Microsoft did _announce_ Windows 1.0 almost twenty years ago (fall 1983). They shipped no product until nearly a year later. And Windows 1.0 is not at all "pretty much unchanged in over 20 years." For example, overlapping windows was a pretty big change.
Apple had a shipping product in January 1983, the LISA. And anothe shipping product, the Macintosh, which Microsoft had to license in 1985, before Microsoft could come up with a usable product.
In my high school physics class, we calculated how far the planet would recoil if everyone were standing together and jumped.
Surprise #1: give each person a meter square to stnad in, and you can fit the world's population in a surprisingly small space (77 km's per side for a 6 Billion population).
Surprise #2: If everyone jumped half a meter in height, the world would recoil a tenth of the diameter of a proton. It just doesn't care.
By "completely incompatible" you mean "runs seamlessly", right? And saying "X is compatible with classic is the same as saying Linux is compatible with Windows via Wine" implies that Wine runs nearly all Windows apps that don't interact directly with hardware flawlessly. It does, doesn't it?
Occam's razor (heavily summarized) is to make things as simple as they can be, but no simpler.
Newtonian physics wasn't so much debunked as corrected; Einstein's Special and General Relativity _correctly_ account for phenomena that Newton's Laws ignore. And that's not so bad, as nearly all the time v c and the gravitational flux isn't so steep.
If I parse your last paragraph as... accept (the philosophical underpinnings of religion) as a much less complicated means to understand the world than (science and physics using Occam's Razor)...
then I have no quibble. However, the alternative reading... accept (the philosophical underpinnings of religion) as a much less complicated means to understand the world than (science and physics) using Occam's Razor... Then I would have to say you are abusing the Razor and shredding your own credibility.
You are confusing irrationality with provisional assent. Scientitst do not give credence to the process of science and the collected results of that process because they are irrational; they give credence to science because it works. You cannot refute my assertion, becuase in responding to my post, you demonstrate that science can be applied to produce technologies that objectively work.
Stop repeating falsehoods. There is a great deal of evidence of hominid evolution. And even more evidence that evolution is a universal explantion for the history of life on earth.
As a believer in logic, I categorically reject the notion that nothing can be proved. Aside from axioms
In logic, you get to choose your axioms. Some are useful, some are not. In science, there are no axioms. You miss the point that logical, mathematicl proof (absolute and eternal, but contingent on axioms) and scientific proof (conditional until contravening evidence is produced) are two different things.
Richard Feinman said something to the effect that science is the process of making sure we aren't fooled, and the easiest mistake in science is to fool yourself.
In the Peter Popov case, it was relatively easy to show that the voice on the radio was the wife, as the voice had mis-information that the wife was known to have had.
Would a miraculous voice have claimed that Randi (a human male) had ovarian cancer?
My experience is that some organized religions are amassing political power through whatever means necessary, and then using that political power to enrich themselves, and impose their dogma on others. I am especially troubled when said dogma is life-threatening, for example the insistance that condoms do not reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Soon to be part of the U.S. policy.
And the rest of organized religions don't distance themselves from the deceiving, power-mad ones.
The law has no problems with a substance being simultaneously "Generally Regarded As Safe" and "Known Human Carcinogen".
According to the definitions that the court provided, William Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinski. He touched her mouth, which was not how the court defined "sexual intercourse". On the other hand, she did have sex with him.
By your argument, a file that has been encoded in ASCII, EBCDIC, or UniCode is also effectively protected. You need a machine that takes "60" and displays "A".
By your definitions, every computer "does something to the content" to "get around" the encoding. By your definition, everyone on the internet has violated the DMCA, and the authorities may pick and choose who to arrest, prosecute, bankrupt, or jail.
Don't forget the consent decrees that Microsoft signed to avoid prosecution for illegally extending a monopoly, and then promplty weaseled out of. No offense meant to any member of the mustelid family...
Besides, railroads are so much a part of the background american psyche that only the most die-hard unamerican would be for air transport (this must be why Oussama - the penultimate anti-american - has crashed planes instead of trains).
That, and the fact that it's really, really hard to crash a train into a building that isn't right over or next to the tracks.
Could Osama's men have taken over a PATH train, which goes right under the WTC, and made the towers fall down? I don't see how!
C's abstractions aren't leaky. But they're not very good, either. The str functions are inherently broken, and the strn functions so awkward that they are frequently misused, even by their creators.
You only missed your fourth amendment right to not have your home torn apart in a search whenever someone in power decides that it's time to put you back in line.
Or your fifth amendment rights to not be hounded by the prosecution, and tried innumerable times on (possibly the same) bogus charge.
Or your sixth amendment right to be tried promptly, or to face your accusers and their accusations, or be able to call witnesses in your defense, or ask for the assistance of a lawyer.
Did anyone notice that the majority (roughly 1000 of 1400 detainees) of those detained after 9/11 were innocent? And spent months in jail, subject to degrading, abusive treatment, with no representation, and little, if any, contact with the outside world?
And all of this was with no regard to due process?
Slashdot Mirror
Marx's mistake in Das Kapital is in Chapter one, where he equates the value of a good with it's cost (i.e. its labor content).
The mouse was not invented at Xerox PARC; it was invented at SRI.
Those who cannot remember history....
Microsoft did _announce_ Windows 1.0 almost twenty years ago (fall 1983). They shipped no product until nearly a year later. And Windows 1.0 is not at all "pretty much unchanged in over 20 years." For example, overlapping windows was a pretty big change.
Apple had a shipping product in January 1983, the LISA. And anothe shipping product, the Macintosh, which Microsoft had to license in 1985, before Microsoft could come up with a usable product.
In my high school physics class, we calculated how far the planet would recoil if everyone were standing together and jumped.
Surprise #1: give each person a meter square to stnad in, and you can fit the world's population in a surprisingly small space (77 km's per side for a 6 Billion population).
Surprise #2: If everyone jumped half a meter in height, the world would recoil a tenth of the diameter of a proton. It just doesn't care.
By "completely incompatible" you mean "runs seamlessly", right? And saying "X is compatible with classic is the same as saying Linux is compatible with Windows via Wine" implies that Wine runs nearly all Windows apps that don't interact directly with hardware flawlessly. It does, doesn't it?
Or are you simply trolling...
The Apple //e had 140K floppy disks.
The original 13-sector floppy disks for the Apple ][ and ][+ held 113 3/4k
Occam's razor (heavily summarized) is to make things as simple as they can be, but no simpler.
... accept (the philosophical underpinnings of religion) as a much less complicated means to understand the world than (science and physics using Occam's Razor)...
... accept (the philosophical underpinnings of religion) as a much less complicated means to understand the world than (science and physics) using Occam's Razor...
Newtonian physics wasn't so much debunked as corrected; Einstein's Special and General Relativity _correctly_ account for phenomena that Newton's Laws ignore. And that's not so bad, as nearly all the time v c and the gravitational flux isn't so steep.
If I parse your last paragraph as
then I have no quibble. However, the alternative reading
Then I would have to say you are abusing the Razor and shredding your own credibility.
You are confusing irrationality with provisional assent. Scientitst do not give credence to the process of science and the collected results of that process because they are irrational; they give credence to science because it works. You cannot refute my assertion, becuase in responding to my post, you demonstrate that science can be applied to produce technologies that objectively work.
Stop repeating falsehoods. There is a great deal of evidence of hominid evolution. And even more evidence that evolution is a universal explantion for the history of life on earth.
So many errors, so little time.
As a believer in logic, I categorically reject the notion that nothing can be proved. Aside from axioms
In logic, you get to choose your axioms. Some are useful, some are not. In science, there are no axioms. You miss the point that logical, mathematicl proof (absolute and eternal, but contingent on axioms) and scientific proof (conditional until contravening evidence is produced) are two different things.
Richard Feinman said something to the effect that science is the process of making sure we aren't fooled, and the easiest mistake in science is to fool yourself.
In the Peter Popov case, it was relatively easy to show that the voice on the radio was the wife, as the voice had mis-information that the wife was known to have had.
Would a miraculous voice have claimed that Randi (a human male) had ovarian cancer?
Bad example. Water is a polar molecule. Opposite poles of different molecules attract.
A better question would be why like charges repel, and opposite charges attract. But then a physics wise-ass would describe the electroweak theory...
Eventually, all theories boil down to physics, and physics boils down to "we don't know; that's just the best fit with the experimental data".
My experience is that some organized religions are amassing political power through whatever means necessary, and then using that political power to enrich themselves, and impose their dogma on others. I am especially troubled when said dogma is life-threatening, for example the insistance that condoms do not reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Soon to be part of the U.S. policy.
And the rest of organized religions don't distance themselves from the deceiving, power-mad ones.
By reading this post, you have proven the Scientific Method correct.
The law is not common sense.
The law has no problems with a substance being simultaneously "Generally Regarded As Safe" and "Known Human Carcinogen".
According to the definitions that the court provided, William Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinski. He touched her mouth, which was not how the court defined "sexual intercourse". On the other hand, she did have sex with him.
How is the ROT-13 decode table any different from the ASCII decode table?
If you cannot show a material difference, then your case that the meaning of "effictive" is clear falls apart.
By your argument, a file that has been encoded in ASCII, EBCDIC, or UniCode is also effectively protected. You need a machine that takes "60" and displays "A".
By your definitions, every computer "does something to the content" to "get around" the encoding. By your definition, everyone on the internet has violated the DMCA, and the authorities may pick and choose who to arrest, prosecute, bankrupt, or jail.
Reverse-engineered? Or licensed?
Don't forget the consent decrees that Microsoft signed to avoid prosecution for illegally extending a monopoly, and then promplty weaseled out of. No offense meant to any member of the mustelid family...
But this solution is more expensive than the Apple hardware!
$495 is for MoBo and Processor. Add HD, Optical storage, video board, monitor, RAM, keyboard, and speakers, and you're the $799 iMac territory (which includes 600MHz PowerPC G3, 128MB SDRAM, 40GB Ultra ATA drive, Rage 128 graphics, 15" monitor, CD-ROM Drive, 10/100BASE-T Ethernet, 56K internal modem, optical mouse, quality keyboard, speakers, AppleWorks, iTunes, iMovie, and iPhoto.)
Could Osama's men have taken over a PATH train, which goes right under the WTC, and made the towers fall down? I don't see how!
C's abstractions aren't leaky. But they're not very good, either. The str functions are inherently broken, and the strn functions so awkward that they are frequently misused, even by their creators.
You only missed your fourth amendment right to not have your home torn apart in a search whenever someone in power decides that it's time to put you back in line.
Or your fifth amendment rights to not be hounded by the prosecution, and tried innumerable times on (possibly the same) bogus charge.
Or your sixth amendment right to be tried promptly, or to face your accusers and their accusations, or be able to call witnesses in your defense, or ask for the assistance of a lawyer.
Or your seventh and eighth amendment rights.
Did anyone notice that the majority (roughly 1000 of 1400 detainees) of those detained after 9/11 were innocent? And spent months in jail, subject to degrading, abusive treatment, with no representation, and little, if any, contact with the outside world?
And all of this was with no regard to due process?
Is anyone else bothered by that?