For a number of years MS-DOS owned the PC world and was ubiquitous. Eventually people got tired of the shortcomings and moved on to something better. The comparison to the web is even worse because at least MS-DOS was designed to run apps and, of course the web never was, as you point out.
The web as an application platform is crap and will be replaced. If they could have fixed it they would have by now.
If you want to run C/C++ Internet apps in a cross platform environment please see my open source NewIO project (http://www.newio.org). It is far from a complete Internet OS, but I am working on it.
> Adobe is planning on turning Flash into a complete OS-independent application delivery platform.
I believe this to be a big mistake. We do not need to deliver applications on the net, we need to run applications on the net. The applications should be run on a server.
Our body's blue print is DNA. This blueprint is copied from generation to generation.
A blue print? Like a plan, or even a design? That is pretty clever!
Lets explore this some more. So this DNA blue print it stores information right? How does this technology compare with our own, say for example hard drive storage? For example how much info is stored in DNA, and how much space does that storage require? What is the information density of this technology? How much power does it require to manage that information? etc.
That brings up another good point. If that is data we are talking about (and it is), we need something to read and write the data right? All life is composed of cells and all cells have this capability to read and write this DNA data.
But wait! There is more! Not only does a cell do all of this, but a cell is also a self-replicating machine! Wouldn't it be nice if we needed another computer we just typed a command and our computer duplicated itself. You have to admit this is pretty amazing technology. Clearly this is technology far beyond our own.
But wait! There is more! Not only can a cell replicate, but it can change from one type of a cell to another! Its like we asked our computer to make a TV and it does! Amazing things those cells.
Now I suppose this technology could have all happened on its own like a wind blowing through a junkyard and building a 747, but to this humble writer it does not seem like too much of a leap to think this all might be the work of a designer. In fact I would go so far as to say that anyone that has difficulty with the concept of a designer has personal issues with the concept of God.
So the question is why should we let their personal issues keep us from the truth?
it is the ONLY theory there is for the existence of life
There are no lower forms of life. All life is extremely complex. All life contains cells, which in turn contain self reproducing DNA, RNA, etc. Evolution might be a passable theory for the origin of species, but it is a very poor theory for the origin of life, if that is what you are truly claiming.
Obviously if our universe is to complex to have just happened, then the same must be true for our even more complex creator.
Obviously? I think not. Matter must have an origin, but a spirit need not.
If the creator could have just happened without a creator then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have just happened as well.
Well happened supposes an element of time which is lacking outside of physics so your philosophy argument is not very good since you have a limited concept of God.
In other words, the whole theory is nothing but a contradictory, pseudo-scientific ploy to force God^W an unnamed creator who could be God but doesn't have to be God into the public schools.
In my opinion the public schools should be controlled by the local school boards and not the federal government or the federal courts. In fact, I think we would all be better off if we just shut down the federal government and decentralized.
it currently has a well-deserved position as a mainstream theory(the mainstream theory, one might say)
Maybe the word theory is not enough to set off alarms, but your use of the word mainstream sets off alarms for me. It is like the evidence alone is not enough for you, so you turn to (supposed) strength in numbers. That makes me suspicious.
You are correct. Everyone believes in evolution. The fact that life changes and adapts is not in debate. Creationist would say that God created life to have this capability.
A better question is, "Do you believe that evolution is responsible for the origin of species?"
An even better question is, "What is the origin of life?"
Do you believe that I should teach anything in my Biology classes that hasn't survived the rigorous testing of the scientific method?
LOL. If everyone did this we would not be having this discussion. It is philosophies, not lab experiments where the disagreements come from. Its the interpretations, not the data, that are the crux of the issue.
Evolution is not a theory about how life got started - it's about how it changes over time. The comet idea is a theory about the origin of life, not the evolution of it.
You have a good point here. The origin of life is a much more difficult challenge for materialists to explain.
Which means zilch. Science can not be unanimous. Only people can be unanimous.
The question is if the people are unanimous, does that mean it is true? No, of course not. The only thing that is important is the evidence which speaks for itself.
Piling on only makes your contention look more suspicious, like you are trying to hide something, like perhaps a lack of evidence.
There is no evidence for any sort of god. There never has been, there never will be. The reason for this is that such a thing DOES NOT EXIST.
Actually there is evidence. What happens though, is that when you decide before you consider the evidence it blinds you to the truth. This is why it is important to select untainted members of a jury, for example.
The Judeo-Christian god apparently wants us to do a lot of things that are not affirmatively moral, and a lot of things that are abjectly immoral. I don't do these things.
Interesting. So you appear to believe in moral absolutes. Where does that come from?
Slashdot Mirror
I found the problem! Some sites are using more than one!!! :)
$ nslookup
> www.google.com
Server: 10.1.4.15
Address: 10.1.4.15#53
Non-authoritative answer:
www.google.com canonical name = www.l.google.com.
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.105
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.106
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.147
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.99
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.103
Name: www.l.google.com
Address: 74.125.45.104
People are commenting on your language comment and are missing your main point.
Actually you are ahead of the times...the web is the MS-DOS of the Internet operating systems:
LOCAL OS
(Apps)----->(Apps)
(MS-DOS)-----> (Linux, etc)
(PC Hardware)----->(PC Hardware)
(Apps)----->(Apps)
(Web)----->(Internet OS)
(OS)----->(OS)
(PC Hardware)----->(PC Hardware)
For a number of years MS-DOS owned the PC world and was ubiquitous. Eventually people got tired of the shortcomings and moved on to something better. The comparison to the web is even worse because at least MS-DOS was designed to run apps and, of course the web never was, as you point out.
The web as an application platform is crap and will be replaced. If they could have fixed it they would have by now.
If you want to run C/C++ Internet apps in a cross platform environment please see my open source NewIO project (http://www.newio.org). It is far from a complete Internet OS, but I am working on it.
> I would like to write in the same language on the client and the server. (Java almost achieved that...)
C achieved it. :)
> It's amazing how AAPL stock drops after an announcement. Buy on rumor. sell on fact.
If this is true then you want to buy after the announcement and sell on the rumour. "Buy low, sell high" trumps "buy on the rumour..."
The solutiuon is simple: The FairTax ( http://www.fairtax.org/ ).
> Uhh... since when weren't TVs a legitimate way to watch NBC's content?
You still have one?!? That is sooo cool! Does it still work?
> Adobe is planning on turning Flash into a complete OS-independent application delivery platform.
I believe this to be a big mistake. We do not need to deliver applications on the net, we need to run applications on the net. The applications should be run on a server.
> Of course, it's also possible that they inflated the initial sale price a little to allow for the steep drop.
Or they inflated it so that they could meet the first day demand. It was crazy enough at the higher price.
> First of all, Qualcomm has to date done nearly all the work on Penelope.
n g.htm )(who are sure to win the Super Bowl this year) though.
Why? Why are they doing this? Are they not a chip company? I never understood why Qualcomm was involved with Eudora.
I do appreciate them supporting the San Diego Chargers ( http://www.chargers.com/fan_zone/super-charger-so
> Think outside the world of Web browsers you're in right now.
You are 100% correct. Think NewIO ( http://www.newio.org/ ).
Agree 100%. You might want to check out NewIO ( http://www.newio.org/ ).
"In a war against a major enemy, carriers will probably be useless"
Since there are no major enemies, only minor ones, the carrier battle group is ideal.
You are exactly correct. It is a shame. The success of the web is actually holding the Internet back.
> But it will never reach its potential until it is a general purpose application programming language.
Why not use a general purpose application programming language like C to create internet apps?
http://www.newio.org/
A blue print? Like a plan, or even a design? That is pretty clever!
Lets explore this some more. So this DNA blue print it stores information right? How does this technology compare with our own, say for example hard drive storage? For example how much info is stored in DNA, and how much space does that storage require? What is the information density of this technology? How much power does it require to manage that information? etc.
That brings up another good point. If that is data we are talking about (and it is), we need something to read and write the data right? All life is composed of cells and all cells have this capability to read and write this DNA data.
But wait! There is more! Not only does a cell do all of this, but a cell is also a self-replicating machine! Wouldn't it be nice if we needed another computer we just typed a command and our computer duplicated itself. You have to admit this is pretty amazing technology. Clearly this is technology far beyond our own.
But wait! There is more! Not only can a cell replicate, but it can change from one type of a cell to another! Its like we asked our computer to make a TV and it does! Amazing things those cells.
Now I suppose this technology could have all happened on its own like a wind blowing through a junkyard and building a 747, but to this humble writer it does not seem like too much of a leap to think this all might be the work of a designer. In fact I would go so far as to say that anyone that has difficulty with the concept of a designer has personal issues with the concept of God.
So the question is why should we let their personal issues keep us from the truth?
There are no lower forms of life. All life is extremely complex. All life contains cells, which in turn contain self reproducing DNA, RNA, etc. Evolution might be a passable theory for the origin of species, but it is a very poor theory for the origin of life, if that is what you are truly claiming.
Obviously? I think not. Matter must have an origin, but a spirit need not.
If the creator could have just happened without a creator then there is no reason why the universe couldn't have just happened as well.
Well happened supposes an element of time which is lacking outside of physics so your philosophy argument is not very good since you have a limited concept of God.
In other words, the whole theory is nothing but a contradictory, pseudo-scientific ploy to force God^W an unnamed creator who could be God but doesn't have to be God into the public schools.
In my opinion the public schools should be controlled by the local school boards and not the federal government or the federal courts. In fact, I think we would all be better off if we just shut down the federal government and decentralized.
Maybe the word theory is not enough to set off alarms, but your use of the word mainstream sets off alarms for me. It is like the evidence alone is not enough for you, so you turn to (supposed) strength in numbers. That makes me suspicious.
You are correct. Everyone believes in evolution. The fact that life changes and adapts is not in debate. Creationist would say that God created life to have this capability.
A better question is, "Do you believe that evolution is responsible for the origin of species?"
An even better question is, "What is the origin of life?"
LOL. If everyone did this we would not be having this discussion. It is philosophies, not lab experiments where the disagreements come from. Its the interpretations, not the data, that are the crux of the issue.
You have a good point here. The origin of life is a much more difficult challenge for materialists to explain.
Which means zilch. Science can not be unanimous. Only people can be unanimous.
The question is if the people are unanimous, does that mean it is true? No, of course not. The only thing that is important is the evidence which speaks for itself.
Piling on only makes your contention look more suspicious, like you are trying to hide something, like perhaps a lack of evidence.
It should be noted that Galileo was a devout Christian.
Actually there is evidence. What happens though, is that when you decide before you consider the evidence it blinds you to the truth. This is why it is important to select untainted members of a jury, for example.
Interesting. So you appear to believe in moral absolutes. Where does that come from?