Good idea. However, I don't think that just because some documentation says whatever it says, people will not stumble over such things and will not blame the system instead of themselves. And to be honest, just explaining a feature in a chapter burried amid a 100 more chapters isn't really a solution.
That said, whenever I have to use a windows machine I feel lost and helpless and keep tripping over stuff just the same as these folks.
Re:Ever notice the names of industry lobby groups.
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
*sigh*
to clear up what I said: I think Venezuela did pass legislation to shut closed source apps out of competition earlier this year.
Re:Ever notice the names of industry lobby groups.
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
No government in the world has brought forward legislation to shut closed source applications out of competition--the closest any policy comes to that ANYWHERE is to simply require that at least one open source alternative be included in a bid/selection process.
If you are an evolutionist (and presumably an atheist or agnostic, but I could be wrong on this point and apologize up front if this assumption is going too far) then why does truth and fact matter to you anyway? What, and this is an honest question and not a degrading sardonic question, is the point?
Sorry, I think you may have an interesting point here, but... what is the point of what exactly?
I don't need any god to appreciate exitence and life, and don't need any faith in supernatural things to still find this universe blody interesting and, sometimes even jolly good fun. Truth is important because decissions and actions tend to have positive instead of negative consequences if based on it, and on good judgement (which comes from experience, which comes from bad judgement, but I digress). Does that clear anything up?
If you believe in god, you are not a good scientist. You cannot be.
That thing religious people call "Faith" is nothing but the act of fooling yourself. You cannot be a good scientist if you have the habit of fooling yourself.
For traditional evolutionists, chance is in fact a driving factor of evolution. Remember, natural selection cannot in principle create anything new. The _driver_ of neo-Darwinistic evolution was in fact chance -- natural selection was merely a step-by-step filter. But modern looks at evolution as outlined above are showing that really the driving force is the organism/genome itself, which is capable of reorganizing itself in response to environmental stresses. This is a design quality.
The driver of evolution is in fact chance. It is random mutations in whatever serves as information transmitter, and the process of selection itself is pretty chaotic. That cells are able to reorganize their genomes does not refute that chance drives evolution. It just shows that beings are defined by more than just genomes.
You seem to talk as if chance driving this is some outdated view. You are WRONG, both in that it is outdated, and also in your claim that it is not chance.
I don't understand what you are saying. Of course it migth well be that someone kills you with the purpose of feeding himself, for instance, thus removing you from the genetic pool.
Science doesn't have to provide accurate historical reconstructions to be right.
What the paper you have linked to says is that cells have mechanisms to adapt their genome to input from outside. And how do you think did these mechanisms get there? By natural selection, which had a tendency to favor better genome-adapting machinery over worse. BTW, it is nowadays known that DNA isn't the only mechanism by which information is transmitted from generation to generation. Many bacteria even have the astonishing ability of repairing their genome if some part of it is removed or changed (by genetic engineering, for instance).
Keep in mind that cells are old overoptimized and overengineered things, having billions (!) of years of evolution behind them. This has given rise to many strange and complex mechanisms that are giving the biochemists bad headaches.
I don't know what you mean by "traditional evolutionists" (but I presume you mean the brand who is right, as opposed to the ID nuts). My remark with respect to chance is that, for theoretical purposes, one abstracts chaotic (but largely deterministic) input as chance.
For thousands of years people have tried to disprove the existence of god. They all have failed. There is not a shred of usable evidence. Nothing.
A claim of existence needs proof. A claim of non-existence needs alternative explanaitions for the phenomenon atributed to the existence. If no phenomenon is associated with existence, it is fair to assume no existence. Otherwise you would have to assume the existence of any imaginary being whatsoever, as there is not much evidence against them either.
In so far as the existence of god is concerned (an exceedingly excentric claim, unless you are used to it being traded for a fact), science is full to the rim with evidence against it. And simple reality too: unless your "god of infinite love and compassion" is in the habit of sending huge tsunamis that shred hundreds of inocent and faithful children.
If you want to do violence to your brain, forcefully believing (that is what is usually called faith) in the existence of an all-powerfull, human-like architect of the universe that listens to prayers, go ahead. It is your brain.
Theres no reason to believe that genetically modified organisms might go on to evolve
I wonder here you get that from. A genetically modified (by humans, I think you mean) organism is subject to the same forces of natural selection and mutation as any other organism.
I see no god here. I am just throwing it out there as a possibiliIty that might even be testable, nothing more.
For thousands of years people have tried to prove the existence of god. They all have failed. There is not a shred of usable evidence. Nothing.
It gets dismissed out-of-hand nowadays mostly because it has been refuted over and over for almost two centuries (evolution is an old body of theory). For driving evolution, only natural selection is necessary. There is no randomness involved beyond that which comes from chaotic processes (and perhaps beyond that which comes from quantum fluctuations) which, as a modeling variable, is called chance but is not.
There is overwhelming evidence, however, for the fact that those insisting in intelligent design badly want and need to believe in god. They just are unable to accept any alternative explanation, as that would leave them stranded in an ocean of insecurity, guilt, and despair.
Moreover, the religious discourse of those who insist in intelligent design keeps repeating the ages old axiom that truth requires you believe, and that disbelieving certain facts is a sin that will be punished. People who hold that axiom (and that include phicisits who believe in god) will always be dubious scientists, twisting facts here and there in the name of "god".
Beyond that, I find it funny that when confronted with evolution, which is a simple and understandable mechanism which can be watched in action even in a computer, proponents of ID say "this is hard to believe". Instead, the bible with all its miracles and baroque medievalisms is for them the most plausible thing of all.
Last time I used it I easily got hundreds of lines of errors from the simplest error
I think this is more a fault of the language than a fault of the compiler. The syntax of C++ is one or two orders of magnitude too complex. You would need almost strong AI to produce sensible error messages.
This becomes particularilly "funny" when you try to teach C++ to full novices (FTR: I was following orders!). After a few days, the novices develop a tendency of not even looking at the error messages any more. The garble is pretty intimidating to them, and the compilers don't even get the line of the error right more than half of the time.
A german police chief was asked on TV the day of the London bombings what extra measures should be taken.
He said: "None. The measures are effective as they can be; we cannot avoid all terrorist attacks just as we cannot avoid all crime." I was impressed, really. Intelligent man.
There is a point of diminishing returns for everything.
As a matter of fact, they are illegal, and thus they get regularily thrown out of court. The PO grants them nonetheless, which comes to show that the POs do not care much for laws at all.
The whole patent system is in dire need of reform.
This is an important observation. Inside of each country, democracy still functions closer to how it is supposed to work. This crap would have never flown in germany, for instance.
I have started to have the impression that this is one of the reasons the EU was invented. To circumvent that dreadfull democracy that didn't give the elites what they wanted as often as they pleased.
The new system would protect the invention for 3 weeks, or until it gives $2000 (whichever comes first).
That would be still too much money for such a crappy idea. It is far too simple. Now every time I put glue on a piece of paper I have to pay the guy royalty??
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea. However, I don't think that just because some documentation says whatever it says, people will not stumble over such things and will not blame the system instead of themselves. And to be honest, just explaining a feature in a chapter burried amid a 100 more chapters isn't really a solution.
That said, whenever I have to use a windows machine I feel lost and helpless and keep tripping over stuff just the same as these folks.
*sigh*
to clear up what I said: I think Venezuela did pass legislation to shut closed source apps out of competition earlier this year.
I think Venezuela did that earlier this year.
My condolences to all the hard working japanese scientists and engineers who have seen their dream shattered today. This must have hurt badly.
make a beowulf cluster of these, and your problem is close to solved.
What is it, then?
Sorry, I think you may have an interesting point here, but... what is the point of what exactly?
I don't need any god to appreciate exitence and life, and don't need any faith in supernatural things to still find this universe blody interesting and, sometimes even jolly good fun. Truth is important because decissions and actions tend to have positive instead of negative consequences if based on it, and on good judgement (which comes from experience, which comes from bad judgement, but I digress). Does that clear anything up?
If you believe in god, you are not a good scientist. You cannot be.
That thing religious people call "Faith" is nothing but the act of fooling yourself. You cannot be a good scientist if you have the habit of fooling yourself.
Here a link to the original article is, not by babelfish degraded.
be sure here to click
Call that a hectokilobot (= 100,000 bots). A heck of a lot of bots.
For traditional evolutionists, chance is in fact a driving factor of evolution. Remember, natural selection cannot in principle create anything new. The _driver_ of neo-Darwinistic evolution was in fact chance -- natural selection was merely a step-by-step filter. But modern looks at evolution as outlined above are showing that really the driving force is the organism/genome itself, which is capable of reorganizing itself in response to environmental stresses. This is a design quality.
The driver of evolution is in fact chance. It is random mutations in whatever serves as information transmitter, and the process of selection itself is pretty chaotic. That cells are able to reorganize their genomes does not refute that chance drives evolution. It just shows that beings are defined by more than just genomes.
You seem to talk as if chance driving this is some outdated view. You are WRONG, both in that it is outdated, and also in your claim that it is not chance.
I don't understand what you are saying. Of course it migth well be that someone kills you with the purpose of feeding himself, for instance, thus removing you from the genetic pool.
Science doesn't have to provide accurate historical reconstructions to be right.
What the paper you have linked to says is that cells have mechanisms to adapt their genome to input from outside. And how do you think did these mechanisms get there? By natural selection, which had a tendency to favor better genome-adapting machinery over worse. BTW, it is nowadays known that DNA isn't the only mechanism by which information is transmitted from generation to generation. Many bacteria even have the astonishing ability of repairing their genome if some part of it is removed or changed (by genetic engineering, for instance).
Keep in mind that cells are old overoptimized and overengineered things, having billions (!) of years of evolution behind them. This has given rise to many strange and complex mechanisms that are giving the biochemists bad headaches.
I don't know what you mean by "traditional evolutionists" (but I presume you mean the brand who is right, as opposed to the ID nuts). My remark with respect to chance is that, for theoretical purposes, one abstracts chaotic (but largely deterministic) input as chance.
For thousands of years people have tried to disprove the existence of god. They all have failed. There is not a shred of usable evidence. Nothing.
A claim of existence needs proof. A claim of non-existence needs alternative explanaitions for the phenomenon atributed to the existence. If no phenomenon is associated with existence, it is fair to assume no existence. Otherwise you would have to assume the existence of any imaginary being whatsoever, as there is not much evidence against them either.
In so far as the existence of god is concerned (an exceedingly excentric claim, unless you are used to it being traded for a fact), science is full to the rim with evidence against it. And simple reality too: unless your "god of infinite love and compassion" is in the habit of sending huge tsunamis that shred hundreds of inocent and faithful children.
If you want to do violence to your brain, forcefully believing (that is what is usually called faith) in the existence of an all-powerfull, human-like architect of the universe that listens to prayers, go ahead. It is your brain.
Theres no reason to believe that genetically modified organisms might go on to evolve
I wonder here you get that from. A genetically modified (by humans, I think you mean) organism is subject to the same forces of natural selection and mutation as any other organism.
I see no god here. I am just throwing it out there as a possibiliIty that might even be testable, nothing more.
For thousands of years people have tried to prove the existence of god. They all have failed. There is not a shred of usable evidence. Nothing.
It gets dismissed out-of-hand nowadays mostly because it has been refuted over and over for almost two centuries (evolution is an old body of theory). For driving evolution, only natural selection is necessary. There is no randomness involved beyond that which comes from chaotic processes (and perhaps beyond that which comes from quantum fluctuations) which, as a modeling variable, is called chance but is not.
There is overwhelming evidence, however, for the fact that those insisting in intelligent design badly want and need to believe in god. They just are unable to accept any alternative explanation, as that would leave them stranded in an ocean of insecurity, guilt, and despair.
Moreover, the religious discourse of those who insist in intelligent design keeps repeating the ages old axiom that truth requires you believe, and that disbelieving certain facts is a sin that will be punished. People who hold that axiom (and that include phicisits who believe in god) will always be dubious scientists, twisting facts here and there in the name of "god".
Beyond that, I find it funny that when confronted with evolution, which is a simple and understandable mechanism which can be watched in action even in a computer, proponents of ID say "this is hard to believe". Instead, the bible with all its miracles and baroque medievalisms is for them the most plausible thing of all.
Last time I used it I easily got hundreds of lines of errors from the simplest error
I think this is more a fault of the language than a fault of the compiler. The syntax of C++ is one or two orders of magnitude too complex. You would need almost strong AI to produce sensible error messages.
This becomes particularilly "funny" when you try to teach C++ to full novices (FTR: I was following orders!). After a few days, the novices develop a tendency of not even looking at the error messages any more. The garble is pretty intimidating to them, and the compilers don't even get the line of the error right more than half of the time.
A german police chief was asked on TV the day of the London bombings what extra measures should be taken.
He said: "None. The measures are effective as they can be; we cannot avoid all terrorist attacks just as we cannot avoid all crime." I was impressed, really. Intelligent man.
There is a point of diminishing returns for everything.
Not quite.
As a matter of fact, they are illegal, and thus they get regularily thrown out of court. The PO grants them nonetheless, which comes to show that the POs do not care much for laws at all.
The whole patent system is in dire need of reform.
This is an important observation. Inside of each country, democracy still functions closer to how it is supposed to work. This crap would have never flown in germany, for instance.
I have started to have the impression that this is one of the reasons the EU was invented. To circumvent that dreadfull democracy that didn't give the elites what they wanted as often as they pleased.
RTFA. In the article blame is spread to the equivalent of the emperor and hist state.
Yes: the web client of mail.yahoo.com. It adds a "View contact details" if it is in your addres book, or an "add to address book" if it is not.
Just in case: Norway is not part of the european union.
That would be still too much money for such a crappy idea. It is far too simple. Now every time I put glue on a piece of paper I have to pay the guy royalty??
Ah, and... fun fact of the day:
xedit now is extendable through its embeded extension language: a lisp dialect pretty close to common lisp.