Not arguing for religion here, but where do you think scientific proof comes from? Many times scientists take a belief they have and then set out to 'prove' it.
A hypothesis is not the same thing as a belief. The difference is just as you said: when a scientist has a hypothesis, he does everything in his power to try and prove that his hypothesis is wrong (i.e he "tests it"). Compare that to when a religious person has a belief, and he does everything in his power to prevent people from proving it wrong.
but don't think believing something w/o proof is wrong in any way
It is if you refuse to reconcile your beliefs with the facts. Ask any Christian Scientist whose child died for lack of a blood transfusion.
That's a BBC owned image from an article about the couple and their two kids and surely a violation of that couple's personality rights, let alone copyright of the BBC.
How do you know the couple and/or the BBC didn't give permission for the photo's use? Or that the photo wasn't actually owned by the museum and/or the couple and the BBC was wasn't using it with permission?
it seems respecting image licenses was not at the forefront of their thought process
Are you referring to the occupation of Iraq? (the "war" there ended when the Iraqi government fell, what we are currently involved with there is not a war because there is no opposing army or government... Bush even admits as much when he refers to the people shooting our soldiers as "unlawful enemy combatants" and not "enemy soldiers").
Or perhaps you are referring to the "War on Terror", which like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" is a political slogan, not an actual state of war.
Mostly it sounds like you've just fallen for the Presidents use of scare-words as a way to beat opposing arguments into submission.
Lied about the intelligence? Come on! He had the same intelligence EVERYONE had.
Are you referring to the forged documents about Nigerian yellowcake? I don't know who forged them, but I do know who wanted really badly to invade Iraq, and thus had a motive to do so...
You seem to like name dropping [...] Sorry , but I get tired of people of your ilk.
If we didn't have a well-known trade vocabulary to describe the things we do, it would be very difficult to communicate effectively with other programmers. All those phrases that you are so proud of your ignorance of were invented for a reason.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to attack the parent poster simply for describing what he likes about Boost... perhaps you were feeling insecure about your own skill set?
If the break occurred at higher altitude, up to about 25,000 km, the lower portion of the elevator would descend to Earth and drape itself along the equator east of the anchor point, while the now unbalanced upper portion would rise to a higher orbit. Some authors (such as science fiction writers David Gerrold in Jumping off the Planet, Kim Stanley Robinson in Red Mars, and Ben Bova in Mercury) have suggested that such a failure would be catastrophic, with the thousands of kilometers of falling cable creating a swath of meteoric destruction along Earth's surface; however, in most cable designs, the upper portion of any cable that fell to Earth would burn up in the atmosphere. Additionally, because proposed initial cables (the only ones likely to be broken) have very low mass (roughly 1 kg per kilometer) and are flat, the bottom portion would likely settle to Earth with less force than a sheet of paper due to air resistance on the way down.
The public ridicule the iPhone has gotten since it was announced has been unprecedented for an Apple product. The price is, as usual, way too high. The feature set is laughable compared to other phones.
You forgot "Less space than a Nomad. Lame".
Seriously, I've seen nothing but praise and high expectations regarding the iPhone in the news. You must be reading different sites than I do.
Is voting for the Republicans and Democrats (RD) going to cause election reform?
No, but neither is voting third party.
It seems to me it's the opposite. It seems to me that voting third party does actually get them closer to getting the government that they want, and voting for the RD takes them further from it
Tell that to all the people who voted Nader in 2000, and ended up with Bush in charge. If they had voted Gore, the country would be in much better shape now, even if Nader was technically the better candidate. It's f*cked up, I know, but that's just how it is in a winner-take-all election system.
I can understand that there are people who actually agree with the RD' platforms and voting histories. I can also understand that there are people who think that either the Rs or the Ds are much closer to their personal philosophies.
You're assuming that people always vote their actual beliefs ("I agree most with this guy so I'll vote for him"), rather than voting strategically ("I'll vote for this guy because I think doing so will give me the best possible outcome under the current system's rules"). In an ideal voting system, strategic voting and voting your beliefs would be identical -- both ways of choosing who to vote for would lead you to vote for the same candidate. But the US system is a long, long way from an ideal voting system, and often functions more as a way to corral people's votes into one of two categories (see: "manufacturing consent") than it does as a real way for the public to express their political wishes.
Correction: The ~97% of voters who keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. These people seem to consider genocidal greed a virtue, not a vice; or they actually keep voting for platforms they despise because they'd rather be on the winning team of monsters than do the right thing
... or they realize that due to the spoiler problem, voting third party doesn't actually get them any closer to getting the government that they want, and is in fact equivalent to not voting at all. Thus they vote for the lesser of two evils, not because they like doing so, but because they are forced to either do that or essentially throw away their vote. That's an unfortunate fact about the winner-take-all electoral system used in the USA, but it's still a fact, and no amount of complaining about the two major parties will change it. If you really want better politics in the USA, we need reforms to the way elections are run (e.g. instant runoff elections, proportional voting, etc) so that more than two parties can realistically compete at a time.
Now, who in his right mind will sign there to pay more for the same service as before? If you accept the true market rules you will buy from the lowest priced seller.
I would (and do) because I think it is worth the extra money to reduce my carbon footprint. Your question is based on the premise that the green power is "the same service as before", which it isn't.... it's the same service, but with most of the pollution removed.
Java always with the exceptions and never simply checking return values. That is one of the reason why users write poorly performing code.
I thought one of the advantages of exceptions was more efficient code, since the CPU wouldn't spend so much time doing "if result==SUCCESS" branches after nearly every statement. Implemented properly, exceptions should add no runtime overhead except when they are thrown (which should be rare).
But apparently Apples "universal" binary does not require any testing whatsoever...
It requires testing two places... once on an Intel Mac, once on a PowerPC Mac. And 99% of the time, that's just to double-check... most things "just work".
So no, it's not completely zero-overhead, but it's not the n-platform testing nightmare that Java was (is?) either.
The Germans were denied their right to own weapons near the beginning of Hitler's reign. Americans have no such limits on their capabilities.
If only that were so.... I tried to buy a simple tactical nuke the other day (just to defend my family against burglars, of course), and you wouldn't believe the paperwork you have to fill out! Then after all that, my application was denied. Land of the Free, my ass!
So...everybody on slashdot proclaims that Vista sucks so bad that it is the final nail in Microsoft's coffin...yet they are not happy that Windows will be discontinuing 32 bit support in 5 to 10 years???
See the linked names above each post, the ones with a number next to them? Those are user names. They indicate that various posts were written by various people, each with their own opinions and worldview. Slashdot is not, in fact, a message board whose population consists of just you and one other wildly prolific and inconsistent poster.
it's nearly a universal desire among people to be able to draw competently. Art is a fundamental mechanism of the brain, unfortunately neglected in modern education.
I don't know where you got that idea. Why would the desire to draw be universal, or a fundamental mechanism of the brain? I'd say the urge to express oneself might be near-universal, but there's nothing special about drawing as opposed to any other artistic medium (music, dance, athletics, writing, architecture, computer programming, etc)
Most people HATE dealing with computers! [,,,] and that's fine!
You are accepting that as an immutable fact of life. The people behind this project think it's an artifact of being forced to use an inadequate human/computer interface.
Not everybody enjoys classifying bugs and wants to be an entymologist, either.
Clearly. There's almost nothing that everybody enjoys.
Certainly kids who are interested in that should be encouraged, but it's a VERY small minority that have a true interest.
Why is only a small minority interested? Could it be that their interest has traditionally been inhibited by a lack of age-appropriate tools?
Also, how would we (or they) even know that they would be interested unless they try it? I didn't know I was interested in programming (indeed, I didn't even know what programming was) until I was given the opportunity to try it out BASIC on a Pet. If they had only offered me crayons, I might still be flipping burgers today.
There are far more important skills that we should be encouraging. [...] Such as? How about true art training?
Why do you think art training is more important than computer training? Art won't help them put food on the table (whereas programming might). As a creative outlet, Scratch appears to be as likely a candidate for inspiring creativity as any.
Fossil fuel is still pretty cheap, even with the OPEC cartel.
Don't forget to factor in the externalized costs (air pollution, global warming, terrorism, your children getting sent to Iraq, etc). The price you pay at the pump isn't the only price there is to be paid.
I'm confused. Are you trying to say corporations are evil, but it's ok since it helps them make money?
He's saying they aren't immoral so much as amoral. They don't sit around twirling their mustaches thinking of new ways to ruin the planet; rather, they sit around twirling their mustaches thinking up new ways to make money.
(Can a swap file be load-balanced to different parts of the flash drive without overhead that would lose much of the advantages of replacing a hard disk?)
IIRC, there is often firmware logic in the better flash devices to do that sort of load-levelling in hardware, so you don't have to rely on the computer's OS to do it. Of course, it may be that flash has gotten enough more reliable that that sort of firmware magic isn't even necessary anymore, I don't know.
That was clever. I hope you patted yourself on the back when you were done submitting it.
It should be noted that both your post and Manatra's had the same amount of information in them: none. All you did was tell each other how stupid you each were. Why not make things interesting, and actually attempt to describe why America isn't as right-wing as the original poster thought? Or are you just here to wave your peckers at each other?
Slashdot Mirror
A hypothesis is not the same thing as a belief. The difference is just as you said: when a scientist has a hypothesis, he does everything in his power to try and prove that his hypothesis is wrong (i.e he "tests it"). Compare that to when a religious person has a belief, and he does everything in his power to prevent people from proving it wrong.
but don't think believing something w/o proof is wrong in any way
It is if you refuse to reconcile your beliefs with the facts. Ask any Christian Scientist whose child died for lack of a blood transfusion.
How do you know the couple and/or the BBC didn't give permission for the photo's use? Or that the photo wasn't actually owned by the museum and/or the couple and the BBC was wasn't using it with permission?
it seems respecting image licenses was not at the forefront of their thought process
Creationists have a thought process?
Are you referring to the occupation of Iraq? (the "war" there ended when the Iraqi government fell, what we are currently involved with there is not a war because there is no opposing army or government... Bush even admits as much when he refers to the people shooting our soldiers as "unlawful enemy combatants" and not "enemy soldiers").
Or perhaps you are referring to the "War on Terror", which like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" is a political slogan, not an actual state of war.
Mostly it sounds like you've just fallen for the Presidents use of scare-words as a way to beat opposing arguments into submission.
Are you referring to the forged documents about Nigerian yellowcake? I don't know who forged them, but I do know who wanted really badly to invade Iraq, and thus had a motive to do so...
If we didn't have a well-known trade vocabulary to describe the things we do, it would be very difficult to communicate effectively with other programmers. All those phrases that you are so proud of your ignorance of were invented for a reason.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to attack the parent poster simply for describing what he likes about Boost... perhaps you were feeling insecure about your own skill set?
From Wikipedia:
If the break occurred at higher altitude, up to about 25,000 km, the lower portion of the elevator would descend to Earth and drape itself along the equator east of the anchor point, while the now unbalanced upper portion would rise to a higher orbit. Some authors (such as science fiction writers David Gerrold in Jumping off the Planet, Kim Stanley Robinson in Red Mars, and Ben Bova in Mercury) have suggested that such a failure would be catastrophic, with the thousands of kilometers of falling cable creating a swath of meteoric destruction along Earth's surface; however, in most cable designs, the upper portion of any cable that fell to Earth would burn up in the atmosphere. Additionally, because proposed initial cables (the only ones likely to be broken) have very low mass (roughly 1 kg per kilometer) and are flat, the bottom portion would likely settle to Earth with less force than a sheet of paper due to air resistance on the way down.
You forgot "Less space than a Nomad. Lame".
Seriously, I've seen nothing but praise and high expectations regarding the iPhone in the news. You must be reading different sites than I do.
How did this get modded insightful? A failed strand wouldn't cause any damage to the Earth at all, except perhaps to investors' pocketbooks.
No, but neither is voting third party.
It seems to me it's the opposite. It seems to me that voting third party does actually get them closer to getting the government that they want, and voting for the RD takes them further from it
Tell that to all the people who voted Nader in 2000, and ended up with Bush in charge. If they had voted Gore, the country would be in much better shape now, even if Nader was technically the better candidate. It's f*cked up, I know, but that's just how it is in a winner-take-all election system.
I can understand that there are people who actually agree with the RD' platforms and voting histories. I can also understand that there are people who think that either the Rs or the Ds are much closer to their personal philosophies.
You're assuming that people always vote their actual beliefs ("I agree most with this guy so I'll vote for him"), rather than voting strategically ("I'll vote for this guy because I think doing so will give me the best possible outcome under the current system's rules"). In an ideal voting system, strategic voting and voting your beliefs would be identical -- both ways of choosing who to vote for would lead you to vote for the same candidate. But the US system is a long, long way from an ideal voting system, and often functions more as a way to corral people's votes into one of two categories (see: "manufacturing consent") than it does as a real way for the public to express their political wishes.
I would (and do) because I think it is worth the extra money to reduce my carbon footprint. Your question is based on the premise that the green power is "the same service as before", which it isn't.... it's the same service, but with most of the pollution removed.
I thought one of the advantages of exceptions was more efficient code, since the CPU wouldn't spend so much time doing "if result==SUCCESS" branches after nearly every statement. Implemented properly, exceptions should add no runtime overhead except when they are thrown (which should be rare).
Think they've got a nice quantum computer hidden away somewhere, testing out all possible factorizations in parallel? It would explain a lot....
Or to put it more elegantly: You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.
It requires testing two places... once on an Intel Mac, once on a PowerPC Mac. And 99% of the time, that's just to double-check
So no, it's not completely zero-overhead, but it's not the n-platform testing nightmare that Java was (is?) either.
Americans have no such limits on their capabilities.
If only that were so.... I tried to buy a simple tactical nuke the other day (just to defend my family against burglars, of course), and you wouldn't believe the paperwork you have to fill out! Then after all that, my application was denied. Land of the Free, my ass!
See the linked names above each post, the ones with a number next to them? Those are user names. They indicate that various posts were written by various people, each with their own opinions and worldview. Slashdot is not, in fact, a message board whose population consists of just you and one other wildly prolific and inconsistent poster.
mousePos.setY(mousePos.y()-20);
If you are planning to use this technology in your own software, please contact the Microsoft Research to purchase the appropriate licenses.
So then Cheney would be in charge... just like now?
I don't know where you got that idea. Why would the desire to draw be universal, or a fundamental mechanism of the brain? I'd say the urge to express oneself might be near-universal, but there's nothing special about drawing as opposed to any other artistic medium (music, dance, athletics, writing, architecture, computer programming, etc)
Most people HATE dealing with computers! [,,,] and that's fine!
You are accepting that as an immutable fact of life. The people behind this project think it's an artifact of being forced to use an inadequate human/computer interface.
Not everybody enjoys classifying bugs and wants to be an entymologist, either.
Clearly. There's almost nothing that everybody enjoys.
Why is only a small minority interested? Could it be that their interest has traditionally been inhibited by a lack of age-appropriate tools?
Also, how would we (or they) even know that they would be interested unless they try it? I didn't know I was interested in programming (indeed, I didn't even know what programming was) until I was given the opportunity to try it out BASIC on a Pet. If they had only offered me crayons, I might still be flipping burgers today.
There are far more important skills that we should be encouraging. [...] Such as? How about true art training?
Why do you think art training is more important than computer training? Art won't help them put food on the table (whereas programming might). As a creative outlet, Scratch appears to be as likely a candidate for inspiring creativity as any.
Don't forget to factor in the externalized costs (air pollution, global warming, terrorism, your children getting sent to Iraq, etc). The price you pay at the pump isn't the only price there is to be paid.
He's saying they aren't immoral so much as amoral. They don't sit around twirling their mustaches thinking of new ways to ruin the planet; rather, they sit around twirling their mustaches thinking up new ways to make money.
IIRC, there is often firmware logic in the better flash devices to do that sort of load-levelling in hardware, so you don't have to rely on the computer's OS to do it. Of course, it may be that flash has gotten enough more reliable that that sort of firmware magic isn't even necessary anymore, I don't know.
It should be noted that both your post and Manatra's had the same amount of information in them: none. All you did was tell each other how stupid you each were. Why not make things interesting, and actually attempt to describe why America isn't as right-wing as the original poster thought? Or are you just here to wave your peckers at each other?