It seems that would apply to IMs and email, as well. Carried to its logical conclusion, teachers would be prohibited from any electronic communication at all that allows for privacy.
Are you kidding? That makes MORE sense than any other religious explanation. It doesn't require magic and talking snakes, it doesn't require a great spirit, or a limitless nothing that becomes something, but only as an illusion so really it's always nothing but mind confuses us into believing it's something so we need to meditate more, or any other obvious nonsense. Just things that are possible doing things that are possible...I can get behind this idea.
However, I must be allowed to stick with my Church of the Justice League, Church of Star Trek, and Church of Mr. Feeny affiliations. BSGism can't demand unique fealty.
See, I read the book, too, and that's not what it says. But I can see how, in the face of all the evidence and the science of the last century, a reinterpretation like that makes you feel better about things.
So wait...we're supposed to respect your choices and their results, and therefore respect and wish to emulate you, thus making your condescension about "toys" and "scripting abilities" have bite?
Does it occur to you that there is another possibility...that you screwed up, made a lot of poor decisions, and now justify them to yourself in terms of "growing up"? That it was your party that ended, not the party?
And while I'm not really a religious person myself, I have to recognize that faith has been an important part of the lives of many, many, many people since the birth of this nation (and obviously long before that). The Republican party did not ally itself with the "bible-thumpers". The Republican party is the most logical place for them. Your words are tinged with disdain, and that's your prerogative, but try and understand history before you come off spouting about the "bible-thumpers" as if religious people have not been around since the beginning, and as if they don't deserve a place in modern society and a say in government.
The problem with that is which religion gets to have its say? All of them? Just the Christians? On what grounds? What happens when the doctrines of one directly contradicts another? What happens when the tenets of one (or more) claim that they are the only legitimate religion? Do we go along with them? Do we go along with them if they aren't Christian? What about the Muslims...shall we let them have their say, too? If not, why not?
Or how about we have the same rules for everyone, the same rules anyone standing trial would want their accuser to have to convict them by...evidence and logic? That way we won't be courting witch trials or stoning women to death for the crime of being raped.
Sorry...it's a bad idea to accommodate the religious because the religious believe unreasonable, irrational, and unevidenced things. That's what makes them religions. When they believe things we all know to be true and reasonable, we call them facts.
So rather than realize your employer is screwing you over and resenting them, you resent those who have successfully organized with their fellow workers in order to bargain for better conditions? What an odd way of looking at things. Why wouldn't you prefer for everyone's conditions to be better, including your own?
Again, what are you arguing for? Appeasement? No. Let the Christians out themselves as what they are when their privilege is taken away and the rules start applying to them, too: terrorists. That's what they've always been. They are only peaceful when they are the privileged class, the majority to such a degree that their status and beliefs are unquestionable. That's how they "converted" Europe, North America, South America, it's what they're doing right now in Africa...with force and fear and exploitation until their rule is complete...then they rewrite history to cast themselves as the good guys, make sure to properly "educate" their children and the children of the "converts", and no one is the wiser.
So I say no. Let us evolve as a species for real and shake the last of the barbarians (of all stripes...the superstitious, the brutes, the corrupt) out of hiding. Let them be jailed according to the laws of the land if they bring "retribution". And go after the rest, too...the warmongers, the economic exploiters, and the psychopaths that help them all do their dirty-work. Then maybe we can get to the business of being a technologically advanced, intelligent species, rather than that of a technologically advanced, intelligent species infiltrated by a parasitic race of cavepeople who have co-opted and exploited civilization since the dawn of time.
So you're saying we should essentially appease the Christians out of fear of what they might do to us if we don't? Isn't that, you know...terrorism? Isn't that sick?
How about we just have a sane, rational society and as the wingnuts shake themselves out of the tree in their rage (therefore committing crimes), we lock their asses up as either criminals or nutcases? It sounds like a good way to clean up the species...actually enforce the rules of civilization equally for everyone, lock up the barbarians who can't play by the rules, and within a couple of generations the problem is finally solved.
Questioning evolutionary theory != arguing for creationism. No scientist is going to argue for creationism because it's not a testable theory (unless you think you can get the hypothetical creator to come down and create on demand). In fact, if creationism is true, science will never be able to have a theory about it; it won't be able to have a theory of miracles, either. Science is a empirical and inductive activity, and miracles (including creation) are not part of the continuity of nature that allows for induction.
This is a bit of an issue in philosophy of science, because science's primary assumption is that the universe is at all times and in all places uniform. The rules have to be the same everywhere and everywhen, essentially. This is all fine and well on Earth and at our scale, but the assumption is unwarranted in remote locations and/or times. It may very well be the case that the laws of physics were different in the distant past, or will be in the future, or are different in various locations in space (this is sometimes called the "Speckled Universe" theory). However, there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the rules being the same on ancient Earth...when I mean "remote" in time I mean remote, as in during the early universe. There are some who say this is what singularities really are, that event horizons are delimiters for sections of time/space that follow different rules. I find that plausible. The thing is that if the Standard Model as it is now is correct, we will never know because we can't ever know. The Big Bang was a singularity and is shielded by an event horizon...our systems of measurement and extrapolation fall apart at singularities, so any theoretical events and rules for those events will always remain purely theoretical.
On the other hand, maybe all of that is wrong and we will be able to extend our chain of inference even into singularities. In any case, creationism is a supernatural theory, while science utilizes what is sometimes called "methodological naturalism". It requires the assumptions of empiricism and inductive inference, which put the supernatural, by definition, outside its domain.
Statistically speaking, it's impossible to avoid a few bad drugs slipping through because of the large amounts of drugs that go through testing and the vast differences in individual human body chemistry. Nonetheless, the safety procedures are still significant and I would rather have them than not have them.
Tesla wasn't exactly an awesome guy to be friends with, himself, but he was absolutely brilliant and his ideas need to be explored and incorporated by modern engineers and theorists.
Oh, come on, don't taunt the Windows user. He's just working out his inferiority issues. Maybe this exposure to a better way will help him mature to a real operating system.
Well, if I have the luxury of reinventing the browser and choosing a new standard, I would vote for Smalltalk (I would say Lisp, but I foresee forcing too many square pegs in round holes to go there). But right now we are stuck with JS or running things through the Java JIT.
Except, you know...all of his points are valid and until we address them Python is the new Perl. Maybe you aren't old enough, Mr. Coward, but I remember when Perl was the new toy and people thought it was the best thing since sliced bread (hell, it would slice the bread for you).
Alright, give me an alternative that does the same thing. I agree...JS is a dirty, problem-inducing (rather than problem solving) language. I just don't know what else I can use to move things around and cause the useful JS effects without a refresh without JS.
Ah, I see where you are coming from. I agree, users != zealots, and your remarks apply to that subset of zealots who are worried about things like replacing Win and so on. I just don't see the point in framing things in those terms (as a battle or war...it's just silly). We are all attempting to use tools, and we should simply use the best tools for our respective goals. For me, what it comes down to is Linux provides a better overall coding/research environment, then OS X because at least there you have macports/homebrew and a *real* shell, then Windows, which I always feel like I am in a battle with just to get it to do what I want. Cygwin never worked well for me, and while I can use Eclipse, EMACS, etc on Win, there are always a million little things you have to do to get the same level of functionality you have in a *nix system.
Oh yeah, the only person I knew who actually used 3.1 was a friend's dad who wanted to play "Dungeon Master". My mom had a Mac Plus when I was in the sixth grade and up, and I had gotten turned off by GUIs by the downright condescending nature of it all. I mean, Mac error messages were FROWNY FACES for Cthulhu's sake! And no sensible BSD back-end to pipe errors to a log, no control, no terminal, etc. I was not impressed. Even as a kid I expected more out of an OS.
How is that logical? Hardware vendors don't generally make the drivers for Linux, the community does. Generally we don't use the proprietary drivers that they do make...because we don't need to. Again, one feature that most people wouldn't care about (I'm sensitive to noise) is what makes me download and use the proprietary drivers for my 3D card. Everything else, including compositing, desktop acceleration, and 3D, works just fine with the open source driver. Windows *requires* me to download drivers to use my hardware, Linux supports almost all of it out of the box. Look at the actual support lists, rather than going on what seems "logical" to you. Perhaps in the first few weeks a piece of hardware is out only the proprietary driver exists, but after that there is Linux support.
If anything, I have generally had less problems with hardware support with Linux, simply because the community will actually support the hardware longer than the month the hardware is brand new (as opposed to Microsoft or the hardware maker).
1. There are DBs and lists of supported hardware for all OSes.
2. Hardware is not "available" for a given OS. OSes support hardware.
3. Run just about whatever you want and it will work under Linux nowadays, and it will work out of the box. On my Intel i7, 8 gig, ATI HD5770 box, under Win7 I need to download and install drivers for my HDD, my sound card, my video card, my keyboard, my webcam, and my mouse. Under Linux...I install Linux. The only drivers I need are video card drivers, and I don't even *need* the video drivers, except automatic fan speed control isn't supported for my card so it runs like I am playing a game all the time with the OSS drivers.
4. The ignorance of people working retail shouldn't make your computing choices.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that would apply to IMs and email, as well. Carried to its logical conclusion, teachers would be prohibited from any electronic communication at all that allows for privacy.
Generally because no one cares. Except the people that do. But they don't matter. :p
Are you kidding? That makes MORE sense than any other religious explanation. It doesn't require magic and talking snakes, it doesn't require a great spirit, or a limitless nothing that becomes something, but only as an illusion so really it's always nothing but mind confuses us into believing it's something so we need to meditate more, or any other obvious nonsense. Just things that are possible doing things that are possible...I can get behind this idea.
However, I must be allowed to stick with my Church of the Justice League, Church of Star Trek, and Church of Mr. Feeny affiliations. BSGism can't demand unique fealty.
It doesn't rule out beings from the 8th dimension, either. Therefore Buckaroo Banzai is the true messiah, it just wasn't mentioned in the Bible!
See, I read the book, too, and that's not what it says. But I can see how, in the face of all the evidence and the science of the last century, a reinterpretation like that makes you feel better about things.
So wait...we're supposed to respect your choices and their results, and therefore respect and wish to emulate you, thus making your condescension about "toys" and "scripting abilities" have bite?
Does it occur to you that there is another possibility...that you screwed up, made a lot of poor decisions, and now justify them to yourself in terms of "growing up"? That it was your party that ended, not the party?
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!
And while I'm not really a religious person myself, I have to recognize that faith has been an important part of the lives of many, many, many people since the birth of this nation (and obviously long before that). The Republican party did not ally itself with the "bible-thumpers". The Republican party is the most logical place for them. Your words are tinged with disdain, and that's your prerogative, but try and understand history before you come off spouting about the "bible-thumpers" as if religious people have not been around since the beginning, and as if they don't deserve a place in modern society and a say in government.
The problem with that is which religion gets to have its say? All of them? Just the Christians? On what grounds? What happens when the doctrines of one directly contradicts another? What happens when the tenets of one (or more) claim that they are the only legitimate religion? Do we go along with them? Do we go along with them if they aren't Christian? What about the Muslims...shall we let them have their say, too? If not, why not?
Or how about we have the same rules for everyone, the same rules anyone standing trial would want their accuser to have to convict them by...evidence and logic? That way we won't be courting witch trials or stoning women to death for the crime of being raped.
Sorry...it's a bad idea to accommodate the religious because the religious believe unreasonable, irrational, and unevidenced things. That's what makes them religions. When they believe things we all know to be true and reasonable, we call them facts.
So rather than realize your employer is screwing you over and resenting them, you resent those who have successfully organized with their fellow workers in order to bargain for better conditions? What an odd way of looking at things. Why wouldn't you prefer for everyone's conditions to be better, including your own?
Again, what are you arguing for? Appeasement? No. Let the Christians out themselves as what they are when their privilege is taken away and the rules start applying to them, too: terrorists. That's what they've always been. They are only peaceful when they are the privileged class, the majority to such a degree that their status and beliefs are unquestionable. That's how they "converted" Europe, North America, South America, it's what they're doing right now in Africa...with force and fear and exploitation until their rule is complete...then they rewrite history to cast themselves as the good guys, make sure to properly "educate" their children and the children of the "converts", and no one is the wiser.
So I say no. Let us evolve as a species for real and shake the last of the barbarians (of all stripes...the superstitious, the brutes, the corrupt) out of hiding. Let them be jailed according to the laws of the land if they bring "retribution". And go after the rest, too...the warmongers, the economic exploiters, and the psychopaths that help them all do their dirty-work. Then maybe we can get to the business of being a technologically advanced, intelligent species, rather than that of a technologically advanced, intelligent species infiltrated by a parasitic race of cavepeople who have co-opted and exploited civilization since the dawn of time.
So you're saying we should essentially appease the Christians out of fear of what they might do to us if we don't? Isn't that, you know...terrorism? Isn't that sick?
How about we just have a sane, rational society and as the wingnuts shake themselves out of the tree in their rage (therefore committing crimes), we lock their asses up as either criminals or nutcases? It sounds like a good way to clean up the species...actually enforce the rules of civilization equally for everyone, lock up the barbarians who can't play by the rules, and within a couple of generations the problem is finally solved.
Questioning evolutionary theory != arguing for creationism. No scientist is going to argue for creationism because it's not a testable theory (unless you think you can get the hypothetical creator to come down and create on demand). In fact, if creationism is true, science will never be able to have a theory about it; it won't be able to have a theory of miracles, either. Science is a empirical and inductive activity, and miracles (including creation) are not part of the continuity of nature that allows for induction.
This is a bit of an issue in philosophy of science, because science's primary assumption is that the universe is at all times and in all places uniform. The rules have to be the same everywhere and everywhen, essentially. This is all fine and well on Earth and at our scale, but the assumption is unwarranted in remote locations and/or times. It may very well be the case that the laws of physics were different in the distant past, or will be in the future, or are different in various locations in space (this is sometimes called the "Speckled Universe" theory). However, there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the rules being the same on ancient Earth...when I mean "remote" in time I mean remote, as in during the early universe. There are some who say this is what singularities really are, that event horizons are delimiters for sections of time/space that follow different rules. I find that plausible. The thing is that if the Standard Model as it is now is correct, we will never know because we can't ever know. The Big Bang was a singularity and is shielded by an event horizon...our systems of measurement and extrapolation fall apart at singularities, so any theoretical events and rules for those events will always remain purely theoretical.
On the other hand, maybe all of that is wrong and we will be able to extend our chain of inference even into singularities. In any case, creationism is a supernatural theory, while science utilizes what is sometimes called "methodological naturalism". It requires the assumptions of empiricism and inductive inference, which put the supernatural, by definition, outside its domain.
Correspondence Theory of Truth. Look it up. Learn it. Live it.
"S" is T iff S.
Statistically speaking, it's impossible to avoid a few bad drugs slipping through because of the large amounts of drugs that go through testing and the vast differences in individual human body chemistry. Nonetheless, the safety procedures are still significant and I would rather have them than not have them.
Tesla wasn't exactly an awesome guy to be friends with, himself, but he was absolutely brilliant and his ideas need to be explored and incorporated by modern engineers and theorists.
Oh, come on, don't taunt the Windows user. He's just working out his inferiority issues. Maybe this exposure to a better way will help him mature to a real operating system.
Well, if I have the luxury of reinventing the browser and choosing a new standard, I would vote for Smalltalk (I would say Lisp, but I foresee forcing too many square pegs in round holes to go there). But right now we are stuck with JS or running things through the Java JIT.
You shills really shouldn't echo the words of Balmer quite so closely. It tips your hand. Not that we wouldn't know who signs your paychecks anyway.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Go comeback. Really. The height of wit.
Except, you know...all of his points are valid and until we address them Python is the new Perl. Maybe you aren't old enough, Mr. Coward, but I remember when Perl was the new toy and people thought it was the best thing since sliced bread (hell, it would slice the bread for you).
Alright, give me an alternative that does the same thing. I agree...JS is a dirty, problem-inducing (rather than problem solving) language. I just don't know what else I can use to move things around and cause the useful JS effects without a refresh without JS.
Ah, I see where you are coming from. I agree, users != zealots, and your remarks apply to that subset of zealots who are worried about things like replacing Win and so on. I just don't see the point in framing things in those terms (as a battle or war...it's just silly). We are all attempting to use tools, and we should simply use the best tools for our respective goals. For me, what it comes down to is Linux provides a better overall coding/research environment, then OS X because at least there you have macports/homebrew and a *real* shell, then Windows, which I always feel like I am in a battle with just to get it to do what I want. Cygwin never worked well for me, and while I can use Eclipse, EMACS, etc on Win, there are always a million little things you have to do to get the same level of functionality you have in a *nix system.
Thanks for explaining.
Oh yeah, the only person I knew who actually used 3.1 was a friend's dad who wanted to play "Dungeon Master". My mom had a Mac Plus when I was in the sixth grade and up, and I had gotten turned off by GUIs by the downright condescending nature of it all. I mean, Mac error messages were FROWNY FACES for Cthulhu's sake! And no sensible BSD back-end to pipe errors to a log, no control, no terminal, etc. I was not impressed. Even as a kid I expected more out of an OS.
How is that logical? Hardware vendors don't generally make the drivers for Linux, the community does. Generally we don't use the proprietary drivers that they do make...because we don't need to. Again, one feature that most people wouldn't care about (I'm sensitive to noise) is what makes me download and use the proprietary drivers for my 3D card. Everything else, including compositing, desktop acceleration, and 3D, works just fine with the open source driver. Windows *requires* me to download drivers to use my hardware, Linux supports almost all of it out of the box. Look at the actual support lists, rather than going on what seems "logical" to you. Perhaps in the first few weeks a piece of hardware is out only the proprietary driver exists, but after that there is Linux support.
If anything, I have generally had less problems with hardware support with Linux, simply because the community will actually support the hardware longer than the month the hardware is brand new (as opposed to Microsoft or the hardware maker).