Quite. The "chavs" are not the poor and socially excluded that this project is aimed at. But Daily Mail readers like to conflate them as an excuse not to deal with the problems of the seriously disadvantaged.
I don't think it's anything to do with seniority. If a programmer delivers the goods then they should be compensated for it. Some young guns will be able to, some won't. some old hands will be able to, some won't. It's the trying to generalise -- "the kids have no experience"/"the old codgers have been left behind" -- that's unfair.
Science doesn't say anything at all. Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation and controlled experiment. It is not content or even method, but discipline.
True, but an over-pedantic interpretation of what I wrote. Ever heard of metonymy?
Religion is also a discipline: that of believing what is written in scriptures.
False. Some religions don't even have scriptures to believe.
The two are necessarily in conflict, because regardless of the question, the discipline of science says we should test the answer.
False, because at least some religions also say we should test the answer.
For example, many scriptures say humans should seek sexual abstinence to achieve a state of grace or happiness. Scientists quite rightly ask what the opperational meaning of "a state of grace" is, and taking the perfectly ordinary view of happiness are able to show that such self-denial does not in general lead to it.
Does science also say anything about whether or not happiness should be sought above all else?
There is no question religions purport to answer that the discipline of science cannot be used to test that answer.
See above. If you have decided what objectives to strive for, science can help you achieve them, but it gives no help deciding those objectives.
Religion answers questions for us that Science cannot.
So, to what question does religion have an answer?
"What objectives should we seek to achieve?"
Note that I didn't say that religion has the right answer, but it has an answer -- lots of them, in fact. And science doesn't, because science says what is, not what should be.
Actually, the definition os an omnipotent is that he can do anything he wants, not that he does. An omnipotent god who is too lazy to do anything at all would still be omnipotent.
But is still presumably doing what he/she/it wants.
We don't need to resolve science with religion... we need to reconcile religion with science.
Er personally I don't see the need for reconciliation, either. We need to accept that a certain not insignificant percentage of the population will always be prone to manipulation and belief in the incredible. So either you replace it with another lie that keeps them away from explosives and weapons and important decisions, or you shoot them. They refuse to be educated, so there's not really much choice.
I think shooting them would be a bad move. Those scientists do come up with some useful stuff, we're better off keeping them around, just keeping them "away from explosives and weapons and important decisions", as you say.
The people who want to believe that a creator is pulling the strings in our favor aren't willing to listen to science.
To be fair, this isn't really particularly solid science yet, because there's still a lot of uncertainty regarding the cosmological constant. True, that leaves them with a "God of the gaps", but this particular gap isn't really closed off yet.
I assume you think the argument goes:
P1: If the FSM created us, we would exist.
P2: We exist.
C: Therefore the FSM created us.
The fallacy there is called "affirming the consequent". But that's not how the cosmological argument goes. The cosmological argument goes:
P1: If there were no designer, the universe would not be able to support life as we know it.
P2: The universe is able to support life as we know it.
C: There is a designer.
That is indeed Modus Tollens, but Modus Tollens is not a logical fallacy -- the argument is sound. I don't think it's valid, though, because I think P1 is wrong.
No. The anthropic principle is what this issue is. The question is which version of the anthropic is correct. Martin Gardner did an excellent article on this (sorry, most of the article is behind a paywall -- I have a paper copy in his anthology "The Night is Large"). The problem with the cosmological argument isn't "the anthropic principle", the problem is selection bias.
You should have to pay to put your app in the store, but NOT to release it to the wild. Users should be free to download any app from any website, and install it on their Macs or PC or Phones.
It's called "The free hand of the market". Was it here or somewhere else I saw the comment that the free hand of the market has a preference for fisting?
Yes, but how many with PCs running something like Gem? The Amstrad 1512 / 1640 had pretty good market penetration in the UK (I had one), and that came with Gem preinstalled.
Points out that this is nothing new (true, but not widely known which is a good reason for a popularising item). And states "I strongly suspect that if there was enough evidence to make the fraud accusations stick that it would have been brought up at the GMC hearing" -- but as far as I can see that wasn't the subject of the GMC hearing, which was about Wakefield's unauthorised medical experimentation on infants..
Claims that Deer had a conflict of interest and tha the BMJ didn't do proper checking of that, but doesn't say what the conflict of interest was or point to any evidence.
Wakefield's complain to the Press Complaints Commision, which the PCC suspended pending the GMC hearing and which Wakefield did not pursue after the GMC struck him off the medical register.
Well, it looks as if he falsified the data, with the dates reported in his paper different from those in the medical records. That sounds like more than confirmation bias to me.
Leaving aside the question of whether the term is now generic, what protection do Open Source developers have for the names they choose for their tools, which have been in use for years?
thegarbz is saying that nothing before was termed 'windows', rather it was a GUI. The history of x windows at Wikipedia implies strongly that it has only gained that term subsequent to everyone calling such an interface 'Windows', which is precisely the point being made in the parent.
Except we didn't call it a GUI, we called it a "WIMP interface". And the "W" stood for?
I would argue that "app store" is incredibly generic in that it is simply a shortening of the two very common words used actively in general population "Application" and "Store". Who aside from some very lucky ubernerds working for Xerox actually used the term Windows to describe their GUI? Certainly not every teenager on the street that's for sure.
They referred to it as a "WIMP" interface, which they probably knew stood for stood for "window, icon, menu, pointer". And Gem and Mac System 1.0 were in common use before MS Windows.
Well no, settled out of court usually actually means "We never really had a case, so we've paid them off with a reasonable figure to avoid the potential that they could get awarded a massive, company destroying figure in court".
But as this is Slashdot and this is an anti-Microsoft thread I can understand how people like you might enjoy changing the status quo to suit your ignorant biased hatred.
Really? And have they gone after "X Window System" yet?
I'll be the first one to march the streets if they throw a normative US citizen into Guantanamo without any reason... but so far, they seem to only do that with people which they have grounds to suspect that are involved in terrorism.
The trouble is, how do you know that -- or even, why do you think it? Oh, and foreign citizens are fair game, innocent or not?
If you're a suspected terrorist however, then yes, that's probably the only way some people could ever be interrogated in a time-critical manner - you know, when there are actually lives at risk the might be saved pending information.
"Time-critical manner", eh? Just how long have folks been incarcerated there?
Slashdot Mirror
Quite. The "chavs" are not the poor and socially excluded that this project is aimed at. But Daily Mail readers like to conflate them as an excuse not to deal with the problems of the seriously disadvantaged.
And they probably skipped beta testing too. Oh, look, those same /. hands are still up...
I don't think it's anything to do with seniority. If a programmer delivers the goods then they should be compensated for it. Some young guns will be able to, some won't. some old hands will be able to, some won't. It's the trying to generalise -- "the kids have no experience"/"the old codgers have been left behind" -- that's unfair.
Science doesn't say anything at all. Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation and controlled experiment. It is not content or even method, but discipline.
True, but an over-pedantic interpretation of what I wrote. Ever heard of metonymy?
Religion is also a discipline: that of believing what is written in scriptures.
False. Some religions don't even have scriptures to believe.
The two are necessarily in conflict, because regardless of the question, the discipline of science says we should test the answer.
False, because at least some religions also say we should test the answer.
For example, many scriptures say humans should seek sexual abstinence to achieve a state of grace or happiness. Scientists quite rightly ask what the opperational meaning of "a state of grace" is, and taking the perfectly ordinary view of happiness are able to show that such self-denial does not in general lead to it.
Does science also say anything about whether or not happiness should be sought above all else?
There is no question religions purport to answer that the discipline of science cannot be used to test that answer.
See above. If you have decided what objectives to strive for, science can help you achieve them, but it gives no help deciding those objectives.
You're right -- sorry. Attention lapse.
Religion answers questions for us that Science cannot.
So, to what question does religion have an answer?
"What objectives should we seek to achieve?"
Note that I didn't say that religion has the right answer, but it has an answer -- lots of them, in fact. And science doesn't, because science says what is, not what should be.
Actually, the definition os an omnipotent is that he can do anything he wants, not that he does. An omnipotent god who is too lazy to do anything at all would still be omnipotent.
But is still presumably doing what he/she/it wants.
We don't need to resolve science with religion ... we need to reconcile religion with science.
Er personally I don't see the need for reconciliation, either. We need to accept that a certain not insignificant percentage of the population will always be prone to manipulation and belief in the incredible. So either you replace it with another lie that keeps them away from explosives and weapons and important decisions, or you shoot them. They refuse to be educated, so there's not really much choice.
I think shooting them would be a bad move. Those scientists do come up with some useful stuff, we're better off keeping them around, just keeping them "away from explosives and weapons and important decisions", as you say.
The people who want to believe that a creator is pulling the strings in our favor aren't willing to listen to science.
To be fair, this isn't really particularly solid science yet, because there's still a lot of uncertainty regarding the cosmological constant. True, that leaves them with a "God of the gaps", but this particular gap isn't really closed off yet.
I assume you think the argument goes:
P1: If the FSM created us, we would exist.
P2: We exist.
C: Therefore the FSM created us.
The fallacy there is called "affirming the consequent". But that's not how the cosmological argument goes. The cosmological argument goes:
P1: If there were no designer, the universe would not be able to support life as we know it.
P2: The universe is able to support life as we know it.
C: There is a designer.
That is indeed Modus Tollens, but Modus Tollens is not a logical fallacy -- the argument is sound. I don't think it's valid, though, because I think P1 is wrong.
No. The anthropic principle is what this issue is. The question is which version of the anthropic is correct. Martin Gardner did an excellent article on this (sorry, most of the article is behind a paywall -- I have a paper copy in his anthology "The Night is Large"). The problem with the cosmological argument isn't "the anthropic principle", the problem is selection bias.
You should have to pay to put your app in the store, but NOT to release it to the wild. Users should be free to download any app from any website, and install it on their Macs or PC or Phones.
It's called "The free hand of the market". Was it here or somewhere else I saw the comment that the free hand of the market has a preference for fisting?
It is if they already have the phone that plugs into the wall, and that connects through a PABX so you don't have to pay for one line per phone.
Yes, but how many with PCs running something like Gem? The Amstrad 1512 / 1640 had pretty good market penetration in the UK (I had one), and that came with Gem preinstalled.
why did the BMJ pay Brian Deer to attack Wakefield
Points out that this is nothing new (true, but not widely known which is a good reason for a popularising item). And states "I strongly suspect that if there was enough evidence to make the fraud accusations stick that it would have been brought up at the GMC hearing" -- but as far as I can see that wasn't the subject of the GMC hearing, which was about Wakefield's unauthorised medical experimentation on infants..
Who funded Brian Deer
Doesn't seem to understand how freelancers can get paid if they are not on the staff.
Brian Deer’s Conflict of Interests
Claims that Deer had a conflict of interest and tha the BMJ didn't do proper checking of that, but doesn't say what the conflict of interest was or point to any evidence.
Dr Wakefield's Submission to the UK Press Complaints Commission
Wakefield's complain to the Press Complaints Commision, which the PCC suspended pending the GMC hearing and which Wakefield did not pursue after the GMC struck him off the medical register.
Andrew, is that you?
Well, it looks as if he falsified the data, with the dates reported in his paper different from those in the medical records. That sounds like more than confirmation bias to me.
And the Objective Ergo Slider Plus for Apple users?
Leaving aside the question of whether the term is now generic, what protection do Open Source developers have for the names they choose for their tools, which have been in use for years?
What protection can they afford?
thegarbz is saying that nothing before was termed 'windows', rather it was a GUI. The history of x windows at Wikipedia implies strongly that it has only gained that term subsequent to everyone calling such an interface 'Windows', which is precisely the point being made in the parent.
Except we didn't call it a GUI, we called it a "WIMP interface". And the "W" stood for?
I would argue that "app store" is incredibly generic in that it is simply a shortening of the two very common words used actively in general population "Application" and "Store". Who aside from some very lucky ubernerds working for Xerox actually used the term Windows to describe their GUI? Certainly not every teenager on the street that's for sure.
They referred to it as a "WIMP" interface, which they probably knew stood for stood for "window, icon, menu, pointer". And Gem and Mac System 1.0 were in common use before MS Windows.
Well no, settled out of court usually actually means "We never really had a case, so we've paid them off with a reasonable figure to avoid the potential that they could get awarded a massive, company destroying figure in court".
But as this is Slashdot and this is an anti-Microsoft thread I can understand how people like you might enjoy changing the status quo to suit your ignorant biased hatred.
Really? And have they gone after "X Window System" yet?
I'll be the first one to march the streets if they throw a normative US citizen into Guantanamo without any reason... but so far, they seem to only do that with people which they have grounds to suspect that are involved in terrorism.
The trouble is, how do you know that -- or even, why do you think it? Oh, and foreign citizens are fair game, innocent or not?
I realise that, but it still doesn't look as if the UK-US extradition treaty is the relevant one in this case.
I would vote to acquit on a jury for Assange
Without hearing the evidence?
That certainly doesn't happen to ordinary people.
If you're a suspected terrorist however, then yes, that's probably the only way some people could ever be interrogated in a time-critical manner - you know, when there are actually lives at risk the might be saved pending information.
"Time-critical manner", eh? Just how long have folks been incarcerated there?