Well, in their latest offerings, Windows Explorer and IE are totally separate. If you type an http address into windows explorer, it brings up IE in a separate window and vice versa for file:// addresses.
In 95 it definitely wasn't 'integrated' and now it is no longer integrated. So, the integration seems rather timely to me if you are trying to avoid antitrust allegations (in the heat of the battle with Netscape, Sun, et al).
Excellent post. You had me up until the part about no AI being able to know whether god exists or not. I just don't understand how that matters. It is but one of infinitely many pieces of knowledge that is beyond the reach of the reasoning facilities of both human and machine alike, no?
[And, BTW, Godel's refinements to the classical ontological proof of God's existence are quite compelling anyway--so maybe this is not one of the infinitely many pieces of unknowable truths?].
Actually, there is a 'higher intelligence' giving human beings thoughts as you put it (i.e., souls). You don't have to start with this assumption though as the implications of Godel's theorems would lead you to that conclusion if you start with them (and the theorems are pretty rock solid).
Well, technically, that would be 'evolutionary correct'. And what you reductionists seem to fail to see is that murder (homicide) is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged in a purely evolutionary worldview--a worldview that has given humanity such gems as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin.
How do you figure that a straight-up XML API cannot provide premium sections? All I imagine it would take is a sort of authentication mechanism restricting access to the streams (or maybe even fully public/private key encrypted XML streams).
I'm glad you have the balls to stand up to the libs on slashdot. And, I'm quite surprised actually that your post hasn't been modded down into the abyss.
Which name is it that you think I am attempting to spell?
IF it happens to be 'jonathan', then you may like to know that the name in its original language (Hebrew) is pronounced 'yohanatan' and can be spelled in Western languages with a 'j' instead of a 'y'. [I find that the spelling 'johanatan' is much more likely to be an available alias than 'jonathan' or 'yohanatan but YMMV].
Actually, I don't think Goedel proved anything of the sort. He proved rather that not all things are provable [while maintaining consistency] under axiomatic systems of such complexity as to encode elementary algebra. You seem to be confusing undecidability with incompleteness.
Awesome point! I went through a lengthy argument with some mathematicians on here recently about cardinalities of infinite sets (specifically N, Q and the set of all primes). Their proofs of the equalities of these cardinalities (in my [and the finitist] opinion) are based some rather dubious assumptions (although there are subtle distinctions between my position and that of the finitist).
Are you saying Bush has helped wean you off alcohol? Maybe it's because he's been there himself and you feel some sort of mystical connection to the man?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in their latest offerings, Windows Explorer and IE are totally separate. If you type an http address into windows explorer, it brings up IE in a separate window and vice versa for file:// addresses.
In 95 it definitely wasn't 'integrated' and now it is no longer integrated. So, the integration seems rather timely to me if you are trying to avoid antitrust allegations (in the heat of the battle with Netscape, Sun, et al).
Yes, it is. Reality outruns knowledge.
Excellent post. You had me up until the part about no AI being able to know whether god exists or not. I just don't understand how that matters. It is but one of infinitely many pieces of knowledge that is beyond the reach of the reasoning facilities of both human and machine alike, no?
[And, BTW, Godel's refinements to the classical ontological proof of God's existence are quite compelling anyway--so maybe this is not one of the infinitely many pieces of unknowable truths?].
Actually, there is a 'higher intelligence' giving human beings thoughts as you put it (i.e., souls). You don't have to start with this assumption though as the implications of Godel's theorems would lead you to that conclusion if you start with them (and the theorems are pretty rock solid).
It was never really part of the OS. That was merely MS' poor attempt at an excuse to circumvent the antitrust allegations.
has Netcraft confirmed it?
Well, technically, that would be 'evolutionary correct'. And what you reductionists seem to fail to see is that murder (homicide) is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged in a purely evolutionary worldview--a worldview that has given humanity such gems as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin.
You seem to be missing rampant and ubiquitous liberal bias.
Did you mean 3.0 or 3.5? 3.5 has a lot more drastic changes than 3.0 did.
Mod parent up.
Azure is nothing like any Operating System I've ever seen.
But, Lemmings was already a word. And, it isn't a far stretch from there to Lindows!!
Too bad PHB's have no spine, huh?
Looks like you suffered for that one!!
How do you figure that a straight-up XML API cannot provide premium sections? All I imagine it would take is a sort of authentication mechanism restricting access to the streams (or maybe even fully public/private key encrypted XML streams).
That's too funny! /. really needs a 'funny/insightful/ironic/ mod.
I'm glad you have the balls to stand up to the libs on slashdot. And, I'm quite surprised actually that your post hasn't been modded down into the abyss.
Which name is it that you think I am attempting to spell?
IF it happens to be 'jonathan', then you may like to know that the name in its original language (Hebrew) is pronounced 'yohanatan' and can be spelled in Western languages with a 'j' instead of a 'y'. [I find that the spelling 'johanatan' is much more likely to be an available alias than 'jonathan' or 'yohanatan but YMMV].
[And BTW, Obama is a fucking communist].
Actually, I don't think Goedel proved anything of the sort. He proved rather that not all things are provable [while maintaining consistency] under axiomatic systems of such complexity as to encode elementary algebra. You seem to be confusing undecidability with incompleteness.
I know. His answer was definitely more helpful than 'yes'. :-) [Though I think he should've added:
In math, you can prove or disprove a conjecture [based on certain axioms (i.e., assumptions)]
Awesome point! I went through a lengthy argument with some mathematicians on here recently about cardinalities of infinite sets (specifically N, Q and the set of all primes). Their proofs of the equalities of these cardinalities (in my [and the finitist] opinion) are based some rather dubious assumptions (although there are subtle distinctions between my position and that of the finitist).
Well, the be fair, the ones who answered 'yes' gave correct answers too. :-)
I would ask a man who makes a statement such as that to 'prove' it.
Umm... 6 * 12oz > 40oz
:-)
Are you saying Bush has helped wean you off alcohol? Maybe it's because he's been there himself and you feel some sort of mystical connection to the man?
No.