Interesting. Thanks for all your replies. I guess my disgust for the behavior of the catholic church, all the "heresy" and imprisonment stuff, clouded my judgement of Galileo. Looks like he actually was wrong on most everything.
As another poster said, his ideas lead to the necessity of only one high tide at noon, and we know that isn't true
Both sides had no explanation for tides. This is not a difference in the quality of the theories, no predictive or explanatory power on either side.
His idea of the motion of the planets still relied on epicycles to explain why they appeared to move forward then backwards then forwards again throughout the year because he was stuck on perfectly circular orbits.
Again: Both theories are wrong; Galileo's is arguably closer to the truth.
Geocentricism certainly wasn't right, but its predictive power was better than Galileo's ideas.
Galileo's observed that Venus exhibited a full set of phases in clear violation of Ptolemy's geocentric model. His discovery of a couple of Jupiter's moons proofed that not all heavenly bodies orbit the earth. These are some examples for Galileo's theory being superior to geocentrism. Can you name a concrete example, where the church's geocentric model actually did better than Galileo's ideas?
There's nothing 'wrong' or unscientific about disagreeing with Galileo, because Galileo was wrong.
I agree. But to reject it because it is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." is wrong an unscientific. Again: I'm not arguing that Galileo was right. With todays knowledge it is easy to see how wrong he was.
But, as science, his astronomical theories were way off the mark, and he was going around asserting them to be true without question, all the while by insulting some of the most powerful people on the planet.
I think it's not fair to measure him against what we know today. You have to compare his model against the scientific believe and knowledge of his time. That is what science is all about: finding a model that is less wrong than the model you had before. Are you arguing that the geocentric model is less wrong than what Galileo proposed? Which is closer to the truth? I understand that Galileo's model is more wrong than the geocentric model we use today but that seems irrelevant to the case.
He sent a "GET
As a Software Engineer,
If you want to call yourself an engineer you'll have to take responsibility for your work. Just like all the other engineers do. Otherwise you're just a code monkey.
The Sanford Prison Experiment is a poster child for what was wrong with scientific psychology in most of the last century. Philip Zimbardo, knowingly or unknowingly, designed and implemented the experiment in such a way that he got exactly the results he wanted. The wiki lists some of the deficiencies:
Zimbardo found it impossible to keep traditional scientific controls in place. He was unable to remain a neutral observer, since he influenced the direction of the experiment as the prison's superintendent. Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were largely subjective and anecdotal, and the experiment would be difficult for other researchers to reproduce.
Also look at how ethics committees changed their guidelines as a response to that experiment.
No. Governments are not supposed to commit millions of criminal acts in allied countries. And no, not every country does that.
Vitriol falling on regular folks is direct result of these regular folks attention-seeking diva behavior that is so prevalent in the gaming industry.
Sure, their skirts were clearly to short. They wanted it.
For example, you don't see "regular folk" speaking for Microsoft,
No, regular folk - what an imbecilic weasel word - at Microsoft don't do that.
The only reason this is illegal is because the spoofer is entering a quote he doesn't intend to trade - it's not bona fide.
What's funny here is that this is a (illegal) strategy to try to get *another algorithm* to make a mistake and to profit from it
So it's fraud by quoting without intent to trade.
In addition, anyone could implement these (illegal) strategies.
No, for one, my latency is far to high.
I agree that the second link is very weak but it still shows quoting without intent to trade, which we both agree on is illegal. You are far more knowledgable in this stuff than I am an I actually learned a couple of things from your replies. Thanks for that. But I also think that my initial assessment of the situation is - if not spot on - not to far of.
You have it backwards. When you're quoting your worst quote is the one that trades.
Only if you get forced to trade on your quote like you and I have to. The rules are not the same for everyone.
I have seen no discussions concerning the hardware and software architecture that is needed for a system supposedly capable of trapping and analyzing all the internet traffic as well as every email and tweet that crosses the wire.
Really? Google "lawful interception". Cisco et al have been including these capabilities in the their equipment since at least 2005.
1. A certain loss
It is used to find the lowest price a seller is willing to sell at and the highest price a buyer is willing to buy at.
2. Illegal
I agree.
3. Prevented by exchanges.
Look at the number of quotes compared to the number of sales. Look at the overall numbers and compare them to the numbers of some traders.
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
