Gee, and here I thought Kepler, with his observations of the movements of the planets, and Einstein, with his "thought experiments" that involved no actual lab work, were doing science. I sure am glad you're here to set us igorant people straight.
Weather can fall into 4, 5 or 6, not 1 (because we don't know the generalized laws), 2 (because we can't experiment on a sufficient scale) or 7 (because it ain't precise). (emphasis mine)
Did you read your own post?
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (emphasis mine)
Observation is just as valid a method of getting information as is experimentation; it just takes longer and you have to be more careful to gather sufficient data. Climatology and meteorology, like geology/geophysics/geochemistry, astronomy/astrophysics, and large sections of biology including all of paleontology and, at the opposite end of the temporal scale, most of epidemiology, rely largely on observation, testing specific hypotheses with experimentation when possible (which, these days, is more often than you might think.) Are you seriously denying that all of these are sciences?
Sure, the MacOS pre-OS X was pretty unstable, but it was almost always more stable than whatever the current shipping version of Windows was.
More to the point, in the absence of Windows, we might well have a whole bunch of computer makers still duking it out. It seems people have forgotten what an explosion of PC (in the general sense, I mean) makers there was in the 80's -- more diversity than we've ever seen since. Apple is just the only one that survived the "IBM compatible" onslaught. Imaging what the computing world would be like if DEC, Commodore, Atari, Wang, Tandy, and who knows how many others were still making their own machines. There would be more competition, more pressure for open standards, and better computers at better prices for everyone.
You're right, of course. We shouldn't be wasting our time with this head-in-the-clouds nonsense. Say, what's the latest news about Britney Spears' baby?
And I do think it's worse now. Remember a while back, there was a/. story on reclassification of a bunch of documents that had been accessible to the public? Some of these were CIA documents going back to the Korean War. There is absolutely no justification for this, except we know this stuff and we don't want you to.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, surely I can't be the only person that doesn't believe anyone has a 'right' to get a domain set up?
Well, it's an interesting question; if you consider the web to be a vital tool of speech, which these days it can certainly be considered to be, then any government interference with domain registration can be construed as government interference with freedom of speech. And I'm pretty sure there is something about that right in some government document... hmmm, I know I left that goddamn piece of paper around here somewhere...
Really, though, this isn't (or shouldn't be) about porn, or TLD's, or anything that specific. It is about our unquestionable, self-evident right to have a government which goes about its business in a way that is as transparent as possible to us, the citizens of the country it governs. The FOIA is one of the strongest tools ever created for enforcement of that right (yeah, I know, rights shouldn't have to be enforced, but of course they do) and we should fight vigorously, on every front, against every attempt to gut it.
It's the mentality of these people. Never tell the truth, or at least the whole truth, even if doing so would be the simplest course. Refuse to release information, withhold vital pieces of information, mislead, or outright lie -- but never just tell people what's going on. Honestly, I think there are an awful lot of people in government who do it, basically, for the little-kid thrill of saying "I know something you do-on't, nyaah nyaah!" It's an attitude which I saw way too much of in the military, and one which, in the *cough* post-9/11 era, has pretty much taken over every level of government from the White House to your local city council.
Well, yes, and a rifle makes us tougher than a bear, and a car makes us faster than a cheetah, and... My point was that there's nothing inherently "perfect" about the average, or even the best, of the capabilities of any species, including us.
1. It doesn't always hold. Animal species are usually defined as breeding populations; two populations which wouldn't normally interbreed may still be interfertile.
2. Borderline cases exist. The offspring of a horse and a donkey is almost always sterile, but I believe there have in fact been (very rare) fertile mules; on the other extreme, ligers and tigons are usually fertile, but frequently not.
3. It's not relevant at all to organisms which reproduce asexually.
There is no magic moment when one species becomes two. We made the terminology up; nature (or God, if you prefer) didn't.
'Course, most creationists have probably never heard of Zeno's paradox, and if they had to think about it for a while, they'd probably end up concluding that it's irrelevant since Zeno, Achilles, and the turtle were all going to Hell anyway.
The creationists will go ape anyway. Pounding their chests, screeching, throwing shit... that's just what that particular group of (not-so-)great apes does.
"The Nature paper joins a wave of work showing that the lines between species are hazy..."
This is the critical point that creationists who blather on about "macroevolution vs. microevolution" (a distinction without a difference) and "nobody has ever observed a speciation event" (just not true) willfully miss. Species lines are imposed by observers after the fact; they are not inherent in the nature of living organisms.
You're just wrong about this. 20/10 means you can resolve something 20 feet away twice as well as the average person; similarly, 20/40 means you can resolve something 20 feet away half as well as the average person. But 20/10 does not mean your eye is misshapen or your sense of perspective is off. It simply means you have better distance vision than average. Now, you may also be "farsighted" -- i.e., have trouble resolving things close up -- but the two are basically independent of each other.
20/20 isn't "perfect," BTW. Human vision is very good compared to that of most animals, but it's laughably bad compared to that of, e.g., birds of prey. I guarantee you an eagle can see better than you can whether it's spotting a rabbit from a few hundred feet in the air, or staring that same rabbit in the face right before dinnertime.;)
I think you underestimate the power of groupthink, and the ability of people in highly responsible positions to subordinate logic to emotion. No, companies aren't people. But they sure do act like them sometimes -- specifically, like five-year-olds.
At this point I'm convinced that the only solution is a worldwide series of gory murders of spam kings with "death to spammers" written on the walls at the crime scenes in the spammers' blood.
Yes. I really get tired of screen size being presented as the end-all, be-all for notebooks. If you want a ginormous screen, great, go for it, but not everyone does. There's a whole lot to be said for a small, powerful machine, especially when you actually want to carry it around with you instead of parking it on your desk.
On that note... I really don't like the widescreen aspect ratio, in any size. It's too bad that Apple (which, inevitably, means the entire PC world a year later) seems to be giving up on 4:3. Maybe it's just my personal work habits, but for me, extra pixels on the side of the screen just seem like wasted space. I'll probably end up with a MacBook to replace my iBook one of these days, but I'd really rather have had something with the dimensions of the 12" iBook and PowerBook models.
The difference between the crap that's going on now and what happened during the Civil War and both World Wars is that those were clearly defined wars with clearly defined endpoints. Americans were perhaps more willing than they should have been during those times to tolerate infringements on their liberty, but nobody in the government thought they could retain those powers after the Confederacy, Germany, and Japan were defeated. Now we've got war with an ever-changing enemy and no end in sight -- and a government which clearly has no intention of giving back any of the freedoms it has stolen, ever.
Throw the producers of the "Blair Watch Project" (great title!) in jail.
A lot of people suggest these kinds of reactions to scary, Orwellian government programs (like the idea of carrying a burned DVD with random noise and the words "pirated movies" written on it with a Sharpie through customs in response to the DVD-sniffing dogs story a while back) but for their own sakes, I hope they don't actually try it. Because any government that's willing to pass these godawful laws in the first place is almost certainly willing to imprison anyone who tries to interfere with the operations of those laws.
There are in fact a whole lot of what might be called "meta-laws" already. Contempt of court. Obstruction of judgement. Refusing a lawful order from a police officer. All of these are more or less prettied-up modern versions of lese majeste.
Slashdot Mirror
Crichton's ideas are stupid.
There, happy?
Citing Michael Crichton in an argument about climatology is like citing Oliver Stone in an argument about history.
Gee, and here I thought Kepler, with his observations of the movements of the planets, and Einstein, with his "thought experiments" that involved no actual lab work, were doing science. I sure am glad you're here to set us igorant people straight.
Weather can fall into 4, 5 or 6, not 1 (because we don't know the generalized laws), 2 (because we can't experiment on a sufficient scale) or 7 (because it ain't precise). (emphasis mine)
Did you read your own post?
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (emphasis mine)
Observation is just as valid a method of getting information as is experimentation; it just takes longer and you have to be more careful to gather sufficient data. Climatology and meteorology, like geology/geophysics/geochemistry, astronomy/astrophysics, and large sections of biology including all of paleontology and, at the opposite end of the temporal scale, most of epidemiology, rely largely on observation, testing specific hypotheses with experimentation when possible (which, these days, is more often than you might think.) Are you seriously denying that all of these are sciences?
Sure, the MacOS pre-OS X was pretty unstable, but it was almost always more stable than whatever the current shipping version of Windows was.
More to the point, in the absence of Windows, we might well have a whole bunch of computer makers still duking it out. It seems people have forgotten what an explosion of PC (in the general sense, I mean) makers there was in the 80's -- more diversity than we've ever seen since. Apple is just the only one that survived the "IBM compatible" onslaught. Imaging what the computing world would be like if DEC, Commodore, Atari, Wang, Tandy, and who knows how many others were still making their own machines. There would be more competition, more pressure for open standards, and better computers at better prices for everyone.
You're right, of course. We shouldn't be wasting our time with this head-in-the-clouds nonsense. Say, what's the latest news about Britney Spears' baby?
Yeah. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
/. story on reclassification of a bunch of documents that had been accessible to the public? Some of these were CIA documents going back to the Korean War. There is absolutely no justification for this, except we know this stuff and we don't want you to.
And I do think it's worse now. Remember a while back, there was a
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, surely I can't be the only person that doesn't believe anyone has a 'right' to get a domain set up?
... hmmm, I know I left that goddamn piece of paper around here somewhere ...
Well, it's an interesting question; if you consider the web to be a vital tool of speech, which these days it can certainly be considered to be, then any government interference with domain registration can be construed as government interference with freedom of speech. And I'm pretty sure there is something about that right in some government document
Really, though, this isn't (or shouldn't be) about porn, or TLD's, or anything that specific. It is about our unquestionable, self-evident right to have a government which goes about its business in a way that is as transparent as possible to us, the citizens of the country it governs. The FOIA is one of the strongest tools ever created for enforcement of that right (yeah, I know, rights shouldn't have to be enforced, but of course they do) and we should fight vigorously, on every front, against every attempt to gut it.
It's the mentality of these people. Never tell the truth, or at least the whole truth, even if doing so would be the simplest course. Refuse to release information, withhold vital pieces of information, mislead, or outright lie -- but never just tell people what's going on. Honestly, I think there are an awful lot of people in government who do it, basically, for the little-kid thrill of saying "I know something you do-on't, nyaah nyaah!" It's an attitude which I saw way too much of in the military, and one which, in the *cough* post-9/11 era, has pretty much taken over every level of government from the White House to your local city council.
Good point -- the way to get clearly distinct species is by wiping out transitional forms.
Well, yes, and a rifle makes us tougher than a bear, and a car makes us faster than a cheetah, and ... My point was that there's nothing inherently "perfect" about the average, or even the best, of the capabilities of any species, including us.
Ah hah, I hadn't known that about night vision. Interesting!
Yes, I'm pretty sure such cases exist.
Three problems with that definition:
1. It doesn't always hold. Animal species are usually defined as breeding populations; two populations which wouldn't normally interbreed may still be interfertile.
2. Borderline cases exist. The offspring of a horse and a donkey is almost always sterile, but I believe there have in fact been (very rare) fertile mules; on the other extreme, ligers and tigons are usually fertile, but frequently not.
3. It's not relevant at all to organisms which reproduce asexually.
There is no magic moment when one species becomes two. We made the terminology up; nature (or God, if you prefer) didn't.
I like that analogy!
'Course, most creationists have probably never heard of Zeno's paradox, and if they had to think about it for a while, they'd probably end up concluding that it's irrelevant since Zeno, Achilles, and the turtle were all going to Hell anyway.
The creationists will go ape anyway. Pounding their chests, screeching, throwing shit ... that's just what that particular group of (not-so-)great apes does.
"The Nature paper joins a wave of work showing that the lines between species are hazy ..."
This is the critical point that creationists who blather on about "macroevolution vs. microevolution" (a distinction without a difference) and "nobody has ever observed a speciation event" (just not true) willfully miss. Species lines are imposed by observers after the fact; they are not inherent in the nature of living organisms.
You're just wrong about this. 20/10 means you can resolve something 20 feet away twice as well as the average person; similarly, 20/40 means you can resolve something 20 feet away half as well as the average person. But 20/10 does not mean your eye is misshapen or your sense of perspective is off. It simply means you have better distance vision than average. Now, you may also be "farsighted" -- i.e., have trouble resolving things close up -- but the two are basically independent of each other.
;)
20/20 isn't "perfect," BTW. Human vision is very good compared to that of most animals, but it's laughably bad compared to that of, e.g., birds of prey. I guarantee you an eagle can see better than you can whether it's spotting a rabbit from a few hundred feet in the air, or staring that same rabbit in the face right before dinnertime.
I think you underestimate the power of groupthink, and the ability of people in highly responsible positions to subordinate logic to emotion. No, companies aren't people. But they sure do act like them sometimes -- specifically, like five-year-olds.
At this point I'm convinced that the only solution is a worldwide series of gory murders of spam kings with "death to spammers" written on the walls at the crime scenes in the spammers' blood.
Yes. I really get tired of screen size being presented as the end-all, be-all for notebooks. If you want a ginormous screen, great, go for it, but not everyone does. There's a whole lot to be said for a small, powerful machine, especially when you actually want to carry it around with you instead of parking it on your desk.
... I really don't like the widescreen aspect ratio, in any size. It's too bad that Apple (which, inevitably, means the entire PC world a year later) seems to be giving up on 4:3. Maybe it's just my personal work habits, but for me, extra pixels on the side of the screen just seem like wasted space. I'll probably end up with a MacBook to replace my iBook one of these days, but I'd really rather have had something with the dimensions of the 12" iBook and PowerBook models.
On that note
The difference between the crap that's going on now and what happened during the Civil War and both World Wars is that those were clearly defined wars with clearly defined endpoints. Americans were perhaps more willing than they should have been during those times to tolerate infringements on their liberty, but nobody in the government thought they could retain those powers after the Confederacy, Germany, and Japan were defeated. Now we've got war with an ever-changing enemy and no end in sight -- and a government which clearly has no intention of giving back any of the freedoms it has stolen, ever.
Throw the producers of the "Blair Watch Project" (great title!) in jail.
A lot of people suggest these kinds of reactions to scary, Orwellian government programs (like the idea of carrying a burned DVD with random noise and the words "pirated movies" written on it with a Sharpie through customs in response to the DVD-sniffing dogs story a while back) but for their own sakes, I hope they don't actually try it. Because any government that's willing to pass these godawful laws in the first place is almost certainly willing to imprison anyone who tries to interfere with the operations of those laws.
There are in fact a whole lot of what might be called "meta-laws" already. Contempt of court. Obstruction of judgement. Refusing a lawful order from a police officer. All of these are more or less prettied-up modern versions of lese majeste.
Maybe they're old married parrots.
"Polly! I wanna cracker!"
"Fly off your perch and get it yourself!"
Exactly!