a) I used OS/2 as my daily OS throughout the 1990's from OS/2 2.11 through OS/2 4.0. OS/2 4.0 is still my favorite and one of the best OS's that I have ever used. In 1997 I purchased my copy and found that OS/2 had built-in voice recognition, built-in speech/text reading, full Plug-and-Play support, a fully integrated desktop and taskbar, full remote graphical installs over a LAN, built-in 'enterprise' grade LAN support, and a host of other features.
b) Your post brings into doubt if you even used OS/2 at all. And if you did, and your post is even somewhat true, it sounds like not only were your system adminsitrators completely incompetent but your users were as dumb as bricks. Everyone that I ever met who asked me if they could take a look at OS/2 figured out how it worked within seconds. Even people who had barely ever used a computer before.
3) Using OS/2 for years with my university's Netware server worked flawlessly.
When I was running BeOS on my Intel computer the OS would boot up in about 5-7 seconds. And this was on a PIII-500Mhz with an Ultra ATA66 HDD and 133Mhz SDRAM.
The entire story subject and paragraph on Slashdot is misleading and wrong. On CNN, DeAngelis actually talks about not thinking critically and analyzing the results of single medical studies. The article was NOT about all research in all branches of science.
I think a quote from the actual CNN article sums up this Slashdot story perfectly "(DeAngelis) said the media can complicate matters with misleading or exaggerated headlines about studies."
I also wanted to expand on another point. Why do people always seem to say 'humans desire what cannot be had' with a negative connotation?
What is inherently wrong with wanting what cannot be had? Nothing. There is nothing wrong with it and it is a perfectly natural trait for a human being to have. That one single desire is what has led the human race to where it is today and it is what leads the human race to seek out and discover tomorrow.
You're either ignorant or one of those fucking scientologist morons. So Pavlov's dogs has not been scientifically proven? stfu. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about (nothing new for/.). There are certainly things about psycology that are not proven but there are many things that are. Does this remind anyone of something like...uh...physics perhaps??
You are a complete fucking moron. Scientology? Where the fuck did that come from? I'm a Mathematician. I could give about as much of a shit about Scientology as I could about any other religion.
The universe is not capricious and the statement I responded to from the parent poster was universally false. The statement made is neither purely nor empirically true. Psychology is purely a pseudo-science, not a pure science, but more of an abstraction of true science. In this case, no two human beings are exactly the same, therefore to make one broad overgeneralization about the Psychology of all of mankind is automatically false.
Physics is both a pure and empirical science, therefore it is bound to the laws of the scientific process. That is a process of disprovability, repeatability, and predictibility. Knowledge of our universe is gained through Mathematics and its empirical application through Physics. When something is proven either true or false, both contribute to the overall understanding of the universe, and the refinement our knowledge. Science is only a forward moving process, which is only able to build on itself from previous proof and laws.
The irony of some of those critiques and sidewise shots coming from someone whose handle is IgnoramusMaximus is not lost on me....
I would, however, draw this to your attention:
We hardly know all there is to know about Medicine. Many 'scientific' conclusions of medicine are based on a very restrictive scope of experimentation. How many times have we been told "Take this, its good for X" and then years later we're told "Okay, that wasn't such a good idea because of A, B and C"? Medical Science (and biochemistry and pharmacology) all come up short from time to time.
Oddly, Homeopathic medicine and other traditional forms of medicine are found to have some merit *in particular situations* and *for treating particular conditions*. Sure, Homeopathy has many bogus theories and recommendations. Yet, at the same time, conventional science can verify that some aspects of it have beneficial outcomes in particular situations. So writing it off with one broad stroke would seem a bit premature and perhaps willfully ignorant.
Wrong. You are speaking of forms of applied or empirical science, not pure science. The two are not the same. You make the same mistake as most other people, which is extremely unfortunate.
I share a certain skepticism when it comes to sociology and psychology, though perhaps not as virulent or vitriolic as yours appears to be. But at the same time, I'm not about to come out and write off ever bit of research or every conclusion that psychologists and sociologists have arrived at over the years. Some of them are probably quite sound.
I'm not writing it off. I am stating that it is impossible to make one broad sweeping claim about all humans based on pseudo-science such as Psychology. If it was a common statement to make about about all Homo Sapiens it would be a provable trait of our DNA. Otherwise, it is nothing.
And depending on 'science' to solve all problems is a bit ludicrious as well.
Wrong. The universe and everything within it exists due to absolute and definable laws. Therefore, using mathematics and the scientific process, all of those laws will and can be found.
We all know that science is only as good as the scientist and the methods he uses. In many instances, science can be perverted or the scientist can be sloppy. Even good science can be operating on a very limited scope, thus making inference beyond the available data problematic (thus the problem with many conclusions) or such conclusions can be correct, but incomplete when taken in the whole. The tendency to study body subsystems as if they were utterly independent and not mutually interconnected (a frequent homeopathic theme) is questionable from the start.
You are incorrectly confusing mathematics and the scientific process with other unrelated factors concerning your personal perceptions of scientists and scientific results. True science is disprovable, repeatable, and predictable. The scientific process is pure and infallible, which is why each accidental or purposeful mistakes are eventually removed and changed.
Science, as a discipline, is a tool we humans derived to help interpret our universe. It is therefore preforce smaller than and incapable of fully encompassing the entirety of that universe.
Wrong. The universe is not capricious. This is not a discussion of human based religion/make-believe/fantasy/philosophy/etc. but a discussion of reality. The universe and everything within it exists due to absolute and definable laws.
Imagining that science or logic is the route to all answers or that the current implementation of either is of necessity either correct or adequate is quite a problematic approach.
Wrong. As I have stated before, the universe and everything within it exists due to absolute and definable laws. The universe is not capricious and there is no evidence whatsoever to prove otherwise.
Science is a tool and, like all tools, has a place in the toolbox of
Yes but our understanding of physics is changing over time. Things that we thought were once true (read: proven scientifically) are not quite correct. One could argue that our knowledge of the subject is so primitive that it is impossible to prove anything scientifically in physics unless one puts a million constraints around it.
Finally, there are things in psycology that can be "reliably and repeatably tested". In fact, this type of research is used in things like interrogation and management of PoWs. I went through PoW training. It's heavily psycologically influenced and they know EXACTLY how people react under different conditions. Sure, some break sooner than others, etc. but the results are known in advance. This type of research has been done so long that it's extremely reliable.
Again, I do not deny that there are things in psycology that are pure theory. And there are certainly plenty of people who practice psycology who shouldn't, but to say that it's entirely guesswork and non-scientific is short-shrifting the whole profession especially when you consider how often we fuck up and think we know our "hard sciences" when we really don't.
And no, I'm not a psycologist nor do I have a degree in it.:)
Finally, I will make no attempt to defend Economics. Someone else can carry that flag if they care.
Mathematics and physics are reality. Everything else is pseudo-science. Your entire post points out very clearly how much of an idiot you are.
"Its pretty simple psychology they are using. Humans desire that which cannot be had, and if this book is being protected by the CIA, FBI, and Mafia, then it must be the greatest book ever."
Just as Psychology is a pseudo-science, which means it is fake science, so is the fact that your 'fact' that 'humans always desire that which cannot be had' is not a fact at all. In your very specific example, your statement may work out for your desired result, but it is certainly not a universal statement. For example, in many cases, once you obtain that which you could not previously have it turns out to be as good as you wanted it to be or better. Then you have another human trait which can be called 'contentment' and other similiar terms in which no other item can give you as much satisfaction or desire as the one you already have. Even though you may have curiosity towards other items, there is not a desire to possess other items in replacement of the one you already have.
And another point, is curiosity of the unknown a bad thing? Can't it simply be a neutral and natural reaction for the curious mind?
It is ridiculous that anyone states anything from Pyschology as a fact whatsoever.
Every human being is physically individual and unique. There is no scientific argument against that. What most people are trying to say when they make the statement you made in your post, without thinking, is that in general most humans are not socially or mentally individual. To make the point even more clear for you, most of the human race has a general 'herd mentality'. That is not the same as implying that 'every person is the same' because that is simply not true.
Also, what ticks some people off is the over-abuse of the false notion that since everyone is individual and unique it must also mean that everyone is equally individual and unique. That is not true.
The HTML tags were not formatted properly and I apologize for the improperly formatted post. I did not press the Preview button before I submitted my by mistake.
Also, I do not agree nor support the barbaric methods used by the Islamic terrorists groups to put their message across to the rest of the world. The cycle of hate and violence is only perpetuated by their actions and the reactions of the countries involved in the attacks. It is truly unfortunate for everyone.
Honestly, American soldiers who are Christian kill because [i]they[/i] believe [i]they[/i] are right and [i]their[/i] version of God is on [i]their[/i] side. So, does the method of killing make any difference between the Christians and the Islamics? No, it doesn't. Each person believes they are righteous for killing for the exact same reasons. Each person is equally wrong.
It is amazing that people have no historical education about the Middle East and the US involvement in world affairs. To make points short for this post, the US [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the US is hated by many parts of the world. The UK [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the Middle East is divided up as it currently is by religious and ethnic based borders. Even my brother's Army Times newpaper and Soldiers publication point out quite clearly that 'radical' Islamics, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and others are not anti-Democracy or anything of the sort. And these are military publications for military personnel. The 'terrorist' groups are simply attacking the US and the UK because of the US and UK's military and economic support of Israel and other political and military involvement in the Middle East (i.e. US support of Iraq in the 1970's and early 1980's and the true political history and US involvement in Iran). The attacks on the World Trade Center buildings during both US presidential administrations, the attack on the USS Cole, and Pentagon were nothing more than symbolic. The US has not had one single attack on its soil since then because there is no general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. If there was a genuine terrorism threat, it would not take any effort to poison water supplies, poison food supplies, bomb subways, blow up dams, blow up oil pipelines, etc. None of these things happened before 9/11 and none of these things have happened since 9/11. Again, there is not a general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. The reasons why the current US presidential administration is using the 9/11 terrorist attacks to gain more control over the US population through fear and thoughtlessness is a conversation for an entirely new thread.
Also, the US is not the world's largest democracy. India is the world's largest democracy. And although India and Pakistan have historically been back-and-forth over Kashmir, why haven't Al Qaeda attacked India like they did the US? Because Al Qaeda is not anti-democracy, but anti-US and anti-UK foreign policy.
I could easily go on, but the number of ignorant and uneducated posts on Slashdot is incredible. So many people simply do not get it. There are posts with everything from calling Al Qaeda crazy and insane to banning Islam in the US. These are all uneducated, knee-jerk reactions which are no different than those views held by the very people you are speaking out against. When people start to become as bad as the people they are trying to change, then nobody wins.
And not to be one-sided, but the Middle East has more than its share of problems all on its own. If the Islamic people learned to stop fighting everyone including themselves, banded together and worked as a single homogeneous union, something akin to the EU the world would be a much different and possibly better place.
On a side note, what will happen when China surpasses the US as the world's largest Superpower? Do you believe Al Qaeda will start attacking China? Unless China gets involved in the Middle East and Israel, then the answer is no. But, if history is any lesson, the US will try to start trouble with China instead and then claim innocence when the shit hits the fan. It is already happening with Taiwan. US citizens will not research it for themselves and the cycle will continue. The next century will be an interesting one indeed.
You are a complete moron. Some 'professor' who has more education, intelligence, and experience than you will ever understand means more than anything you have to say. You have no authority to say a damn thing.
PS - As an aside point, you're posting on Slashdot using a computer which exists solely due to Quantum Physics. Which according to you is just an assumption, only exists because you wish to think it does, and is foolish to believe as a world view. Simply because you cannot touch, taste, smell, see, hear or mentally comprehend the Mathematics and Physics involved does not make them false or assumed. Moron.
The parent post should NOT be marked Insightful as it is absolutely anything but Insightful. You are completely incorrect that everything we know about the universe is based on assumptions. This is not philosophy or religion class, this is reality. The universe follows structured rules and laws which are repeatable, predictable, and disprovable. Those laws are defined mathematically. There is zero evidence to the contrary. Whether you wish to believe otherwise is your progrative, but no matter how hard you try, the universe will continue to exist forever exactly as it is.
I am combining X11 and all of it related window environments as the same in my comment above. Both X11 and its window environments are all garbage and should have been replaced decades ago by something much better.
Why on Earth would Apple want to make X11 standard and fully integrated on Mac OS X? Apple has their own windowing environment and it is much better, along with much more heavily developed and system-wide integrated, than X11. X11 is shit and should have been replaced decades ago. X11 is the result of typical Unix-like infighting and politics, otherwise decades of programming would have produced a windowing environment akin to or better than Aqua (and all of its related frameworks) instead of the shit that X11 is right now.
If people want Aqua apps, write the code for Aqua and Mac OS X. Otherwise, stop bitching. X11 should be used on Apple computers so that people who need to time to convert X11 apps to Aqua can code in smaller steps. X11 on Mac OS X is not meant as a simultaneous windowing environment to use instead of Aqua.
My wife and I both use laptops at home as desktop replacements. Firstly, the convenience of being able to take our laptops with us when we want to work and study away from home is invaluable. Secondly, a desktop computer takes up a ridiculous amount of wasted space in our house. Thirdly, since our entire home network is wireless, it allows us the freedom to take out laptops anywhere in the house and outside to use them. Fifth, a home network is served perfectly by a laptop. There is no need to worry about power outages as the battery keeps the laptop running for hours and recharges itself once the power is restored.
Also, I use a laptop as a desktop replacement at work. The reason for this is because I program a robotics and RFID system for my companies R&D department, but machine testing requires me to test in the field where a desktop computer setup is not possible.
There are a million reasons to never use a desktop computer again. When you are forming an opinion about something, and then sharing your opinion with others, try to make it as informed as possible. I hope that I have helped you to become more informed than you were before.
It might be nice if calculators intended for the general public used decimal arithmetic internally. (But it still would not be able to exactly calculate 1/3 * 3. There will always be limits to mathematical correctness.)
It is interesting that you say that, but I do have to point out that your statement is limited to something such as a calculator, with limited look up tables, memory, and algorithms. Mathematics itself is not limited in its correctness. If you were to have knowledge of Advanced Numerical Analysis, for example, you would find that there are many different algorithms which can be used to eliminate error in calculations and different applications of those algorithms. The difficulty is with the writing of the application. Which is exactly what you said in the remainder of your post.
But that is an issue of application design; it has nothing to do with correct floating-point results, as mentioned in the post you responded to. The floating-point arithmetic here is correct.
Although interesting, Mach was developed at a university and shows a huge number of problems as a result. Your attitude in this post is shown again a previous post, located
HERE during this same thread. Your statements and views are not only completely false, but highly ignorant and pompous.
University research is performed by some of the most brilliant minds in the world. The modern world exists as it does today because of university research and/or the application of direct results of university research. There is not a separation between "research-world" and "real-world", as some people tend to believe.
What is true is that pure university research is designed to discover and explain, sometimes under very quanitized conditions. Whether those quantized conditions completely and accurately describe a general set of conditions is something entirely different. And that is the mistake people like you make when they berate university research. And this does not even begin to touch on research that is purely for academic progress, whether there is a direct application or not.
The creation of additional applicable solutions, using basic university research, to include additional variables to a specific or general application is called "engineering". As stated above, there is not a difference between "research-world" and "real-world". They are the same. Without the first, the second would never exist.
This not the case at all. The use of computers is simply to speed up the use of calculations and definitions of Mathematics in order to complete analysis in a timely manner. Human beings are still the inventors of the dreams and ideas, discoverers of the truth, but the analysis of the calculations can take thousands of years of human calculation time. This is where the computers are used, as a tool to accelerate human calculation and analysis.
A related topic to your post may be the eventual discovery of AI. The future of mankind will be changed forever in an instant.
What I would also like to point out are arguments in this thread which are highly misdirected. You can create your own finite logical argument and use the rules of Mathematics to try and prove it true. Such exercises are generally given in college level Mathematics courses. But, those are just an exercises in using the logical rules of Mathematics, better known as informal proofs or convincing arguments. It is not definitive of Mathematics itself. A formal Mathematical proof of a something such as a universal Mathematical truth is something quite different.
As a Mathematician myself, I find it saddening that this entire forum of posts appears to be written purely by non-Mathematicians.
To highlight one main point, there are multiple forms of Mathematical proof, axiomatic proof being the most widely used and cherished. All formal proofs are valid due to the previously and logically validated proofs on which they are based. Mathematics is a system of understanding and discovery that builds on itself. But, it is also important to understand that all formal Mathematical proof is disprovable. You cannot simply assert whatever you wish and try to convince people you are right. One counterexample, one logical error, one eror based on your results, etc. and your proof is invalid.
What is the most important to understand is that without Mathematical proof, the world which you currently know would not exist, nor would any understanding of it. The universe is written Mathematically. The universe is not capricious and neither is Mathematics.
Slashdot Mirror
a) I used OS/2 as my daily OS throughout the 1990's from OS/2 2.11 through OS/2 4.0. OS/2 4.0 is still my favorite and one of the best OS's that I have ever used. In 1997 I purchased my copy and found that OS/2 had built-in voice recognition, built-in speech/text reading, full Plug-and-Play support, a fully integrated desktop and taskbar, full remote graphical installs over a LAN, built-in 'enterprise' grade LAN support, and a host of other features.
b) Your post brings into doubt if you even used OS/2 at all. And if you did, and your post is even somewhat true, it sounds like not only were your system adminsitrators completely incompetent but your users were as dumb as bricks. Everyone that I ever met who asked me if they could take a look at OS/2 figured out how it worked within seconds. Even people who had barely ever used a computer before.
3) Using OS/2 for years with my university's Netware server worked flawlessly.
When I was running BeOS on my Intel computer the OS would boot up in about 5-7 seconds. And this was on a PIII-500Mhz with an Ultra ATA66 HDD and 133Mhz SDRAM.
The entire story subject and paragraph on Slashdot is misleading and wrong. On CNN, DeAngelis actually talks about not thinking critically and analyzing the results of single medical studies. The article was NOT about all research in all branches of science.
I think a quote from the actual CNN article sums up this Slashdot story perfectly "(DeAngelis) said the media can complicate matters with misleading or exaggerated headlines about studies."
I also wanted to expand on another point. Why do people always seem to say 'humans desire what cannot be had' with a negative connotation?
What is inherently wrong with wanting what cannot be had? Nothing. There is nothing wrong with it and it is a perfectly natural trait for a human being to have. That one single desire is what has led the human race to where it is today and it is what leads the human race to seek out and discover tomorrow.
You're either ignorant or one of those fucking scientologist morons. So Pavlov's dogs has not been scientifically proven? stfu. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about (nothing new for /.). There are certainly things about psycology that are not proven but there are many things that are. Does this remind anyone of something like...uh...physics perhaps??
You are a complete fucking moron. Scientology? Where the fuck did that come from? I'm a Mathematician. I could give about as much of a shit about Scientology as I could about any other religion.
The universe is not capricious and the statement I responded to from the parent poster was universally false. The statement made is neither purely nor empirically true. Psychology is purely a pseudo-science, not a pure science, but more of an abstraction of true science. In this case, no two human beings are exactly the same, therefore to make one broad overgeneralization about the Psychology of all of mankind is automatically false.
Physics is both a pure and empirical science, therefore it is bound to the laws of the scientific process. That is a process of disprovability, repeatability, and predictibility. Knowledge of our universe is gained through Mathematics and its empirical application through Physics. When something is proven either true or false, both contribute to the overall understanding of the universe, and the refinement our knowledge. Science is only a forward moving process, which is only able to build on itself from previous proof and laws.
The irony of some of those critiques and sidewise shots coming from someone whose handle is IgnoramusMaximus is not lost on me.... I would, however, draw this to your attention: We hardly know all there is to know about Medicine. Many 'scientific' conclusions of medicine are based on a very restrictive scope of experimentation. How many times have we been told "Take this, its good for X" and then years later we're told "Okay, that wasn't such a good idea because of A, B and C"? Medical Science (and biochemistry and pharmacology) all come up short from time to time. Oddly, Homeopathic medicine and other traditional forms of medicine are found to have some merit *in particular situations* and *for treating particular conditions*. Sure, Homeopathy has many bogus theories and recommendations. Yet, at the same time, conventional science can verify that some aspects of it have beneficial outcomes in particular situations. So writing it off with one broad stroke would seem a bit premature and perhaps willfully ignorant.
Wrong. You are speaking of forms of applied or empirical science, not pure science. The two are not the same. You make the same mistake as most other people, which is extremely unfortunate.
I share a certain skepticism when it comes to sociology and psychology, though perhaps not as virulent or vitriolic as yours appears to be. But at the same time, I'm not about to come out and write off ever bit of research or every conclusion that psychologists and sociologists have arrived at over the years. Some of them are probably quite sound.
I'm not writing it off. I am stating that it is impossible to make one broad sweeping claim about all humans based on pseudo-science such as Psychology. If it was a common statement to make about about all Homo Sapiens it would be a provable trait of our DNA. Otherwise, it is nothing.
And depending on 'science' to solve all problems is a bit ludicrious as well.
Wrong. The universe and everything within it exists due to absolute and definable laws. Therefore, using mathematics and the scientific process, all of those laws will and can be found.
We all know that science is only as good as the scientist and the methods he uses. In many instances, science can be perverted or the scientist can be sloppy. Even good science can be operating on a very limited scope, thus making inference beyond the available data problematic (thus the problem with many conclusions) or such conclusions can be correct, but incomplete when taken in the whole. The tendency to study body subsystems as if they were utterly independent and not mutually interconnected (a frequent homeopathic theme) is questionable from the start.
You are incorrectly confusing mathematics and the scientific process with other unrelated factors concerning your personal perceptions of scientists and scientific results. True science is disprovable, repeatable, and predictable. The scientific process is pure and infallible, which is why each accidental or purposeful mistakes are eventually removed and changed.
Science, as a discipline, is a tool we humans derived to help interpret our universe. It is therefore preforce smaller than and incapable of fully encompassing the entirety of that universe.
Wrong. The universe is not capricious. This is not a discussion of human based religion/make-believe/fantasy/philosophy/etc. but a discussion of reality. The universe and everything within it exists due to absolute and definable laws.
Imagining that science or logic is the route to all answers or that the current implementation of either is of necessity either correct or adequate is quite a problematic approach.
Wrong. As I have stated before, the universe and everything within it exists due to absolute and definable laws. The universe is not capricious and there is no evidence whatsoever to prove otherwise.
Science is a tool and, like all tools, has a place in the toolbox of
Yes but our understanding of physics is changing over time. Things that we thought were once true (read: proven scientifically) are not quite correct. One could argue that our knowledge of the subject is so primitive that it is impossible to prove anything scientifically in physics unless one puts a million constraints around it. Finally, there are things in psycology that can be "reliably and repeatably tested". In fact, this type of research is used in things like interrogation and management of PoWs. I went through PoW training. It's heavily psycologically influenced and they know EXACTLY how people react under different conditions. Sure, some break sooner than others, etc. but the results are known in advance. This type of research has been done so long that it's extremely reliable. Again, I do not deny that there are things in psycology that are pure theory. And there are certainly plenty of people who practice psycology who shouldn't, but to say that it's entirely guesswork and non-scientific is short-shrifting the whole profession especially when you consider how often we fuck up and think we know our "hard sciences" when we really don't. And no, I'm not a psycologist nor do I have a degree in it. :)
Finally, I will make no attempt to defend Economics. Someone else can carry that flag if they care.
Mathematics and physics are reality. Everything else is pseudo-science. Your entire post points out very clearly how much of an idiot you are.
"Its pretty simple psychology they are using. Humans desire that which cannot be had, and if this book is being protected by the CIA, FBI, and Mafia, then it must be the greatest book ever."
Just as Psychology is a pseudo-science, which means it is fake science, so is the fact that your 'fact' that 'humans always desire that which cannot be had' is not a fact at all. In your very specific example, your statement may work out for your desired result, but it is certainly not a universal statement. For example, in many cases, once you obtain that which you could not previously have it turns out to be as good as you wanted it to be or better. Then you have another human trait which can be called 'contentment' and other similiar terms in which no other item can give you as much satisfaction or desire as the one you already have. Even though you may have curiosity towards other items, there is not a desire to possess other items in replacement of the one you already have.
And another point, is curiosity of the unknown a bad thing? Can't it simply be a neutral and natural reaction for the curious mind?
It is ridiculous that anyone states anything from Pyschology as a fact whatsoever.
Every human being is physically individual and unique. There is no scientific argument against that. What most people are trying to say when they make the statement you made in your post, without thinking, is that in general most humans are not socially or mentally individual. To make the point even more clear for you, most of the human race has a general 'herd mentality'. That is not the same as implying that 'every person is the same' because that is simply not true.
Also, what ticks some people off is the over-abuse of the false notion that since everyone is individual and unique it must also mean that everyone is equally individual and unique. That is not true.
The HTML tags were not formatted properly and I apologize for the improperly formatted post. I did not press the Preview button before I submitted my by mistake.
Also, I do not agree nor support the barbaric methods used by the Islamic terrorists groups to put their message across to the rest of the world. The cycle of hate and violence is only perpetuated by their actions and the reactions of the countries involved in the attacks. It is truly unfortunate for everyone.
Honestly, American soldiers who are Christian kill because [i]they[/i] believe [i]they[/i] are right and [i]their[/i] version of God is on [i]their[/i] side. So, does the method of killing make any difference between the Christians and the Islamics? No, it doesn't. Each person believes they are righteous for killing for the exact same reasons. Each person is equally wrong.
It is amazing that people have no historical education about the Middle East and the US involvement in world affairs. To make points short for this post, the US [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the US is hated by many parts of the world. The UK [i]is[/i] the sole reason why the Middle East is divided up as it currently is by religious and ethnic based borders. Even my brother's Army Times newpaper and Soldiers publication point out quite clearly that 'radical' Islamics, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and others are not anti-Democracy or anything of the sort. And these are military publications for military personnel. The 'terrorist' groups are simply attacking the US and the UK because of the US and UK's military and economic support of Israel and other political and military involvement in the Middle East (i.e. US support of Iraq in the 1970's and early 1980's and the true political history and US involvement in Iran). The attacks on the World Trade Center buildings during both US presidential administrations, the attack on the USS Cole, and Pentagon were nothing more than symbolic. The US has not had one single attack on its soil since then because there is no general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. If there was a genuine terrorism threat, it would not take any effort to poison water supplies, poison food supplies, bomb subways, blow up dams, blow up oil pipelines, etc. None of these things happened before 9/11 and none of these things have happened since 9/11. Again, there is not a general terrorism threat to the US and there never was one. The reasons why the current US presidential administration is using the 9/11 terrorist attacks to gain more control over the US population through fear and thoughtlessness is a conversation for an entirely new thread.
Also, the US is not the world's largest democracy. India is the world's largest democracy. And although India and Pakistan have historically been back-and-forth over Kashmir, why haven't Al Qaeda attacked India like they did the US? Because Al Qaeda is not anti-democracy, but anti-US and anti-UK foreign policy.
I could easily go on, but the number of ignorant and uneducated posts on Slashdot is incredible. So many people simply do not get it. There are posts with everything from calling Al Qaeda crazy and insane to banning Islam in the US. These are all uneducated, knee-jerk reactions which are no different than those views held by the very people you are speaking out against. When people start to become as bad as the people they are trying to change, then nobody wins.
And not to be one-sided, but the Middle East has more than its share of problems all on its own. If the Islamic people learned to stop fighting everyone including themselves, banded together and worked as a single homogeneous union, something akin to the EU the world would be a much different and possibly better place.
On a side note, what will happen when China surpasses the US as the world's largest Superpower? Do you believe Al Qaeda will start attacking China? Unless China gets involved in the Middle East and Israel, then the answer is no. But, if history is any lesson, the US will try to start trouble with China instead and then claim innocence when the shit hits the fan. It is already happening with Taiwan. US citizens will not research it for themselves and the cycle will continue. The next century will be an interesting one indeed.
You are a complete moron. Some 'professor' who has more education, intelligence, and experience than you will ever understand means more than anything you have to say. You have no authority to say a damn thing.
Geocities...HAHAHA
PS - As an aside point, you're posting on Slashdot using a computer which exists solely due to Quantum Physics. Which according to you is just an assumption, only exists because you wish to think it does, and is foolish to believe as a world view. Simply because you cannot touch, taste, smell, see, hear or mentally comprehend the Mathematics and Physics involved does not make them false or assumed. Moron.
The parent post should NOT be marked Insightful as it is absolutely anything but Insightful. You are completely incorrect that everything we know about the universe is based on assumptions. This is not philosophy or religion class, this is reality. The universe follows structured rules and laws which are repeatable, predictable, and disprovable. Those laws are defined mathematically. There is zero evidence to the contrary. Whether you wish to believe otherwise is your progrative, but no matter how hard you try, the universe will continue to exist forever exactly as it is.
I am combining X11 and all of it related window environments as the same in my comment above. Both X11 and its window environments are all garbage and should have been replaced decades ago by something much better.
Why on Earth would Apple want to make X11 standard and fully integrated on Mac OS X? Apple has their own windowing environment and it is much better, along with much more heavily developed and system-wide integrated, than X11. X11 is shit and should have been replaced decades ago. X11 is the result of typical Unix-like infighting and politics, otherwise decades of programming would have produced a windowing environment akin to or better than Aqua (and all of its related frameworks) instead of the shit that X11 is right now.
If people want Aqua apps, write the code for Aqua and Mac OS X. Otherwise, stop bitching. X11 should be used on Apple computers so that people who need to time to convert X11 apps to Aqua can code in smaller steps. X11 on Mac OS X is not meant as a simultaneous windowing environment to use instead of Aqua.
I meant to write 'Fourth' not 'Fifth' in sequential listing above.
My wife and I both use laptops at home as desktop replacements. Firstly, the convenience of being able to take our laptops with us when we want to work and study away from home is invaluable. Secondly, a desktop computer takes up a ridiculous amount of wasted space in our house. Thirdly, since our entire home network is wireless, it allows us the freedom to take out laptops anywhere in the house and outside to use them. Fifth, a home network is served perfectly by a laptop. There is no need to worry about power outages as the battery keeps the laptop running for hours and recharges itself once the power is restored.
Also, I use a laptop as a desktop replacement at work. The reason for this is because I program a robotics and RFID system for my companies R&D department, but machine testing requires me to test in the field where a desktop computer setup is not possible.
There are a million reasons to never use a desktop computer again. When you are forming an opinion about something, and then sharing your opinion with others, try to make it as informed as possible. I hope that I have helped you to become more informed than you were before.
Mod parent up.
It might be nice if calculators intended for the general public used decimal arithmetic internally. (But it still would not be able to exactly calculate 1/3 * 3. There will always be limits to mathematical correctness.)
It is interesting that you say that, but I do have to point out that your statement is limited to something such as a calculator, with limited look up tables, memory, and algorithms. Mathematics itself is not limited in its correctness. If you were to have knowledge of Advanced Numerical Analysis, for example, you would find that there are many different algorithms which can be used to eliminate error in calculations and different applications of those algorithms. The difficulty is with the writing of the application. Which is exactly what you said in the remainder of your post.
But that is an issue of application design; it has nothing to do with correct floating-point results, as mentioned in the post you responded to. The floating-point arithmetic here is correct.
Although interesting, Mach was developed at a university and shows a huge number of problems as a result. Your attitude in this post is shown again a previous post, located HERE during this same thread. Your statements and views are not only completely false, but highly ignorant and pompous.
University research is performed by some of the most brilliant minds in the world. The modern world exists as it does today because of university research and/or the application of direct results of university research. There is not a separation between "research-world" and "real-world", as some people tend to believe.
What is true is that pure university research is designed to discover and explain, sometimes under very quanitized conditions. Whether those quantized conditions completely and accurately describe a general set of conditions is something entirely different. And that is the mistake people like you make when they berate university research. And this does not even begin to touch on research that is purely for academic progress, whether there is a direct application or not.
The creation of additional applicable solutions, using basic university research, to include additional variables to a specific or general application is called "engineering". As stated above, there is not a difference between "research-world" and "real-world". They are the same. Without the first, the second would never exist.
Top 10 Other Things That Han Shot That Didn't Shoot At Him First
This not the case at all. The use of computers is simply to speed up the use of calculations and definitions of Mathematics in order to complete analysis in a timely manner. Human beings are still the inventors of the dreams and ideas, discoverers of the truth, but the analysis of the calculations can take thousands of years of human calculation time. This is where the computers are used, as a tool to accelerate human calculation and analysis.
A related topic to your post may be the eventual discovery of AI. The future of mankind will be changed forever in an instant.
What I would also like to point out are arguments in this thread which are highly misdirected. You can create your own finite logical argument and use the rules of Mathematics to try and prove it true. Such exercises are generally given in college level Mathematics courses. But, those are just an exercises in using the logical rules of Mathematics, better known as informal proofs or convincing arguments. It is not definitive of Mathematics itself. A formal Mathematical proof of a something such as a universal Mathematical truth is something quite different.
As a Mathematician myself, I find it saddening that this entire forum of posts appears to be written purely by non-Mathematicians.
To highlight one main point, there are multiple forms of Mathematical proof, axiomatic proof being the most widely used and cherished. All formal proofs are valid due to the previously and logically validated proofs on which they are based. Mathematics is a system of understanding and discovery that builds on itself. But, it is also important to understand that all formal Mathematical proof is disprovable. You cannot simply assert whatever you wish and try to convince people you are right. One counterexample, one logical error, one eror based on your results, etc. and your proof is invalid.
What is the most important to understand is that without Mathematical proof, the world which you currently know would not exist, nor would any understanding of it. The universe is written Mathematically. The universe is not capricious and neither is Mathematics.