I think I have a book edited by Plantinga - it's a discussion of Anselm's Ontological Argument. It's falling apart (typical crappy American-made paperback, it's only 40 years old...), but still a rattling good read. My recollection is that Plantinga still thinks the Ontological Argument is valid, despite the number that Kant, then Bradley, did on it (and also Hume's not-quite-there refutation). It always sounded like a confidence trick to me - kind of a philosophical shell game.
This is not necessarily the case. Admittedly I live in Adelaide which _always_ has a slow IT job market, and I'm not prepared to move to either Melbourne or Sydney for personal reasons, but I was unemployed from Nov 2004 to Apr 2005. I'm extremely competent (you're going to have to take my word for that), but being 55 is definitely a barrier to even getting an interview.
The thing most economists seem to forget is that the economy only exists (or at least should) as a mechanism to allow us all to have a decent life, not the other way round.
While it's true that some schools of economic thought don't assume perfect knowledge, the current dominant paradigm (economic irrationalism) certainly does. That's all that "invisible hand" shit that the neo-classical economists are always wittering on about.
In fact, the markets appear to be set up so most of us _don't_ have perfect knowledge, as that's the only way the spivs who run things can make a quid.
Seriously, though, I don't quite understand the obsession with running the latest version of software. I prefer a system that's stable and runs on the resources I have. Guess I'm a luddite too.
In most countries, "Guinness" is brewed locally under licence. I think it's brewed by Carlton United Brewery here in Australia (the same wonderful people who unleashed Foster's Lager on the world... shudder). It's drinkable, but I'm assured by people who've been to Dublin that it's nothing like the real thing.
What on earth are you talking about? I was so confused by your comment I thought I'd better consult Andy Tanenbaum's "Modern Operating Systems". You are absolutely and completely wrong.
Kernels are called kernels, and executives are called pointy-haired bosses. I don't see how you could have got the two classes of objects confused.
There certainly are a lot of musicians who are hacks (Britney Spears springs to mind), however I think that any musician, particularly talented ones, would object to you describing them so.
>... anything is subject to testing by the scientific method...
No, it isn't. Off the top of my head, the grounds for belief (or disbelief) in the soul is not testable by the scientific method. Nor is belief (or disbelief) in a god or gods. (Nor is most of mathematics.)
Because I prefer my explanations elegant and compact, I don't happen to believe in the soul or any gods, whereas I do believe in the validity (note: not truth) of mathematics for the same reason. However, this is belief (and trust in Occam's Razor) and I recognise that it is not scientifically testable (although eminemtly reasonable).
Slashdot Mirror
Outstanding! Thanks for the link, I'd not seen it before. I'd say the people who made it are right on the money, wouldn't you?
While it's certainly possible in principle to make petrol in the way you describe, it's not something I'd care to do over a naked flame ...
"Owning" an oil well is all very well (haha), but processing the goo that comes out of it is not trivial.
Actually, January days are _always_ warm here in the Great Southern Land ... ... but they seem to be hotter this year.
You probably need to consider this: Lovelock is a scientist, whereas Chrichton isn't. (Actually, Chrichton seems to be a fool, but never mind.)
The thing that is lost on most people is that there is actually a huge difference between (say) a legal opinion and a scientific opinion.
I think I have a book edited by Plantinga - it's a discussion of Anselm's Ontological Argument. It's falling apart (typical crappy American-made paperback, it's only 40 years old ...), but still a rattling good read. My recollection is that Plantinga still thinks the Ontological Argument is valid, despite the number that Kant, then Bradley, did on it (and also Hume's not-quite-there refutation). It always sounded like a confidence trick to me - kind of a philosophical shell game.
This is not necessarily the case. Admittedly I live in Adelaide which _always_ has a slow IT job market, and I'm not prepared to move to either Melbourne or Sydney for personal reasons, but I was unemployed from Nov 2004 to Apr 2005. I'm extremely competent (you're going to have to take my word for that), but being 55 is definitely a barrier to even getting an interview.
I saw it. I kind of agree with you.
The thing most economists seem to forget is that the economy only exists (or at least should) as a mechanism to allow us all to have a decent life, not the other way round.
While it's true that some schools of economic thought don't assume perfect knowledge, the current dominant paradigm (economic irrationalism) certainly does. That's all that "invisible hand" shit that the neo-classical economists are always wittering on about.
In fact, the markets appear to be set up so most of us _don't_ have perfect knowledge, as that's the only way the spivs who run things can make a quid.
Each of the 3 hard drives I have in my current box has its own (biggish) swap partition - you can _never_ have too much virtual memory, in my view.
Strictly speaking, it was always illegal to tape stuff (although that never stopped anyone) - no-one ever got prosecuted because it was unenforceable.
Don't you love the way Ruddock looks like a man who doesn't sleep well, btw. Evil-hearted fucker still wears his Amnesty International badge.
> Or does that make me a luddite?
... yeah.
Mmm
Seriously, though, I don't quite understand the obsession with running the latest version of software. I prefer a system that's stable and runs on the resources I have. Guess I'm a luddite too.
Schroedinger's cat has at least a very personal interest in quantum physics.
OTOH, it _is_ about dangerous ideas ... oh. Never mind.
I can set the seconds (kind of) by interpolation on my 18th C case clock. Of course, there's about 2 minutes slop in the minute hand ...
Actually, the determining factor in the glass shape is that hole in the top.
Yeah - and it's all undrinkable.
Seriously, I got given a Darwin Stubby once, and the contents were truly awful. I'd rather drink Southwark Bitter.
In most countries, "Guinness" is brewed locally under licence. I think it's brewed by Carlton United Brewery here in Australia (the same wonderful people who unleashed Foster's Lager on the world ... shudder). It's drinkable, but I'm assured by people who've been to Dublin that it's nothing like the real thing.
What on earth are you talking about? I was so confused by your comment I thought I'd better consult Andy Tanenbaum's "Modern Operating Systems". You are absolutely and completely wrong.
Kernels are called kernels, and executives are called pointy-haired bosses. I don't see how you could have got the two classes of objects confused.
There certainly are a lot of musicians who are hacks (Britney Spears springs to mind), however I think that any musician, particularly talented ones, would object to you describing them so.
> ... anything is subject to testing by the scientific method ...
No, it isn't. Off the top of my head, the grounds for belief (or disbelief) in the soul is not testable by the scientific method. Nor is belief (or disbelief) in a god or gods. (Nor is most of mathematics.)
Because I prefer my explanations elegant and compact, I don't happen to believe in the soul or any gods, whereas I do believe in the validity (note: not truth) of mathematics for the same reason. However, this is belief (and trust in Occam's Razor) and I recognise that it is not scientifically testable (although eminemtly reasonable).
As soon as you start using words like "enviro-nazi", you sacrifice your credibility.
The new stable population level is likely to be 0.
Just be happy they aren't bipolar bears ...