The people smart enough to consider this question are probably more intelligent than 85% of those who actually will vote. Therefore, not voting because you don't think you are informed enough results in fewer votes by smart people. It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.
You fail to grasp the basics of biology. You probably took high school bio and haven't touched since then.
First of all, "survival of the fittest" is a very crude model and fails to explain many things. Modern biology actually uses the "selfish gene" model, as popularized by Richard Dawkins (also author of "The God Delusion").
Think of it this way: Survival of the fittest is like Newton's physics (only works for some common cases, and with limited accuracy), while selfish gene theory is like Einstein's model of physics.
Also, the entire idea of biodiversity is lost to you! "Fitness" is always for a specific environment, and you miss that. When the environment changes, we don't WANT to all be "fit" in the sense that you see it for today's environment. That would be bad. Perhaps some rare lung disease could allow people to live if global warming drastically changes the composition of our atmosphere? It sounds like you would rather people with that lung disease don't reproduce--and you're just plain wrong.
Also, evolutionary psychology seems to play an important role in the survival of some of the smarter animals (especially humans).
So you seem interested in science. Please, READ about it! Read The Selfish Gene. Go to the Science sector of your book store, pick up a book written by a biologist for an audience outside his field, and read it!
Despite good intentions, most high school science teachers are completely ignorant about real science, and know nothing of scientific advancements more recent than 30-40 years old.
When you download GPL code, you are agreeing to a license between YOU and the code AUTHOR.
You have made NO agreement with any third party.
If I have a patent on "a computer system which counts sheep," and Linus Torvalds writes a piece of software which counts sheep, then licenses it to YOU under the GPL, YOU have an agreement with Linus, not with me. I can sue your ass no matter what license you have with Linus. The license between you and Linus has NOTHING to do with my patent.
How on earth could they ever claim this is an accurate number? The whole world is moving in the direction of name-based virtual hosting. One IP could potentially host thousands of web pages, all with different domain names.
Interesting. Coming from a medical family, there is not much respect for osteopathy or "eastern" medicines which do not withstand scientific scrutiny. The one exception, of course, is the placebo effect, which certainly is a real phenomenon.
And it sounds like you have something like 30 years on me in terms of existing (or thinking you do:-). Perhaps I will realize your doubts, or perhaps I will continue to dismiss the reasoning as valid but of no value.
It makes no since that people spend there time studying English, sense its clear their not learning they're own language
"Their", as in "Their time is valuable." "There" as in "There is a bear there" "They're" as in "They're running out of time" Before criticizing someone's grammar, be sure that your own is correct.
woooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!
Also, you missed "sense" and "it's." You completely fail at naziism.
You haven't looked closely enough. The two most powerful parties both hold ELECTIONS to pick their candidates for the larger election. Your puppetry fears would only make sense if some specific person had the ability to decide a party's candidate.
The term "metaphysics" lends a false sense of respectability to that particular piece of philosophy. It has nothing to do with the science called "physics." The only people who think physics is in some sort of epistemological crisis are crack-pot opportunist new-age "thinkers" like Dr. Wayne Dryer, who misappropriates quantum physics to support his comforting (and profitable) delusions.
Also, with your philosophical background, you have no doubt studied formal logic. You will recall, then, that when reasoning, if an assumed axiom leads to contradictory conclusions, that axiom is necessarily false. Good science of course follows this logic, so good science does not have "beliefs" in the strictest sense. If you set out to demonstrate a "belief" and the opposite happens, you conclude that the belief must be wrong. Therefore, a scientist does not have beliefs in the sense of the term you keep using.
Think of a proof by contradiction. Obviously, though you assume something to be true, and reason based on it, it is not part of a "belief system."
One more thing: Einstein wasn't always right. Same with Newton. The further ahead we get with science, the more obviously wrong the superstitions of the past seem to have been. And with very rare exceptions, all the scientists of their day shared in part of those superstitions. Only recently, in the era of Darwin, Daniel Gilbert, Richard Dawkins, et. all, is a world view unencumbered by superstition becoming main-stream.
And I still don't understand what this great insight of yours is. The universe might be an illusion, and we can never prove otherwise? YES. EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU. We just don't waste time pondering unanswerable questions. Don't play vocabulary games. A "working assumption" might be called a "belief" by the uneducated. But a student of science and philosophy knows that scientific assumptions can be overturned, and so are not belief-systems.
Has some author convinced you to change your world view? Perhaps you are trying to convey some point I could more easily analyze with a book in hand?
Oh, and thanks for better conversation than I can ever seem to find locally in Ohio. Isn't the internet wonderful?
That is an excellent point. Because disk sectors can be read or written in any order, it is impossible to make blocks dependent on each other. At best, they could only do ECB.
Watch out when looking at disk protection software. Some companies, like Maxtor, sell security functionality (called DriveLock, among others), which is really just "ATA Security Mode." This is NOT encryption, it is a feature of the disks circuitry whereby the drive will not output any data until the "password" has been provided. Some drives even ship with default master passwords included. Maxtor's product even includes a "I lost my password!" feature, making the security of the product completely worthless.
To all but the most critical of consumers, the marketing of this technology would cause the misconception that encryption is being used.
Until this product hits the market, software like TrueCrypt is the only way to have real disk encryption.
Dude, what if we all actually live in the Matrix? Whoa.
But seriously, philosophers haven't put that question to rest yet? I thought pretty much everyone agrees that we will never be able to "prove" that the universe isn't some kind of illusion. But that doesn't matter, and bringing it up amounts to philosophical masturbation.
When we are discussing science, such as "does stimulus X cause biological response Y?" we axiomatically assume the universe exists, our senses are not cheats, we are not insane, etc.. Doing otherwise would just be pointless.
Also, as a scientist, I like to avoid even using the word "believe." I prefer to say I have "a high degree of confidence" in a model which has withstood significant scientific scrutiny.
No. Double-blind studies do not need so much salt. The "hard" (physical) sciences don't usually need anything close to the salt the soft (social/psychological/macrobiological) sciences need.
Not all sciences are subjected to the same amount of subjectivity. The more subjective data is, the more salt you need.
And what's this business of belief-systems? Sure, people who have "faith" that gods/demons/faeries/ghosts influence our lives can't really test to see if that is the case. But a scientist doesn't bother himself with "magic." He only tests the natural world. Magic and supernatural "belief-systems" are beyond the scope of science. They are also, in all likelihood, insane. Yep, 80% of the world is insane.
First of all, it would be impossible to do a double-blind study on this topic, so take the data with a ginormous grain of salt. Secondly, is there any reason this would be the case for tai chi and not for every other form of physical activity?
You can't imagine how it's like to drive on the highway with 90 mph and thinking "I might as well turn the steering wheel real quick and be done with it". For weeks on end. Every day.
Psh. If you're gonna do it, at least do it right.
An auto crash may seem appealing because it isn't obviously suicide, so your life insurance will still pay out. But if you pull in to a brick wall at 90mph, insurance is going to give your beneficiaries a very hard time in proving it was not suicide.
No, if you want to do it right, you take out a big insurance policy, and set a date a year in the future. You plan to trade in your nice car for a cheap beater without air bags (why ruin a good car over something as meaningless as your life). You determine what weather conditions would be most conducive of an accidental crash (rain/snow, late at night, fog, road without good lighting). Then, every time you feel like shit and want to wreck on the way to work, you think to yourself, "oh just wait a year and I'll get to do this properly! And dear-old-mom will get a check for $1M." That should put a smile on your face and start your day in a good mood.
My past experience with it is ignored, and they'll go so far as to say I'm clearly getting better despite evidence to the contrary.
Actually, they are trying the new "placebo effect" method of psychological therapy. They give you a sugar pill and keep telling you "you're getting better!" until you believe it yourself.
Actually, your post basically says "depression treatment sucks--it's so depressing!" I find that to be a pretty damned funny statement. Thanks:-)
what's the difference in (UK) English between: "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less"? In US English they're used interchangably
I think there are two types of people: Those that use language soely as a collection of sounds, and those who think about the actual meanings of the actual words they use.
I consider the first group to be, on average, dumber than the second. And they are the only ones who say "could care less." So, while you say they are used interchangably in the US, this is only done by the dumber section of our populace.
I had a roommate who only understood English phonetically, and if I were to ask him to find an error with my sig, he would have been totally unable to do so. For that reason, I did not let him do any of the writing for our group projects:-)
Slashdot Mirror
The people smart enough to consider this question are probably more intelligent than 85% of those who actually will vote. Therefore, not voting because you don't think you are informed enough results in fewer votes by smart people. It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.
You fail to grasp the basics of biology. You probably took high school bio and haven't touched since then.
First of all, "survival of the fittest" is a very crude model and fails to explain many things. Modern biology actually uses the "selfish gene" model, as popularized by Richard Dawkins (also author of "The God Delusion").
Think of it this way: Survival of the fittest is like Newton's physics (only works for some common cases, and with limited accuracy), while selfish gene theory is like Einstein's model of physics.
Also, the entire idea of biodiversity is lost to you! "Fitness" is always for a specific environment, and you miss that. When the environment changes, we don't WANT to all be "fit" in the sense that you see it for today's environment. That would be bad. Perhaps some rare lung disease could allow people to live if global warming drastically changes the composition of our atmosphere? It sounds like you would rather people with that lung disease don't reproduce--and you're just plain wrong.
Also, evolutionary psychology seems to play an important role in the survival of some of the smarter animals (especially humans).
So you seem interested in science. Please, READ about it! Read The Selfish Gene. Go to the Science sector of your book store, pick up a book written by a biologist for an audience outside his field, and read it!
Despite good intentions, most high school science teachers are completely ignorant about real science, and know nothing of scientific advancements more recent than 30-40 years old.
When you download GPL code, you are agreeing to a license between YOU and the code AUTHOR.
You have made NO agreement with any third party.
If I have a patent on "a computer system which counts sheep," and Linus Torvalds writes a piece of software which counts sheep, then licenses it to YOU under the GPL, YOU have an agreement with Linus, not with me. I can sue your ass no matter what license you have with Linus. The license between you and Linus has NOTHING to do with my patent.
GPL is a copyright license. Patents have nothing to do with copyrights. Microsoft can license their patents who whomever they choose, at any price.
The blurb implies that Microsoft will enforce their patents against distributions other than SuSE.
Yipe!
The IBM patent portfolio may be the only thing holding Microsoft back from the destruction of the Linux OS.
You can do that for second-level domains, but not reliably for anything lower in the tree.
How on earth could they ever claim this is an accurate number? The whole world is moving in the direction of name-based virtual hosting. One IP could potentially host thousands of web pages, all with different domain names.
Interesting. Coming from a medical family, there is not much respect for osteopathy or "eastern" medicines which do not withstand scientific scrutiny. The one exception, of course, is the placebo effect, which certainly is a real phenomenon.
:-). Perhaps I will realize your doubts, or perhaps I will continue to dismiss the reasoning as valid but of no value.
And it sounds like you have something like 30 years on me in terms of existing (or thinking you do
woooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!
Also, you missed "sense" and "it's." You completely fail at naziism.
even if he loses, he gets tons of press for his isp
Static RAM? COME ON, SLASHDOT! You aren't even trying anymore!
You haven't looked closely enough. The two most powerful parties both hold ELECTIONS to pick their candidates for the larger election. Your puppetry fears would only make sense if some specific person had the ability to decide a party's candidate.
The term "metaphysics" lends a false sense of respectability to that particular piece of philosophy. It has nothing to do with the science called "physics." The only people who think physics is in some sort of epistemological crisis are crack-pot opportunist new-age "thinkers" like Dr. Wayne Dryer, who misappropriates quantum physics to support his comforting (and profitable) delusions.
Also, with your philosophical background, you have no doubt studied formal logic. You will recall, then, that when reasoning, if an assumed axiom leads to contradictory conclusions, that axiom is necessarily false. Good science of course follows this logic, so good science does not have "beliefs" in the strictest sense. If you set out to demonstrate a "belief" and the opposite happens, you conclude that the belief must be wrong. Therefore, a scientist does not have beliefs in the sense of the term you keep using.
Think of a proof by contradiction. Obviously, though you assume something to be true, and reason based on it, it is not part of a "belief system."
One more thing: Einstein wasn't always right. Same with Newton. The further ahead we get with science, the more obviously wrong the superstitions of the past seem to have been. And with very rare exceptions, all the scientists of their day shared in part of those superstitions. Only recently, in the era of Darwin, Daniel Gilbert, Richard Dawkins, et. all, is a world view unencumbered by superstition becoming main-stream.
And I still don't understand what this great insight of yours is. The universe might be an illusion, and we can never prove otherwise? YES. EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU. We just don't waste time pondering unanswerable questions. Don't play vocabulary games. A "working assumption" might be called a "belief" by the uneducated. But a student of science and philosophy knows that scientific assumptions can be overturned, and so are not belief-systems.
Has some author convinced you to change your world view? Perhaps you are trying to convey some point I could more easily analyze with a book in hand?
Oh, and thanks for better conversation than I can ever seem to find locally in Ohio. Isn't the internet wonderful?
That is an excellent point. Because disk sectors can be read or written in any order, it is impossible to make blocks dependent on each other. At best, they could only do ECB.
f _operation
To anyone who doesn't realize why this is a serious problem, check out the picture of Tux which shows how ECB isn't real encryption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_modes_o
How does TrueCrypt do blocking?
Watch out when looking at disk protection software. Some companies, like Maxtor, sell security functionality (called DriveLock, among others), which is really just "ATA Security Mode." This is NOT encryption, it is a feature of the disks circuitry whereby the drive will not output any data until the "password" has been provided. Some drives even ship with default master passwords included. Maxtor's product even includes a "I lost my password!" feature, making the security of the product completely worthless.
To all but the most critical of consumers, the marketing of this technology would cause the misconception that encryption is being used.
Until this product hits the market, software like TrueCrypt is the only way to have real disk encryption.
Dude, what if we all actually live in the Matrix? Whoa.
But seriously, philosophers haven't put that question to rest yet? I thought pretty much everyone agrees that we will never be able to "prove" that the universe isn't some kind of illusion. But that doesn't matter, and bringing it up amounts to philosophical masturbation.
When we are discussing science, such as "does stimulus X cause biological response Y?" we axiomatically assume the universe exists, our senses are not cheats, we are not insane, etc.. Doing otherwise would just be pointless.
Also, as a scientist, I like to avoid even using the word "believe." I prefer to say I have "a high degree of confidence" in a model which has withstood significant scientific scrutiny.
No. Double-blind studies do not need so much salt. The "hard" (physical) sciences don't usually need anything close to the salt the soft (social/psychological/macrobiological) sciences need.
Not all sciences are subjected to the same amount of subjectivity. The more subjective data is, the more salt you need.
And what's this business of belief-systems? Sure, people who have "faith" that gods/demons/faeries/ghosts influence our lives can't really test to see if that is the case. But a scientist doesn't bother himself with "magic." He only tests the natural world. Magic and supernatural "belief-systems" are beyond the scope of science. They are also, in all likelihood, insane. Yep, 80% of the world is insane.
First of all, it would be impossible to do a double-blind study on this topic, so take the data with a ginormous grain of salt. Secondly, is there any reason this would be the case for tai chi and not for every other form of physical activity?
My mind boggles at your comment.
"most uses of it are bad."
You must have a different definiton of "most" from the rest of us.
DRM can be implemented using either symmetric or public key crypto.
Yes. Publish or perish.
Psh. If you're gonna do it, at least do it right.
An auto crash may seem appealing because it isn't obviously suicide, so your life insurance will still pay out. But if you pull in to a brick wall at 90mph, insurance is going to give your beneficiaries a very hard time in proving it was not suicide.
No, if you want to do it right, you take out a big insurance policy, and set a date a year in the future. You plan to trade in your nice car for a cheap beater without air bags (why ruin a good car over something as meaningless as your life). You determine what weather conditions would be most conducive of an accidental crash (rain/snow, late at night, fog, road without good lighting). Then, every time you feel like shit and want to wreck on the way to work, you think to yourself, "oh just wait a year and I'll get to do this properly! And dear-old-mom will get a check for $1M." That should put a smile on your face and start your day in a good mood.
Actually, they are trying the new "placebo effect" method of psychological therapy. They give you a sugar pill and keep telling you "you're getting better!" until you believe it yourself.
Actually, your post basically says "depression treatment sucks--it's so depressing!" I find that to be a pretty damned funny statement. Thanks
Oh, bugger off. The "f" is right next to the "v" on a keyboard. Punk.
I think there are two types of people: Those that use language soely as a collection of sounds, and those who think about the actual meanings of the actual words they use.
I consider the first group to be, on average, dumber than the second. And they are the only ones who say "could care less." So, while you say they are used interchangably in the US, this is only done by the dumber section of our populace.
I had a roommate who only understood English phonetically, and if I were to ask him to find an error with my sig, he would have been totally unable to do so. For that reason, I did not let him do any of the writing for our group projects