...]
a population of superstitious, uneducated [USAian] fools
This might be a good point to mention that, for a bunch of centuries, the Catholic Church was in charge of everything in Europe.[1]
When they wrote, they did that in Latin--specifically so the masses wouldn't understand what was going on without the priesthood to decode it.
...and anything that deviated from Divine Writ, got burned.
If it wasn't for the Arabs, all scientific and mathematical knowledge might have been lost.
[1] ...and when Europeans (the most zealous of the bunch, of course) invaded the Western Hemisphere, they brought their silly superstitions with them.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @01:32AM
Fuck yeah. Really. The "home of the brave". America, fuck ... yeah?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @02:50AM
Sadly it's also increasingly becoming home of the ignorant. :/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @02:59AM
Make America Hate Again! [rawstory.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by legont on Monday May 09 2016, @01:36AM
So, the professor is now in all the databases as was questioned on suspicion of terrorism. He will stay in there forever ever. From now on when he is concidered for a position and a background check run nobody is going to read why and what, but the simple fact he was questioned. Eventually robots who will just match his records against clearance refusals and so on will get enough points on him to put him in yet more interesting databases such as no fly lists. He, of course, will never know. He will just notice that something started going wired, then paranoia will set in and that will be it for his life.
What's more - this is actually rational behaviour from the security point of view simply because if he is smart he will run now while he still can to start a new life elsewhere and never look back. Such a person quickly becomes dangerous.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @02:58AM
citation needed
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @08:09AM
We've mentioned here MANY times [soylentnews.org] how easy it is to get on the list and how difficult it is to get off.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @06:22PM
No evidence that professor Guido Menzio will be added to a watchlist because of this incident, check.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @11:42PM
Just because it can't be proven with 100% certainty does not invalidate the point that it is easily plausible if not highly likely.
If you are having difficulty with this concept, you can overcome that by researching hyperbole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @02:40AM
Research hyperbole? There is plenty of it on Soylent News.
The law enforcement anon knows what he's talking about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @08:17AM
As someone who works in law enforcement, just being questioned isn't going to put him on a terrorist watch list or return anything in a background check.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @08:56PM
As someone who works in law enforcement, just being questioned isn't going to put him on a terrorist watch list or return anything in a background check.
Explain how Law Enforcement typically assesses the NCIC query count, does higher count indicate anything to you reflexively?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @01:37AM
Hysteric Woman Causes Plane to Return to Gate After Watching UPenn Professor Do Maths on Scratchpad
There, I fixed it for you.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday May 09 2016, @10:05PM
Hysteric Woman Causes Plane to Return to Gate After Watching a Guido with a Sicilian-Sounding Last Name Do Maths on Scratchpad
Minor correction -- hope this helps.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Monday May 09 2016, @02:01AM
"Is this your matrix?"
(Score: 2) by VanderDecken on Monday May 09 2016, @02:06AM
No, mine has a blue pill
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Hartree on Monday May 09 2016, @02:29AM
Ok, smartypants. Tell me what weapon of mass destruction doesn't involve differential equations?
From biologicals with the growth equation, to fluid dynamics for chemical agent spread to modeling neutron multiplication in atomic bombs. It's all derived via differential equations.
These mathematical people are gonna kill us all, I tell ya! ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @06:07AM
Social Justice.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Monday May 09 2016, @05:15AM
I wonder what would happen if someone translated the Anarchist's cookbook into Arabic and left copies of it laying about in numerous airports.
Maybe even print a bunch and have the airport bookstores give them away for free.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @08:24AM
My guess: They'd blame the Lebanese. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by shortscreen on Monday May 09 2016, @09:02AM
This reminds me of the time I was studying Japanese at lunch and a woman looked at my notes and asked what kind of math it was.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 09 2016, @04:07PM
and a woman looked at my notes
There's a common thread here that women are culturally permitted very few conversation starters beyond this. I'm not trying to complain about it SJW style I'm just saying that as a single guy I experienced this myself, women love to look at what guys are reading or their homework as one of the very few culturally permitted ways for women to make a first move on a guy. "hey stop paying attention to that book or homework and start paying attention to me". It not some kind of iron clad law like out of D+D manual, its just an observation from real life that's truer a lot more often than not.
I suppose ugly guys wouldn't have much experience with girls flirting with them, but I got pestered quite a bit when I was young and single despite personally having no interest in bothering young ladies about their own books or homework. Because guys have plenty of socially acceptable first moves beyond "hey baby, how bout that Fourier transform?"
Its asymmetric and "oh you're a girl doing math so you must need my manly help" isn't going to work very well with the ladies. Even if that's not what you say, that's how they'll hear it if a guy stares at their homework and starts talking to them. Or they'll get all cranky about how he just wants to stare at my chest jiggle as I draw big integral symbols. Seriously its asymmetric and usually does work F to M and not so much M to F as a conversation starter.
This is before you whip out the men are from mars women from venus, pseudoscience, where a guy is going to think talking about the problem means cooperating to solve the problem, whereas the girl is going to see it as a pickup line. Which observationally isn't too inaccurate or pseudoscience, interestingly. So maybe that is the right way to look at the world in that instance.
I haven't seen a picture of the lovely lady from the story. I wonder if there's more to this story along the lives of the above paragraphs. Like she tried to flirt with him while he's working and he's like "sry no porkers" or something about her race or whatever, and this was her revenge that got WAY out of hand.
I mean, you're provided a story that's ridiculous and an alternative that smells like a slice of real life, Occam's razor and all that, I think it far more likely the woman was offended by how he blew her off rather than she was terrified of diffeqs and now thats its totally blown up its circle the wagons time to insist on being scared of diffeqs, rather than admitting she tried to ask him out for coffee and he responded by calling her fat or WTF actually happened.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09 2016, @05:42PM
Oh you insecure little fascist man...
...I'm not trying to complain about it SJW style...
and then our self-described pretty boy goes on to whine about it for several paragraphs. Can't we just stick to the facts instead of fantastical speculation such as
...he's like "sry no porkers" or something about her race or whatever...
Tone it down chum, either the posting or the drinking. This is not a constructive way of dealing with getting rejected by women.