there are quite a few who apply reason rigorously to their religious beliefs.
Who exactly? And what did they find? If they actually applied rigorous reasoning, they should have a convincing argument for their conclusions. I would be most interested in this.
However, every time I check, and it's been often for many years, "rigorous reasoning" is anything but. Consider Pascal's Wager, for centuries it was considered logically sound, but it's really just a false dichotomy. Are you sure these reasonable religious people are not just dressing up their faith in the trappings of reason to make it sound better?
The Catholic church now officially accepts the Scientific model of the world almost completely including the Big bang and origin of species through Evolution.
But condoms still contribute to the spread of AIDS. Honestly, I'd rather they still be pushing geocentrism. That doesn't kill anyone.
Despite the propaganda, you'll find reasoning people both outside and inside religion
Why would a reasoning person believe in the unverifiable? The only reasonable reaction when presented with a nonfalsifiable hypothesis is "could be, but I don't really know".
Religion is at best wishful thinking. And wishful thinking isn't reason.
Effective at what exactly? Effective at getting actionable intelligence? Never. Effective at getting the victim to say whatever it is you want to hear? Certainly.
The moment someone suggests torture it's clear they don't give one shit about the truth or keeping anyone safe. All they care about is their own power.
Sorry, he's full of shit. I value my privacy, and I don't splatter intimate details of my private life all over the internet. Do you think the cops are going to check whether I have a facebook page before they take infrared images of my house?
No, the biggest threat to my privacy is the fucking government.
Slashdot is technically literate, and nuclear reactors are the technically superior solution. Why would/. object to that?
Fast breeder reactors are exactly what is needed to deal with the problem of nuclear waste. If we had breeder reactors, we wouldn't have spent fuel rods piling up all over the place, and Fukushima in particular would have been less dangerous. The technology exists, but it's not used because people are stupid and afraid. Generally slashdot, and anyone who isn't a shitty human being, will favor the technically superior solution to the one that sounds less scary.
If you can't be bothered to look both ways before crossing the street, it's you who are negligent. The only exception is the blind, and we have audible crosswalks now, so this technology is pointless.
Multiple windows means I can notice events happening in another window
Isn't this what notifications are for? If I'm compiling something that will take more than a couple minutes, I just do 'make; notify-send "build done".
in computing terms, since the window doesn't need redrawn
Resolution and aspect ratio are tied on any digital display technology. The aspect ratio of your display is a function of the resolution and the aspect ratio of the pixels.
What you say is your opinion (and your welcome to it), but having the wider screen for a vast number of us is more productive
You might believe that, but studies show that long lines fatigue the eyes. Typography is well established science, and the 80 character limit is actually on the high end of what is recommended.
Given the propensity for humans to fool themselves about their actual capabilities, (e.g., I'm a great multitasker!), doesn't it make sense to listen to the experts?
But in the real world, I generally have multiple windows open, each no larger than half the screen area, and mostly smaller.*
That's a waste. You can't have focus on more than one window at a time. At best you can read from one and write into another, so if you're displaying more than two windows you're wasting space.
It would, if it were hyperbole. But it's not. If climate change is not stopped, billions of people will die. James Hansen is just about the only credible voice there is on this issue.
Horizontal resolution is entirely irrelevant. Your ability to read lines peaks at about 80 characters. There's no limit to how long a column of text can be. Therefore, vertical resolution is the important issue.
Slashdot Mirror
there are quite a few who apply reason rigorously to their religious beliefs.
Who exactly? And what did they find? If they actually applied rigorous reasoning, they should have a convincing argument for their conclusions. I would be most interested in this.
However, every time I check, and it's been often for many years, "rigorous reasoning" is anything but. Consider Pascal's Wager, for centuries it was considered logically sound, but it's really just a false dichotomy. Are you sure these reasonable religious people are not just dressing up their faith in the trappings of reason to make it sound better?
The Catholic church now officially accepts the Scientific model of the world almost completely including the Big bang and origin of species through Evolution.
But condoms still contribute to the spread of AIDS. Honestly, I'd rather they still be pushing geocentrism. That doesn't kill anyone.
Despite the propaganda, you'll find reasoning people both outside and inside religion
Why would a reasoning person believe in the unverifiable? The only reasonable reaction when presented with a nonfalsifiable hypothesis is "could be, but I don't really know".
Religion is at best wishful thinking. And wishful thinking isn't reason.
Keep in perspective that: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA The most recent of which was about 9 years ago.
It's been 9 years, and still none of the torturers have been tried for their crimes.
Effective at what exactly? Effective at getting actionable intelligence? Never. Effective at getting the victim to say whatever it is you want to hear? Certainly.
The moment someone suggests torture it's clear they don't give one shit about the truth or keeping anyone safe. All they care about is their own power.
No, actually. Please elaborate.
Sorry, he's full of shit. I value my privacy, and I don't splatter intimate details of my private life all over the internet. Do you think the cops are going to check whether I have a facebook page before they take infrared images of my house?
No, the biggest threat to my privacy is the fucking government.
Slashdot is technically literate, and nuclear reactors are the technically superior solution. Why would /. object to that?
Fast breeder reactors are exactly what is needed to deal with the problem of nuclear waste. If we had breeder reactors, we wouldn't have spent fuel rods piling up all over the place, and Fukushima in particular would have been less dangerous. The technology exists, but it's not used because people are stupid and afraid. Generally slashdot, and anyone who isn't a shitty human being, will favor the technically superior solution to the one that sounds less scary.
Still something that definitely needs fixed
You forgot the infinitive.
If you can't be bothered to look both ways before crossing the street, it's you who are negligent. The only exception is the blind, and we have audible crosswalks now, so this technology is pointless.
No, I'm saying that free will doesn't exist and that we're all controlled by the laws of physics.
Multiple windows means I can notice events happening in another window
Isn't this what notifications are for? If I'm compiling something that will take more than a couple minutes, I just do 'make; notify-send "build done".
in computing terms, since the window doesn't need redrawn
You forgot the infinitive.
that you would otherwise be skimming from in your peripheral vision
I have never done that, nor can I imagine a use case. If I want to read something, I look at it.
What if you need access to three or more windows, and need to switch back and forth between them quickly
That's what virtual desktops are for.
What you say is your opinion (and your welcome to it), but having the wider screen for a vast number of us is more productive
If you cant deal with a little markup, you're in the wrong place.
Resolution and aspect ratio are tied on any digital display technology. The aspect ratio of your display is a function of the resolution and the aspect ratio of the pixels.
Plenty of 11 year olds got their start coding a mix of BASIC and 6502 assembly. C shouldn't be much worse.
What you say is your opinion (and your welcome to it), but having the wider screen for a vast number of us is more productive
You might believe that, but studies show that long lines fatigue the eyes. Typography is well established science, and the 80 character limit is actually on the high end of what is recommended.
Given the propensity for humans to fool themselves about their actual capabilities, (e.g., I'm a great multitasker!), doesn't it make sense to listen to the experts?
But in the real world, I generally have multiple windows open, each no larger than half the screen area, and mostly smaller.*
That's a waste. You can't have focus on more than one window at a time. At best you can read from one and write into another, so if you're displaying more than two windows you're wasting space.
I see you are unfamilliar with the word "peak". I suggest you consult a dictionary and contrast with the word "end". They are not synonyms.
It would, if it were hyperbole. But it's not. If climate change is not stopped, billions of people will die. James Hansen is just about the only credible voice there is on this issue.
NDAA, immunity for unconstitutional wiretaps, flagrantly violating the war powers act, executing more raids on legal Cannabis dispensaries, etc.
Horizontal resolution is entirely irrelevant. Your ability to read lines peaks at about 80 characters. There's no limit to how long a column of text can be. Therefore, vertical resolution is the important issue.
Free will, mutha-fscker, ever heard of it?
Sure. I've heard of unicorns and leprechauns too.
768 lines of resolution is too few.