When I see something in my path, and I don't adjust for it, I collide with it and experience pain. When I do adjust for it, I don't. That would seem to be evidence that my vision is at least somewhat accurate.
Same with my words. I don't actually know a priori if my words are coherent. But they elicit coherent responses from others, so it seems likely that they are.
They already are supported by donations. Anyone who wants to get a game for free can already do so, usually with less effort than actually buying the game. Anyone who chooses to spend money on games today does so out of the goodness of their heart.
But even if that weren't the case, and people didn't decide to invest in games they wanted to see produced, that's ultimately their decision to make. Why should we second guess their value judgements?
"what if we're in a simulation" is a fun game to play, but that's all it is, a game. You can't prove we are, and we can't prove we aren't, so it is in fact meaningless in any practical sense. Assuming either position and using that as a basis to make decisions is crazy.
By making games that are good enough that people will beg you to let them pay you. Face it, buying games(and music and movies) is already charity. If you want it free you can get it for free with less hassle than actually paying for it. Make games people want and they will reward you. If they don't, they obviously didn't value it enough, and therefore nothing of value is lost.
If you want network transparency, you need to use a protocol like NX.
NX builds on top of X. The right thing to do is not ditch X, but to build NX into X.
And it's not hard to add this into Wayland, in fact I'm pretty sure that's the plan.
Then why hasn't anyone from the project said "All Wayland apps will be network transparent by default."? It's an easy thing to do that would quiet a lot of FUD.
That it is possible to implement network transparency with Wayland is not enough. It must be impossible to implement Wayland without network transparency. Only that will provide the same consistency of experience that X has provided so well for so long.
Have you any evidence in the basic reliability of your own senses and reason?
No, in fact they are quite unreliable. This is why eye witness testimony leads to so many bad convictions. People are poor observers.
And my reason is likely to be highly flawed too. But it's not likely to be more flawed than anyone else's, and it's better than making decisions randomly. And I regularly test my reason by debating with other reasonable people. When they find a flaw in my reasoning, I change it. I make an effort to identify cognitive biases in my own thoughts, and appreciate when people point out biases that I've missed.
So no, I don't trust my own senses and reason. I expect them to be flawed and cope with them as best as I can. Are you suggesting that blind faith is preferable?
There are some things that are unknowable. Such as the simultaneous position and velocity of fundamental particles. Also, anything outside of our light cone is unknowable.
But to get back on topic, if God exists his existence will be demonstrable with the scientific method. There's no reason to resort to belief.
Actually first hand experience is one of the poorest methods for determining the truth. We are highly suggestible creatures with very fallible memories. Our psyches are stitched together from cognitive biases that only accidentally result in a mind capable of reason. I will trust the data over my own eyes every single time.
I agree. What is actually knowable and what is actually unknowable doesn't change my analysis. If it's knowable, it will be discovered by the scientific method. If it's not, it's irrelevant. Faith/belief/wishful thinking doesn't enter the picture at all.
Finally, the NEC processor complained about in the article was hilariously easy to use, because it's pin- and instruction-compatible with the intel processors it replaces
Yeah, the NEC V20 is still a popular upgrade for those of us with XT class machines. Just drop it in and enjoy a 30% increase in speed, and compatibility with 286 instructions.
Bullshit. The whole reason for supporting network transparency by default is that no one has to write "network friendly" apps. It "just works".
network transparency is not nearly as useful as it used to be
I use network transparency every day. With GUI apps that use pixmaps, borders, and shadows. With FreeNX, the extra rendering time is barely perceptible.
But even if you were right, for the sake of argument, and we had to choose between network transparency and pretty widgets, network transparency is the only sensible choice. Network transparency is a real feature that enables people to work better. Pretty widgets are just eye candy.
There are vastly more efficient ways to do network transparency, they are available today, and they do not involve X at all: text-based interface, Web server + XHTML, remote procedure calls.
But they require a serious investment in IT in order to work. Setting up and securing a web server is a lot more work than simply installing freenx, logging in, and getting to work.
Applications that do not support one of those are clearly not intended to be remotely run.
Fuck you. As the user, it should be up to me whether I want to run an app remotely. I don't use open source so I can be dictated to.
I am curious, what do you use remote X for?
Bioinformatics software that runs on a virtual machine in a data center. I perform analyses that eat a ton of RAM and display them graphically on
Life had to begin somewhere. What's anthropocentric about assuming that life began in the only place it's ever shown to exist? Until there's evidence to suggest otherwise, it's the only sensible hypothesis.
Basically, Panspermia solves the issue of the unlikelihood of life developing sporadically on Earth
Which isn't even an issue that needs to be solved. Space is big. No matter how unlikely abiogenesis is, space is big enough that the right conditions must have happened at least once. And once is all we need to explain our observations.
And panspermia doesn't even solve the issue that it's designed to solve. If the answer to "where did life on Earth come from?" is "an asteroid", what is the answer to "where did life on the asteroid come from?"? Either it's an unending chain of asteroids, which explains nothing, or it spontaneously generated on the asteroid, in which case why not on Earth?
It's just a goofy, poorly thought out idea that explains nothing.
If it requires belief without evidence, it can never be anything but bad. If science leads us to a "true religion" then it would be well supported by evidence, and therefore not a religion at all.
The very earliest religions *were* attempts at science (granted, not very good ones by today's standards, but nevertheless they followed the idea of observing natural phenomenon and attempted to produce explanations for them).
Without testing those explanations, it's not science.
And I encounter atheists who think medieval people though the Earth was flat, or that Copernicus was rejected by Christians, or that Galileo's heliocentrism was correct (hint: it wasn't, the reasons for him thinking the Earth moved were demonstrably false. So he came to the right conclusion, but for completely wrong reasons). Being wrong is a pretty universal trait among humans.
Being wrong is a universal trait. Accepting that you may be wrong, and adjusting your conceptions accordingly is not. An atheist who thinks that Shakespeare thought the Earth was flat simply hasn't heard of Eratosthenes. Once he learns about him, he will change his mind.
A theist who thinks that the fossil record is a conspiracy is a whole other phenomenon entirely. Not even close to comparable.
The fact is most people who badmouth religion and it's connection to science know very little about religion itself.
Research shows that atheists on average know more facts about religion than the religious do.
There is absolutely a reason to ignore that which cannot be known. The truth value of an unknowable statement cannot possibly have any actual consequences in this universe, otherwise we'd be able to observe those consequences and infer the truth value that we already postulated as unknowable. Since such a statement cannot have any consequences, it can be safely ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
a lot of little problems in Debian.
Such as?
Because, fuck you, that's why.
Hypotheses are also discarded when no conceivable test could falsify them. Let me know when that happens with religious belief.
When I see something in my path, and I don't adjust for it, I collide with it and experience pain. When I do adjust for it, I don't. That would seem to be evidence that my vision is at least somewhat accurate.
Same with my words. I don't actually know a priori if my words are coherent. But they elicit coherent responses from others, so it seems likely that they are.
They already are supported by donations. Anyone who wants to get a game for free can already do so, usually with less effort than actually buying the game. Anyone who chooses to spend money on games today does so out of the goodness of their heart.
But even if that weren't the case, and people didn't decide to invest in games they wanted to see produced, that's ultimately their decision to make. Why should we second guess their value judgements?
"what if we're in a simulation" is a fun game to play, but that's all it is, a game. You can't prove we are, and we can't prove we aren't, so it is in fact meaningless in any practical sense. Assuming either position and using that as a basis to make decisions is crazy.
The way the lawyers and lobbyists have fucked up the laws against theft and fraud?
By making games that are good enough that people will beg you to let them pay you. Face it, buying games(and music and movies) is already charity. If you want it free you can get it for free with less hassle than actually paying for it. Make games people want and they will reward you. If they don't, they obviously didn't value it enough, and therefore nothing of value is lost.
If you want network transparency, you need to use a protocol like NX.
NX builds on top of X. The right thing to do is not ditch X, but to build NX into X.
And it's not hard to add this into Wayland, in fact I'm pretty sure that's the plan.
Then why hasn't anyone from the project said "All Wayland apps will be network transparent by default."? It's an easy thing to do that would quiet a lot of FUD.
That it is possible to implement network transparency with Wayland is not enough. It must be impossible to implement Wayland without network transparency. Only that will provide the same consistency of experience that X has provided so well for so long.
Have you any evidence in the basic reliability of your own senses and reason?
No, in fact they are quite unreliable. This is why eye witness testimony leads to so many bad convictions. People are poor observers.
And my reason is likely to be highly flawed too. But it's not likely to be more flawed than anyone else's, and it's better than making decisions randomly. And I regularly test my reason by debating with other reasonable people. When they find a flaw in my reasoning, I change it. I make an effort to identify cognitive biases in my own thoughts, and appreciate when people point out biases that I've missed.
So no, I don't trust my own senses and reason. I expect them to be flawed and cope with them as best as I can. Are you suggesting that blind faith is preferable?
lol wut? I am only assuming that something that exists influences this universe. Existence is pretty meaningless otherwise.
There are some things that are unknowable. Such as the simultaneous position and velocity of fundamental particles. Also, anything outside of our light cone is unknowable.
But to get back on topic, if God exists his existence will be demonstrable with the scientific method. There's no reason to resort to belief.
Just enshrine the four software freedoms in law. The rest will work itself out.
Actually first hand experience is one of the poorest methods for determining the truth. We are highly suggestible creatures with very fallible memories. Our psyches are stitched together from cognitive biases that only accidentally result in a mind capable of reason. I will trust the data over my own eyes every single time.
I agree. What is actually knowable and what is actually unknowable doesn't change my analysis. If it's knowable, it will be discovered by the scientific method. If it's not, it's irrelevant. Faith/belief/wishful thinking doesn't enter the picture at all.
Finally, the NEC processor complained about in the article was hilariously easy to use, because it's pin- and instruction-compatible with the intel processors it replaces
Yeah, the NEC V20 is still a popular upgrade for those of us with XT class machines. Just drop it in and enjoy a 30% increase in speed, and compatibility with 286 instructions.
Handwriting recognition? How about entering note using real-time *voice* recongition.
Yeah, that won't annoy anyone during a meeting.
About what? The US is officially secular, and has dominated science for at least a century.
Hypotheses are discarded when testing fails to provide supporting evidence. Let me know when that happens with religious belief.
Bullshit. The whole reason for supporting network transparency by default is that no one has to write "network friendly" apps. It "just works".
network transparency is not nearly as useful as it used to be
I use network transparency every day. With GUI apps that use pixmaps, borders, and shadows. With FreeNX, the extra rendering time is barely perceptible.
But even if you were right, for the sake of argument, and we had to choose between network transparency and pretty widgets, network transparency is the only sensible choice. Network transparency is a real feature that enables people to work better. Pretty widgets are just eye candy.
There are vastly more efficient ways to do network transparency, they are available today, and they do not involve X at all: text-based interface, Web server + XHTML, remote procedure calls.
But they require a serious investment in IT in order to work. Setting up and securing a web server is a lot more work than simply installing freenx, logging in, and getting to work.
Applications that do not support one of those are clearly not intended to be remotely run.
Fuck you. As the user, it should be up to me whether I want to run an app remotely. I don't use open source so I can be dictated to.
I am curious, what do you use remote X for?
Bioinformatics software that runs on a virtual machine in a data center. I perform analyses that eat a ton of RAM and display them graphically on
Life had to begin somewhere. What's anthropocentric about assuming that life began in the only place it's ever shown to exist? Until there's evidence to suggest otherwise, it's the only sensible hypothesis.
Basically, Panspermia solves the issue of the unlikelihood of life developing sporadically on Earth
Which isn't even an issue that needs to be solved. Space is big. No matter how unlikely abiogenesis is, space is big enough that the right conditions must have happened at least once. And once is all we need to explain our observations.
And panspermia doesn't even solve the issue that it's designed to solve. If the answer to "where did life on Earth come from?" is "an asteroid", what is the answer to "where did life on the asteroid come from?"? Either it's an unending chain of asteroids, which explains nothing, or it spontaneously generated on the asteroid, in which case why not on Earth?
It's just a goofy, poorly thought out idea that explains nothing.
If it requires belief without evidence, it can never be anything but bad. If science leads us to a "true religion" then it would be well supported by evidence, and therefore not a religion at all.
The very earliest religions *were* attempts at science (granted, not very good ones by today's standards, but nevertheless they followed the idea of observing natural phenomenon and attempted to produce explanations for them).
Without testing those explanations, it's not science.
And I encounter atheists who think medieval people though the Earth was flat, or that Copernicus was rejected by Christians, or that Galileo's heliocentrism was correct (hint: it wasn't, the reasons for him thinking the Earth moved were demonstrably false. So he came to the right conclusion, but for completely wrong reasons). Being wrong is a pretty universal trait among humans.
Being wrong is a universal trait. Accepting that you may be wrong, and adjusting your conceptions accordingly is not. An atheist who thinks that Shakespeare thought the Earth was flat simply hasn't heard of Eratosthenes. Once he learns about him, he will change his mind.
A theist who thinks that the fossil record is a conspiracy is a whole other phenomenon entirely. Not even close to comparable.
The fact is most people who badmouth religion and it's connection to science know very little about religion itself.
Research shows that atheists on average know more facts about religion than the religious do.
There is absolutely a reason to ignore that which cannot be known. The truth value of an unknowable statement cannot possibly have any actual consequences in this universe, otherwise we'd be able to observe those consequences and infer the truth value that we already postulated as unknowable. Since such a statement cannot have any consequences, it can be safely ignored.