Let me see. Did you observe a sunrise 200 years ago? According to you, I cannot conclude that the Sun rose 200 years ago, just because it rose for the past couple of years when I was able to observe it.
Wow - someone understand science. It's too bad you're being sarcastic.
But yeah - scientifically, simply being able to see that the sun rises for a couple years, and that's your only evidence, you cannot conclude that 200 years ago the sun rose the same way (you can have a hypothesis about it). You need to scientifically prove it by some other means. Which is exactly what scientists have done with our solar systems and celestial mapping. Then together with all the other evidence, you have a theory of how the Solar system works, which is proven by other supporting data. That's when it becomes a theory.
So what are you saying? That you don't believe in gravity, because the theory has problems?
Well yeah, basically. I do believe in gravity, but I don't believe it works like the Theory of Gravity says it works. Which is exactly what a whole lot of scientists are working on right now. They, too, don't believe Gravity works like the Theory of Gravity says it does. And that's why there are a number of theories about Dark Matter and whatnot.
So how does that metaphor work for Evolution with me? I do believe in some of the principles of Evolution - mutations and change over time, survival of the fittest, etc - but I don't believe life works the way the Theory of Evolution works.
I don't call the scientists working on theories of Dark Matter and other theories of Gravity idiots for not believing in the Theory of Gravity. I applaud their scientistic endeavor to find a different way of looking at things.
Again - this doesn't mean I support ID as science, since ID is not founded on the basics of scientific experimentation.
Seriously: The whole point of theories is that there is absolutely no need to go about believing in them whatsoever. The moment you start attempting to apply belief to a theory is the moment your ability as a scientist goes right out the window.
I'd agree somewhat here. I think it's hard to not have an opinion or belief about something, but when that opinion or belief interferes with your interpretation of the results - that's when your ability as a scientist goes out the window.
Actually, it's a matter of science that I've broken those up. Micro-Evolution is the form of Evolution which can be tested by mutation and observation of current species changing their sub-species or the creation of new species.
Macro is the theory which comes out of the theory of Micro-Evolution - a theory based on a theory. This theory is supported by both Micro-Evolution experiments and the observations of related animals (like Charles Darwin on the Galapagos.)
Sarcasm noted. But exactly what I mean - now regardless of what I believe about continental drift and whatnot, an experiment that shows continental drift does not PROVE that all of the land was once gathered in the same mass. The problem with it is that you do not know what occurred in the past unless you have an observable experiment. Micro-Continental Drift is a great theory because there is proof and experiments to back it up. Not that Macro-Continental Drift is a bad theory, it just can't be backed up as much. So you see the difference there? I'm not saying Evolution is a bad theory - scientifically it's one of the only things you could imagine from the evidence provided.
> And don't get me started on Macro-Addition.
Now you treat me like a nut-case here, but who is the one who has the religious fervor? The guy supporting strict scientific experimentation and attempting to look at things logically? Or the guy who is just flaming and calling the other guy an idiot?
> On one hand, I'm happy to see that rampant idiocy isn't a uniquely American trait.
This is one of the reasons Evolution has been rejected by a lot of people. Just as ultra-right wing Christians really turn people off, this kind of statement also turns people off.
Personally, I don't believe in Evolution. That doesn't make me an idiot. I simply disagree with the theory. That doesn't mean I don't understand it, I simply don't agree with it. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant either - I know more about Evolution than most people I know.
Just as the Theory of Gravity has some problems and needs to be understood better/differently, I believe the Theory of Evolution needs to be understood better/differently - in Evolution's case I think it needs to be drastically different.
But that doesn't mean I think Intelligent Design is science, either. But neither is a whole lot that goes on with Evolution and other supporting theories that are based on something other than experimentation. Fact is, there has never been an experiment with macro-evolution - until there is, Macro-Evolution is simply a theory and, IMO, a weak one at that.
The 'performance' Mac is not running on a Dual Core 32 bit proc, it's running a Dual G5 64 bit proc. The iMac is not Apple's fastest machine.
And yeah - I want 64 bit - I'm not happy with the move to Intel. I would've been a lot happier with AMD. But I care a whole lot more about the OS than the hardware it runs on.
Yeah - if it's a case study, then you can't really compare one product against another. Case studies are typically meant for doing an indepth look at one particular person or thing. A case study is just that. A study of a particular case.
You can study how people in an environment with Linux performed and how people in an environment with Windows performed, but you cannot make any statements like "In the experiment, we found that such flexibility also leads to ambiguity for administrators in terms of paths to follow when resolving conflicts." To me, that statement sounds pretty general. And from case studies, you cannot make generic statements.
No offense to Dr. Thompson - but even if the study was completely unbiased, with only a set of 3 admins for each side, the results are basically meaningless. Since it did not meet the proper amount of replications, the chances that this study would be repeatable in another environment are simply unknowable.
If you've taken a statistics class, you know that a total of 3 tests for each side is simply not enough to determine anything worth while. It's a wonder that Dr. Thompson is actually publishing these results as anything other than a sample, which will have a true test to come later. Reporting the results to a large audience just seems disingenuous.
Again - no offense to you personally, Dr. Thompson. It's done all the time in statistics.
Hardly any, huh? You must know only a certain type of Christians. All the Christians I know that I consider to be more than just Christian by name believe the Bible is 100% accurate.
Who do you think owns the patents on those PCI slots and USB ports in the Mac? Guess where the chipsets that support them come from.
You'll kindly note that I said 'Intel chips'. I realize there's no avoiding Intel entirely, however buying a CPU from them is where I decided to take my stand.
Well hold on there. I love OS X and I really don't care what platform per se it runs on. However, I've been boycotting Intel chips for years because of their abusive business practices.
I'm not sure if others feel the same as me or not. But I'm having a hard time with all this. Had they went with AMD, there would be no question in my mind. In the end, I think I will just give in and buy one, but if it's at all possible to hack and AMD to run it - who knows what might be.:-)
I certainly wouldn't consider myself 'ignorant' though.
Uhh.. how is that "more free"? By FORCING modifications to be open source. Is that more free? Isn't the idea of freedom that you can do whatever you want? That would be BSD.
I like GPLed software and I like BSD licensed software. GPL is great - but it's certainly not 'more free' than BSD. You can do anything you want with BSD - the ultimate freedom.
The GPL enforces that the source will remain 'open', but that kind of action to me isn't something I would call 'free' - 'Free' in the 'freedom' sense is the BSD license.
Yeah - the whole "Speed Kills" thing is just propaganda. Speeding doesn't cause accidents, bad driving causes accidents. Just look at Germany. The autobahn has no speed limit and they have less accidents per capita than America does.
I think you've got that wrong there. The 'keep right except to pass' would still be valid if no one went above the speed limit. Because there's always going to be someone going slower than you, even if the maximum is 65. It's not to accommodate speeding, but to accommodate the flow of traffic regardless of speed.
The whole reason for the 'keep right except to pass' is to prevent traffic jams. If there is someone in the right lane going slow and the guy in the left lane is not passing him - guess what? There's going to be a traffic jam.
And let me explain my comment about tailgating a little for all those offended. I was using a bit of hyperbole. I don't actually tailgate very much. My strategy is to let the guy know that I desire to pass him. If he does not respond, I use other methods. I'm generally very patient even if there is a clear path in the middle lane to pass him. I think it's dangerous to pass on the right. Only as a last resort will I pass on the right. I find that most people are accommodating as long as they are alerted to the fact that you want to pass them. Only once in awhile do I find that the guy's a jerk and feels like he owns the lane.
I also feel like I'm doing a service for all the other people in the left lane that are behind me. I get people to move out of the way so traffic can be uninterrupted by a slow person in the left lane.
If you are driving 65 in the left lane. I'm going to tailgate the heck out of you.
If everyone kept right except to pass, there would be way less traffic jams caused by people who think that the left passing lane is a travel lane.
And it's not 30 seconds. For my ~hour commute, it's about 15 minutes difference. My brother has driven the same commute and he goes the speed limit. I was always 10-15 minutes ahead of him. That's 130 hours a year that I'm saving.
-The reason for speed limits was to save on gas, not to save traffic jams or any kind of safety thing. -The reason for the 'keep right except to pass' is for safety and preventing traffic jams.
Why do you think that's there's groups of traffic on the road? There's some guy in the left lane going the same speed as the guy in the travel lane.
Re:but it could still be a lot better
on
Killer Ozone?
·
· Score: 1
True. I'm sure there are a number of cities in America that are still fairly polluted. But as a whole, we aren't doing too bad. Let's work to clean up those cities too. But no reason to declare that we're all going to die because we live in cities and the air pollution is killer.
pollution in cities is much better now
on
Killer Ozone?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Uhh.. I see that people have failed to mention that pollution in cities has really gone down in the past 50 years. There was a period of time from the industrial revolution where the pollution was particularly bad. Now pollution in major cities is way down. I'm glad they've done the pollution control they've done so far, but there's no reason to get all crazy in thinking that we're totally destroying the earth by our air pollution right now. We're doing a whole lot better than we were about 50 years ago.
Some books like 'The Resourceful Earth' and 'The State of Humanity' by Julian Simon has plenty of facts and stats about how the air in cities is as clean is as it was in 1580. That's right - 1580! I'd say we're doing pretty good now.
The default size of the install is not what defines bloatware. If Windows XP came with every game and every Application that was made for the PC, that wouldn't necessarily be bloatware.
Bloatware is when a product has so many _useless_ features that cause it to be large. (IE. Microsoft Office, Open Office)
Is linux bloated because you can install a good 4 CDs worth of stuff on your system install? No. You have options. And you have a wide variety of applications and tools at your disposal.
In OSX you almost need tabbed browsing, in Windows it's a bonus.
Uhh.. I think you have that backwards. For windows to switch between browser windows, you press ALT+TAB - but included in the selection is a bunch of other (non-browser) windows.
In OS X. You can press CMD-~ and switch between the browser windows easily. You can press CMD-TAB to switch between applications. And finally, you can use Expose to do either of those tasks as well.
I'd say you almost need tabbed browsing in Windows, and in OS X, it's a bonus. However - in any OS, I cannot live without tabbed browsing.
Re:example in practice
on
KISS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, WMA is less restrictive. I've been able to *legally* take 160kbps WMA files from a music site and turn them into 128kbps OGG files with a simple windows app.
Apple's AAC's won't let you do that? Since when. I've been taking my AACs and converting them to Mp3 ever since AAC's came out. You just grab LAME (like iTunes LAME) and convert them. It's pretty simple.
Reading the comments here, I am pretty stunned. (This is not a troll) Many people are talking about worrying about incompatibilities with the GPL. Well that is exactly why they shouldn't use GPL. Because the GPL's restrictive licensing, I do not believe that it is a "Free" license. Actually, I think the GPL is a step below close-source. What I would like to see is the open source community stop forcing people to contribute to the open code.
That's not to say that I haven't seen better implementations of GPL like licenses. But the BSD license (aside from the advertising attribution) is a great license. It is "Free" in the true sense of the word. So if X11 wants to use a more BSD style license, what's so bad about that? If you have problems with the advertising attribution, then complain about that. Don't complain because it's not GPL.
And of course, coders can do what they want with their code, but it just seems weird that people defend the GPL so much, when it is no nearly as "Free" as they think.
The BSD license is "Free" - freely distributed, free to do what you want with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh.. when did I say what I did believe in?
No, just as I don't deny that living organisms change over time.
Wow - someone understand science. It's too bad you're being sarcastic.
But yeah - scientifically, simply being able to see that the sun rises for a couple years, and that's your only evidence, you cannot conclude that 200 years ago the sun rose the same way (you can have a hypothesis about it). You need to scientifically prove it by some other means. Which is exactly what scientists have done with our solar systems and celestial mapping. Then together with all the other evidence, you have a theory of how the Solar system works, which is proven by other supporting data. That's when it becomes a theory.
Well yeah, basically. I do believe in gravity, but I don't believe it works like the Theory of Gravity says it works. Which is exactly what a whole lot of scientists are working on right now. They, too, don't believe Gravity works like the Theory of Gravity says it does. And that's why there are a number of theories about Dark Matter and whatnot.
So how does that metaphor work for Evolution with me? I do believe in some of the principles of Evolution - mutations and change over time, survival of the fittest, etc - but I don't believe life works the way the Theory of Evolution works.
I don't call the scientists working on theories of Dark Matter and other theories of Gravity idiots for not believing in the Theory of Gravity. I applaud their scientistic endeavor to find a different way of looking at things.
Again - this doesn't mean I support ID as science, since ID is not founded on the basics of scientific experimentation.
I'd agree somewhat here. I think it's hard to not have an opinion or belief about something, but when that opinion or belief interferes with your interpretation of the results - that's when your ability as a scientist goes out the window.
Actually, it's a matter of science that I've broken those up. Micro-Evolution is the form of Evolution which can be tested by mutation and observation of current species changing their sub-species or the creation of new species.
Macro is the theory which comes out of the theory of Micro-Evolution - a theory based on a theory. This theory is supported by both Micro-Evolution experiments and the observations of related animals (like Charles Darwin on the Galapagos.)
Sarcasm noted. But exactly what I mean - now regardless of what I believe about continental drift and whatnot, an experiment that shows continental drift does not PROVE that all of the land was once gathered in the same mass. The problem with it is that you do not know what occurred in the past unless you have an observable experiment. Micro-Continental Drift is a great theory because there is proof and experiments to back it up. Not that Macro-Continental Drift is a bad theory, it just can't be backed up as much. So you see the difference there? I'm not saying Evolution is a bad theory - scientifically it's one of the only things you could imagine from the evidence provided.
Now you treat me like a nut-case here, but who is the one who has the religious fervor? The guy supporting strict scientific experimentation and attempting to look at things logically? Or the guy who is just flaming and calling the other guy an idiot?
This is one of the reasons Evolution has been rejected by a lot of people. Just as ultra-right wing Christians really turn people off, this kind of statement also turns people off.
Personally, I don't believe in Evolution. That doesn't make me an idiot. I simply disagree with the theory. That doesn't mean I don't understand it, I simply don't agree with it. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant either - I know more about Evolution than most people I know.
Just as the Theory of Gravity has some problems and needs to be understood better/differently, I believe the Theory of Evolution needs to be understood better/differently - in Evolution's case I think it needs to be drastically different.
But that doesn't mean I think Intelligent Design is science, either. But neither is a whole lot that goes on with Evolution and other supporting theories that are based on something other than experimentation. Fact is, there has never been an experiment with macro-evolution - until there is, Macro-Evolution is simply a theory and, IMO, a weak one at that.
Is this a flame or what?
The 'performance' Mac is not running on a Dual Core 32 bit proc, it's running a Dual G5 64 bit proc. The iMac is not Apple's fastest machine.
And yeah - I want 64 bit - I'm not happy with the move to Intel. I would've been a lot happier with AMD. But I care a whole lot more about the OS than the hardware it runs on.
Uhh.. Quicktime IS mpeg4 (H.263) unless you're using their new stuff which is H.264
Yeah - if it's a case study, then you can't really compare one product against another. Case studies are typically meant for doing an indepth look at one particular person or thing. A case study is just that. A study of a particular case.
You can study how people in an environment with Linux performed and how people in an environment with Windows performed, but you cannot make any statements like "In the experiment, we found that such flexibility also leads to ambiguity for administrators in terms of paths to follow when resolving conflicts." To me, that statement sounds pretty general. And from case studies, you cannot make generic statements.
No offense to Dr. Thompson - but even if the study was completely unbiased, with only a set of 3 admins for each side, the results are basically meaningless. Since it did not meet the proper amount of replications, the chances that this study would be repeatable in another environment are simply unknowable.
If you've taken a statistics class, you know that a total of 3 tests for each side is simply not enough to determine anything worth while. It's a wonder that Dr. Thompson is actually publishing these results as anything other than a sample, which will have a true test to come later. Reporting the results to a large audience just seems disingenuous.
Again - no offense to you personally, Dr. Thompson. It's done all the time in statistics.
Hardly any, huh? You must know only a certain type of Christians. All the Christians I know that I consider to be more than just Christian by name believe the Bible is 100% accurate.
You'll kindly note that I said 'Intel chips'. I realize there's no avoiding Intel entirely, however buying a CPU from them is where I decided to take my stand.
Well hold on there. I love OS X and I really don't care what platform per se it runs on. However, I've been boycotting Intel chips for years because of their abusive business practices.
:-)
I'm not sure if others feel the same as me or not. But I'm having a hard time with all this. Had they went with AMD, there would be no question in my mind. In the end, I think I will just give in and buy one, but if it's at all possible to hack and AMD to run it - who knows what might be.
I certainly wouldn't consider myself 'ignorant' though.
Uhh.. how is that "more free"? By FORCING modifications to be open source. Is that more free? Isn't the idea of freedom that you can do whatever you want? That would be BSD.
I like GPLed software and I like BSD licensed software. GPL is great - but it's certainly not 'more free' than BSD. You can do anything you want with BSD - the ultimate freedom.
The GPL enforces that the source will remain 'open', but that kind of action to me isn't something I would call 'free' - 'Free' in the 'freedom' sense is the BSD license.
Yeah - the whole "Speed Kills" thing is just propaganda. Speeding doesn't cause accidents, bad driving causes accidents. Just look at Germany. The autobahn has no speed limit and they have less accidents per capita than America does.
I think you've got that wrong there. The 'keep right except to pass' would still be valid if no one went above the speed limit. Because there's always going to be someone going slower than you, even if the maximum is 65. It's not to accommodate speeding, but to accommodate the flow of traffic regardless of speed.
The whole reason for the 'keep right except to pass' is to prevent traffic jams. If there is someone in the right lane going slow and the guy in the left lane is not passing him - guess what? There's going to be a traffic jam.
And let me explain my comment about tailgating a little for all those offended. I was using a bit of hyperbole. I don't actually tailgate very much. My strategy is to let the guy know that I desire to pass him. If he does not respond, I use other methods. I'm generally very patient even if there is a clear path in the middle lane to pass him. I think it's dangerous to pass on the right. Only as a last resort will I pass on the right. I find that most people are accommodating as long as they are alerted to the fact that you want to pass them. Only once in awhile do I find that the guy's a jerk and feels like he owns the lane.
I also feel like I'm doing a service for all the other people in the left lane that are behind me. I get people to move out of the way so traffic can be uninterrupted by a slow person in the left lane.
If you are driving 65 in the left lane. I'm going to tailgate the heck out of you.
If everyone kept right except to pass, there would be way less traffic jams caused by people who think that the left passing lane is a travel lane.
And it's not 30 seconds. For my ~hour commute, it's about 15 minutes difference. My brother has driven the same commute and he goes the speed limit. I was always 10-15 minutes ahead of him. That's 130 hours a year that I'm saving.
-The reason for speed limits was to save on gas, not to save traffic jams or any kind of safety thing.
-The reason for the 'keep right except to pass' is for safety and preventing traffic jams.
Why do you think that's there's groups of traffic on the road? There's some guy in the left lane going the same speed as the guy in the travel lane.
True. I'm sure there are a number of cities in America that are still fairly polluted. But as a whole, we aren't doing too bad. Let's work to clean up those cities too. But no reason to declare that we're all going to die because we live in cities and the air pollution is killer.
Uhh.. I see that people have failed to mention that pollution in cities has really gone down in the past 50 years. There was a period of time from the industrial revolution where the pollution was particularly bad. Now pollution in major cities is way down. I'm glad they've done the pollution control they've done so far, but there's no reason to get all crazy in thinking that we're totally destroying the earth by our air pollution right now. We're doing a whole lot better than we were about 50 years ago.
Some books like 'The Resourceful Earth' and 'The State of Humanity' by Julian Simon has plenty of facts and stats about how the air in cities is as clean is as it was in 1580. That's right - 1580! I'd say we're doing pretty good now.
So I'm a liar huh? I had a 300 Mhz G3 iBook (blueberry) - that one got 5 hours of battery life.
I had a 500 Mhz G3 iBook. That one (with new battery) gets around 5 hours of battery life.
I have a 800 Mhz G4 iBook. This one gets around 5 hours of battery life.
But I guess I'm a liar, so you shouldn't pay attention to me.
He said, instead of 'are'!
I figured someone would've caught him on that, seeing as he is posting about English and education.
The default size of the install is not what defines bloatware. If Windows XP came with every game and every Application that was made for the PC, that wouldn't necessarily be bloatware.
Bloatware is when a product has so many _useless_ features that cause it to be large. (IE. Microsoft Office, Open Office)
Is linux bloated because you can install a good 4 CDs worth of stuff on your system install? No. You have options. And you have a wide variety of applications and tools at your disposal.
Uhh.. I think you have that backwards. For windows to switch between browser windows, you press ALT+TAB - but included in the selection is a bunch of other (non-browser) windows.
In OS X. You can press CMD-~ and switch between the browser windows easily. You can press CMD-TAB to switch between applications. And finally, you can use Expose to do either of those tasks as well.
I'd say you almost need tabbed browsing in Windows, and in OS X, it's a bonus. However - in any OS, I cannot live without tabbed browsing.
Apple's AAC's won't let you do that? Since when. I've been taking my AACs and converting them to Mp3 ever since AAC's came out. You just grab LAME (like iTunes LAME) and convert them. It's pretty simple.
Reading the comments here, I am pretty stunned. (This is not a troll) Many people are talking about worrying about incompatibilities with the GPL. Well that is exactly why they shouldn't use GPL. Because the GPL's restrictive licensing, I do not believe that it is a "Free" license. Actually, I think the GPL is a step below close-source. What I would like to see is the open source community stop forcing people to contribute to the open code.
That's not to say that I haven't seen better implementations of GPL like licenses. But the BSD license (aside from the advertising attribution) is a great license. It is "Free" in the true sense of the word. So if X11 wants to use a more BSD style license, what's so bad about that? If you have problems with the advertising attribution, then complain about that. Don't complain because it's not GPL.
And of course, coders can do what they want with their code, but it just seems weird that people defend the GPL so much, when it is no nearly as "Free" as they think.
The BSD license is "Free" - freely distributed, free to do what you want with it.