They're apparently embedding a fucking SQL DATABASE into Firefox 3. Given that SQL databases are not exactly known for being light-weight Because of course SQLLite isn't a light-weight SQL DB library or anything..
To be honest though, I think what really was the catalyst for my purchase was the desire to show my support for companies willing to empower and work with the opensource community, rather than against it I definately have to second this statement. From what I can judge, Nokia has been doing a fantastic job collaborating with the community in relation to their Internet Tablets.
Kinda cool but for the most part useless. These companies shout put tablet computers on the side line for a decade or so. Perhaps by then they can have enough power/size/smarts to be useful. Rightnow it is an expensive toy to play with for a few weeks then just get put aside. I have to disagree with you here. I use a Nokia 770 tablet and I find it quite useful. It definately has enough power to be useful. There is even a port of Free Civ for it (not that THAT is useful for a tablet:>).
My only beef is that due to the fact that it is moreso targeted toward personal use, the contact management options available aren't great. I have yet to find one I like.
Having WiFi on a device like that, with a sizeable screen is very useful to me.
This reminds me of a certain Pink Panther cartoon episode.
Pink Panther goes through all sorts of things to try to eliminate his annoying cuckoo alarm bird. The bird escapes every attempt to eliminate it. After nearly killing it, he finally reconciles himself with the bird and accepts the nasty interruptions from his sleep.
I don't remember the title, but I take that bird to be a prior art, hence blocking any patent possibilities for this invention:)
Although Kasparov has fame from a rather unusual source, do you really think the same thing doesn't happen here in the US? I don't really know. I do know that protesters get arrested, just not sure if the conditions are exactly the same. Would he get arrested for the exact same thing in the US? Maybe not. But, I'm sure all sorts of protesters have been arrested for all sorts of things in the US.
I guess its pretty obvious that Russia doesn't have a monopoly on totalitarianism, it occurs in North America in varying degrees also.
On one hand it is suprising that Russia would want to arrest such a famous person for such a trivial political act. On the other hand, totalitarianism knows no friends..
Since when is Google "open source"?
Open-source friendly, undoubtedly. Less secretive about (some of their) proprietary code than Microsoft? Sure, though that's not saying much. There's only so much secrecy obfuscated Javascript can buy you, so it's not as if they had much choice. Still, kudos to them for not only accepting that fact, but providing official APIs to some of their services. Yeah, open-source friendly is more on target. Some people, including some pretty prominent authors use "open source" to describe anything that is somewhat open, new, or innovative.
Wouldn't it be pretty nice if Google released the source to their web mail platform? Not likely, but we can all dream..:)
Schools (of all stripes, secondary/postsecondary/etc.) are already being perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be outmoded to some extent. The picture of a large, cumbersome, and reactionary institution is the picture most of us have as schools. Of course that isn't always true, but it is an ingrained part of our culture.
A move like this just reinforces that sort of a view of schools: Outdated institutions struggling to maintain a status quo. Wikipedia has its advantages and disadvantages in the realm of scholarship. But you can't just ban it, especially not nowadays. This is outright censorship of the most silly sort, and it should not be tolerated.
Schools have a responsibility to maintain some standards, and whether or not they will accept Wikipedia in papers, etc. is a decision they will have to make. But I hope they relize that by publically banning Wikipedia, they are merely raising the appeal for Wikipedia and decrease respect for their own institution.
Assuming that censorship is necessary...Of all the things the school could possibly censor, Wikipedia is one of the least justifiable to censor.
not cree-dance, which sounds like something a particular group of Native Americans might have done of an evening
On second thought, "creedance" seems to be a mispelling of "creedence" as in "creedence clearwater revival":)
OK - provide me with a rational argument that a belief in god or gods is either useful or otherwise illuminates our understanding in ways that the scientific enterprise can not.
First off, to some degree I feel whether belief in a deity is useful or illuminating is irrelevant. If God exists and that fact has no value whatsoever, I would wish to be a theist. However, if God does not exist but believing He does has great value, I would rather be an atheist.
If we are to start from a consistent materialistic basis, we find no way to coherently connect the particulars and the universals (or as others have put it the "one" and the "many"). Many have tried, but it seems that they have all failed so far. Of course, a soley humanistic scientific enterprise that arrives at many scientific advances will have immediate benefits. Many times it is due to people imagining that they have a sufficient universal. However, without some meaningful universal to tie in the various aspects of human discovery, such discoveries eventually fall into the oblivion of insignificance. That is not to say that a individual or a society can't last for a LONG time without an adequete universal.
The particulars of science, ethics, morality, love, etc. can be had in ANY worldview system, with or without God. But I believe that without belief in God, these particulars are anomalies. In purely materialistic world, it isn't rational to suppose that science, ethics, morality, love, etc., are anything more than blips on the radar screen, anomalies in an otherwise chaotic existence, thus having no basis in anything universal or transcedental. Why should we care about them then? It is rational to conclude that without God (however arcane, useful, or true that idea may be) or any other transcendent being, the atheist is left with a tenuous grip on the very advances that is being reaped from science. Of course this point can not be fully expanded here without writing an entire book:) Also, as a side note, it appears that the biggest modern dilemma is not how to make more advances in the scientific enterprise, but rather how to integrate them to our life, how to to understand ethics in relation to them, how to understand their overarching significance, etc. This, I believe, sheer "scientific enterprise" can not answer.
logic, and the mathematics that stem from logic, provide a means to model and explain experience that is consistent, extensible and simple to understand. Contrast this with religiosity, where 'truths' are revealed to the elect, and interpreted for the ordinary mortals by a priestly elite, who more often than not enrich themselves on the back of the ignorance, superstition and fear of others, and I think you might see how a belief in the utility of logic might be a reasonable basis for life.
Nearly everyone would agree that the laws of logic are universal, because if they weren't they would obviously have very limited usefulness. Based on what you've said here and your reasonableness in argument, I'm sure you uphold the universality of the laws of logic, and I'd agree with you on that. With the existence of a God back to whose activity the regularity of logic can be traced, I'd suppose that operating under my starting-point the basis for the universality of logic is evident. However, it appears to me that if we are to assume the non-existence of God and purely materialistic assumptions, there is a shakey basis for the universality of the laws of logic. I am NOT saying that it would mean people would be illogical and neither do I mean that in such a case people would reject the universality of the laws of logic. I'm just saying that to do so, they would need to be somewhat inconsistent. Of course, some hypoth
there is no logical reason for believing in a god or gods at all. Of course, I shouldn't have to point out that this statement lof yours is based on an unproven assumption that you've successfully digested all human knowledge past, present, and future.
I'd say universal negatives are probably impossible to prove, but perhaps that doesn't trouble you too much.
Logic not only precedes gods, it precludes them as well. If it precludes them how can it precede them?
Why should we care about logic? Do you have an explanation as to why you place so much creedance in logic? Where did it come from? What makes it so?
but to try to apply logic and reason to myths is just not valid. Why not? "just not" sounds like saying "it is evident" without providing any basis.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is yes. With somewhere around zero to a hundred percent accuracy. Next question.
Canadian spooks aren't merely using beavers anymore, or so the US thinks.
Fire sharing sounds dangerous. Back in my day, they used to call that arson. But, alas, times have changed.
This reminds me of a certain Pink Panther cartoon episode. Pink Panther goes through all sorts of things to try to eliminate his annoying cuckoo alarm bird. The bird escapes every attempt to eliminate it. After nearly killing it, he finally reconciles himself with the bird and accepts the nasty interruptions from his sleep. I don't remember the title, but I take that bird to be a prior art, hence blocking any patent possibilities for this invention :)
On one hand it is suprising that Russia would want to arrest such a famous person for such a trivial political act. On the other hand, totalitarianism knows no friends..
Schools (of all stripes, secondary/postsecondary/etc.) are already being perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be outmoded to some extent. The picture of a large, cumbersome, and reactionary institution is the picture most of us have as schools. Of course that isn't always true, but it is an ingrained part of our culture.
A move like this just reinforces that sort of a view of schools: Outdated institutions struggling to maintain a status quo. Wikipedia has its advantages and disadvantages in the realm of scholarship. But you can't just ban it, especially not nowadays. This is outright censorship of the most silly sort, and it should not be tolerated.
Schools have a responsibility to maintain some standards, and whether or not they will accept Wikipedia in papers, etc. is a decision they will have to make. But I hope they relize that by publically banning Wikipedia, they are merely raising the appeal for Wikipedia and decrease respect for their own institution.
Assuming that censorship is necessary...Of all the things the school could possibly censor, Wikipedia is one of the least justifiable to censor.
not cree-dance, which sounds like something a particular group of Native Americans might have done of an evening
On second thought, "creedance" seems to be a mispelling of "creedence" as in "creedence clearwater revival" :)
OK - provide me with a rational argument that a belief in god or gods is either useful or otherwise illuminates our understanding in ways that the scientific enterprise can not.
First off, to some degree I feel whether belief in a deity is useful or illuminating is irrelevant. If God exists and that fact has no value whatsoever, I would wish to be a theist. However, if God does not exist but believing He does has great value, I would rather be an atheist. If we are to start from a consistent materialistic basis, we find no way to coherently connect the particulars and the universals (or as others have put it the "one" and the "many"). Many have tried, but it seems that they have all failed so far. Of course, a soley humanistic scientific enterprise that arrives at many scientific advances will have immediate benefits. Many times it is due to people imagining that they have a sufficient universal. However, without some meaningful universal to tie in the various aspects of human discovery, such discoveries eventually fall into the oblivion of insignificance. That is not to say that a individual or a society can't last for a LONG time without an adequete universal. The particulars of science, ethics, morality, love, etc. can be had in ANY worldview system, with or without God. But I believe that without belief in God, these particulars are anomalies. In purely materialistic world, it isn't rational to suppose that science, ethics, morality, love, etc., are anything more than blips on the radar screen, anomalies in an otherwise chaotic existence, thus having no basis in anything universal or transcedental. Why should we care about them then? It is rational to conclude that without God (however arcane, useful, or true that idea may be) or any other transcendent being, the atheist is left with a tenuous grip on the very advances that is being reaped from science. Of course this point can not be fully expanded here without writing an entire book :) Also, as a side note, it appears that the biggest modern dilemma is not how to make more advances in the scientific enterprise, but rather how to integrate them to our life, how to to understand ethics in relation to them, how to understand their overarching significance, etc. This, I believe, sheer "scientific enterprise" can not answer.
logic, and the mathematics that stem from logic, provide a means to model and explain experience that is consistent, extensible and simple to understand. Contrast this with religiosity, where 'truths' are revealed to the elect, and interpreted for the ordinary mortals by a priestly elite, who more often than not enrich themselves on the back of the ignorance, superstition and fear of others, and I think you might see how a belief in the utility of logic might be a reasonable basis for life.
Nearly everyone would agree that the laws of logic are universal, because if they weren't they would obviously have very limited usefulness. Based on what you've said here and your reasonableness in argument, I'm sure you uphold the universality of the laws of logic, and I'd agree with you on that. With the existence of a God back to whose activity the regularity of logic can be traced, I'd suppose that operating under my starting-point the basis for the universality of logic is evident. However, it appears to me that if we are to assume the non-existence of God and purely materialistic assumptions, there is a shakey basis for the universality of the laws of logic. I am NOT saying that it would mean people would be illogical and neither do I mean that in such a case people would reject the universality of the laws of logic. I'm just saying that to do so, they would need to be somewhat inconsistent. Of course, some hypoth