Slashdot Mirror

Having posted on Slashdot quite a bit using a smartphone, I have a recommendation:

http://www.amazon.com/Stowaway-Ultra-Slim-Bluetooth-Blackberry-Handhelds/dp/B0002OKCXE

That way, we won't have to make allowances for idiots trying to type out 500-word posts on thumbboards or, God forbid, onscreen keyboards...

I don't think you can make getting fit, fun.

Oh, hell yeah you can! Check out the book, Born to Run. Once you realize that you too can be a super-athlete, and it really doesn't take all that much work, and in fact it is what your body was made to do, and when I say super-athlete I mean the kind that makes marathon running look like a walk in the park, suddenly running does become fun.

Learning to conquer your laziness impulse, especially if you've been giving in to it for so long, is exciting because suddenly the world is open with possibilities. You can do anything, not just run (not just physical stuff, anything).

Not only that, it shouldn't feel like work. As the book says, if it feels like work, you're doing it wrong. Find a different way to do it.

Bezos' oft stated grand vision with the Kindle is to make every book ever published available for Kindle readers. Right now they have about 350,000 titles (30,000 of which are various versions of "Pride and Prejudice" j/k ;-) 350,000 titles is obviously a far cry from the vision. Even if you throw in the poorly formatted Gutenberg collection into the mix, that only represents a small fraction of every book ever published. Clearly it doesn't make any sense for Amazon to exclude public domain titles, because that would mean they have written off (no pun intended) every book published before 1923. That certainly would not serve their Kindle readership well -- the same readership that have shelled out $300+ for a Kindle. In fact, there are complaints on the Amazon forums about a lot of books not being available for the Kindle. This is just one of many threads: http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_search_res_ti?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=1&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1CHJ1YPUUMKOQ&cdMsgID=MxPIP3LYY8GT4D#MxPIP3LYY8GT4D [amazon.com] So why did Amazon institute such a draconian policy? It doesn't help them because it limits their library. It doesn't help their customers because it cuts off every book published before 1923 and goes against the vision stated by Bezos himself. My guess is that this was a short-sited policy implemented at a low management level. Amazon is a large, bureaucratic organization and decisions are made that Bezos would not necessarily agree to. Look at the 1984 fiasco. It was clear Bezos was not involved in that policy decision and he acted quickly and decisively to rectify the situation. My personal opinion is that this sledgehammer policy will be rescinded and a policy that is better thought through to deal with the quality issues will be drafted. Amazon wants to work with publishers in order to bring their vision for the Kindle to fruition. They certainly want to provide the books that their customers want. This current policy gets in the way of doing that.

Or for a more realistic approach, try Warday and the Journey Onwards, by Whitley Strieber. It's excellent, well-researched, and frightening as hell-- it's a tour of the US after a "limited" nuclear exchange with the USSR and journals the effects of it.

(Yes, *that* Whitley Strieber, but it was before he went all wacko and started writing about nothing but UFOs. This book is really good though.)

http://www.amazon.com/Warday-Journey-Onwards-Whitley-Strieber/dp/0340366494/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_8

From around 4th through 6th grade, my teachers told the class that we'd have to write all our papers in high school in cursive, so we might as well do it now. By 8th grade, they almost always mandated everything be typed, which continued through high school. Instead of lieing to us, could we have spent that time in earlier grades learning touch typing instead?

I doubt they lied to you and actually thought that everyone was going to be using cursive just as they did. I got doubly screwed growing up. In the 4th to 6th grade the small town school I went to couldn't decide what type of handwriting to teach us. Right in the middle of teaching us cursive they decided that was dead and everyone would be using italics. Sorry, that was the only link I could find to really describe it.

Needless to say I really got lost in the mix of all three writing styles. My handwriting to this day is awful. So instead I decided to learn typing on old mechanical typewriters the school had (early 80s). So I may not be able to handwrite anything legible but I just happened to teach myself a very valuable skill at exactly the right time. Should give my misguided teachers credit for indirectly pushing me on the right path. :D

Part of my research involves reading quite a bit about 17th century science. I've spent a lot of time with these treatises, and have read large parts of them in the original Latin or Italian.

Oh god. Did you happen to read any of them in plain English? Or at least in your own native tongue? It could have helped. You might want to try something like Netwon's Principia for the common reader. You may then at least be able to appreciate exactly what the book is talking about. (Hint: It wasn't the Tychonic system!) That's why I referred you to the tensors book. If you don't understand the equations, then you will not understand any of these books in either their literal or historical contexts.

I was writing quickly and didn't mean that the Principia used a Tychonic system throughout (if anyone read it like that)... I just meant that it assumes it in places, as can be easily demonstrated. Clearly Newton was somewhat ambivalent about various models and used convenient models for computational purposes

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't understand Newton's arguments, because if you did, you'd know that he spent quite a bit of time defining inertial reference frames, the laws of motion and circular motion before he even mentioned gravity and the planets. This is important because rotating reference frames, like the heliocentric subset of the Tychonic model, are not inertial frames. Objects in rotating frames do not move according to Newton's laws, and consequently planets will not revolve in ellipses under gravity. To suggest Issac Newton, or anyone who understood his arguments, accepted the Tychonic system is to outright slander them.

As a historian of sorts you know or at least should know exactly why Newton is being ambivalent here. You are grossly distorting his reasons here.

There's a brief summary in the Wikipedia article (I can give you more scholarly citations, if you like, but this only has a few minor issues and is more accessible): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe#Tychonic_astronomy_after_Tycho

Hmmmm, yes. I especially love the part about how the discovery of stellar aberration by Bradley put paid to the Tychonic model, even though it has nothing to do with helio or geocentricism and is purely due to motions of the telescope. I believe the author must have meant stellar parallax, but I believe that was only first confirmed somwtime around the 1820's. Oops.

And what the Church did to him was censorship and was wrong to those of us who value intellectual freedom. But he didn't play by the rules they set up, and he

Are you for real?

But that's rigging the game. If you read about contemporary accounts and understand the arguments on both sides, there was a lot going on there that had nothing to do with science (or science vs. religion)... including a lot of politics, on top of all the intellectual debate.

That's not what was in the trial records. Galileo was condemned and nearly executed based on this theories, not on his relationship with the Pope. You are sugaring over the central issue. Galileo had a very solid argument backup up with observations and reasoning, and the church dismissed it all because it conflicted with their dogma. Dogma. They denied Galileo the philosophical freedom they allowed even their own theologians and threatened to burn him because he stood by the truth. Most of them wouldn't even look into his telescope. Are you trying to suggest these men had honest intellectual integrity during this debate?

It was easy for anyone with two eyes in their head to look through a telescope and see the moons of Jupiter. To see

For those of you still hanging on:
http://www.amazon.com/C-COBOL-Programmers-Business-Approach/dp/0805316604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253538164&sr=8-1

How about "Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes": :-)
    http://www.amazon.com/Punished-Rewards-Trouble-Incentive-Praise/dp/0395710901

Or:
    "No Contest: The Case Against Competition"
    http://www.amazon.com/No-Contest-Case-Against-Competition/dp/0395631254
   

How about "Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes": :-)
    http://www.amazon.com/Punished-Rewards-Trouble-Incentive-Praise/dp/0395710901

Or:
    "No Contest: The Case Against Competition"
    http://www.amazon.com/No-Contest-Case-Against-Competition/dp/0395631254
   

If I understand correctly, the plague wasn't transmitted from human to human, but rather from lice to humans. Since lice are nowhere near as prevalent as they used to be, you don't normally have to fear an outbreak.

Not necessarily.

The author makes a convincing argument that the Black Death was actually spread by droplet based transmission.

The plague never went away. Even after the last pandemic, people still have been contracting the plague. Yersinia pestis is still endemic among rodents in Europe, Asia and the USA. Small outbreaks, with the exact same symptoms still occur today from time to time. The history of this disease is extremely well documented, and not at all controversial.

When the infection reaches the lungs it's called Pneumonic plague, it spreads via droplets and is extremely contageous. When it infects the lymph nodes, it's called Bubonic plague. It's the same disease, just in a different organ. When the infection reaches the blood, it's called Septic Plague.

It's not as dangerous now, because we don't commonly share our homes with rodents and lice anymore, and with prompt treatment with antibiotics, the prognosis is decent.

Now I haven't read that book that you linked to, so I don't know what arguments they make, but a hypothesis that states that the black death was a different disease with the exact same symptoms as a very well known and documented disease that still occurs today seems needlessly complicated to me.

If I understand correctly, the plague wasn't transmitted from human to human, but rather from lice to humans. Since lice are nowhere near as prevalent as they used to be, you don't normally have to fear an outbreak.

Not necessarily.

The author makes a convincing argument that the Black Death was actually spread by droplet based transmission.

I'd like to see the article providing proof of that level of monitoring by the NSA (or any other government agency for that matter).

Not only is there an article, there was a major governmental investigation. The European Parliament's ECHELON report provoked an enormous scandal in nerd circles when it appear. Bamford's Body of Secrets provided fuller details, many based on inside contacts.

Sadly, things like PGP and interest in ECHELON reports seem to have become less popular among geeks. I wonder why. Sure, one might trust PGP less when there are ways to get around it or compel you personally to give up the key, but it's odd that people suddenly have zero passion for the technology.

If only there were a way to review and rate book purchases so the buyers could decide between different versions. (Amazon search for Alice in Wonderland sorted by Ratings: 811 results)

No, the PD books on Amazon are free. However, there have been an ever increasing amount of duplicates submitted by 3rd parties that have a price tag. They are just trying to remove the duplicates that have the price tag to provide a better user experience.

Please see Pride and Prejudice kindle store search. The first PD copy that comes up is free, the rest charge. That is not a good user experience as the free one is just as good as the rest (or should be).

I completely agree with this policy, as it makes it easier for me, a user, to determine what book I should get. I don't think they should limit the different editions of books, but seriously, how many public domain books have multiple editions, like super deluxe edition with forward by Abraham Lincoln himself. Not many.

Ed Belbruno's work in the early 1990s on the Hiten lunar transfer orbit (see his book) predates Lo's IPS work. Belbruno's calculations saved the Hiten mission which failed to achieve lunar orbit using conventional trajectory planning. Lo generalized the concept to non-lunar missions throughout the solar system.

> what the engineers say about the temperature
> and o-rings? let's launch!

I just finished reading a neat book about the Challenger (not the Columbia) disaster and other material failures - Why Things Break by Mark Eberhart. Some good technical discussion of Kevlar in there too. Nifty stuff!

No, it is really a balance thing. Game not so impressive and the censors concern about children's access to that content is, borderline, a difficult thing to judge. So potential risk versus gain, so possible harm to minors versus profits for one amongst thousands of other games, and look to be honest compare these two pages http://store.steampowered.com/app/500/ and http://www.amazon.com/Left-4-Dead-Pc/dp/B000PS4X7S, what is the major difference, that's right ratings advice, so valve is looking pretty guilty of marketing unsuitable products to children.

Now the tests are will this post also get flame modded down, will steam , naughty naughty, make a correction to product sales page and, will you realise the only answer to the question you actually asked is yes (I think you might have unreasonably and ban the wrong way around) but, if not, just to be clear, yes they should ban 'unreasonable games' but I wont get that worked up over it either way.

I use iTunes for my iPhone - and I never buy anything there, I buy it all on Amazon because I prefer the more portable MP3 format. You seem to think that purchasing from Amazon and importing into your collection is difficult. Nothing could be further from the truth!! Well, not if you are running Windows anyway. You see Amazon has an MP3 download application that will place the downloads in an area you designate AND it will import them into iTunes automatically. -> http://www.amazon.com/gp/dmusic/help/amd.html/ref=sv_dmusic_3 This is a simple application and one that they displayed to me when I purchased an album in order to "help me". Honestly I really like using Amazon except for their new policy for pricing up more popular tunes. Seldom is it that I cannto find what I want and when that occurs I do sometimes turn to iTunes.

As for this current idea to charge for these samples. RIAA listen up - when I am browsing through a "store" and I think I've found what I want I listen to it briefly to see if it's the right song or more foten the right version of the song. If I could not do this I would go back to how I used to get music - swapping HDD with friends or perhaps using a Torrent. I have gone legit primarily because DRM has been dropped from purchased music and because the quality finally meets MY expectations (mostly). If you prevent various online stores from allowing me to listen to samples, and especially if you try to setup your OWN store and push out established companies - which I wouldn't put past you with dick moves like this - then I WILL go back to how I used to get music. Most likely, due to your stupid hounding of torrent sites, I will simply swap drives again and go back to buying used CD - which I will then sell right back after ripping. I'd prefer to stick to buying legit frankly but.....

RIAA - get a freaking clue!

I don't know about you, but as a hobbyists, I've been drooling all over the new nVidia chipset ITX boards, I really want to make an arcade unit with one of those. I'm also anticipating boards that support Athlon Neo for the same reasons.

Bradbury tells all

That's the first I've heard of any such thing. A quick Google search seems to indicate iPhones work with regular bluetooth, offering a moderate selection of services.

I wouldn't call it a 'moderate selection', the iPhone support for BlueTooth is quite limited. It supports wireless earpieces and headphones, but stereo audio was only recently added in the 3.0 update.
 
The audio support is not complete, because only a couple of devices seem to work, and then the play/pause/volume buttons will not work. I'm speaking from experience; I recently bought a beautiful Sony-Ericsson bluetooth headset only to find out that the iPhone cannot change the volume (always has it running full-volume).

The iPhone does not support the OBEX file transfer protocol. You can't connect to your PC and cannot exchange files, business cards, or photos with other phones over BlueTooth. Keyboard usage over BlueTooth (which Nokias can do) is also out of the question.

If it takes a year for 500 computers, does that mean it'd take a month for 6,000 computers, or a day for 182,500 computers, or an hour for 4,380,000 computers?

Or, in other words, the original version would cost about $438,000 of EC2 time.

The new version takes 21 hours on 496 cores -- again, could you do it in an hour on 10,416 cores? And that becomes $1,416 of EC2 time.

So, it's not 100 times faster, just 100 times cheaper.

The term 'bullshit' actually has a number of academic articles and books published on it. For those who think seriously about it, it's a rather precise word. The most famous book on the subject is Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit . If Frankfurt is correct, 'bullshit' is should be defined as a lack of concern for the truth. Bullshit is not necessary false, though it can be. It may also turn out to be true. The point is, when one is bullshitting, one doesn't care if one is true or false. So, when you write bullshit for an exam answer as an undergrad, you don't care if you get it right or not, you care about your score on the exam. Likewise, if you're bullshitting someone about their favorite sports team, you don't really care if their team sucks or not, you're just trying to rile up the person.

That doesn't diminish Penn and Teller's point. Usually, a bullshit artist is not concerned with whether their vitamins cure AIDS. They're concerned with selling vitamins. I'm not sure if it does help you avoid libel claims though.

Incremental cognitive dissonance and social pressure can cause this too:
"Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986
"The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil"
http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Effect-Understanding-Good-People/dp/1400064112

Incremental cognitive dissonance and social pressure can cause this too:
"Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986
"The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil"
http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Effect-Understanding-Good-People/dp/1400064112

Maybe my wife and I hit a sale, the best I could find for a HRM online was $25.

Still, the kids just need a strap. Here's the first hit on a search for "Heart rate monitor replacement strap":
http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Rate-Monitor-Replacement-Transmitter/dp/B0007ZALHA

It's $7.95.

> (aspire one) I must say that an eight-hour standard is optimistic beyond belief

It depends on the _battery_. With my 9-cell battery, my aspire one gets 8 hours of continuous usage.

http://www.amazon.com/HQRP-Replacement-Lithium-Ion-AOA150-1777-AOA150-1840/dp/B001OXRTVU/

As mentioned in some of the other replies, monitoring based on heart rate is the goal.

If you want the reasoning behind it read this book:

Spark ( http://www.amazon.com/Spark-Revolutionary-Science-Exercise-Brain/dp/0316113506 )

- Quick Summary: Exercise is f'ing awesome for the brain, and you learn better if you exercise (especially in the morning)

I wish I had been taught PE with a heart rate monitor in school.

Bullshit, he licenses his stuff legally, if Amazon doesn't want to license it he doesn't use it.

I'll see your bullshit and raise you one.

He posted the iPhone app sometime around the beginning of April in spite of Amazon clearly stating, "You will not, without our express prior written approval...use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device." He didn't pull his app until July 7.

From TFA:

Amazon gave D-M an ultimatum: pull the iPhone app, or lose the API access for the desktop version of Library.

(Emphasis mine)

In other words, he broke the terms of his agreement with Amazon, one that he probably figured was kind of insignificant and not worth getting worked up over, and they grossly overreacted by threatening him.

Kind of like how, you know, the developer who used his frickin' woodgrain texture was in minor violation of his copyright, something they probably figured was kind of insignificant (and that it's quite possible they weren't even aware of) and not worth getting worked up over, and he grossly overreacted by pulling out this "I'll Sue Ya!" bullshit and resorting to kindergarten name-calling instead.

If you've ever known an artist, you'd already know that even excellent artists don't make shit for their work.

...And then the bullshit got really thick.

I might agree with you on this point if the woodgrain texture--and I mean that specific woodgrain texture--were an integral part of his application. If it were somehow unique in some way that made that specific woodgrain texture scream, "This is Delicious Library!" As it is, it's just a plain ol' generic-looking woodgrain texure. If he spent more than ten minutes on creating the texture or paid more than $0.50 or so for it off a stock art site, he's an idiot. As it is, it's more like Ruby Tuesday suing a customer who posts a picture they took in one of their restaurants because the picture happened to capture the wood grain on one of their tables in the background. "Waaah! Copyright infringement! Furniture makers don't make shit, and it's because he--gasp!--took a picture!!!

By the way, look closely at this screenshot of Delicious Library posted on his site. Specifically, the black-and-white photo in the upper right corner. See that Dolby logo? That's trademarked, you know, and I'd bet that he didn't pay Dolby to use it. Look at his home page and notice all of the references to iPhone, iTunes, OS X, etc. Notice how he doesn't put any trademark symbol or registration mark after them? I also don't see any kind of "iPhone/iTunes/iWhatever is a registered trademark of Apple Inc." disclaimer. Technically, that's a violation, and Apple could sue him. Or better yet, let's just publicly shame him and call him a thief, the stealing bastard!

Bullshit indeed. Let's just crucify them all, shall we? Because that's obviously what these laws are for!

That's awesome. Such a cool cutting edge thing for schools to do. Recent data has shown that heart rate monitored aerobic PE can boost help grades, decrease discipline problems, mediate learning disabilities, make kids enjoy PE more because they compete against themselves, and lead to a lifetime of exercise. Check out Spark by John Rately - he's a leading child psychiatrist: http://www.amazon.com/Spark-Revolutionary-Science-Exercise-Brain/dp/0316113506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253071843&sr=8-1

Dr Ratley, Harvard has documented effect of exercise in HS math based on 25 min daily exercise in target zone. http://www.learningreadinesspe.com/vid/vidmain.html NBC http://www.amazon.com/Spark-Revolutionary-Science-Exercise-Brain/dp/0316113506 Naperville HS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_sana_in_corpore_sano Too much Fox news rots the brain and induces paranoia, but I forgot where that is documented.

I agree. I bought a Sansa because it could play ogg and flac files without reverting to a Rockbox excursion. Everything else was gravy, including the cheap price and decent storage size. (Straight link to amazon, not trying to be an advert.) For comparison the apple ipod nano is about twice the cost without good audio codec support. Then again this kind of thing is all about priorities. Mine happen to be open codecs and decent cost - seems reasonable to me as well as the hypothetical average Slashdot user.

I agree. I bought a Sansa because it could play ogg and flac files without reverting to a Rockbox excursion. Everything else was gravy, including the cheap price and decent storage size. (Straight link to amazon, not trying to be an advert.) For comparison the apple ipod nano is about twice the cost without good audio codec support. Then again this kind of thing is all about priorities. Mine happen to be open codecs and decent cost - seems reasonable to me as well as the hypothetical average Slashdot user.

I believe you can, there's even a book about it from a respected scientist. http://www.amazon.com/dp/1894959736?tag=jpaer-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1894959736&adid=0DKZD44S4ZHFG34GQD5N& http://www.jpaerospace.com/

How about we take the scientific achievement that took place within different cultures. It just happens that's just what this book is about.

Of course, people who argue for the "equality" of different creeds and ideologies won't like the book, at all. It makes mention of several ancient cultures that did make scientific advances, however as is obvious to see anywhere in the world today, all save 1 failed. ("equality" of creeds strikes me as being such an obvious untruth that it baffles the mind as to think rational people can actually believe it, after all if they're all "equal" then how could it possibly be that there's more than one ? How can people who build upon math, who proclaim math's achievements, believe that the principle of the excluded third is wrong ? Talk about contradictory ... but that's just me)

Mayans, Incas, Chinese, Hindus, Japanese, Egyptians, Persians ... all made scientific advancements earlier than European civlization. Muslims, Mongols, other Chinese ... killed, conquered and massacred their way to richess and scientific knowledge far beyond what contemporary Europeans had. Muslims should really be split up in 3 groups. The original arab conquerors. Then their slaves killed them and took over (the "mamluks") and then they killed themselves while carrying out jihad against Christians and Jews, only to be replaced by invading Ottomans ("Turks" more or less).

And all these civilizations have one thing in common : they all perished. Every last one. Most of these (all except the Chinese) even eradicated their scientific knowledge (esp. the muslims were good at this), and went backward in technological development instead of forward.

The sad truth is, that there is a single ideology whose adherents have produced over 99% of all scientific knowledge, and who are the only ones who rescued the remaining 1% from destruction. There is one person who exemplifies the singular ideology that created our current level of knowledge : Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Why did he learn science ? Why should humans conduct science and improve themselves using it ? To get to know the beauty of God (as in Christ) better. The catholic church followed him (eventually) and we all know the result. This very forum is built upon his legacy, as is nearly everything we have around us.

That's the thesis of this book, and the guy makes a very convincing case. No doubt though, that lots of people, who might be reasonably accused of hating the ideology in question, will deny this.

Quote from the book :

âoeEvidence scattered from Angkor Wat to Machu Picchu attests to the ability of human beings throughout the globe, not confined to the leading civilizations, to achieve amazing technological feats. And yet, and yetâ¦.Modern Europe has overwhelmingly dominated accomplishment in both the arts and sciences. The estimates of the European contribution are robust. They cannot, in any way I have been able to devise, be attenuated more than fractionally.

Unfortunately if you read the book it will become clear just how much the author dislikes this observation. 3 "fields of science and arts" were created with the express purpose of not having any competing Europeans. Arabic literature (dominated by Jews), Indian philosophy (as Europeans dominate what you might call "eastern philosophy" too, certainly up until the 1990's), and Chinese arts (which somehow magically includes the printing press ("invented" by a Chinese emperor, who did nothing with it))

The author concludes the quote above, however, with this remark, even if it's slightly out of scope for the book :

As I write, it appears that Europeâ(TM)s run is over. In another few hundred years, books will probably be exploring the reasons why some completely different part of the

Dawkins is an odd case. I feel that he often does both good evolutionary biology, and good popular-science writing about it. But The God Delusion, while fine as a statement of his views, causes trouble when it's taken, as he implies strongly in some parts, as a claim that science disproves god, or proves belief in god to be Mistaken. That's getting into philosophy of science and philosophy of religion, and Dawkins is frankly just not very good at it, or even well-read in the subject. At the very least, the book has caused a bit of embarrassment among atheist or atheist-leaning philosophers of religion, who generally have better arguments. Sort of a "yes, we agree with your conclusion, but...".

If you want a better-reasoned book that argues that science and philosophy make believing in religion unreasonable, I'd recommend J.L. Mackie's somewhat sarcastically titled Miracle of Theism as a better starting point.

Ok, laugh at the Republican creationists, but if you really want to see some fancy political tap-dancing on a political issue, just try mentioning the well-documented and annoyingly persistent relationship between race and IQ to a liberal. It's like arguing with a creationist that goes to 11.

Apparently somebody didn't care for your point, despite having documented your claim.

Ok, laugh at the Republican creationists, but if you really want to see some fancy political tap-dancing on a political issue, just try mentioning the well-documented and annoyingly persistent relationship between race and IQ to a liberal. It's like arguing with a creationist that goes to 11.

If you're going to be an evangelist for science, there are a lot of potential pitfalls. I personally was almost turned off science by the half-assed philosophy that many scientists seem to implicitly hold.

For people on the borderline---who might've accepted a scientific worldview but ultimately rejected it---anecdotally the biggest factor I've found is a feeling that accepting the scientific worldview is nihilistic. Usually this seems (again, anecdotally), to be a result of some particularly overreaching attempts to use science as a sort of naive-reductionist philosophy, where every discovery of mechanisms delegitimizes higher-level things, because now they're "only X", and in some sense don't "really" exist anymore. People particularly object to this with humans. Arguments like "X is just brain chemicals" or "Y is just evolved behavior" get thrown around, and you ultimately end up at claims like: "You don't really love her; that's just brain chemicals". "There isn't really any such thing as morality; that's just evolved group behavior". And people generally recoil at and reject that view, if you're implying that actually nothing about human existence is "real".

Of course, nothing in science actually demands that sort of explanation at a philosophical level. Nobody argues that since chemistry is "just physics", it's therefore in any sense not real or illegitimate. It's a perfectly correct way of explaining, at a particular level of description, how the universe works, and chemical properties are real properties, that really do exist. The fact that chemical properties are due to lower-level interactions doesn't change that. Daniel Dennett even coined a term for some of these kinds of philosophical misuse of science: greedy reductionism.

Fortunately, I was saved from that by some more philosophically sophisticated scientists who pointed out to me that the views held by people who study physicalist explanations of the world are much better thought out. And on, say, what the mind "really" is, fully defended physicalist accounts of mind don't have the same greedy-reductionism that characterizes the rather questionable comments of a lot of neuroscientists.

Sure, there are all sorts of other problems, like fundamentalist Christians who won't ever accept any explanation not derived from the Bible. But as a scientist, I tend to think some outreach is better than just attacking them: there's plenty I might change about their organizations, but I can't, so what can I change about mine? Simply being more accurate about the philosophical implications of science, I find, helps to dispel a lot of unnecessary worries, while having the added benefit of actually being, well, more accurate.

Thanks, but that doesn't seem very netbook-ish. The convertible/tablet/slate PCs that are out there miss the mark when considering the netbook. Particularly when it comes to the all-day battery. Perhaps it's just me, but the netbook fills a different niche than just a smaller or lower-power laptop.

I'm thinking something along the lines of the Touch Book or the announced Asus EEE T91 convertible (which is a compromise...I don't always want yer stinkin' keyboard, yo!). They offer a keyboardless option, but half the battery life goes with it..

Once upon a time I had a (working...still have it, technically) Sharp TriPad, which was kind of like a flip-top notebook format, but it ran Windows CE, instead of a full-blown OS/OE like the netbooks do, and had small memory and storage.

Gimme a GB of RAM, GHz of CPU, touch display, and USB ports...is that too much?

I was about as bitter as you were, until I heard about Behavioral Economics, which uses the results of *scientific* tests in psychology and human behavior as the basis for (or at least a counterbalance to) economic theory; this stands in contrast to traditional economic theory, which is based on the idea that rational self-interest will cause markets to function perfectly, and will, in a larger sense, reroute funds to those who would put it best to use. Dan Ariely gives a good overview of Behavioral Economics in his book, "Predictably Irrational," in which he describes how the conventional wisdom often is completely wrong, both through anecdotes and descriptions of rigorous scientific experiments: http://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Revised-Expanded-Decisions/dp/0061854549/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252910997&sr=8-1 So while in theory it would be *possible* to improve financial models by incorporating lessons from Behavioral Economics, you would have to trust that those with the power to influence markets would correctly apply them. And that's a big "if." If the misuse of the Gaussian Copula to price mortgage-backed securities is any indication of private industry's ability to take the ball and run with it in the wrong direction, then it'll take more than just good science to save us...

I've been slowly reading Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us). Tom Vanderbilt has some interesting things to say about car cameras, driving habits, and what can be learned by reviewing them.

I think it might be instructive to see what happens when your family is driving. And not just for the teenager.

"Does wiretapping make us more secure."

Define your terms and perhaps you can begin to address the question. And if you acknowledge that the world is a complex place, then perhaps you'll even be willing admit that the simplicity of this question is ridiculous.

I'm shocked that I've found little commentary from you Slash.erers about the egregious abuse of power from WWII up through the 1970's that led to the Federal Information Security Act (FISA). Essentially, the Intelligence 'Community' refused to give up the use of their information gathering tools, even though their use, in the absence of reasonable suspicion and court approval, was ILLEGAL. Surveillance was rampant and it's not like it protected us from the Mob during that time, unless you think redirecting the Mafia against Castro during the Bay of Pigs fiasco did anyone any favors.

Since then communications technology has changed and the methods and techniques use in surveillance has been improved along with it. So has the opportunity for its abuse. The Bush administration took this to new heights and used FUD in ways that make Microsoft look like a schoolyard wimp. If you want a good read on the topic at hand, from a legal scholar, a concerned citizen and recipient of numerous awards for his efforts to provide advice and counsel on liberty and freedom of expression, read Justice at War: The Men and Ideas that Shaped America's War on Terror by David D. Cole. Once you've read this work, then you might be able to reframe the question in a more historically grounded discussion regarding the nature of what it means to "make us secure" why it might be necessary, and from whom.

Sorry, I've already got a patent on "A method of answering a question you have yourself posed in order to bring about a sense of smug self satisfaction."

Prior Art!

Well its not bad here. I just downloaded the slackware 13.0 iso (3.5GB) in 8 min from Switzerland to Austria. Faster than a pigeon.

Unless that pigeon is carrying a 128GB USB drive instead of the GP's paltry 8GB. Or five of them!

Of course, this just shows how ridiculous the whole comparison is, though they do legitimately have some slow-ass internets in South Africa.

Granted, Nicol Williamson never directed a movie, but his abridged version of The Hobbit on vinyl, far surpasses the original book. He essentially condensed the story down from 10 hours to 2 hours, cutting out a lot of the narration and the 'he saids', which greatly reduce the monotony to the listener. But the man's real skill is in the voices and accents and inflections he employs to bring all the characters to life. And he stays faithful to the subject, which was essential, as the LP was crafted with the blessing of Professor Tolkien himself.

I have a tip that the movie will follow a script almost entirely based off the reading and accents et more, as created for Nicol Williamson's Hobbit and that this was the bone of contention in the lawsuit. All speculation of course...

Cheers.

If we're going to be pedantic, then let's be pedantic. The Lord of the Rings is SIX books typically published in three volumes, but that was only due to post-war paper shortages and to help keep the price down. It has not always been sold in three volumes, however.

Boy, that Matt Barton sure did a lot to cover up his marketing tracks, like writing a book about vintage games or being an assistant professor in Minnesota.

He's also listed right above the marketroid you mentioned - freak coincidence or the usual /. conspiracy?

You decide... (that is - if you've read that far...)

http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-40RV525R-40-Inch-1080p-HDTV/dp/B001TA1DOC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1252484927&sr=8-1 $650 is too much? If you can afford a PS3, you can afford this TV.

Actually, there are nasty people and cooperative, contributive people in any profession.

Two not so nice people put their names on a book together: Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold wrote "The Road Ahead". The book sold a lot of copies because people expected it to have interesting information. It didn't. Maybe it was actually written by the third person listed as author. Maybe Bill Gates' only contribution was to read the rough draft and remove anything that could be helpful to someone else.