You're the one complaining about problems with Yahoo as a corporate email provider. If you had said you had no problems with it, it might have been a dumb ass question.
Do you at least have a real domain? Or does everyone have a @yahoo.com email address?
Only wackos and flakes think the USA or Japan has an overpopulation problem.
Overpopulation is about the Earth as a whole, not any particular high density area. Although high density does lend itself to problems with pollution and disease.
The population density in Japan is greater than just about anywhere, and yet they have none of the problems attributed to overpopulation.
As long as you don't mind being packed in with your neighbors like sardines.
Note that the population density of Japan is not supported by Japan's own land. They import almost all of their natural resources as well as much labor. The world simply could not support too many "Japans."
They're not cheap-asses. They're incompetent. It usually doesn't cost anything to have your ISP do MX backup for you. You just have to set it up. Of course, that can cause the problems with SPAM filtering if you use RBLs to reject client connections because spammers often send to the secondary MX first in hopes to circumvent IP blacklists. Unless, of course, you don't rely on immediate connection rejection and use something like SpamAssassin which checks the whole header for blacklisted IPs. But I digress...
I don't usually go past page 3. Not because I am lazy or have a short attention span. I just find that after 3 pages, the information is hardly relevent and I try different search terms. Although I can't say I use it to determine "top brands" as I'm usually searching for some kind of tech solution or documentation or something like that. Who Googles stuff like "shoes" or "harddrive" or something generic like that? Those kinds of searches are for specific shopping sites. And then, one is often searching for a specific price range or similar.
What's the big deal? Should people be looking past page 3?
As for Aero's other graphical nicities, well it's hard to say. Everybody here claims they don't want to waste the resources etc, but everybody gets all giggly and bouncy when there's new OSX or KDE screenshots.
There is still something novel about a fancy graphical desktop that wastes tons of resources on eyecandy. But usually that wears off and people realize that they just want something that Works. I think OSX (Aqua) is a bit of an exception here because Apple has managed to find just the right balance betweeen functionality and eyecandy. At least for its target niche. It helps that the Mac user base, in general, appreciates eye candy as a little more than just a novelty. Aero, I predict, will be just a little over-the-top for most business users. First of all, they're nto going to want to pay so much extra money just to get graphics hardware capable of displaying Aero...
My problem with requiring signed drivers is that you won't be able to run "beta" versions of drivers to potentially fix problems with the release version. I've had to do this on more than one occasion and I'm not even a regular Windows user. Drivers aren't signed until they are tested and certified by Microsoft, right?
People? I thought we were discussing computing platforms? However, upon reflection some people are indeed tools... but that's far from my former analogy.
Yeah, people. Specifically people of the opposite sex. You said limiting your scope to one platform would be like getting married. You also implied that you like what you do with people more than you like the people themselves. Go back and reread your analogy and think about its implications. This was about computing platforms, but your analogy made it about people too. Just as my analogy made it about careers.
I agree somewhat with what you say, I also use a Mac in addition to a PC. I do love what I do, much more than what I do it on... To limit my scope to one platform would be like, getting married when there still so many faces to see.
There is something rather disturbing about this analogy. You seem to be suggesting (consciously or not) that you enjoy what you do with people more than you enjoy the people themselves. Are people just tools to you as well? Or did i just take the analogy too far?
But then I see computers as tools not lifestyles...
I think Mac users just really like using their computers compared to your average PC user. It is like people who really enjoy their job/career compared people who are just in it for a paycheck. It isn't so much that the people who like their jobs consider it a "lifestyle." They just really like their jobs and accept it as part of who they are. Any why not? If you are spending 8+ hours a day doing something, it really is part of who you are... whether you like it or not.
Maybe this is astroturf, but I am a very tech savvy individual and have hardly any knowledge of Windows or experience using it. And I love it.
You love Windows or you love having hardly any knowledge of it? If you love Windows, why don't you use it more? Getting to know it is really the only way to turn that love into disgust. Especially if you are a long time Mac user. I know this is the beginning of a flame war, but Windows has to be one of the most fucked up OS's under the hood that I have used in a long time (along with Netware). Between the aweful file naming (8.3-only file names in 2006?? WTF?) and the total lack of logical organization of system files, it is total mess. I sometimes wonder if MS runs every new OS through a special obfuscation program before it ships.
Actually, VMWare is nearly ideal for testing because it is trivial to maintain multiple configurations and reset them back to "pristine" or not so pristine (depending on what kind of system you're trying to test) state to test again. Also, it seems to me that a company the size of Novell would have labs for testing. I doubt that the developers' desktops are the final stage of software testing.
I can't imagine why they would even want to dual boot if they could run something like VMWare and just virtualize Windows. Rebooting just to run a piece of software seems a little odd, unless it is a game that doesn't run well in VMWare. Something is fishy about this claim, methinks.
Makes me feel good about the (small) ISP I worked for. We used to cut off service at the first sign of infection or trojan activity. Then we'd call the user up and tell them that they needed to clean their computer up before their service would be turned back on. The still had access to download some free tools, of course.
It wasn't completely altruistic. The way our network was set up, an infected user could cause problems for a lot of other customer. So it was in our interest to nip that kind of thing in the bud.
Despite the Mono associations, Novell relies quite a bit on Java. ConsoleOne, Groupwise client (Mac/Linux), many OES services, etc. Although I'd love to see some of these Java apps converted to Mono (w/GTK#).
They're not targeting a specific theory. They're stating that it's impossible for it to happen by chance. This is agnostic to the opposing theory. 'Chance' is not 'macroevolution'.
Actually, I think most serious ID "theorists" avoid saying "impossible." Most just say "highly improbable." Because, tehcnically, there is always a chance that molecules will find themselves aranged in a given order unless there is a thermodynamic law, for example, that would prevent it. Of course, nobody is proposing that molecules arrange themselves completely randomly to make organisms, so it is a moot point.
Note also that there are theories in quantum field theory which are similar, which say "no analytical solution of X is possible". Now, in those cases, it's possible to understand them perturbatively, but it's still a negative claim.
Ok, but keep in mind that, at some point, mathematics and empirical reality diverge. Math and science don't always follow the same rules. While mathematical models are useful to science, they are only models.
Note the by chance part. If the researcher's actions consist of setting up an experiment that has a strong statistical likelihood of occurring randomly in nature, then it's by chance, and the researcher is immaterial to the experiment.
Note that ID researchers aren't doing such experiements.
The researcher is never immaterial. There are always contraints on how well we can simulate natural events. Experiments are always subject to criticism in their *design* (keyword). The inability of a particular researcher to recreate a supposedly natural event only reflects on that researchers abilities, not the likelyhood of the event in nature. ID amounts to nothing more than mere incredulity. The most they can say is that evolution (or any non-designer oriented theory) is unlikely. They can't say it is impossible unless, like I said, there is some established natural law that would be violated. And only the most ignorant Creationist would try to rehash the old 2LoT arguments against evolution.
Evaluating the 'statistical likelihood of something occurring randomly in nature' is often claimed in ID talks, and it's almost always wrong because they just throw around random numbers that have no statistical basis, and we have no idea the number of trials the Universe has gone through.
Exactly. A case of mathematical models diverging from reality, and by extension, science.
Lets say you have to physicists and one has a an about how particle decay works and the other has an idea that the first physicist's theory is wrong or can't happen. Guess which one has the theory and which one merely objects to that theory.
Ugh, bad editting. That should read "you have two physicists and one has an idea about"
Yes, it does. To pull out an example (that isn't used, but still), ID might say "blood clotting is so complex it could never have arisen from chance." Which is predicting that it is impossible to generate the blood clotting mechanism by chance.
Uh, no. It is a statement. A negative statement about another theory. Not only does it not predict anything, but it doesn' teven make a positive claim of its own.
What if Einstein spent his whole career simply finding new ways to state that Newton was wrong intead of developing the theory of Relativity? WHat if his "prediction" was this: "Bodies moving at high velocity are so complex that Newtonian mechanics can't explain it." Of course, he would have been right, but being right doesn't mean you have a theory of your own. Instead of leaving it like that, Einstein went on to make HIS OWN predictions about the motion of bodies at high (relative) speeds. See the difference?
If a researcher goes into a lab, and is unable to generate the blood clotting mechanism by chance, that supports that prediction. If, however, he is, then that falsifies it.
Ah, but if a researcher can produce blood clotting, that would only show that an intelligent designer (researcher) can produce blood clotting.
This is a theory. There are comparable theories in science: the explanation of certain particle decays, for instance, predict that certain decay paths should never be seen. They aren't. Which lends support to them.
No, decay theory predicts that decay happens a certain way (a positive claim). A side effect of that prediction is that it can't happen any other way, but that isn't the main prediction.
Lets say you have to physicists and one has a an about how particle decay works and the other has an idea that the first physicist's theory is wrong or can't happen. Guess which one has the theory and which one merely objects to that theory.
Nono - they're saying "our theory is that all theories which involve chance evolution are wrong." This is a much stronger statement.
Strong or not, it isn't really theory. Not in a scientific sense.
Actually, what's often overlooked is that the intelligent design arguments are providing testable and predictable theories.
Merely stating that another theory is wrong (or coudln't happen) is not a theory. ID doesn't predict anytihng. A valid prediction for ID would be something along the lines of finding tools left by a designer such as the remains of a 65 million year old genetics lab. And then, as an ID theorist, you would set out to find such remains in hopes of validating your theory that an intelligent designer is responsible for life as we know it. But guess what? There are no such predictions because ID, as a rule, does not make any positive claims of its own other than "we detect design." No dates. No names. No mechanisms. No predictions. No theory.
That's a falsifiable statement.
A falsifiable "statement," perhaps. But not a theory. They're basically saying "Our theory is that your theory is wrong." And that is just stupid and childish.
To simplify: All Creationists are religious. But not all religious people are Creationists. Similarly, practically all IDists are religious, but not all IDists are Creationists and can therefore accept evolution.
You said most just happen to be creationists. As if it was a coincidence. Maybe you can name some people who believe in ID but who aren't Creationists; I can't imagine how an intelligent person could believe in ID unless religion was behind it. And that's basically what judges have found whenever it has come to court.
Ok, so now you have switched from Creationism is behind it to just "religion." I never said ID was good (or any) science. Just that it isn't necessarily related to (young Earth) Creationism.
Slashdot Mirror
You're the one complaining about problems with Yahoo as a corporate email provider. If you had said you had no problems with it, it might have been a dumb ass question.
Do you at least have a real domain? Or does everyone have a @yahoo.com email address?
-matthew
And who do you think supports those stupid evil governments? US corporations which need cheap labor.
-matthew
Only wackos and flakes think the USA or Japan has an overpopulation problem.
Overpopulation is about the Earth as a whole, not any particular high density area. Although high density does lend itself to problems with pollution and disease.
The population density in Japan is greater than just about anywhere, and yet they have none of the problems attributed to overpopulation.
As long as you don't mind being packed in with your neighbors like sardines.
Note that the population density of Japan is not supported by Japan's own land. They import almost all of their natural resources as well as much labor. The world simply could not support too many "Japans."
-matthew
Actually, it makes the problem worse. You're basically taking a glass that is already nearly full and pouring the contents into a smaller glass.
-matthew
What kind of company uses Yahoo for corporate email??
They're not cheap-asses. They're incompetent. It usually doesn't cost anything to have your ISP do MX backup for you. You just have to set it up. Of course, that can cause the problems with SPAM filtering if you use RBLs to reject client connections because spammers often send to the secondary MX first in hopes to circumvent IP blacklists. Unless, of course, you don't rely on immediate connection rejection and use something like SpamAssassin which checks the whole header for blacklisted IPs. But I digress...
-matthew
I don't usually go past page 3. Not because I am lazy or have a short attention span. I just find that after 3 pages, the information is hardly relevent and I try different search terms. Although I can't say I use it to determine "top brands" as I'm usually searching for some kind of tech solution or documentation or something like that. Who Googles stuff like "shoes" or "harddrive" or something generic like that? Those kinds of searches are for specific shopping sites. And then, one is often searching for a specific price range or similar.
What's the big deal? Should people be looking past page 3?
-matthew
As for Aero's other graphical nicities, well it's hard to say. Everybody here claims they don't want to waste the resources etc, but everybody gets all giggly and bouncy when there's new OSX or KDE screenshots.
There is still something novel about a fancy graphical desktop that wastes tons of resources on eyecandy. But usually that wears off and people realize that they just want something that Works. I think OSX (Aqua) is a bit of an exception here because Apple has managed to find just the right balance betweeen functionality and eyecandy. At least for its target niche. It helps that the Mac user base, in general, appreciates eye candy as a little more than just a novelty. Aero, I predict, will be just a little over-the-top for most business users. First of all, they're nto going to want to pay so much extra money just to get graphics hardware capable of displaying Aero...
-matthew
My problem with requiring signed drivers is that you won't be able to run "beta" versions of drivers to potentially fix problems with the release version. I've had to do this on more than one occasion and I'm not even a regular Windows user. Drivers aren't signed until they are tested and certified by Microsoft, right?
-matthew
People? I thought we were discussing computing platforms? However, upon reflection some people are indeed tools... but that's far from my former analogy.
Yeah, people. Specifically people of the opposite sex. You said limiting your scope to one platform would be like getting married. You also implied that you like what you do with people more than you like the people themselves. Go back and reread your analogy and think about its implications. This was about computing platforms, but your analogy made it about people too. Just as my analogy made it about careers.
Are computers just tools?
Are people just things you do stuff with (sex?)?
Are jobs just for paychecks?
These are important questions, IMO.
-matthew
I agree somewhat with what you say, I also use a Mac in addition to a PC. I do love what I do, much more than what I do it on... To limit my scope to one platform would be like, getting married when there still so many faces to see.
There is something rather disturbing about this analogy. You seem to be suggesting (consciously or not) that you enjoy what you do with people more than you enjoy the people themselves. Are people just tools to you as well? Or did i just take the analogy too far?
-matthew
But then I see computers as tools not lifestyles...
I think Mac users just really like using their computers compared to your average PC user. It is like people who really enjoy their job/career compared people who are just in it for a paycheck. It isn't so much that the people who like their jobs consider it a "lifestyle." They just really like their jobs and accept it as part of who they are. Any why not? If you are spending 8+ hours a day doing something, it really is part of who you are... whether you like it or not.
-matthew
Maybe this is astroturf, but I am a very tech savvy individual and have hardly any knowledge of Windows or experience using it. And I love it.
You love Windows or you love having hardly any knowledge of it? If you love Windows, why don't you use it more? Getting to know it is really the only way to turn that love into disgust. Especially if you are a long time Mac user. I know this is the beginning of a flame war, but Windows has to be one of the most fucked up OS's under the hood that I have used in a long time (along with Netware). Between the aweful file naming (8.3-only file names in 2006?? WTF?) and the total lack of logical organization of system files, it is total mess. I sometimes wonder if MS runs every new OS through a special obfuscation program before it ships.
-matthew
Now THAT I can understand. ;-)
Actually, VMWare is nearly ideal for testing because it is trivial to maintain multiple configurations and reset them back to "pristine" or not so pristine (depending on what kind of system you're trying to test) state to test again. Also, it seems to me that a company the size of Novell would have labs for testing. I doubt that the developers' desktops are the final stage of software testing.
-matthew
I can't imagine why they would even want to dual boot if they could run something like VMWare and just virtualize Windows. Rebooting just to run a piece of software seems a little odd, unless it is a game that doesn't run well in VMWare. Something is fishy about this claim, methinks.
-matthew
Makes me feel good about the (small) ISP I worked for. We used to cut off service at the first sign of infection or trojan activity. Then we'd call the user up and tell them that they needed to clean their computer up before their service would be turned back on. The still had access to download some free tools, of course.
It wasn't completely altruistic. The way our network was set up, an infected user could cause problems for a lot of other customer. So it was in our interest to nip that kind of thing in the bud.
-matthew
Despite the Mono associations, Novell relies quite a bit on Java. ConsoleOne, Groupwise client (Mac/Linux), many OES services, etc. Although I'd love to see some of these Java apps converted to Mono (w /GTK#).
-matthew
They're not targeting a specific theory. They're stating that it's impossible for it to happen by chance. This is agnostic to the opposing theory. 'Chance' is not 'macroevolution'.
Actually, I think most serious ID "theorists" avoid saying "impossible." Most just say "highly improbable." Because, tehcnically, there is always a chance that molecules will find themselves aranged in a given order unless there is a thermodynamic law, for example, that would prevent it. Of course, nobody is proposing that molecules arrange themselves completely randomly to make organisms, so it is a moot point.
Note also that there are theories in quantum field theory which are similar, which say "no analytical solution of X is possible". Now, in those cases, it's possible to understand them perturbatively, but it's still a negative claim.
Ok, but keep in mind that, at some point, mathematics and empirical reality diverge. Math and science don't always follow the same rules. While mathematical models are useful to science, they are only models.
Note the by chance part. If the researcher's actions consist of setting up an experiment that has a strong statistical likelihood of occurring randomly in nature, then it's by chance, and the researcher is immaterial to the experiment.
Note that ID researchers aren't doing such experiements.
The researcher is never immaterial. There are always contraints on how well we can simulate natural events. Experiments are always subject to criticism in their *design* (keyword). The inability of a particular researcher to recreate a supposedly natural event only reflects on that researchers abilities, not the likelyhood of the event in nature. ID amounts to nothing more than mere incredulity. The most they can say is that evolution (or any non-designer oriented theory) is unlikely. They can't say it is impossible unless, like I said, there is some established natural law that would be violated. And only the most ignorant Creationist would try to rehash the old 2LoT arguments against evolution.
Evaluating the 'statistical likelihood of something occurring randomly in nature' is often claimed in ID talks, and it's almost always wrong because they just throw around random numbers that have no statistical basis, and we have no idea the number of trials the Universe has gone through.
Exactly. A case of mathematical models diverging from reality, and by extension, science.
-matthew
Lets say you have to physicists and one has a an about how particle decay works and the other has an idea that the first physicist's theory is wrong or can't happen. Guess which one has the theory and which one merely objects to that theory.
Ugh, bad editting. That should read "you have two physicists and one has an idea about"
-matthew
Yes, it does. To pull out an example (that isn't used, but still), ID might say "blood clotting is so complex it could never have arisen from chance." Which is predicting that it is impossible to generate the blood clotting mechanism by chance.
Uh, no. It is a statement. A negative statement about another theory. Not only does it not predict anything, but it doesn' teven make a positive claim of its own.
What if Einstein spent his whole career simply finding new ways to state that Newton was wrong intead of developing the theory of Relativity? WHat if his "prediction" was this: "Bodies moving at high velocity are so complex that Newtonian mechanics can't explain it." Of course, he would have been right, but being right doesn't mean you have a theory of your own. Instead of leaving it like that, Einstein went on to make HIS OWN predictions about the motion of bodies at high (relative) speeds. See the difference?
If a researcher goes into a lab, and is unable to generate the blood clotting mechanism by chance, that supports that prediction. If, however, he is, then that falsifies it.
Ah, but if a researcher can produce blood clotting, that would only show that an intelligent designer (researcher) can produce blood clotting.
This is a theory. There are comparable theories in science: the explanation of certain particle decays, for instance, predict that certain decay paths should never be seen. They aren't. Which lends support to them.
No, decay theory predicts that decay happens a certain way (a positive claim). A side effect of that prediction is that it can't happen any other way, but that isn't the main prediction.
Lets say you have to physicists and one has a an about how particle decay works and the other has an idea that the first physicist's theory is wrong or can't happen. Guess which one has the theory and which one merely objects to that theory.
Nono - they're saying "our theory is that all theories which involve chance evolution are wrong." This is a much stronger statement.
Strong or not, it isn't really theory. Not in a scientific sense.
-matthew
Actually, what's often overlooked is that the intelligent design arguments are providing testable and predictable theories.
Merely stating that another theory is wrong (or coudln't happen) is not a theory. ID doesn't predict anytihng. A valid prediction for ID would be something along the lines of finding tools left by a designer such as the remains of a 65 million year old genetics lab. And then, as an ID theorist, you would set out to find such remains in hopes of validating your theory that an intelligent designer is responsible for life as we know it. But guess what? There are no such predictions because ID, as a rule, does not make any positive claims of its own other than "we detect design." No dates. No names. No mechanisms. No predictions. No theory.
That's a falsifiable statement.
A falsifiable "statement," perhaps. But not a theory. They're basically saying "Our theory is that your theory is wrong." And that is just stupid and childish.
-matthew
To simplify: All Creationists are religious. But not all religious people are Creationists. Similarly, practically all IDists are religious, but not all IDists are Creationists and can therefore accept evolution.
-matthew
And your point is?
-matthew