"Unless you adopt the (almost certainly nonsensical) position that everybody is entirely born, not made, you have to concede some degree of environmental influence on people's eventual properties(the degree of that influence is certainly a matter of debate; but almost certainly isn't zero)."
That is not a nonsensical position. Once you are born, your DNA does not change.
If you were not born a deep thinker, you will never naturally be a deep thinker, regardless of how much training or practice you have. You may be able to become good at deep thinking, possibly through practice or training, but you will never naturally be a deep thinker, since you were not born that way. That applies to everything in life. You are entirely born.
As for a person's ability to be able to use their personal abilities and skills to their fullest can be environmental and can be influenced by a number of factors including personal circumstances and upbringing. But again, a person who is born to take advantage of their situation will find a way to maximize their life and those who are not born that way will not, given identical circumstances.
While you make some good points, your arguments are inherently incorrect based upon your misunderstanding of creative problem solving. Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_problem_solving. Note the second sentence in the second paragraph. Problem solving as a whole is considered the most complex of all intellectual functions. Mathematical problem solving is considered one of the highest, if not the highest, forms of creative problem solving. Also consider for a moment that effectively the entire field of computer science was originally developed by Mathematicians.
I would argue that writing code is a purely analytical process. I would also argue that people who believe programming is purely an art form or is best suited for people who are not analytical, for example musicians, make terrible programmers. From my personal experiences, these kinds of people are at best "hacks" and tend to write average or below average code, which may or may not work. And that same code is almost always poorly designed, poorly architected, poorly implemented, poorly documented and poor performing. All of the people whom I've worked with who are Mathematicians, Engineers, Physicists, etc. who are also professional software engineers tend to write exceptionally good code. They also tend to have the appropriate analytical and creative problem solving skills necessary to provide appropriate solutions to extremely complex problems throughout all levels of development from architecture to implementation.
Getting back to the Wikipedia article, your misunderstanding is based upon the fact that while musicians may be creative, that does not mean they are creative problem solvers. Creative problem solvers though can be purely creative. Which correlates perfectly with my own personal experiences, since most highly analytical creative problem solvers I know also enjoy pursuing such subjects as art, design, music, etc. As a matter of fact, most of the people I work with enjoy photography outside of work, not music. And the opposite is true, people who are only musicians tend to be neither highly analytical nor decent problem solvers.
I don't consider myself an expert and will never claim to be (on Slashdot or on my resumes). Claiming to be "knowledgeable and intelligent" is (to me) arrogance. As I've stated, it is a matter of degree and perspective.
Claiming to be knowledgeable and intelligent is arrogant? What are you talking about?
Math is the symbolism used to describe the universe. Physical reality does not need symbols or tools or sentience to function, we however need math to describe the functions of the universe in precise detail. Math is a tool and so is an invented thing where the ideas have come from observing the world around us, just like a knife or velcro are tools that where invented based off of ideas gleaned from observations of the world around us.
You are not entirely correct. The universe itself exists and operates Mathematically. Therefore, Mathematics is the language of the universe. That is a fact. While certain components of Mathematics can be used as tools, Mathematics is itself not simply a tool invented by humans, akin to velcro. Mathematics is discovered. While the exact symbols used in Mathematics are not important, the concepts and understandings through Mathematics is what describes the universe in precise detail.
Regardless of how humans decide to express or discover Mathematics, it would have eventually been discovered in some form over time, as it is how the universe operates and exists. There is no more perfect way to describe and understand the universe than through Mathematics.
Nobody and nothing is perfect, this does NOT mean that everything imperfect, is equivalent.
That statement is ridiculous and completely gibberish. Let's break it apart:
1) Nobody: No Person 2) Nothing: Nonexistence 3) Perfect: Entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings 4) Imperfect: Not perfect
So, even though your sentence is ridiculous, even breaking it apart into some kind of logical assembly still invalidates it. If nothing is perfect, then nothing is imperfect either, since nothing is in-fact the nonexistence of anything. Along with that, nobody is perfect also means that nobody is imperfect, since nobody is referring to no person. Now, given your sentence, you would still be wrong, since imperfect is in-fact the reciprocal of perfect. Hence, nobody and nothing is perfect would be the equivalent of saying everyone and everything is imperfect. And even given that, perfection is a highly ambiguous term, completely determined by its frame of reference, quantification, et.al. The definition I used above is based on the context of your post.
What you need to do is stop spouting ridiculous idioms and philosophical meanderings and just stick to the usual Apple vs. Microsoft drivel, like all the other good Slashdotters.
"That feeling comes from your inexperience. Your generation is no different than mine was when I was your age, and mine is no different from Ben Franklin's generation. The world has changed much, but people have changed little."
No, you are incorrect. If what you say was true, then no progress would ever be made. What is true is that every generation progresses as a whole while some of the existing generation stays up to speed and the rest of the existing generation stays at a steady state or even regresses from the progress that their generation had made. The difference is that in the current information age, this change is happening at a much greater rate than ever before in history.
The reality is that the current generation is able to process and handle larger volumes of information at a much higher rate, with exponentially better search tools, using information that is instantly available. The previous generations never had exposure to the current environments and their brains are not trained or practiced to be able to handle the current volume of information acceptably. And like all previous generations, they do not understand it and in large part resent it. It is depressing watching new generations growing up and watching existing generations continually try to put them down. A good example of this is a man in his 50's, whom I used to work with, who exclaimed when our company adopted Blackberry's that "humans weren't meant to handle that much information" and "that's the problem with the younger generation" and "they don't have any patience". Unfortunately, due to his inability to stay current in his field, he was recently let go from our company. That's not the only example, but is a product of previous generations as a whole. The world has never known the kind of access to information that we have today and previous generations do not know how to harness, appreciate or understand it nor do they know how to harness, appreciate or understand the generation that does.
One major problem with printed books in today's world is that the majority of them are out-of-date as soon as they hit the shelves. At our company, we have bought as many e-book versions of published books as we can, as well as emphasized online research in addition to those books. That way we can quickly search for information electronically in the existing books while staying as up to date as possible with the changes since those books were published.
This entire article, majority of ensuing Slashdot posts and especially the so-called professor who posted this wreak of the typical "I don't understand anyone outside my own generation" or "my generation figured it out and the new generation doesn't get it" or that the current generation has somehow digressed or is unable to do something. Or whatever permutation or combination of those that you want. What you need to do is harness today's generation instead of just looking down on them from your high horse until they eventually drag you off of it.
What is excited is seeing what each new generation can bring to the table in addition to what the existing generations have already done. And as an additional note, we also need to overhaul our entire educational system to harness this generation's abilities and informational tools as well if we want to be able to keeping competing on the world stage in coming years.
With my thinkpad, there are parts from several vendors interoperating and dealing with windows and ubuntu and even my playstation when I stream movies on TVersity.
This is a complete bunch of shit, but a line towed by almost everyone who has never used a Mac. Here's reality...my MacBook Pro has essentially the same hardware as your IBM Thinkpad (we use both of them here at work). I am using a non-Apple Bluetooth mouse, a Blackberry which syncs perfectly and tethers over Bluetooth without a single problem, two external hard drives (one USB2 and one FW400) each from different manufacturers, and non-Apple bluetooth headphones (which are very nice). At home I use the same MBP with my Tivo and Slingbox, a networked HP All-in-One printer, my 720p LCD projector and other various hardware devices.
As far as software is concerned, I am a full-time J2EE developer and I use a lot of non-Apple software on a daily basis. Working in a business with a majority of the employees using Windows, I also run a lot of Microsoft software and interact with any number of Microsoft servers/services for various reasons. So, I am not even using Apple software outside of the OS for more than maybe one or two applications.
My reliability has been rock-solid. So much so that at least three of the developers on my last project team have switched full-time to OS X...including all of their non-Apple peripherals...without any problems.
So, the argument that OS X is only stable because it's "all Apple" is a complete bunch of bullshit.
You are doing nothing but bench racing, looking at specs and saying its faster. It's not. The reason everyone doesn't buy a Corvette is because it isn't faster than cars twice its price, it's barely faster than cars 1/2 to 3/4 its price. As a matter of fact, in most SCCA and NASA GT races the Nissan 350Z will beat it time and time again, as well as BMW 3 series cars, as well as the Cadillac CTS-V, et.al. I mean, for the same price as a Z06 you are now able to buy a Nissan GT-R, quite possibly the greatest road and race car ever produced. And the GT-R is AWD. In real road racing, the Corvette is fast, but 700 or 900 BHP is not going to make it faster than anything else. Without being able to properly put the power to the ground, as well as overall traction, control and performance the BHP alone doesn't mean shit.
And of course, that is only on perfectly clear sunny days with perfectly flat tarmac. In every other situation, cars such as Subaru WRX STI's and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution's, for example, wipe the floor with the Corvette. Corvette's on gravel, rain, mud, snow, off camber twists and turns, hilly curvy roads, et.al. are a joke. Check out some videos, if you can find them, of Evo's outrunning Lambo's on tarmac. That's value for your dollar. But since you only bench race, those videos can't possibly be real, can they?
The universe is determined by a finite number of absolute rules. The point is that no matter whether you are right or wrong, you always learn and knowledge increases.
Bullshit. Experience is not equal to age or the amount of time a politician has spent in office. The word experience is over-used during campaigns without people understand what is really important, which is the individual candidate. Obama sounds like a person of actual honesty and reason with a sincere willingness to make right the current international and domestic wrongs. Hillary sounds like the same BS as Bush and every other politician in office right now (on both sides).
And the Republicans...fuck, the Republicans are all the same...tell whoever they are talking to at the moment what they want to hear while really only pandering to extremely rich corporate corruption and right-wing/religious nut-jobs. Great.
Honestly, both parties tax the shit out of everyone, both parties spend orders of magnitude more money than they tax and especially the Republicans more than anyone couldn't give a shit about the middle class. So, trying to scare people away from the Democrats based on repeatedly saying they will only increase taxes is a complete crock of shit.
What needs to happen is a real moderate 3rd party. Maybe a strong moderate 3rd party will rise sometime in the future. Wouldn't that be fantastic.
Note: I truly believe the root of all evil are riders on bills. Every single bill should be voted on individually and all riders should be illegal. Then we would see some seriously interesting legislation and politics in Washington.
It does give them a clear path for version 2. They make a huge amount of money selling version 1 to the cool gadget crowd
Bullshit. That is nothing more than Slashdot kool-aid drank by people who have never even seen the phone in person, much less used one. I was skeptical of the iPhone too, reading idiot after idiot review in newspapers and magazines and on Slashdot from people who either never really used an iPhone or didn't like it to begin with after reading nothing more than paper-specs. I have been stuck with a Blackberry and a Treo at work, at different times, on an everyday basis and I have been waiting for something better ever since. So, I actually went to an Apple store and tried an iPhone out, for about an hour. I browsed the web, called some people, listened to the iTunes app, checked out the email app, checked out the built-in VPN, checked out how it automatically switches from EDGE to WIFI and back to EDGE whenever you come within range of a WIFI access point, tried seeing how fast and accurate I could type on the screen and much more. I was absolutely impressed. The iPhone is incredible. Then I went home and did some more research, looked up competing phone plans in my area with equivalent phones and plans (e.g. Verizon was $20-$40 a month more on equivalent plans with a Blackberry at $339 and Treo at $429 after mail-in rebate) and went back to the store to check out the iPhone, in person, again. After spending another hour using the phone, I was completely sold. So, I bought the 8GB version, which has so far been the best phone and ipod I have ever used. The included earbuds with the iPhone microphone and iPod control built-in are very nice. Features such as voice dialing and instant messaging I am sure will included in future software updates to the iPhone. And even if not, I am not missing them at all. I don't use my phone in the car, so voice dialing is a moot point to me.
One of the best things about the iPhone is its seamless integration with Outlook 2003+ and Entourage 2004 11.2.3+ as well as the excellent support for IMAP. I am currently beta testing the iPhone within our corporation for a bunch of other people who are looking to buy the iPhone for both personal and work use as well.
The point is that iPhone 1.0 is a solid product, what 1.0 releases should be. Plus all but one or two of the so-called missing features are software features. Something Apple can easily add to the iPhone, at any time, with only a software update and without having to create a new phone. Which is very nice.
Also, a point which everyone seems to miss, is that I now have the best iPod I have ever used. Ever. And honestly I do not listen to more than 4-5GB of music, podcasts or videos at any one time, which iTunes 7.3 lets me sync with the iPhone fairly granularly. So, I sold my 80GB iPod on eBay for $300. Which made my iPhone only a $300 purchase to me, which nothing else could beat.
The real elephant in the room is the fact that I just spent $600 on my friggin' iPhone and it can't do some crucial functions that even $50 handsets can. I'm talking about MMS. Video recording. Custom ringtones. Mass storage. Fully functioning Bluetooth with stereo audio streaming. Voice dialing when you're using a car kit. Sending contact info to other people. Instant friggin' messenging. Sending an SMS to more than one recipient at a time.
Bullshit. Show me a $50 cellphone that can do almost any of that, except possibly custom ringtones. A $300+ Blackberry or $400+ Treo would be more accurate, but the current versions still lack many of the features of the iPhone. And even Apple has stated that custom ring tones will be part of a future software update. A lot of that shit by Brian Lam is pointless bitching, without acknowledging the other 1000 fantastic features of the iPhone or acknowledging that Apple will update the software on a regular basis, from someone who simples wants to appease the Slashdot-type crowd.
I used to have both a Blackberry and a Palm Treo (work and home). Good riddance to them both. I now use an iPhone for work and home and couldn't be happier.
I 100% agree with what you have to say. That is true for Mathematicians, Physicists, etc. etc. There are the truly passionate, intelligent and educated people and then they are the rest of the idiots who really don't know shit about anything.
The truly sad part is when these people manage to find some college to gain their MS and even PhD, yet are still complete fucking idiots. It is these people who truly de-value the degree and field. It should be impossible for people who are not passionate about their work, lives and education to earn an advanced degree.
I need to make a correction, ice layers are initially aged by studying the gas trapped in the ice. More information can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Interesting notes:
"Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in global temperature reconstruction. In addition to the isotope concentration, the air bubbles trapped in the ice cores allow for measurement of the atmospheric concentrations of trace gases, including greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The air bubbles may also contain traces of aerosols, which are produced in great concentrations during volcanic eruptions."
Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H and O). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow.
You need to be very, very careful with the use of the word theory. You and every single person on this planet apparently does not understand the difference between conjecture, hypothesis, theory and a wild ass guess. Now, CO2-based global warming is *at best* a hypothesis. Only with disprovable, reproducible and predictable evidence can a hypothesis become a theory. Any half-assed idea someone comes up with is not a theory.
Now, the one bright point for you to look to is that science is a process. The scientific process will figure out the truth, regardless of other factors, it always has and it always will. Whether CO2-based global warming is eventually proven correct or incorrect (in whole or in part), science as a whole will gain, and everyone benefits.
And to answer your original point, scientists will either use carbon-dating or uranium-lead dating, both of which (until the 20th century) are extremely accurate tools.
No, that's is not true. There are absolutes in the universe and the universe exists by a finite set of absolute physical laws. To be more specific, the universe exists by Mathematical laws. When a Mathematical absolute is proven, then it is absolutely true. It is through applied Mathematics, Physics, where modeling of existing observation and prediction of future observation are created using Mathematics. The models can lead to situations where a model is correct for the observation but needs refinement to be correct universally. This is the exact point of the scientific process...to test, verify, retest and refine until a Mathematical model can be defined as an law. Through this method, all absolute physical laws of the universe will eventually be known.
You cannot mathematically prove that Oswald did or did not do it, because Oswald is not a mathematical construct.
The universe operates Mathematically. In other words, the universe operates by an absolute and finite set of logical rules. Therefore, Oswald and the entirety of the universe is, in fact, a Mathematical construct.
Such proofs only exist in the world of mathematics, and there they are only possible because mathematics is a completely abstract field that does not involve perceptions of the real world (which always have some degree of intrinsic doubt).
Wrong.
You are not a Mathematician (Pure Mathematics) nor a Physicist (Applied Mathematics). I am. Only make comments here when you truly know what you are talking about.
"This is a species-wide phenomenon which proves they have the resources to burn & some like Freud would say, proves their fitness for reproduction in attracting the female of the species."
No, it is simply a matter of some people loving driving, especially at high speed. Goddamn boring worker bees/drones can just take the bus/subway/etc. It is something I love in life. Given the choice I prefer to drive my sports car, I don't care about the cost.
Honestly, it is also not about getting women, it is most annoying to drive with women in the car (unless they are one hell of a great woman).
"If you want to apply, please submit your application online by midnight PST on Monday, April 2, 2007. Groups that submit early have a slight advantage because we have more time to read their applications."
I used to use Web Developer Ext. for Firefox, but ever since discovering FireBug https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1843/ it blows WDE away. Give it a try, it is great.
Excellent post. You are exactly correct. This so-called scientific study is complete bullshit. It is bullshit now and it was bullshit the first time I read it.
It is refreshing to read a post like yours, as a US citizen, I completely agree with your observations and understanding of this country. I also completely agree with your observations and understanding of religion.
Exactly. This article and so-called research is nothing but bullshit. People's so-called 'belief' in religion is due to them being taught that religion is 'true' and 'real' by their parents and culture. This has nothing to do with genetics. I %100 do not believe in any religion, fantasy or make-believe and I see the universe %100 for what it is, with a very scientific eye. This is because my parents did not force a religion upon me as a child. And for me, I never would have believed it even if they had.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody noticed that this article was published Friday, April 1, 2005? April Fools Day. And the moderators voted the parent up to a 5? Wow...
"Unless you adopt the (almost certainly nonsensical) position that everybody is entirely born, not made, you have to concede some degree of environmental influence on people's eventual properties(the degree of that influence is certainly a matter of debate; but almost certainly isn't zero)."
That is not a nonsensical position. Once you are born, your DNA does not change.
If you were not born a deep thinker, you will never naturally be a deep thinker, regardless of how much training or practice you have. You may be able to become good at deep thinking, possibly through practice or training, but you will never naturally be a deep thinker, since you were not born that way. That applies to everything in life. You are entirely born.
As for a person's ability to be able to use their personal abilities and skills to their fullest can be environmental and can be influenced by a number of factors including personal circumstances and upbringing. But again, a person who is born to take advantage of their situation will find a way to maximize their life and those who are not born that way will not, given identical circumstances.
While you make some good points, your arguments are inherently incorrect based upon your misunderstanding of creative problem solving. Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_problem_solving. Note the second sentence in the second paragraph. Problem solving as a whole is considered the most complex of all intellectual functions. Mathematical problem solving is considered one of the highest, if not the highest, forms of creative problem solving. Also consider for a moment that effectively the entire field of computer science was originally developed by Mathematicians.
I would argue that writing code is a purely analytical process. I would also argue that people who believe programming is purely an art form or is best suited for people who are not analytical, for example musicians, make terrible programmers. From my personal experiences, these kinds of people are at best "hacks" and tend to write average or below average code, which may or may not work. And that same code is almost always poorly designed, poorly architected, poorly implemented, poorly documented and poor performing. All of the people whom I've worked with who are Mathematicians, Engineers, Physicists, etc. who are also professional software engineers tend to write exceptionally good code. They also tend to have the appropriate analytical and creative problem solving skills necessary to provide appropriate solutions to extremely complex problems throughout all levels of development from architecture to implementation.
Getting back to the Wikipedia article, your misunderstanding is based upon the fact that while musicians may be creative, that does not mean they are creative problem solvers. Creative problem solvers though can be purely creative. Which correlates perfectly with my own personal experiences, since most highly analytical creative problem solvers I know also enjoy pursuing such subjects as art, design, music, etc. As a matter of fact, most of the people I work with enjoy photography outside of work, not music. And the opposite is true, people who are only musicians tend to be neither highly analytical nor decent problem solvers.
I don't consider myself an expert and will never claim to be (on Slashdot or on my resumes). Claiming to be "knowledgeable and intelligent" is (to me) arrogance. As I've stated, it is a matter of degree and perspective.
Claiming to be knowledgeable and intelligent is arrogant? What are you talking about?
Here are some definitions for you:
Knowledge
Knowledgable
Intelligent
which has nothing to do with
Arrogance
Reading your entire post, it is clear you are insecure and trying to project your own inadequacies onto others.
Your current +4 Insightful rating is highly inaccurate.
Math is the symbolism used to describe the universe. Physical reality does not need symbols or tools or sentience to function, we however need math to describe the functions of the universe in precise detail. Math is a tool and so is an invented thing where the ideas have come from observing the world around us, just like a knife or velcro are tools that where invented based off of ideas gleaned from observations of the world around us.
You are not entirely correct. The universe itself exists and operates Mathematically. Therefore, Mathematics is the language of the universe. That is a fact. While certain components of Mathematics can be used as tools, Mathematics is itself not simply a tool invented by humans, akin to velcro. Mathematics is discovered. While the exact symbols used in Mathematics are not important, the concepts and understandings through Mathematics is what describes the universe in precise detail.
Regardless of how humans decide to express or discover Mathematics, it would have eventually been discovered in some form over time, as it is how the universe operates and exists. There is no more perfect way to describe and understand the universe than through Mathematics.
Nobody and nothing is perfect, this does NOT mean that everything imperfect, is equivalent.
That statement is ridiculous and completely gibberish. Let's break it apart:
1) Nobody: No Person
2) Nothing: Nonexistence
3) Perfect: Entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings
4) Imperfect: Not perfect
So, even though your sentence is ridiculous, even breaking it apart into some kind of logical assembly still invalidates it. If nothing is perfect, then nothing is imperfect either, since nothing is in-fact the nonexistence of anything. Along with that, nobody is perfect also means that nobody is imperfect, since nobody is referring to no person. Now, given your sentence, you would still be wrong, since imperfect is in-fact the reciprocal of perfect. Hence, nobody and nothing is perfect would be the equivalent of saying everyone and everything is imperfect. And even given that, perfection is a highly ambiguous term, completely determined by its frame of reference, quantification, et.al. The definition I used above is based on the context of your post.
What you need to do is stop spouting ridiculous idioms and philosophical meanderings and just stick to the usual Apple vs. Microsoft drivel, like all the other good Slashdotters.
"That feeling comes from your inexperience. Your generation is no different than mine was when I was your age, and mine is no different from Ben Franklin's generation. The world has changed much, but people have changed little."
No, you are incorrect. If what you say was true, then no progress would ever be made. What is true is that every generation progresses as a whole while some of the existing generation stays up to speed and the rest of the existing generation stays at a steady state or even regresses from the progress that their generation had made. The difference is that in the current information age, this change is happening at a much greater rate than ever before in history.
The reality is that the current generation is able to process and handle larger volumes of information at a much higher rate, with exponentially better search tools, using information that is instantly available. The previous generations never had exposure to the current environments and their brains are not trained or practiced to be able to handle the current volume of information acceptably. And like all previous generations, they do not understand it and in large part resent it. It is depressing watching new generations growing up and watching existing generations continually try to put them down. A good example of this is a man in his 50's, whom I used to work with, who exclaimed when our company adopted Blackberry's that "humans weren't meant to handle that much information" and "that's the problem with the younger generation" and "they don't have any patience". Unfortunately, due to his inability to stay current in his field, he was recently let go from our company. That's not the only example, but is a product of previous generations as a whole. The world has never known the kind of access to information that we have today and previous generations do not know how to harness, appreciate or understand it nor do they know how to harness, appreciate or understand the generation that does.
One major problem with printed books in today's world is that the majority of them are out-of-date as soon as they hit the shelves. At our company, we have bought as many e-book versions of published books as we can, as well as emphasized online research in addition to those books. That way we can quickly search for information electronically in the existing books while staying as up to date as possible with the changes since those books were published.
This entire article, majority of ensuing Slashdot posts and especially the so-called professor who posted this wreak of the typical "I don't understand anyone outside my own generation" or "my generation figured it out and the new generation doesn't get it" or that the current generation has somehow digressed or is unable to do something. Or whatever permutation or combination of those that you want. What you need to do is harness today's generation instead of just looking down on them from your high horse until they eventually drag you off of it.
What is excited is seeing what each new generation can bring to the table in addition to what the existing generations have already done. And as an additional note, we also need to overhaul our entire educational system to harness this generation's abilities and informational tools as well if we want to be able to keeping competing on the world stage in coming years.
With my thinkpad, there are parts from several vendors interoperating and dealing with windows and ubuntu and even my playstation when I stream movies on TVersity.
This is a complete bunch of shit, but a line towed by almost everyone who has never used a Mac. Here's reality...my MacBook Pro has essentially the same hardware as your IBM Thinkpad (we use both of them here at work). I am using a non-Apple Bluetooth mouse, a Blackberry which syncs perfectly and tethers over Bluetooth without a single problem, two external hard drives (one USB2 and one FW400) each from different manufacturers, and non-Apple bluetooth headphones (which are very nice). At home I use the same MBP with my Tivo and Slingbox, a networked HP All-in-One printer, my 720p LCD projector and other various hardware devices.
As far as software is concerned, I am a full-time J2EE developer and I use a lot of non-Apple software on a daily basis. Working in a business with a majority of the employees using Windows, I also run a lot of Microsoft software and interact with any number of Microsoft servers/services for various reasons. So, I am not even using Apple software outside of the OS for more than maybe one or two applications.
My reliability has been rock-solid. So much so that at least three of the developers on my last project team have switched full-time to OS X...including all of their non-Apple peripherals...without any problems.
So, the argument that OS X is only stable because it's "all Apple" is a complete bunch of bullshit.
You are doing nothing but bench racing, looking at specs and saying its faster. It's not. The reason everyone doesn't buy a Corvette is because it isn't faster than cars twice its price, it's barely faster than cars 1/2 to 3/4 its price. As a matter of fact, in most SCCA and NASA GT races the Nissan 350Z will beat it time and time again, as well as BMW 3 series cars, as well as the Cadillac CTS-V, et.al. I mean, for the same price as a Z06 you are now able to buy a Nissan GT-R, quite possibly the greatest road and race car ever produced. And the GT-R is AWD. In real road racing, the Corvette is fast, but 700 or 900 BHP is not going to make it faster than anything else. Without being able to properly put the power to the ground, as well as overall traction, control and performance the BHP alone doesn't mean shit.
And of course, that is only on perfectly clear sunny days with perfectly flat tarmac. In every other situation, cars such as Subaru WRX STI's and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution's, for example, wipe the floor with the Corvette. Corvette's on gravel, rain, mud, snow, off camber twists and turns, hilly curvy roads, et.al. are a joke. Check out some videos, if you can find them, of Evo's outrunning Lambo's on tarmac. That's value for your dollar. But since you only bench race, those videos can't possibly be real, can they?
The universe is determined by a finite number of absolute rules. The point is that no matter whether you are right or wrong, you always learn and knowledge increases.
Bullshit. Experience is not equal to age or the amount of time a politician has spent in office. The word experience is over-used during campaigns without people understand what is really important, which is the individual candidate. Obama sounds like a person of actual honesty and reason with a sincere willingness to make right the current international and domestic wrongs. Hillary sounds like the same BS as Bush and every other politician in office right now (on both sides).
And the Republicans...fuck, the Republicans are all the same...tell whoever they are talking to at the moment what they want to hear while really only pandering to extremely rich corporate corruption and right-wing/religious nut-jobs. Great.
Honestly, both parties tax the shit out of everyone, both parties spend orders of magnitude more money than they tax and especially the Republicans more than anyone couldn't give a shit about the middle class. So, trying to scare people away from the Democrats based on repeatedly saying they will only increase taxes is a complete crock of shit.
What needs to happen is a real moderate 3rd party. Maybe a strong moderate 3rd party will rise sometime in the future. Wouldn't that be fantastic.
Note: I truly believe the root of all evil are riders on bills. Every single bill should be voted on individually and all riders should be illegal. Then we would see some seriously interesting legislation and politics in Washington.
It does give them a clear path for version 2. They make a huge amount of money selling version 1 to the cool gadget crowd
Bullshit. That is nothing more than Slashdot kool-aid drank by people who have never even seen the phone in person, much less used one. I was skeptical of the iPhone too, reading idiot after idiot review in newspapers and magazines and on Slashdot from people who either never really used an iPhone or didn't like it to begin with after reading nothing more than paper-specs. I have been stuck with a Blackberry and a Treo at work, at different times, on an everyday basis and I have been waiting for something better ever since. So, I actually went to an Apple store and tried an iPhone out, for about an hour. I browsed the web, called some people, listened to the iTunes app, checked out the email app, checked out the built-in VPN, checked out how it automatically switches from EDGE to WIFI and back to EDGE whenever you come within range of a WIFI access point, tried seeing how fast and accurate I could type on the screen and much more. I was absolutely impressed. The iPhone is incredible. Then I went home and did some more research, looked up competing phone plans in my area with equivalent phones and plans (e.g. Verizon was $20-$40 a month more on equivalent plans with a Blackberry at $339 and Treo at $429 after mail-in rebate) and went back to the store to check out the iPhone, in person, again. After spending another hour using the phone, I was completely sold. So, I bought the 8GB version, which has so far been the best phone and ipod I have ever used. The included earbuds with the iPhone microphone and iPod control built-in are very nice. Features such as voice dialing and instant messaging I am sure will included in future software updates to the iPhone. And even if not, I am not missing them at all. I don't use my phone in the car, so voice dialing is a moot point to me.
One of the best things about the iPhone is its seamless integration with Outlook 2003+ and Entourage 2004 11.2.3+ as well as the excellent support for IMAP. I am currently beta testing the iPhone within our corporation for a bunch of other people who are looking to buy the iPhone for both personal and work use as well.
The point is that iPhone 1.0 is a solid product, what 1.0 releases should be. Plus all but one or two of the so-called missing features are software features. Something Apple can easily add to the iPhone, at any time, with only a software update and without having to create a new phone. Which is very nice.
Also, a point which everyone seems to miss, is that I now have the best iPod I have ever used. Ever. And honestly I do not listen to more than 4-5GB of music, podcasts or videos at any one time, which iTunes 7.3 lets me sync with the iPhone fairly granularly. So, I sold my 80GB iPod on eBay for $300. Which made my iPhone only a $300 purchase to me, which nothing else could beat.
The real elephant in the room is the fact that I just spent $600 on my friggin' iPhone and it can't do some crucial functions that even $50 handsets can. I'm talking about MMS. Video recording. Custom ringtones. Mass storage. Fully functioning Bluetooth with stereo audio streaming. Voice dialing when you're using a car kit. Sending contact info to other people. Instant friggin' messenging. Sending an SMS to more than one recipient at a time.
Bullshit. Show me a $50 cellphone that can do almost any of that, except possibly custom ringtones. A $300+ Blackberry or $400+ Treo would be more accurate, but the current versions still lack many of the features of the iPhone. And even Apple has stated that custom ring tones will be part of a future software update. A lot of that shit by Brian Lam is pointless bitching, without acknowledging the other 1000 fantastic features of the iPhone or acknowledging that Apple will update the software on a regular basis, from someone who simples wants to appease the Slashdot-type crowd.
I used to have both a Blackberry and a Palm Treo (work and home). Good riddance to them both. I now use an iPhone for work and home and couldn't be happier.
I 100% agree with what you have to say. That is true for Mathematicians, Physicists, etc. etc. There are the truly passionate, intelligent and educated people and then they are the rest of the idiots who really don't know shit about anything.
The truly sad part is when these people manage to find some college to gain their MS and even PhD, yet are still complete fucking idiots. It is these people who truly de-value the degree and field. It should be impossible for people who are not passionate about their work, lives and education to earn an advanced degree.
You are seriously fucked up, and not in a way that should make you think you have a unique view on the world, because you don't.
Drop the idiocy and get a grip.
I need to make a correction, ice layers are initially aged by studying the gas trapped in the ice. More information can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Interesting notes:
"Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in global temperature reconstruction. In addition to the isotope concentration, the air bubbles trapped in the ice cores allow for measurement of the atmospheric concentrations of trace gases, including greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The air bubbles may also contain traces of aerosols, which are produced in great concentrations during volcanic eruptions."
Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H and O). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow.
You need to be very, very careful with the use of the word theory. You and every single person on this planet apparently does not understand the difference between conjecture, hypothesis, theory and a wild ass guess. Now, CO2-based global warming is *at best* a hypothesis. Only with disprovable, reproducible and predictable evidence can a hypothesis become a theory. Any half-assed idea someone comes up with is not a theory.
Now, the one bright point for you to look to is that science is a process. The scientific process will figure out the truth, regardless of other factors, it always has and it always will. Whether CO2-based global warming is eventually proven correct or incorrect (in whole or in part), science as a whole will gain, and everyone benefits.
And to answer your original point, scientists will either use carbon-dating or uranium-lead dating, both of which (until the 20th century) are extremely accurate tools.
That's it. Nothing is ever "proven."
No, that's is not true. There are absolutes in the universe and the universe exists by a finite set of absolute physical laws. To be more specific, the universe exists by Mathematical laws. When a Mathematical absolute is proven, then it is absolutely true. It is through applied Mathematics, Physics, where modeling of existing observation and prediction of future observation are created using Mathematics. The models can lead to situations where a model is correct for the observation but needs refinement to be correct universally. This is the exact point of the scientific process...to test, verify, retest and refine until a Mathematical model can be defined as an law. Through this method, all absolute physical laws of the universe will eventually be known.
You cannot mathematically prove that Oswald did or did not do it, because Oswald is not a mathematical construct.
The universe operates Mathematically. In other words, the universe operates by an absolute and finite set of logical rules. Therefore, Oswald and the entirety of the universe is, in fact, a Mathematical construct.
Such proofs only exist in the world of mathematics, and there they are only possible because mathematics is a completely abstract field that does not involve perceptions of the real world (which always have some degree of intrinsic doubt).
Wrong.
You are not a Mathematician (Pure Mathematics) nor a Physicist (Applied Mathematics). I am. Only make comments here when you truly know what you are talking about.
"This is a species-wide phenomenon which proves they have the resources to burn & some like Freud would say, proves their fitness for reproduction in attracting the female of the species."
No, it is simply a matter of some people loving driving, especially at high speed. Goddamn boring worker bees/drones can just take the bus/subway/etc. It is something I love in life. Given the choice I prefer to drive my sports car, I don't care about the cost.
Honestly, it is also not about getting women, it is most annoying to drive with women in the car (unless they are one hell of a great woman).
"If you want to apply, please submit your application online by midnight PST on Monday, April 2, 2007. Groups that submit early have a slight advantage because we have more time to read their applications."
Good timing for this article...
Bullshit.
This is a society of victims. EVERYONE is to blame except THEMSELVES.
Grow some balls. Be a man. Don't blame anyone else for your problems.
I used to use Web Developer Ext. for Firefox, but ever since discovering FireBug https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1843/ it blows WDE away. Give it a try, it is great.
Excellent post. You are exactly correct. This so-called scientific study is complete bullshit. It is bullshit now and it was bullshit the first time I read it.
It is refreshing to read a post like yours, as a US citizen, I completely agree with your observations and understanding of this country. I also completely agree with your observations and understanding of religion.
Exactly. This article and so-called research is nothing but bullshit. People's so-called 'belief' in religion is due to them being taught that religion is 'true' and 'real' by their parents and culture. This has nothing to do with genetics. I %100 do not believe in any religion, fantasy or make-believe and I see the universe %100 for what it is, with a very scientific eye. This is because my parents did not force a religion upon me as a child. And for me, I never would have believed it even if they had.