Um, the frame of reference is obviously earth. So the statements about how long something took to occur are actually meaningful, in "laymen" terms or otherwise.
While the article you link to is an interesting introduction to time, relativity, and frame of references, it has very little bearing on the thread.
Right, it couldn't destroy the entire operating system in Linux or a Mac, perhaps, but it could delete all of Grandma's photos, documents, email, bookmarks, and so on. Which is probably what she'd really care about.
The Bible contains all sorts of statements that we now know to be false, in the sense that they contradict all available evidence. The religious respond by going into elaborate contortions to maintain their beliefs (see, for example, "God put the dinosaur fossils there to test us").
No, the religious nut-cases do that. They are the ones you always hear about in the media. You don't hear about the millions of reasonable, open-minded religious people who are capable of realizing that the Bible doesn't actually say how old the earth is and Genesis 1 was meant to be poetic rather than a scientific account of how God created the universe.
In other words, this Mugshot thing, is nothing but yet another Orkut/Friendster/MySpace-kind of social networking site and client, but with a twist towards entertainment and media sharing. What a useless project. Is this Pennington's super secret project that he has been working on for the past year? Is this what he spent Red Hat's money on? On yet-another social networking site? Instead of using his team, money and energy making Linux and Gnome better (e.g. adding a full Bluetooth front-end, fix the damned phone/pda sync app that's been in alpha for 4 years now, or add video chat on Gaim, or make Nautilus ask for the root password when you try to copy/delete files out of your ~ folder), he spends it on this thing that only interests teenagers -- and only for a fortnight until they move on to something else? I am in complete shock.
Okay, I will agree with you that the it's not clear from going to the site or the developer site exactly how it works. You have to dig a bit deeper. But that doesn't mean it's useless. Or maybe you just mean useless to you personally. What is useless is your comments and tone. Are you griping about your personal complaints with desktop Linux because you think for some reason Havoc has some personal duty to fulfill them?
It looks to me like mugshot has some innovative bits, but even if it were "just another social networking site" again, that doesn't make it a useless project. Social networking sites are huge right now and not just amongst teenagers. Look at myspace, del.icio.us, youtube, flickr, blogger. Millions upon millions of users of all ages want to blog, share links, share photos, share movies, communicate. And I think mugshot might take an interesting spin on it all. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted, but you don't get to dictate what people work on. Sorry. People work on what they are passionate about. I hope you would do the same...
Wow, what an insightful reply! Just one point of constructive criticism: I think if you had called him a doo-doo-head it would have rounded your thesis nicely.
"None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected."
Apparently the education didn't include spelling.
Um, that's the whole point of online RSS readers. If a blog doesn't want you to read their news without visiting their site, then they shouldn't publish an RSS feed. The caching is actually a nice benefit as it decreases the number of repeated hits to your feed. bloglines has been doing this for a while. If a site wants to publish a feed but also wants advertising revenue they can insert ads in their feed or only publish a short portion of the entry in the feed so that someone has to go to the site to see the rest.
In related news, Taco Bell has announced that if the water level in New Orleans reaches a certain mark on their Taco Bell FloodMeter(tm), everyone in America wins a free taco.
From the link you provided: "the application of a test that could demonstrate that an idea is false."
That is what I said falsifiable means.
You don't mean that. Anyone can show that you can produce a mousetrap, for example, from simpler parts.
Yes I do mean that. Who has stated that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex? The idea of irreducible complexity is that there are some components of life that could not have evolved from simpler components. This theory is clearly falsifiable. Simply demonstrate the contrary.
Perhaps he meant "falsifiable." One of the marks of a good theory is if it is falsifiable, meaning, can you design an experiment that could prove the theory false. Falsifiable does not mean the theory is false. For more on that check out the wikipedia article. Intelligent Design is easily falsifiable, despite the claims of some evolutionists to the contrary. All you have to do is show once through an experiment that you can produce something that is supposedly of "irreducible complexity" from simpler parts. Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be falsifiable. How can you design an experiment to falsify the theory of Evolution?
A theory can be correct or incorrect. It can be revised, or shot down completely, or confirmed beyond reasonable doubt as further evidence and experiments come to light. You can remain agnostic about the issue and say, "well here is the evidence; it is what it is." But in practice, human beings do not really remain in that state. They form beliefs and world views. And the vast majority of evolutionary biologists start with the atheistic world view and see everything through those tinted glasses. I'm not saying that is wrong...just that it's true. There is definitely belief involved. The problem many people have with Evolution is that it isn't presented as a theory precisely because it has become the foundation for a belief system in our modern culture. When something has not been proven and in fact has some serious problems and is hotly debated but is described by some as being fact ("this is how it happened." not "this is how the theory states it happened") then you have a fundamental problem.
You can say, "here is a theory." Yes, but do you believe the theory is correct?
Another interesting point is that ID is falsifiable. Successful experiments could falsify the claims of irreducible complexity. Evolution seems unfalsifiable, on the other hand.
It's not really known how often collusion takes place on internet poker sites. Most reputable sites at least claim to monitor playing habits and look for patterns that might indicate cheating. But who really knows how often they catch people. It certainly seems like it would be in their best interest to catch cheaters. Although stricting speaking the cheats don't steal money from them since they still get a rake of every pot, if a site has a bad reputation players will be less likely to use their site and switch to a more reliable one.
They can monitor to see how often specific players play at the same table and observe the betting patterns of those players. One technique colluders will use is to gang up against a player who is going all in to increase the odds that player will lose the hand. If player X pushes all his chips in with pocket aces and 3 colluding players call with decent hands there is a good chance the aces will not hold up and one of the colluders will win the pot.
There have also been accusations of poker sites doing the cheating. By altering the odds, they can generate bigger pots and therefore bigger rakes. Take a simple example. Deal one player pocket aces and another player pocket kings. Both players are likely to push a lot of chips with those hands and make a big pot. Drop a king on the flop to give one player a set and you're really going to see sparks. The bigger the pot, the higher the rake the house gets. I'm not saying this actually occurs at most poker sites, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
I think you are very very wrong about that. The people I see switching to Ubuntu in droves are the people who used to run distributions like Fedora, Debian proper, and Mandrake. And yeah, I would include Gentoo in the mix. But it's not users looking for the new distro-of-the-month. It's users looking for the best all around distribution that is community driven.
Slashdot Mirror
Just sayin'.
Um, the frame of reference is obviously earth. So the statements about how long something took to occur are actually meaningful, in "laymen" terms or otherwise. While the article you link to is an interesting introduction to time, relativity, and frame of references, it has very little bearing on the thread.
"String Hypothesis" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Check out this sneak peak of the iPhone Nano.
Right, it couldn't destroy the entire operating system in Linux or a Mac, perhaps, but it could delete all of Grandma's photos, documents, email, bookmarks, and so on. Which is probably what she'd really care about.
No, the religious nut-cases do that. They are the ones you always hear about in the media. You don't hear about the millions of reasonable, open-minded religious people who are capable of realizing that the Bible doesn't actually say how old the earth is and Genesis 1 was meant to be poetic rather than a scientific account of how God created the universe.
It takes 6 staffers to run a blog?
Okay, I will agree with you that the it's not clear from going to the site or the developer site exactly how it works. You have to dig a bit deeper. But that doesn't mean it's useless. Or maybe you just mean useless to you personally. What is useless is your comments and tone. Are you griping about your personal complaints with desktop Linux because you think for some reason Havoc has some personal duty to fulfill them?
It looks to me like mugshot has some innovative bits, but even if it were "just another social networking site" again, that doesn't make it a useless project. Social networking sites are huge right now and not just amongst teenagers. Look at myspace, del.icio.us, youtube, flickr, blogger. Millions upon millions of users of all ages want to blog, share links, share photos, share movies, communicate. And I think mugshot might take an interesting spin on it all. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted, but you don't get to dictate what people work on. Sorry. People work on what they are passionate about. I hope you would do the same...
Wow, what an insightful reply! Just one point of constructive criticism: I think if you had called him a doo-doo-head it would have rounded your thesis nicely.
"None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected." Apparently the education didn't include spelling.
I think we need a vacuum in space. Oh, wait...
Um, that's the whole point of online RSS readers. If a blog doesn't want you to read their news without visiting their site, then they shouldn't publish an RSS feed. The caching is actually a nice benefit as it decreases the number of repeated hits to your feed. bloglines has been doing this for a while. If a site wants to publish a feed but also wants advertising revenue they can insert ads in their feed or only publish a short portion of the entry in the feed so that someone has to go to the site to see the rest.
That's why it's called a "surprise."
nautilus spatial tree
I put up a few more screenshots here.
In related news, Taco Bell has announced that if the water level in New Orleans reaches a certain mark on their Taco Bell FloodMeter(tm), everyone in America wins a free taco.
From the link you provided: "the application of a test that could demonstrate that an idea is false." That is what I said falsifiable means. You don't mean that. Anyone can show that you can produce a mousetrap, for example, from simpler parts. Yes I do mean that. Who has stated that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex? The idea of irreducible complexity is that there are some components of life that could not have evolved from simpler components. This theory is clearly falsifiable. Simply demonstrate the contrary.
Perhaps he meant "falsifiable." One of the marks of a good theory is if it is falsifiable, meaning, can you design an experiment that could prove the theory false. Falsifiable does not mean the theory is false. For more on that check out the wikipedia article. Intelligent Design is easily falsifiable, despite the claims of some evolutionists to the contrary. All you have to do is show once through an experiment that you can produce something that is supposedly of "irreducible complexity" from simpler parts. Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be falsifiable. How can you design an experiment to falsify the theory of Evolution?
You can say, "here is a theory." Yes, but do you believe the theory is correct?
Another interesting point is that ID is falsifiable. Successful experiments could falsify the claims of irreducible complexity. Evolution seems unfalsifiable, on the other hand.
They can monitor to see how often specific players play at the same table and observe the betting patterns of those players. One technique colluders will use is to gang up against a player who is going all in to increase the odds that player will lose the hand. If player X pushes all his chips in with pocket aces and 3 colluding players call with decent hands there is a good chance the aces will not hold up and one of the colluders will win the pot.
There have also been accusations of poker sites doing the cheating. By altering the odds, they can generate bigger pots and therefore bigger rakes. Take a simple example. Deal one player pocket aces and another player pocket kings. Both players are likely to push a lot of chips with those hands and make a big pot. Drop a king on the flop to give one player a set and you're really going to see sparks. The bigger the pot, the higher the rake the house gets. I'm not saying this actually occurs at most poker sites, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
How about tomboy?
Stop hogging all the karma.
The worth of something is what people think it's worth, by definition.
Right, which is why Linux has been so damn stable on every machine I've run it on for the past 7 years.
I think you are very very wrong about that. The people I see switching to Ubuntu in droves are the people who used to run distributions like Fedora, Debian proper, and Mandrake. And yeah, I would include Gentoo in the mix. But it's not users looking for the new distro-of-the-month. It's users looking for the best all around distribution that is community driven.
Blogrebrity Sex Video Scandals