Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent Clients Reviewed
prostoalex writes "PC Magazine is running a review of several popular BitTorrent clients. They review uTorrent, an app that 'packs an outstanding array of features in 107KB, and doesn't even create a folder in your Program Files' and give it 4.5 stars. BitTorrent Client from BitTorrent.com, 'whose clean interface has three basic elements: a large progress bar for each torrent you're working on, a slider that controls your maximum upload rate, and a link to the BitTorrent Search engine', gets 4 stars. BitPump 'features an attractive interface that sacrifices a detailed feature set for BitTorrent tweakers in favor of simplicity and ease of use' and gets 4 stars. Finally, Azureus, 'a favorite with advanced users, who enjoy its plug-in system and huge range of tweakable settings', gets 4.5 stars. An interview with Bram Cohen from BitTorrent is available as well."
I just found it. HINT: salty semen sailing on the sea.
Can you guess what it is? This, I ask, for your comment. I love you!
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: Amplify
Advocates of "intelligent design" are gearing up their fight to teach the controversial theory now that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled that the religious-based explanation for the formation of the universe and human evolution may not be taught in Pennsylvania public schools. The debate over intelligent design is important, because at root is the idea of "certainty" and the method by which scientific truths are established.
Proponents of teaching intelligent design in the public schools argue that evolution is a "theory" and ask why shouldn't their theory be allowed equal time in a science class. The problem with this position is that a scientific theory and an intelligent design theory are two very different things.
To explain facts, scientific theories rely on observation for support. For example, to explain the origin of species, evolutionary biology draws upon field data from the ongoing changes that occur among populations of organisms, fossil data from plants and animals that no longer exist, data regarding the temporal and geographic distribution of genetic markers, and experiments that attempt to replicate the conditions of species-change in the laboratory. Some facts have yet to be explained fully. For example, we are not yet sure how some of the simplest parts of living things originated nor precisely how spoken language evolved.
Admitting the unknown facts regarding human origins, however, doesn't mean that the explanations aren't out there, waiting to be identified. The unknown is the unfinished business of evolutionary biology, a business in which today's most promising grade school students might one day play a part in completing. Properly speaking, evolution is a "theory," but it is entirely based on evidence, and an important part of scientists' jobs is to identify how what is known can be used to discover what is not yet known.
Contrast the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design. The proponents of intelligent design argue that the world is simply too complex (or too "perfect," implying that there could be an imperfect reality) to explain the origins of life and human intelligence. These proponents argue that ultimately only the intervention of a creator can explain man's existence. Thereafter, there is no unfinished business for the researcher because an intelligent designer is not subject to further observation and experiment.
To evaluate this idea, it is useful to draw a parallel: imagine a scientist trying to find a cure for cancer through such reasoning. Like the origins of life and language, cancer is complex; it behaves strangely, and its nature is hard to pin down. Should the scientist then conclude that only God's intervention causes cancer? Obviously, no real scientist would draw that conclusion, and it would be absurd to teach an intelligent design theory of cancer. Instead, researchers assume that the cause of cancer is ultimately caused by the interaction of the materials that make up our observable physical world, and they are working to discover what those interactions are so that they can control them and thereby discover a cure for the disease.
Philosophically, the proponents of intelligent design are wrong because they assume the existence or "primacy" of a consciousness that shapes the universe when no such evidence exists, or is even possible. None of the advocates of intelligent design can point to God and say, "Look there--you can see Him" and not rely upon faith to justify their claim. This is why intelligent design theory--whether applied to the origins of life or cancer--is not scientific. It eschews observation, experimentation and any kind of natural causality. What it attempts is to deny the essential process of science--explaining the complex and unknown by means of investigating the less complex and better understood. Because intelligent design theory is simply an article of faith, disconnected from the observation of reality, it should neither be taught in the science classes of public schools (whic
"Which leads to the third laughable reason"
You're right. That reason IS laughable. In fact all of your reasons are.
And yes, I am making a moral case for using bittorrent. I don't believe in copyright, or intellectual property of any kind, and I'm sure a number of people share this view. Bittorrent helps everyone, by giving them whatever infomation they want-unregulated by others. You benefit from it, and so does everyone else.
FUCK YOU MS YOUNG, YOU FAT UGLY MATH OBSESSED SUBHUMAN PIECE OF SHIT! this is lame, this is lame. this is text to get around the lameness of the lame filter.
so you get home from whatever job you "work" at, find your check in the mail, and go and share it with all your friends huh? what a nice guy you are! and yes, i do fail to see the difference.
I'm not responsible for your personality problems or your failure to reason but I can explain myself.
In general, I do share my things with my friends. My computer is mostly useful for sharing ideas with others. My house, beyond keeping me warm and dry, is mostly good for entertaining others. There are, in fact, very few things that I own that are not made to do something useful for or with other people. I do, of course, get to set the rules for my own toys and that's an advantage of working.
As for software, I'm as happy to share my source code with the rest of the world as I am to share a recipe or grilling tip. There's much more in common between that kind of sharing than there is between sharing media and giving all your money away. Software is nothing but a description of a process. It's amazing that greedheads have made so much money concealing it's inner workings and pretending binaries are some kind of valuable voodoo requiring cross licensing, twelve story buildings, advertising, Armani clad heros and lawsuits.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I doubt there are more than two or three of you assholes. It would be nice to know who you are.
I have some ideas that are easy enough to follow up on.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.