So, here's another question: this article is called "The Psychology of Mac Zealots"; what's the "psychology" of people who instantly call anyone who posts anything about Apple a "fanboy"?
They use the argument about "believing" in global warming to get uncurious people with limited or no scientific education to question the reality.
If you think that only one side is using "belief" arguments and dividing people into camps rather than discussing facts, then you've completely missed my point.
Consensus science isn't science, it's politics, and that's exactly what the Global Warming debate is about: politics
I despise how global warming discussions focus so much on whether or not someone "believes", and heralding or ridiculing people for being in the right or wrong camp, rather than simply being discussions about straightforward facts.
on a 'stationary point between, each ship appears to be approaching at thier respective speed, but the rate of closure appears to be approaching the speed of light.
Not quite. From the perspective of an observer between them, each ship appears to be approaching at 70% of the speed of light, and the apparent relative difference in speeds from that middle observer's perspective is 140% of the speed of light. However, this does not violate anything in special relativity, since the 140% is only an apparent relative velocity.
From the perspective of either of the two ships, the opposite ship is traveling toward it at 94% of the speed of light, as given by the velocity addition formula. As a result, each ship observes that it is closing with the middle observer at 70% of the speed of light, and each ship observes that the OTHER ship is closing with the middle observer at only 24% of the speed of light. So it can appear from one perspective that two OTHER things are traveling at an apparent speed in comparison to each other which is faster than light, but from each observer's perspective, every other object is traveling at a speed below (or equal to) that of light.
It's not really as weird as it sounds. Try this with a basketball (the rubbery version of this), and you will see shrinking easily with your eye. A pole is simply more rigid, but if you push it fast enough and hard enough to cause that compression, that's exactly what you'll get. If you apply force to the front of a free-floating car sufficient to cause motion before the speed of sound can propagate the energy, then you get a crumpled bumper. This is the same phenomenon, except with the caveat that the speed of light is as fast as the speed of sound can go.
The reason it doesn't appear to work is the output happened before you even ran it, unless you didn't run it, See??.... Look in your shell history silly man...
That's fine up to a point; the majority of businesses still use MS Office and windows and will want to see that experience
Office applications have a shelf life of what, 3 years? High school diplomas are supposed to be good for an average of 57 years, most of which will be spent in the workforce. Anyone hinging his or her career prospects on high school experience with a specific Office application would be wise to reconsider.
ONE point of view is that they can do NOTHING to ascertain who is talking to whom because they MIGHT be breaking the LAW. ANOTHER point of view is that they should do EVERYTHING they can to ascertain who is talking to whom and know for CERTAIN whether listening violates the LAW.
There happens to be a fourth amendment to the Constitution which already settled this issue, and a rich assortment of precedence specifically applying to electronic communications which has settled this issue. Read here. For more detail, click on "Electronic Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment".
In summary, it says that the Supreme Court has ruled that warrants are required according to the amendment, and that national security concerns alone do NOT qualify as a reasonable search without presence of a warrant. It additionally says that Congress provided a special court (the constitutionality of which has not been tested) to provide warrants, and provided legislation authorizing warrantless wiretaps "exclusively between or among foreign powers [such that] there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard." The constitutionality of that special provision has also not been tested, but it is the ONLY existing authorization for warrantless wiretaps present under the law. Anything else, including warrantless wiretaps of domestic individuals communicating internationally, is clearly and plainly unconstitutional and illegal.
There appears to be a lot of people who think they have unlimited rights, including the right to line the rest of us up for slaughter.
If you're so terrified of terrorism that you'd like to throw out the constitution, then I recommend you dig a deep hole in the ground and hide. The rest of us would prefer to keep a free society.
I just say, I'm going to use my Ben Franklin Card today. If the store clerk then asks for my phone number or email address, I just remind them of the airtight Ben Franklin Card privacy policy.
While this is true, I bet if you walk up to the counter wearing a ski mask, people are going to get the wrong idea.:)
The actual process or event existed before we described it in math or language
This is what I have been saying. Now what formed the pattern that these processes follow?
To pretend that we only model, is to ignore the questions of existence, and thus a model alone does not explain existence. To gain an understanding of the source of existence we need to know the source of the pattern upon which the model is based. And there you end up with a big pile of turtles.
"E=mc^2". A law comes into existence when somebody says it.
Did energy and mass, for example in the fusion reactions in the sun, obey this exchange ratio prior to someone writing down this law? If yes, then that rule existed before someone said it. If you think no, then you have a fairly non-standard view of existence.
They aren't a magical substance or process that creates or generates they universe; they are just a bunch of people's descriptions of how things are working.
The rules described by physics point to genuine underlying principles in the operation of the universe. These principles DO have an existence of their own, as the physical universe apparently worked pretty much the same way it does now, long before we ever figured out the things we now know. So yes, there are real underlying principles, and any meaningful attempt to explain existence requires one to explain where those underlying physical principles came from.
So basically this will reduce "God"'s role in the creation of the universe further back before the big bang, by essentially verifying another prediction by the standard model, which will probably result in the following "creation" facts:
In such debates, people always miss the deeper question. If you have a spectacularly wonderful description of all the laws of physics which completely describe how the universe was created, then how did those laws of physics come into being?
If you explain that with more laws which create the next set of laws, then how did those laws come into being? Surely it's not turtles all the way down.
That problem is easily fixed by having an id tag like you suggest, and then matching the noscript or sandbox tags from the OUTSIDE in. Then even if the closing tag is matched correctly, it still does not close the sandbox, because it is not the one on the outside. The web developer would then simply have to have unique id tags for each top-level sandbox for the page.
ok, i'm not a web developer so i wouldn't know, but is there any way to force your advertisers (malicious or otherwise) to not use javascript/flash/whatever? since it's essentially running code we don't trust on the client's computer...
essentially, do the noscript thing on your own servers, or host ads (i assume they're mostly just pictures with links) on your own servers somehow.
That's the most brilliant idea I've seen in this entire thread so far. We need a <noscript>, or perhaps a <sandbox></sandbox> tag which allows us to specify what can be done inside of a frame, embedded object, or anything else linked to from a remote site.
Honestly, Slashdot is one of the better examples of this (Slashdot's moderation system does alter the flow of the discussion but it does get a downright reasonable signal-to-noise ratio vs other online communities).
That's because Slashdot's system puts only minimal emphasis on individuals, and very high emphasis on selected adjectives of value. Comments do not simply get moderated up or down, but have to be moderated with a chosen adjective, such as "insightful", "informative", "funny", etc. This really helps keep people's heads on straight, especially with the presence of meta-moderation, because people then have to agree on what these words mean. The end result is that posts are usually moderated in close proximity to these labels.
The karma attribute is used only as an accessory to this content-based moderation, to provide some inertia to the community's character. It's not really a reputation centered system.
Academics usually have some expertise in their respective area, Linus does not.
Uhm. I would argue that creating Linux and being the central force behind it for well over a decade exceeds the size and scope of most PhD projects in that area. That level of experience certainly qualifies as expertise.
I know any number of people in the publishing industry that would kill you if you tried to take away Word and its revision/collaboration features from them, not to mention SharePoint.
Yeah, well if we're talking about scientific journals (which the main article certainly was), then a buzzword-bingo solution-looking-for-a-problem like SharePoint is not relevant. What is relevant is the ability to do references easily, do equations easily (including references to those equations), have layout and font compatibility between computers and versions, and so forth. Word makes almost every single one of these quite painful, requiring an armada of add-ons just to accomplish the most basic work. And the.doc format itself contributes to these problems, particularly with unpredictability of the result when taking files from one computer to the next.
So no, it's not an issue of being elitist to find that Word and.doc severely get in our way. It's simply the fact that they do.
Slashdot Mirror
They're called conformists.
<disclaimer>Not an Apple user.</disclaimer>
If you think that only one side is using "belief" arguments and dividing people into camps rather than discussing facts, then you've completely missed my point.
I despise how global warming discussions focus so much on whether or not someone "believes", and heralding or ridiculing people for being in the right or wrong camp, rather than simply being discussions about straightforward facts.
Apparently "Your honor, you seem to be an idiot," is not an effective objection.
Two more:
1. They don't understand or play video games.
2. They don't believe a significant number of their voters or donors play violent video games.
Thermite.
And it's amazing what a little tinfoil can do to a GPS system.
Not quite. From the perspective of an observer between them, each ship appears to be approaching at 70% of the speed of light, and the apparent relative difference in speeds from that middle observer's perspective is 140% of the speed of light. However, this does not violate anything in special relativity, since the 140% is only an apparent relative velocity.
From the perspective of either of the two ships, the opposite ship is traveling toward it at 94% of the speed of light, as given by the velocity addition formula. As a result, each ship observes that it is closing with the middle observer at 70% of the speed of light, and each ship observes that the OTHER ship is closing with the middle observer at only 24% of the speed of light. So it can appear from one perspective that two OTHER things are traveling at an apparent speed in comparison to each other which is faster than light, but from each observer's perspective, every other object is traveling at a speed below (or equal to) that of light.
Confused yet?
It's not really as weird as it sounds. Try this with a basketball (the rubbery version of this), and you will see shrinking easily with your eye. A pole is simply more rigid, but if you push it fast enough and hard enough to cause that compression, that's exactly what you'll get. If you apply force to the front of a free-floating car sufficient to cause motion before the speed of sound can propagate the energy, then you get a crumpled bumper. This is the same phenomenon, except with the caveat that the speed of light is as fast as the speed of sound can go.
Office applications have a shelf life of what, 3 years? High school diplomas are supposed to be good for an average of 57 years, most of which will be spent in the workforce. Anyone hinging his or her career prospects on high school experience with a specific Office application would be wise to reconsider.
An address in a dead language available only in a dead video format. I suppose that should be expected...
There happens to be a fourth amendment to the Constitution which already settled this issue, and a rich assortment of precedence specifically applying to electronic communications which has settled this issue. Read here. For more detail, click on "Electronic Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment".
In summary, it says that the Supreme Court has ruled that warrants are required according to the amendment, and that national security concerns alone do NOT qualify as a reasonable search without presence of a warrant. It additionally says that Congress provided a special court (the constitutionality of which has not been tested) to provide warrants, and provided legislation authorizing warrantless wiretaps "exclusively between or among foreign powers [such that] there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard." The constitutionality of that special provision has also not been tested, but it is the ONLY existing authorization for warrantless wiretaps present under the law. Anything else, including warrantless wiretaps of domestic individuals communicating internationally, is clearly and plainly unconstitutional and illegal.
If you're so terrified of terrorism that you'd like to throw out the constitution, then I recommend you dig a deep hole in the ground and hide. The rest of us would prefer to keep a free society.
While this is true, I bet if you walk up to the counter wearing a ski mask, people are going to get the wrong idea.
This is what I have been saying. Now what formed the pattern that these processes follow?
To pretend that we only model, is to ignore the questions of existence, and thus a model alone does not explain existence. To gain an understanding of the source of existence we need to know the source of the pattern upon which the model is based. And there you end up with a big pile of turtles.
Did energy and mass, for example in the fusion reactions in the sun, obey this exchange ratio prior to someone writing down this law? If yes, then that rule existed before someone said it. If you think no, then you have a fairly non-standard view of existence.
The rules described by physics point to genuine underlying principles in the operation of the universe. These principles DO have an existence of their own, as the physical universe apparently worked pretty much the same way it does now, long before we ever figured out the things we now know. So yes, there are real underlying principles, and any meaningful attempt to explain existence requires one to explain where those underlying physical principles came from.
I think you missed the point. The rules by which things operate are also a thing in need of explanation. So how do the rules exist?
It teaches you to not pretend that you know more existence than you really do.
In such debates, people always miss the deeper question. If you have a spectacularly wonderful description of all the laws of physics which completely describe how the universe was created, then how did those laws of physics come into being?
If you explain that with more laws which create the next set of laws, then how did those laws come into being? Surely it's not turtles all the way down.
That problem is easily fixed by having an id tag like you suggest, and then matching the noscript or sandbox tags from the OUTSIDE in. Then even if the closing tag is matched correctly, it still does not close the sandbox, because it is not the one on the outside. The web developer would then simply have to have unique id tags for each top-level sandbox for the page.
Because if the cookie is made of plastic, then it might be difficult to chew.
That's the most brilliant idea I've seen in this entire thread so far. We need a <noscript>, or perhaps a <sandbox></sandbox> tag which allows us to specify what can be done inside of a frame, embedded object, or anything else linked to from a remote site.
That would make a huge difference.
That's because Slashdot's system puts only minimal emphasis on individuals, and very high emphasis on selected adjectives of value. Comments do not simply get moderated up or down, but have to be moderated with a chosen adjective, such as "insightful", "informative", "funny", etc. This really helps keep people's heads on straight, especially with the presence of meta-moderation, because people then have to agree on what these words mean. The end result is that posts are usually moderated in close proximity to these labels.
The karma attribute is used only as an accessory to this content-based moderation, to provide some inertia to the community's character. It's not really a reputation centered system.
Uhm. I would argue that creating Linux and being the central force behind it for well over a decade exceeds the size and scope of most PhD projects in that area. That level of experience certainly qualifies as expertise.
Yeah, well if we're talking about scientific journals (which the main article certainly was), then a buzzword-bingo solution-looking-for-a-problem like SharePoint is not relevant. What is relevant is the ability to do references easily, do equations easily (including references to those equations), have layout and font compatibility between computers and versions, and so forth. Word makes almost every single one of these quite painful, requiring an armada of add-ons just to accomplish the most basic work. And the
So no, it's not an issue of being elitist to find that Word and