I am aware of that list. The operating system itself is not on that list, specifically the kernel as well. Consider that OpenDarwin shut down for the express reason that they couldn't get the code off Apple, I don't see what you are talking about.
Ever thought that maybe Evolution is the ground rules for things and with Creation, you've got little (or big shoves) in changes a' la animal/plant husbandry or genetic engineering?
You appear to be saying that what if your God just dabs his hand in the odd bit to muddle around with things. That's unfalsifiable, unnecessary, and special pleading.
Neither theory is correct (seriously) or even remotely close to "complete" because there's gaps, peices which don't "work" within the framework of the theory- or "and a miracle happens" like the cartoon where the proof has that in it.
I think someone has been drinking too much of the creationist kool aid. You seem to have elevated creationism to a theory, and then made some assertions from nowhere about evolution (possibly you are about to make the fallacious "missing links" argument). Then you appear to say evolution is wrong for no apparent reason.
For the same reason that governments and companies divide themselves into departments and increasingly finer subdivisions thereof. This does nothing to diminish the fact that the constituent parts work only for the whole any more than the fact that an human can be separated into organs, then into cells, then into atoms does to diminish the fact that a person it is much more than a lump of matter. Forest for the trees, almost literally here.
This is empty sophistry, much like a degree in the Humanities eh? There is no argument in there, and it is ignorant of how universities and departments actually operate.
A bunch of drone engineers who know only how to operate a slide rule, and with very little expose to creative endeavor more complex and deep than reality TV will not be good engineers. Period. It doesn't matter how much they are pushed, without an enthusiasm to understand the beauty in the world, whatever they make will be crap. *cough*china*cough*.
You act as though the humanities are the source of creativity, and you appear to express a stereotype that a technical course only has drone like work; You are claiming engineers and scientists lack "an enthusiasm to understand the beauty in the world" and are some sort of drones if they don't study the Humanities. Followed by some apparent racism.
Besides that, with nothing to ponder but questions about coulombs and diff-eq, burn out will be fast. I go so far as to hypothesis that having the brain operate in a different section a few times a semester will not is not only a good thing, but that being stuck in a little bubble, studying the same thing for 14 hours a day, every day, is actively harmful.
Your fourth paragraph is just nonsense. The less said the better.
I think you are underestimating the average high school educated person with a sweeping generalisation. The average high school student is not a club-wielding troglodyte.
You are mistaken if you think universities are organised solely so that people of completely different disciplines can interact. Maybe that was true to an extent in the 13th century, but it sure isn't now. Why do you think that universities are arranged into schools and departments around specific expertise? It is so that relevant experts can be gathered together.
Undergraduate students go to university to pick up expertise in fairly narrow and specific topic areas. If you want to become a jack of all trades stick to high-school.
You aren't doing a degree in engineering to learn about "history, religion, literature, psychology", so yes if it takes away from your engineering subjects it is a bad thing.
Yes, someone who thinks science professors say things like "This is how things are" and expects science students to just accept it, have never been a university science undergraduate. It's more like the professor suggests something then everyone questions the idea if it's not apparent where it came from.
It's a little naive that you think they would need the resolution of a thunderstorm to factor thunderstorms into their equations. (you appear to think they are doing meteorology rather than climatology). The IPCC report indicates they already factor in uncertainties about clouds etc.
Most people are not qualified to look at and understand the climate scientists arguments and evaluate them. For the average scientifically illiterate Joe it really is better to just rely on the consensus, just as they do for any scientific topic.
The language of physics is math, and to get a handle on quantum mechanics you need math and lots of it. Unfortunately the general population is mostly mathematically illiterate (along with many slashdot readers), so quantum mechanics will always be meaningless to them.
and thus your initial reasoning (about it being the kernel and thus the name of the OS) is nonsensical and what it is really about for you is "It's called Linux because most call it Linux".
Slashdot Mirror
I am aware of that list. The operating system itself is not on that list, specifically the kernel as well. Consider that OpenDarwin shut down for the express reason that they couldn't get the code off Apple, I don't see what you are talking about.
No it isn't open source. They haven't released their code in a long long time.
Is this a new variation to the Schrodinger's cat problem?
The "test" was already done in Japan which stopped the jabs years ago. It made no difference to autism rates.
If you copy the code for your own use without distribution you have infringed the copyright. Distribution does not even come into it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI Where is your dowsing God now.
Not all evidence is about visually seeing things happening. Do you deny quantum mechanics because you can't see it directly?
You appear to be saying that what if your God just dabs his hand in the odd bit to muddle around with things. That's unfalsifiable, unnecessary, and special pleading.
I think someone has been drinking too much of the creationist kool aid. You seem to have elevated creationism to a theory, and then made some assertions from nowhere about evolution (possibly you are about to make the fallacious "missing links" argument). Then you appear to say evolution is wrong for no apparent reason.
This is empty sophistry, much like a degree in the Humanities eh? There is no argument in there, and it is ignorant of how universities and departments actually operate.
You act as though the humanities are the source of creativity, and you appear to express a stereotype that a technical course only has drone like work; You are claiming engineers and scientists lack "an enthusiasm to understand the beauty in the world" and are some sort of drones if they don't study the Humanities. Followed by some apparent racism.
Your fourth paragraph is just nonsense. The less said the better.
I think you are underestimating the average high school educated person with a sweeping generalisation. The average high school student is not a club-wielding troglodyte.
You are mistaken if you think universities are organised solely so that people of completely different disciplines can interact. Maybe that was true to an extent in the 13th century, but it sure isn't now. Why do you think that universities are arranged into schools and departments around specific expertise? It is so that relevant experts can be gathered together.
Undergraduate students go to university to pick up expertise in fairly narrow and specific topic areas. If you want to become a jack of all trades stick to high-school.
You aren't doing a degree in engineering to learn about "history, religion, literature, psychology", so yes if it takes away from your engineering subjects it is a bad thing.
Yes, someone who thinks science professors say things like "This is how things are" and expects science students to just accept it, have never been a university science undergraduate.
It's more like the professor suggests something then everyone questions the idea if it's not apparent where it came from.
Example of strikes outside Afghanistan/Pakistan: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/somalia-drones/all/
It's a little naive that you think they would need the resolution of a thunderstorm to factor thunderstorms into their equations. (you appear to think they are doing meteorology rather than climatology). The IPCC report indicates they already factor in uncertainties about clouds etc.
Most people are not qualified to look at and understand the climate scientists arguments and evaluate them. For the average scientifically illiterate Joe it really is better to just rely on the consensus, just as they do for any scientific topic.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
You didn't answer his question. Ignored by whom?
Eh? Foxconn makes products for all the major companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Google etc etc
If I had mod points left this would get all that I could give
You say I put too much faith in peer review, but here you are putting all your faith in denialist blogs
Noise? Wouldn't that just depend on which manufacturer packages the AMD GPU?
The language of physics is math, and to get a handle on quantum mechanics you need math and lots of it. Unfortunately the general population is mostly mathematically illiterate (along with many slashdot readers), so quantum mechanics will always be meaningless to them.
Or perhaps complex fields require complex terminology, but I guess that doesn't fit with the "Scientists make it look hard to fool us" type viewpoint.
and thus your initial reasoning (about it being the kernel and thus the name of the OS) is nonsensical and what it is really about for you is "It's called Linux because most call it Linux".