I really appreciate Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise Pangolin, and have it running very well on a number of machines...actually most of the machines that my family uses on a daily basis. I think that Linux in Ubuntu has finally become a real contender as a consumer desktop OS. The setup is easy, hardware support is broad, the OS is very stable, and the bundled apps cover most average consumer use cases 'out of the box'.
But Ubuntu has image issue that it seems people are unwilling to acknowledge. If it is their intention to be a widely used desktop OS, then they need to simplify and clarify some things about the distribution. The version numbers (the YY.MM 'version numbers') and names (adjective animal) for the distribution do not make sense to normal people. XX.04 is to denote what appears to be Ubuntu's 'stable' release seems nonsensical. The 'LTS' release that is every second XX.04 release is also confusing. Mix in the October (XX.10) more unstable release...and it is just a bowl of confusion for the average consumer.
I think that Ubuntu needs to change this naming to have a simple name for only their 'LTS' releases, and just drop all the animal code-names...so Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise Pangolin should simply have been Ubuntu 12. If it is the 'flagship', then it should have a simple and concise name.
Then name the next releases 'developer previews' or 'betas' until the next 'flagship', 'long term support' type release. Perhaps this means they may need to change the nature of 'long term support' or add enhancements to their flagships interface more quickly. But businesses and most average consumers need a simple, stable, and functional OS...which seems to be where Ubuntu is going with LTS releases. Now they need to make it easier to understand the direction they are going with versions of their product. The Fedora Linux project learned this already, though they still hold on to even worse codenames than Ubuntu does (e.g. Beefy Miracle) and haven't made their 'desktop' easy for the average consumer.
I'm not the average consumer, so it is nothing for me to change and tweak a handful of different things to make Ubuntu (or Fedora, or whatever) look and feel exactly as I would like, or add all the apps and features I want. But the average consumer doesn't want to have to change a bunch of settings, and then run some command lines manually, and then install a bunch of extra stuff just to use Ubuntu (or Linux in general). But average people shouldn't need to think about any of this, which is a huge reason why Mac OS X and (increasingly so) Windows are more often the choices of average consumers.
I guess my point is that Ubuntu, and Linux in general, as well as other open-source applications, need to be named more clearly and simply...and easier to install and use....or even easier to choose in the first place....for the average consumer. I want more than just Ubuntu enthusiasts to choose and use Ubuntu, and Ubuntu needs to acknowledge that it isn't just about development, but also about the way the product is marketed and perceived.
Obviously I'm not tackling the complexity or effort required to make some of these changes, which I acknowledge as being pretty huge ones. Just entertaining one possible course of action to address specific issues.
My wife recently went back to school at Missouri State University, and I was surprised at how specific all the the classes are as to what platform and formats they teach or use for classes. She is in the Masters of Education program.
Most of the primary schools in the Springfield area have Macs in computer labs and in the classrooms. But every class she has taken so far has been focused on Windows XP (sometimes Vista) with Microsoft Office 2007 for Windows specifically.
We have Macs primarily in our household, and use OpenOffice 3. However a great number of the PowerPoint 2007 files (pptx) would not display correctly in OpenOffice, so she was at a great disadvantage. We ended up having to get a copy of Office 2007 for our one old Windows XP machine.
It would be nice for education to advocate and use more open formats.
So...in 12 (TWELVE) years automakers will be required to raise fuel-economy by 7.5 MPG? Ridiculous.
Cars have been getting between 22 and 28 MPG for 30 years. Millions and millions are spent on automotive R&D every year, but fuel economy doesn't really change. In fact for my family's Honda Accords...fuel economy has actually decreased through the year's models since 1990. Make any sense?
Do we really think that there isn't some oil-company prompting to this particular feature of vehicles?
Early reviews of the iPhone noted that the touchscreen keyboard did take a while to get used to, but once you did...it worked just as well as hardware thumb-hunt-and-peck keyboards on phones. Most of the typos were due strictly to getting used to it.
Either way there has been no practical claim by a reviewer to the iPhone's keyboard being faster, as this article seems to suggest.
That's funny since Google deploys to a browser, which more people than just Windows users use. Even more amusing is that most of Google's success on Windows is via Firefox...which again is on more platforms than merely Windows.
Frankly, this phone has over twice the battery life as any other smartphone type in the American market. The design would clearly have been compromised and larger if the battery was replaceable. The battery is also quality and long lived if treated right. If you intend to charge it every other call, then sure the the battery is going to burn through the finite amount of charges in any battery. Perhaps those who still live under a rock should learn about limited charges. Also, if you held the iPhone at any time and have eyes, you see that the battery is not user replaceable.
Either way, this lawsuit is frivolous and ridiculous. The notice about the battery is on page 23 of the users manual. RTFM...or at least open your eyes and look at the product.
Rechargeable batteries have a limited number of charge cycles and may eventually
need to be replaced. The iPhone battery is not user replaceable; it can only be replaced
by an authorized service provider. For more information, go to:
www.apple.com/batteries
Because if I have SQL Management Studio, SQLServer 2005, SharpDevelop, Pidgin, my company's custom applications, etc...though I have 2GB of RAM...it goes quickly. If Safari for Windows consumes 140 MB pretty quickly while Firefox will browse the same sites for 1/2 that...I'll take the savings, because I will need the physical RAM elsewhere.
That "it's already there" is a big factor. Most users will do as little as possible (usually including never updating their OS or antivirus), as long as they can do the tasks they set out to do...i.e. pay bills online, do e-mail, get their FoxNewsOnline.
I've used Safari and Camino on MacOS X for quite some time, and generally use Firefox on Windows...and IE for work pages that won't render on anything else. But from spending an evening browsing around with Safari 3 beta for Windows, it doesn't seem to be nearly as peppy, and it actually had trouble with a couple videos on Apple's own site...which the Mac version didn't seem to catch on.
They've made it clear that this is BETA, though between so many releases of software feeling like beta tests and Google calling everything a beta for liability purposes...perhaps that description has lost its meaning.
Overall I agree with the article. It isn't YET worth Windows users switching. But I think that the feature set argument is poor...since Firefox, Opera, and IE are pretty bloated by 'features' in many respects. Perhaps Safari will be worthwhile at the release version, but for now it is the memory-hog, page-fault king. I'm sticking with Firefox.
I had no idea of this prior to reading a bunch of sites concerning biodiesel...that while the government has licensed biodiesel as a 'legal' fuel for an automobile....vegetable oil is not. So they are free to make whatever laws to prohibit use...which are always fines. Blah.
I agree with those that have said that this shouldn't matter and people should be allowed to use it. But since it doesn't put any cash into the hands of big industry...that won't happen.
You've indeed pointed out that I'm wrong, that creationists are wrong, that religious premises are wrong, and that all atheistic science that doesn't agree with your understanding are also similarly unhelpful. Other than high-level generalizations, you haven't pointed out anything about science that everyone didn't already expect or understand. I guess I'm satisfied then, yes. Your point isn't to help anyone understand. If they are wrong, then they and any information they might provide are dismissed or they are fucking idiots (to satisfy me in the ad hominem department). What would help other people understand the truth that you have (apparently), aside from making it clear that you intend on dismissing what they might think or believe (assuming they disagree with you presently)?
You asserted: one should not dismiss a religious source out of hand.
I assert: one should dismiss a religious source out of hand.
Yes, I read that. I think that it is ridiculous to dismiss a source of information because one disagrees with the beliefs of the people who are making light of it. Otherwise one is essentially making an ad hominem.
Ugh. How many times must I point out that the process is paramount? The only way one is going to be sure about the validity of a religious claim is once it becomes a scientific one and once it becomes a scientific claim there is no reason to suppose the attributed mechanism by which the religious claim was formulated, i.e. divine inspiration, has any validity to it at all, especially given the very low reliability rate of such religious claims.
As such I am going to reject religious claims out of hand because they are basically useless.
You may continue to point out the process. The problem remains that your conclusion is a logical fallacy. You pick out traits you know you can knock down, then generalize the whole lot in that same manner.
Your notion of the approach the Creation Museum is advocating is incorrect too.
No, it really isn't, but it's good to see their message is effectively eroding intelligence as they would hope.
And another fallacy of association. I never said that I agreed with them, but you are clearly attacking me by association.
Again, I never claimed they were getting all their science right, as apparently you think that I do.
No, you claimed there there may be some merit there beyond the obvious propaganda front that it is that one should seriously consider it. I simply say that I don't give a crap about people's beliefs - only whether or not they can substantiate them.
Clearly you don't care about other people's beliefs. I wish that you would though.
If you did, perhaps you would be able to listen for long enough for them to substantiate them. At present, I can't imagine that you listen too long before you go on the offensive...indicative of the posts on this article beyond this thread to others you posted.
Regardless of their source of inspiration for looking into an issue, some of their findings may be reasonable hypotheses.
And again it is irrelevant to me if someone is going to go ahead and do science because they think it will help them understand their god (as was the historical case; science never bothered anyone until it started undermining their belief systems) - they still have to perform the process.
Well, there is a clear place where you don't understand their aim. They don't do science because they think it will help them understand their god. (This is where you say "yes they are!") They read a different story concerning humanity's origin, and in an attempt to reconcile what they are reading with what consensus science postulates about our origin, they investigate other possible conclusions. This is no different from the other completely non-religious studies of origin that disagree with evolution, or ones that disagree with big-bang, etc. etc.
And claiming magic was involved in some process will never be a scientific hypothesis - the method simply doesn't allow such unfalsifiable hypotheses and the Creationists can bitch about that all they like but either they accept it or they can go ahead and denounce the relevancy of science as a whole; as stupid as that would make them look.
Like the magic of abiogenesis? Or the magic of left-handed amino acids? Nope, no blind faith or magic necessary in evolution. But I believe them anyway.
do you want to examine the points that I've asked for numerous times but as of yet you haven't provi
Again, you reply as the contrarian. You again haven't substantiated why your conclusion is correct, but you keep asserting it is. I didn't make an initial claim, and the notion that you have claimed I've said is incorrect, so the burden of proof is on you. Though I keep requesting specifics, you keep not giving them.
Your notion of the approach the Creation Museum is advocating is incorrect too. Again, I never claimed they were getting all their science right, as apparently you think that I do. Regardless of their source of inspiration for looking into an issue, some of their findings may be reasonable hypotheses. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater, you'll never know.
If you don't care because you're convinced with the drawn conclusions that exist presently in popular-science, there really isn't anything to talk about. So, are you still replying to me to be 'right', to be an asshole contrarian, or do you want to examine the points that I've asked for numerous times but as of yet you haven't provided?
Also, you keep repeating this: "I.e. new facts = new conclusions. New facts, new conclusions. No new facts, no new conclusions. It cannot get more simple than that." The problem with you statement, as I already pointed out is that you had to invalidate 'old facts' to have 'new facts', which by definition means that you didn't have any facts in the first place...you had assertions, which you are passing off as facts.
You have confused the definition of 'fact'. And you still are not listing specific discussion points, as I asked, but seem to have no issue with making the same blanket statements over and over. Also, I never mentioned ID, and never stated that I advocated or agreed with it. And if you knew what ID really was, you would understand that young-earth theories are very different from ID theories. Often they do not connect in a practical way, so don't assume that the Creation Museum advocates ID in the same manner at all that those studying the idea of ID do, and don't assume that the Creation Museum advocates even an up to date notion of any 'creationist' theory, which I have already pointed out that they do not.
Again, if you want to argue a specific point, then do so. As of yet, you have demonstrated that you don't really know what the Creation Museum specifically is advocating, much less the specifics of the theory involved. And you've certainly missed whether or not I believe any of it.
Where you have misunderstood what 'facts' are is here: "New facts = new conclusions." As I pointed out, science often figures out that it was flat out wrong about numbers of conclusions that it draws from observation. These conclusions that ended up being wrong were never 'facts', they were assertions. It is not a problem to observe and make assertions based on observation, and I have no criticism of this beyond letting it stand in that understanding...that those are educated assertions, and not facts.
Now, if you believe that said assertions, theories, and hypotheses are actually facts...then you've already made science your blind faith religion.
If you had proposed discussion on any specific facts, then you would be. All you have done is assert that one side is not appealing to the facts. But you aren't really talking about facts either. You are referring to consensus theories and calling them facts, which isn't at all the same thing. You may, again, continue to do that if you wish. But consensus theories aren't facts, and your wielding them as if they are doesn't make my point anything different than it was from the start, though you are apparently still trying to convince me that it is. I'm not suggesting a diplomatic view...I'm suggesting that people don't also make consensus science into its own religion.
If science only answers things in a factual manner, then it should never change. However it does.
And I'm arguing not for science or for 'religion'. I'm arguing that people in BOTH camps are often just presumptuous and judgmental, just assuming they are right and the other is stupid. But nice of you to attack anyway.
If you wish to argue the merits of 'religion'...you are talking to the wrong person in the first place.
As long as both questions are approached with the appropriate scrutiny, there should be no problem with seeing what the texts in the Bible have right, just as there is no problem in seeing what people who prescribe to pop-evolution theory have right by the same means. There seem to be too many people taking the easy-to-knock-over stereotype of each side of the argument and blasting each other. It would be good for the status-quo, pop-sci 'evolutionist' to stop making a religion out of their thinking. It would also be good for the status-quo, hyper-evangelical 'creationist' to get their study up to date...to see where things actually intersect, and what was outdated since studies done in the 1970's. But then again...I could almost say that about pop-science too.
The context was judging the possibility of their conclusions in a poor light merely because the source is 'religious'. Otherwise, I agree with you to approach all sources with the appropriate scrutiny, and that science is a good methodology by which reliable claims can be shown. But just remember that often times it is merely a CLAIM. It may be a very reasonable and well founded claim, or it may be a claim that seems right based on what we believe we understand presently. It doesn't mean that science answers all things in a factual manner. So, take everything with a grain of salt, and don't make 'science' (especially pop-science) into its own religion.
Many seem quick to judge and overlook that much of what people understand about science was merely consensus at the time they learned it. Science is forced to react this way because many things simply aren't 'proven', they are instead just the best explanation that was agreed upon.
Hence why it used to be ridiculous to believe that giant squids hadn't been extinct for millions of years. Now we have photos of them living now. Or hence why many paleontologists think now that velociraptors had feathers, whereas a few years ago they were thought to be purely reptilian. (btw...notice the pictures of velociraptors at the Creation Museum didn't have feathers...guess their consensus on 'creation science' hasn't caught up either...just like most children's textbooks in public schools)
Things change and our understanding of our world changes and grows. Not all scientists agree with the consensus, and not all that is consensus has made it into the popular-science that the masses often think they 'know'.
Just don't be so quick to judge because it has a 'religious' source. Perhaps some of their theories will also hold up to scrutiny, if you don't jump into the assumption that pop-sci is 'proven' as absolutely true.
I think that your reply is just bait. But I'll take it.
Applications, huh? I said that the applications will come, just like they do for any viable platform, even the unhealthy ones, which I don't personally consider the iPhone to be. Yes, people have been developing for the Smartphone for years. However the people I know have developed on Windows Mobile v3-6 and they are none too fond of it. Having had a Smartphone I stand by the notion that Smartphones are neither 'smart' nor a very good phone.
Networks? Like other people than AT&T/Cingular. Eventually, especially if iPhone is successful, iPhone will be available for other GSM networks, like T-Mobile's...and on Sprint's CDMA network.
Speed? One of the criticisms of iPhone is that it won't support EVDO. But again...once models are created for CDMA networks, perhaps that will be a possibility. Right now it looks that Apple will target HSUPA in future, but honestly EDGE works really well for the feature-set they have on the iPhone, like e-mail, photos, maps, etc.
Again...Apple is betting that they can sell a product based on great design, ease of use, and solid functionality with a decent feature set. That is a very different mindset from those making Smartphones, which seem to just throw features and storage at a poorly designed device with a moderately adequate functionality.
I'm not sure why this is the common argument. Is Apple trying to compete with every bell and whistle? Clearly not. In fact the problem with most SmartPhones is that they have nearly every bell and whistle but they aren't really 'smart' nor a very good phone in the end either. I'm not saying that SmartPhones don't have their niche...but Apple's iPhone points out all the functionality that SmartPhones just don't cut it with. The applications, the networks, the speed boost....all that will come to the iPhone, unless the critics abort the idea of something more functional and don't let the iPhone prove its point.
If they do attempt to tax e-mail, or create a per-e-mail fee, or tax Internet use...they would essentially be double-taxing us. We are already taxed for the price of the Internet service...which includes fees and taxes for whatever line you get for your service.
If the government really wanted to put a per-use tax on services like the Internet or e-mail...then they have to completely overhaul how we pay for the service in the first place (which again, is ALREADY taxed).
Slashdot Mirror
I really appreciate Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise Pangolin, and have it running very well on a number of machines...actually most of the machines that my family uses on a daily basis. I think that Linux in Ubuntu has finally become a real contender as a consumer desktop OS. The setup is easy, hardware support is broad, the OS is very stable, and the bundled apps cover most average consumer use cases 'out of the box'.
But Ubuntu has image issue that it seems people are unwilling to acknowledge. If it is their intention to be a widely used desktop OS, then they need to simplify and clarify some things about the distribution. The version numbers (the YY.MM 'version numbers') and names (adjective animal) for the distribution do not make sense to normal people. XX.04 is to denote what appears to be Ubuntu's 'stable' release seems nonsensical. The 'LTS' release that is every second XX.04 release is also confusing. Mix in the October (XX.10) more unstable release...and it is just a bowl of confusion for the average consumer.
I think that Ubuntu needs to change this naming to have a simple name for only their 'LTS' releases, and just drop all the animal code-names...so Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise Pangolin should simply have been Ubuntu 12. If it is the 'flagship', then it should have a simple and concise name.
Then name the next releases 'developer previews' or 'betas' until the next 'flagship', 'long term support' type release. Perhaps this means they may need to change the nature of 'long term support' or add enhancements to their flagships interface more quickly. But businesses and most average consumers need a simple, stable, and functional OS...which seems to be where Ubuntu is going with LTS releases. Now they need to make it easier to understand the direction they are going with versions of their product. The Fedora Linux project learned this already, though they still hold on to even worse codenames than Ubuntu does (e.g. Beefy Miracle) and haven't made their 'desktop' easy for the average consumer.
I'm not the average consumer, so it is nothing for me to change and tweak a handful of different things to make Ubuntu (or Fedora, or whatever) look and feel exactly as I would like, or add all the apps and features I want. But the average consumer doesn't want to have to change a bunch of settings, and then run some command lines manually, and then install a bunch of extra stuff just to use Ubuntu (or Linux in general). But average people shouldn't need to think about any of this, which is a huge reason why Mac OS X and (increasingly so) Windows are more often the choices of average consumers.
I guess my point is that Ubuntu, and Linux in general, as well as other open-source applications, need to be named more clearly and simply...and easier to install and use....or even easier to choose in the first place....for the average consumer. I want more than just Ubuntu enthusiasts to choose and use Ubuntu, and Ubuntu needs to acknowledge that it isn't just about development, but also about the way the product is marketed and perceived.
Obviously I'm not tackling the complexity or effort required to make some of these changes, which I acknowledge as being pretty huge ones. Just entertaining one
possible course of action to address specific issues.
My wife recently went back to school at Missouri State University, and I was surprised at how specific all the the classes are as to what platform and formats they teach or use for classes. She is in the Masters of Education program.
Most of the primary schools in the Springfield area have Macs in computer labs and in the classrooms. But every class she has taken so far has been focused on Windows XP (sometimes Vista) with Microsoft Office 2007 for Windows specifically.
We have Macs primarily in our household, and use OpenOffice 3. However a great number of the PowerPoint 2007 files (pptx) would not display correctly in OpenOffice, so she was at a great disadvantage. We ended up having to get a copy of Office 2007 for our one old Windows XP machine.
It would be nice for education to advocate and use more open formats.
So...in 12 (TWELVE) years automakers will be required to raise fuel-economy by 7.5 MPG? Ridiculous.
Cars have been getting between 22 and 28 MPG for 30 years. Millions and millions are spent on automotive R&D every year, but fuel economy doesn't really change. In fact for my family's Honda Accords...fuel economy has actually decreased through the year's models since 1990. Make any sense?
Do we really think that there isn't some oil-company prompting to this particular feature of vehicles?
This is old news.
Early reviews of the iPhone noted that the touchscreen keyboard did take a while to get used to, but once you did...it worked just as well as hardware thumb-hunt-and-peck keyboards on phones. Most of the typos were due strictly to getting used to it.
Either way there has been no practical claim by a reviewer to the iPhone's keyboard being faster, as this article seems to suggest.
That's funny since Google deploys to a browser, which more people than just Windows users use. Even more amusing is that most of Google's success on Windows is via Firefox...which again is on more platforms than merely Windows.
Just a note that Javascript has little to do with Java. Java-spawned windows are immune to Javascript-specific behavior suppression.
Frankly, this phone has over twice the battery life as any other smartphone type in the American market. The design would clearly have been compromised and larger if the battery was replaceable. The battery is also quality and long lived if treated right. If you intend to charge it every other call, then sure the the battery is going to burn through the finite amount of charges in any battery. Perhaps those who still live under a rock should learn about limited charges. Also, if you held the iPhone at any time and have eyes, you see that the battery is not user replaceable.
Either way, this lawsuit is frivolous and ridiculous. The notice about the battery is on page 23 of the users manual. RTFM...or at least open your eyes and look at the product.
Rechargeable batteries have a limited number of charge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced. The iPhone battery is not user replaceable; it can only be replaced by an authorized service provider. For more information, go to: www.apple.com/batteries
Because if I have SQL Management Studio, SQLServer 2005, SharpDevelop, Pidgin, my company's custom applications, etc...though I have 2GB of RAM...it goes quickly. If Safari for Windows consumes 140 MB pretty quickly while Firefox will browse the same sites for 1/2 that...I'll take the savings, because I will need the physical RAM elsewhere.
That "it's already there" is a big factor. Most users will do as little as possible (usually including never updating their OS or antivirus), as long as they can do the tasks they set out to do...i.e. pay bills online, do e-mail, get their FoxNewsOnline.
I've used Safari and Camino on MacOS X for quite some time, and generally use Firefox on Windows...and IE for work pages that won't render on anything else. But from spending an evening browsing around with Safari 3 beta for Windows, it doesn't seem to be nearly as peppy, and it actually had trouble with a couple videos on Apple's own site...which the Mac version didn't seem to catch on.
They've made it clear that this is BETA, though between so many releases of software feeling like beta tests and Google calling everything a beta for liability purposes...perhaps that description has lost its meaning.
Overall I agree with the article. It isn't YET worth Windows users switching. But I think that the feature set argument is poor...since Firefox, Opera, and IE are pretty bloated by 'features' in many respects. Perhaps Safari will be worthwhile at the release version, but for now it is the memory-hog, page-fault king. I'm sticking with Firefox.
Sorry Apple! I still love you.
I had no idea of this prior to reading a bunch of sites concerning biodiesel...that while the government has licensed biodiesel as a 'legal' fuel for an automobile....vegetable oil is not. So they are free to make whatever laws to prohibit use...which are always fines. Blah.
"Raw vegetable oil cannot meet biodiesel fuel specifications, it is not registered with the EPA, and it is not a legal motor fuel." - National Biodiesel Board
I agree with those that have said that this shouldn't matter and people should be allowed to use it. But since it doesn't put any cash into the hands of big industry...that won't happen.
Ahh, yes. Now, indeed, I'm satisfied.
You've indeed pointed out that I'm wrong, that creationists are wrong, that religious premises are wrong, and that all atheistic science that doesn't agree with your understanding are also similarly unhelpful. Other than high-level generalizations, you haven't pointed out anything about science that everyone didn't already expect or understand. I guess I'm satisfied then, yes. Your point isn't to help anyone understand. If they are wrong, then they and any information they might provide are dismissed or they are fucking idiots (to satisfy me in the ad hominem department). What would help other people understand the truth that you have (apparently), aside from making it clear that you intend on dismissing what they might think or believe (assuming they disagree with you presently)?
You asserted: one should not dismiss a religious source out of hand. I assert: one should dismiss a religious source out of hand.
Yes, I read that. I think that it is ridiculous to dismiss a source of information because one disagrees with the beliefs of the people who are making light of it. Otherwise one is essentially making an ad hominem.
Ugh. How many times must I point out that the process is paramount? The only way one is going to be sure about the validity of a religious claim is once it becomes a scientific one and once it becomes a scientific claim there is no reason to suppose the attributed mechanism by which the religious claim was formulated, i.e. divine inspiration, has any validity to it at all, especially given the very low reliability rate of such religious claims. As such I am going to reject religious claims out of hand because they are basically useless.
You may continue to point out the process. The problem remains that your conclusion is a logical fallacy. You pick out traits you know you can knock down, then generalize the whole lot in that same manner.
No, it really isn't, but it's good to see their message is effectively eroding intelligence as they would hope.
And another fallacy of association. I never said that I agreed with them, but you are clearly attacking me by association.
No, you claimed there there may be some merit there beyond the obvious propaganda front that it is that one should seriously consider it. I simply say that I don't give a crap about people's beliefs - only whether or not they can substantiate them.
Clearly you don't care about other people's beliefs. I wish that you would though.
If you did, perhaps you would be able to listen for long enough for them to substantiate them. At present, I can't imagine that you listen too long before you go on the offensive...indicative of the posts on this article beyond this thread to others you posted.
And again it is irrelevant to me if someone is going to go ahead and do science because they think it will help them understand their god (as was the historical case; science never bothered anyone until it started undermining their belief systems) - they still have to perform the process.
Well, there is a clear place where you don't understand their aim. They don't do science because they think it will help them understand their god. (This is where you say "yes they are!") They read a different story concerning humanity's origin, and in an attempt to reconcile what they are reading with what consensus science postulates about our origin, they investigate other possible conclusions. This is no different from the other completely non-religious studies of origin that disagree with evolution, or ones that disagree with big-bang, etc. etc.
And claiming magic was involved in some process will never be a scientific hypothesis - the method simply doesn't allow such unfalsifiable hypotheses and the Creationists can bitch about that all they like but either they accept it or they can go ahead and denounce the relevancy of science as a whole; as stupid as that would make them look.
Like the magic of abiogenesis? Or the magic of left-handed amino acids? Nope, no blind faith or magic necessary in evolution. But I believe them anyway.
Again, you reply as the contrarian. You again haven't substantiated why your conclusion is correct, but you keep asserting it is. I didn't make an initial claim, and the notion that you have claimed I've said is incorrect, so the burden of proof is on you. Though I keep requesting specifics, you keep not giving them.
Your notion of the approach the Creation Museum is advocating is incorrect too. Again, I never claimed they were getting all their science right, as apparently you think that I do. Regardless of their source of inspiration for looking into an issue, some of their findings may be reasonable hypotheses. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater, you'll never know.
If you don't care because you're convinced with the drawn conclusions that exist presently in popular-science, there really isn't anything to talk about. So, are you still replying to me to be 'right', to be an asshole contrarian, or do you want to examine the points that I've asked for numerous times but as of yet you haven't provided?
Also, you keep repeating this: "I.e. new facts = new conclusions. New facts, new conclusions. No new facts, no new conclusions. It cannot get more simple than that." The problem with you statement, as I already pointed out is that you had to invalidate 'old facts' to have 'new facts', which by definition means that you didn't have any facts in the first place...you had assertions, which you are passing off as facts.
You have confused the definition of 'fact'. And you still are not listing specific discussion points, as I asked, but seem to have no issue with making the same blanket statements over and over. Also, I never mentioned ID, and never stated that I advocated or agreed with it. And if you knew what ID really was, you would understand that young-earth theories are very different from ID theories. Often they do not connect in a practical way, so don't assume that the Creation Museum advocates ID in the same manner at all that those studying the idea of ID do, and don't assume that the Creation Museum advocates even an up to date notion of any 'creationist' theory, which I have already pointed out that they do not.
Again, if you want to argue a specific point, then do so. As of yet, you have demonstrated that you don't really know what the Creation Museum specifically is advocating, much less the specifics of the theory involved. And you've certainly missed whether or not I believe any of it.
Where you have misunderstood what 'facts' are is here: "New facts = new conclusions." As I pointed out, science often figures out that it was flat out wrong about numbers of conclusions that it draws from observation. These conclusions that ended up being wrong were never 'facts', they were assertions. It is not a problem to observe and make assertions based on observation, and I have no criticism of this beyond letting it stand in that understanding...that those are educated assertions, and not facts.
Now, if you believe that said assertions, theories, and hypotheses are actually facts...then you've already made science your blind faith religion.
If you had proposed discussion on any specific facts, then you would be. All you have done is assert that one side is not appealing to the facts. But you aren't really talking about facts either. You are referring to consensus theories and calling them facts, which isn't at all the same thing. You may, again, continue to do that if you wish. But consensus theories aren't facts, and your wielding them as if they are doesn't make my point anything different than it was from the start, though you are apparently still trying to convince me that it is. I'm not suggesting a diplomatic view...I'm suggesting that people don't also make consensus science into its own religion.
Nope...but you just want to ignore the point and be argumentative. Like I said before, be my guest. If you want the point, reread my original post.
If science only answers things in a factual manner, then it should never change. However it does.
And I'm arguing not for science or for 'religion'. I'm arguing that people in BOTH camps are often just presumptuous and judgmental, just assuming they are right and the other is stupid. But nice of you to attack anyway.
If you wish to argue the merits of 'religion'...you are talking to the wrong person in the first place.
As long as both questions are approached with the appropriate scrutiny, there should be no problem with seeing what the texts in the Bible have right, just as there is no problem in seeing what people who prescribe to pop-evolution theory have right by the same means. There seem to be too many people taking the easy-to-knock-over stereotype of each side of the argument and blasting each other. It would be good for the status-quo, pop-sci 'evolutionist' to stop making a religion out of their thinking. It would also be good for the status-quo, hyper-evangelical 'creationist' to get their study up to date...to see where things actually intersect, and what was outdated since studies done in the 1970's. But then again...I could almost say that about pop-science too.
The context was judging the possibility of their conclusions in a poor light merely because the source is 'religious'. Otherwise, I agree with you to approach all sources with the appropriate scrutiny, and that science is a good methodology by which reliable claims can be shown. But just remember that often times it is merely a CLAIM. It may be a very reasonable and well founded claim, or it may be a claim that seems right based on what we believe we understand presently. It doesn't mean that science answers all things in a factual manner. So, take everything with a grain of salt, and don't make 'science' (especially pop-science) into its own religion.
Many seem quick to judge and overlook that much of what people understand about science was merely consensus at the time they learned it. Science is forced to react this way because many things simply aren't 'proven', they are instead just the best explanation that was agreed upon.
Hence why it used to be ridiculous to believe that giant squids hadn't been extinct for millions of years. Now we have photos of them living now. Or hence why many paleontologists think now that velociraptors had feathers, whereas a few years ago they were thought to be purely reptilian. (btw...notice the pictures of velociraptors at the Creation Museum didn't have feathers...guess their consensus on 'creation science' hasn't caught up either...just like most children's textbooks in public schools)
Things change and our understanding of our world changes and grows. Not all scientists agree with the consensus, and not all that is consensus has made it into the popular-science that the masses often think they 'know'.
Just don't be so quick to judge because it has a 'religious' source. Perhaps some of their theories will also hold up to scrutiny, if you don't jump into the assumption that pop-sci is 'proven' as absolutely true.
I think that your reply is just bait. But I'll take it.
Applications, huh? I said that the applications will come, just like they do for any viable platform, even the unhealthy ones, which I don't personally consider the iPhone to be. Yes, people have been developing for the Smartphone for years. However the people I know have developed on Windows Mobile v3-6 and they are none too fond of it. Having had a Smartphone I stand by the notion that Smartphones are neither 'smart' nor a very good phone.
Networks? Like other people than AT&T/Cingular. Eventually, especially if iPhone is successful, iPhone will be available for other GSM networks, like T-Mobile's...and on Sprint's CDMA network.
Speed? One of the criticisms of iPhone is that it won't support EVDO. But again...once models are created for CDMA networks, perhaps that will be a possibility. Right now it looks that Apple will target HSUPA in future, but honestly EDGE works really well for the feature-set they have on the iPhone, like e-mail, photos, maps, etc.
Again...Apple is betting that they can sell a product based on great design, ease of use, and solid functionality with a decent feature set. That is a very different mindset from those making Smartphones, which seem to just throw features and storage at a poorly designed device with a moderately adequate functionality.
I'm not sure why this is the common argument. Is Apple trying to compete with every bell and whistle? Clearly not. In fact the problem with most SmartPhones is that they have nearly every bell and whistle but they aren't really 'smart' nor a very good phone in the end either. I'm not saying that SmartPhones don't have their niche...but Apple's iPhone points out all the functionality that SmartPhones just don't cut it with. The applications, the networks, the speed boost....all that will come to the iPhone, unless the critics abort the idea of something more functional and don't let the iPhone prove its point.
If they do attempt to tax e-mail, or create a per-e-mail fee, or tax Internet use...they would essentially be double-taxing us. We are already taxed for the price of the Internet service...which includes fees and taxes for whatever line you get for your service.
If the government really wanted to put a per-use tax on services like the Internet or e-mail...then they have to completely overhaul how we pay for the service in the first place (which again, is ALREADY taxed).