However, installation really is a bear, and AFAIK the ill-publicized alpha GUI installer is still not stable or reliable
Hear, hear... And I really REALLY wish they would publicize the fact that the installer is alpha, unstable and not really supported. I don't think many people completely grok how dangerous Gentoo's GUI installation can be. The 2006.1 livecd ships with a few bugs in its partitioning logic (well, overall it is chock full of bugs). If you attempt to use the GUI installer on some SATA-based dual boot systems (meaning you're going to change one of the partitions to become a linux partition), the installer will wipe your partition table, start re-inserting partitions, FAIL and then leave your hard drive in an unbootable state.
I can't tell how unusual my setups are. I have a lot more exotic hardware around me at work than most... But as an experienced Gentoo user, that graphical setup has burned me way too many times. If I'm going to install gentoo I _always_ go with the command line install. "Accidents" happen a lot less frequently when I don't let the installer make the decision for me.
Re:But healthcare doesn't make value.....
on
The Engine of US Jobs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What you think it means, is not necessarily what it means. Consider this population pyramid for the US. You see that dip after the 35-39 year olds? That's a problem. Those smaller bands of teens and 20 somethings are going to be supporting the 35-49 bands 20 years from now. Probably the reason the population increase seems to hint that things are still okay is because of those upper bands. People are living longer, so the net population change is not as apparent. But as economists are well aware, very soon way too many of our citizens will be hitting retirement age, and there are not enough young people to absorb their cost.
I virtually NEVER read about someone calling file sharing theft.
That's probably because it falls short of the definition of theft:
Main Entry: theft 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
The "copyright" in this case is intellectual property. If you illegally copy something, the copyright owner still has possession of the IP, so they have not been deprived of anything. However their copyright has been infringed. Which is the legal theory these actions are brought on.
Ah, yes, the "think of the children" argument to justify any action, especially particularly ill-thought-out evils.
You lost me. You're implying something is evil here, why don't you come out and say it. The "think of the children" argument you're using only holds water if something bad is being done for a greater good. What is the evil: enriching some people or producing more food?
I could understand the fight against the big bad RIAA if the thing they are trying to stop wasn't illegal and unfair sharing of music.
Do you believe that the end justifies the means? Should the RIAA should be at liberty to use whatever methods are at its disposal, including shaking down innocent bystanders and victims of other crimes (such as identify theft or unauthorized use of an access point) in order to stamp out piracy?
You can decry their methods, but is doesn't change the fact that people are stealing from them!
Yes, we decry their methods because doing an evil to stop an evil doesn't change the fact that it is evil.
If I go home and find my laptop stolen, and the neighbors claim some blonde haired kid did it. I should be able to get the names and addresses of all blonde haired kids in my neighborhood and file for discovery of their computer possessions, right? I mean, sure I may end up harassing a few good kids, but one of them stole from me! Actually, that's a bad example. I should do it the RIAA way: I should sue every blonde haired kid in the neighborhood for stealing my laptop and offer to settle for $500. It'll cost them more than $500 to defend against my lawsuit, I suspect they'll just pay up.
So let's don't mix up theft with right of use, please.
What about my rights? My right to privacy? Why must I live in fear that RIAA may come and force me to pay them $3000 even though I haven't done anything wrong? Oh, maybe force is to strong a word; for $12,000 I could pay someone to defend me against their baseless charge.
But how about if your religious philosophy disallows fish?
You'll have to ask God if a grain of rice is a fish.
What if you're a vegetarian and really want to eat that tomato, but want to know if it's actually a vegetable?
If you're a vegetarian and this hangs you up, you have problems. It has absolutely no characteristics of a member of the animal kingdom.
This can be an environmental nightmare, and this contamination could lead to many people unwillingly needing to give up foods because of an irresponsible company.
For example??!!??
Let's just splice in lots of cloven-hoofed critters, dogs, cats, and genes from human fetuses into everyday foods and let that contaminate rice, too, and see how people like that. It's not going to kill you, but there are strong philosophical reasons against it.
Doesn't bother me. You do realize you are something like 90% genetically similar to the tomato, right? Are we really going to moan if you become 90.01% similar to the tomato? We are talking about protein production. A 'fetus' is far more than one or two proteins. If those proteins show up somewhere else, so what?
They're doing it for money.
If they get rich and starving children get food, I'm not going to shed a single tear.
So what you have is essentially a synthetic synthetic benchmark. Does this count the number of cycles spent on the bus fetching memory? Hyper Transport usually gets a win there. What about pipeline fill time for a branch mis-prediction? Why is the chip being compared an Allendale?
I'd be far more convinced if I saw an actual benchmark. Until we're running real code on real data and measuring the wallclock on it, we have, as I said, a synthetic synthetic benchmark. A lot of fluff. It seems kind of odd that nearly every timed benchmark shows C2D a hands-down winner, yet this says just the opposite without actually doing the timed benchmark.
Not really...we've been selecting from natural evolution what crop survived better (which would have happened anyways).
That is entirely false. Entirely. I'll ignore the rest of your comment because your basis is 100% wrong.
Prime example: the avocados you eat and the bananas you eat are all genetically identical because they are all grafts of a single mother plant. Cavendish bananas (99.9% of bananas in supermarkets) in particular would never have occurred naturally, because they are an evolutionary dead end. They cannot reproduce sexually. There is a problem with this of course: a single well adapted pathogen could theoretically wipe out the entire world's cavendish banana crop. It has happened before, and when it did people switched to eating cavendish bananas because Gros Michel bananas got wiped out.
Corn can reproduce sexually, but has been bred to depend on humans to do so. Same with silkworms.
Seems to me you have an odd comparison. You took the lowest end Core 2 Duo with the smallest L2 cache and pitted it against a high end AMD offering. And they about tied. What does this tell us?
The E6300 costs about $230. How much does the Opteron 885 cost?
But we've been engineering our food for at least the last 6,000 years. You like tomatoes that are larger than a grape, right? What about corn that is larger than your pinky and softer than gravel? Lettuce?
I find it amazing that they would get involved with a private business, but allow a president to ignore our rights.
We have a republican president and a republican-controlled congress. Don't think for a moment that if we had a democrat president and democrat-controlled congress we wouldn't have the exact same problem. Partisan politics means protecting your party even in cases of egregious wrong. American politics needs a serious dose of proportional representation. But that would require democrat and republican politicians to agree to change the system. Somehow, I don't think that's gonna happen. They both play the gerrymandering game - they're both fairly corrupt.
There's two ways BBS software comnonly handled multiple lines on DOS.
You forgot "created a state machine for each connection and polled the lines serially" which is what DLX did. I don't know about others, I don't have their source code, but DLX was released into the public domain. It's about 15K lines of very squirrely pascal with such ingenious variable names as "x" and "dd".
Just out of curiousity... Were you even around during the early 90's when BBSes hit their peak? There were several BBS products written on top of DOS that were multiline capable even back in the 80s. For those BBS products that couldn't, there was a TSR that could do task switching so you could run two lines.
DOS is single task and not network aware, so if you run a BBS it's one node, dialup only.
Back in my day we didn't have any fancy multithreaded pre-emptive kernel to run our 32 line BBSes. We had 486/66 DX2 DOS boxes with 4 digiboards in ISA slots each with 8 serial ports running DLX software. And we said "Hey look at me, I connected at 2400 baud!" And we watched ASCII art animations that were best viewed at 1200 baud, and we used X-modem for our downloads, AND WE LIKED IT.
Along this vein, I've been dying to share this true story of mine from back in the dot-com days...
I was working for one of the many "we're going to enhance the users internet experience" companies. The VP of development was a woman who had become independently wealthy from the IPO of a previous company and was only working here because being retired was too boring.
One day six of us, including said VP, go out to this new greek restaurant. The food is delicious, the service was warm, we were all happy. We all got the same thing which cost $8 after tax, and we all agreed that $2 each was an appropriate tip. Well the VP was too good to carry cash so she put it on her credit card. She received $50 in cash for a $48 bill.
SHE FILLED OUT THE CREDIT SLIP FOR $51!
I could not believe what I had just seen. Talk about your sense of entitlement. In my opinion she had just robbed the wait staff. Pitching in 1 of her several million dollars for an $8 meal was beyond belief. I'm not sure which pissed me off more: that she had done it, or that there wasn't a damned thing I could do about it.
If we knew for sure that we humans are causing changes, then we should mend our ways rapidly.
I think most scientists tend to agree that there is certainly some warming going on because of us humans. There is disagreement as to how much. The bigger thing in my mind is "so what?" This is where the grant-hungry doomsdayers come in. The earth almost certainly contained higher CO2 concentrations and had higher temperatures in the past due to volcanic activity. Life survived then just fine.
The easy pickings for the Global Warming denialists is far and away the statements made by the doomsayers because they are truly using bad science to justify their existence. This is why Al Gore's dumbass movie was also an easy target. Instead of the sticking to the rather boring probably factual stuff, he jumped into the doomsday argument and started spouting reams of crap based on poor process.
Whoa. You're right. I hadn't tried this before, but I just tried searching you tube for some videos I haven't seen since way back in the 80s. So far Youtube is 5 for 5 (oddly enough they all have an MTV 2 watermark). It has been too long since I watched the blonde bra-less babe in Dexy's Midnight Runner's Come On Eileen video. Still don't know who Johnny Ray is, still don't care.
Well, Occam's Razor is not a tool for proving anything, however it would be interesting to apply it to this line:
Seems like a petty game for an omnipotent being to play, no matter how you spin it
Given the information we have, is playing a petty game the simplest of all possible explanations for God having minimal interaction with us? In my mind, it is not. I'll let you decide for yourself.
Which is all fine and dandy *if* God chooses to "fuck" with your experiments. So it can be said that an actively capricious omnipotent God cannot co-exist with reliable science. People could still attempt science, but they would not converge on an answer. Thus a God who rarely, if ever, alters the physical properties of the universe to a measurable degree can coexist fine with the scientific inquiry of the sentient entities in that universe.
You know the great irony is that going back to your original post, you seem to be ill informed of both science and christian theology.
It should be obvious that an omnipotent God could just say "I'm going to sit back and just watch what they do for the next 3,000 years" and all the science done in those 3,000 years will be logically consistent with the physical laws of the universe. It should further be obvious that said God could then decide "I'm going to make this bush appear to burn and speak to this wandering dude for an hour, then go quiet for another 1,000 years" and will not result in changing the body of scientific data. There will not be sufficient evidence from that data point to analyze and incorporate.
You are saying that since an omnipotent God *could* change the laws of physics, you *would* not have a repeatable experiment. Which is nonsense. He could simply choose not to measurably change any physical law. It should also be relatively obvious that between his willful changing of physical laws, there will be experimental agreement - science can march on.
Knowing about something and not acting on it does not imply approval. This has been hashed out by philosophers and theologians for ages. The Christian theology is that God gave man free will. This doesn't mean God approves of man sinning. It means God chooses not to intervene so as to stop the sin. To sin or not to sin is something done of one's own free will. This also necessarily means that bad things will happen to good people.
It is also untrue that all Christians believe that God knows what will happen with perfect clarity. There are plenty of examples of God sending someone out on a fact finding mission. It's sort of like boats in a bath tub. God can reach in and pluck a boat out, or send it to the bottom, or turn it this way or that, or just blow on it, or make the water warmer, or colder, or shallower, or even change the viscosity of the water. He can completely control what the boat could do and the universe in which the boat floats, but he can't predict with certainty what the boat would do if he stirred the water.
Yes, I too used to think that my obsessive-compulsive urge to hook small creatures up to an air compressor, turn it on and blow them to pieces represented some deep seated flaw in the way my parents raised me. Now I realize I am a helpless victim of Dig Dug.
omnipotent means "all powerful." It does not mean "all controlling."
An omnipotent God can intervene any time he wants, or not intervene. He does not need to approve every action within the universe, nor slavishly perform all tasks miraculous and mundane.
Since omnipotence does not require performing every action in the universe, there must be some mechanistic functioning of the universe. This is the domain of science.
Hence, science and an omnipotent God are not mutually exclusive.
But this is the same thing I argued three posts back which you said misrepresented what you said.
What is your philosophical argument that precludes an omnipotent God and science co-existing?
Your argument is bordering on the daft. Your hacked server extension is a perfect example. One would have no way of knowing whether or not you tampered with the results, but as long as the results are consistent, then the science will still work. There is no reason science and an omnipotent God cannot exist.
Let's say that somewhere in the world there was "jump pad." A magical circle on the ground that when stepped on, caused a person to fly 10 feet into the air. Now further suppose that the force that causes the jump is unknown to the people, but you in fact know it is an omnipotent creator giving his creations a little "pick up." Is there anything you could scientifically analyze about this pad? How about the acceleration with which the jump occurs? Do heavier people accelerate at different speeds? Do non-person things jump? Do non-living things jump? Can you describe the jump function?
These are all the sorts of things we do with gravity today. Is it curved space time? Is there a fundamental graviton particle? Is gravity the will of God? We're not completely sure. We have some mathematical models that do an excellent job of predicting gravitational effects. But the models don't necessarily tell you what is going on any more than the model of a ferrari's acceleration tells you of the combustion in the 3rd cylinder of the engine.
You seem to assume that a universe created by an omnipotent God necessarily requires him to arbitrarily cause everything to happen. I would say if God simply created some rules and only interacts with the universe when he wishes, then you can have science and an omnipotent God in the same universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Why cant we all get along
Because there is more money to be made in not getting along.
However, installation really is a bear, and AFAIK the ill-publicized alpha GUI installer is still not stable or reliable
Hear, hear... And I really REALLY wish they would publicize the fact that the installer is alpha, unstable and not really supported. I don't think many people completely grok how dangerous Gentoo's GUI installation can be. The 2006.1 livecd ships with a few bugs in its partitioning logic (well, overall it is chock full of bugs). If you attempt to use the GUI installer on some SATA-based dual boot systems (meaning you're going to change one of the partitions to become a linux partition), the installer will wipe your partition table, start re-inserting partitions, FAIL and then leave your hard drive in an unbootable state.
I can't tell how unusual my setups are. I have a lot more exotic hardware around me at work than most... But as an experienced Gentoo user, that graphical setup has burned me way too many times. If I'm going to install gentoo I _always_ go with the command line install. "Accidents" happen a lot less frequently when I don't let the installer make the decision for me.
What you think it means, is not necessarily what it means. Consider this population pyramid for the US. You see that dip after the 35-39 year olds? That's a problem. Those smaller bands of teens and 20 somethings are going to be supporting the 35-49 bands 20 years from now. Probably the reason the population increase seems to hint that things are still okay is because of those upper bands. People are living longer, so the net population change is not as apparent. But as economists are well aware, very soon way too many of our citizens will be hitting retirement age, and there are not enough young people to absorb their cost.
I virtually NEVER read about someone calling file sharing theft.
That's probably because it falls short of the definition of theft:
Main Entry: theft
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
The "copyright" in this case is intellectual property. If you illegally copy something, the copyright owner still has possession of the IP, so they have not been deprived of anything. However their copyright has been infringed. Which is the legal theory these actions are brought on.
Ah, yes, the "think of the children" argument to justify any action, especially particularly ill-thought-out evils.
You lost me. You're implying something is evil here, why don't you come out and say it. The "think of the children" argument you're using only holds water if something bad is being done for a greater good. What is the evil: enriching some people or producing more food?
I could understand the fight against the big bad RIAA if the thing they are trying to stop wasn't illegal and unfair sharing of music.
Do you believe that the end justifies the means? Should the RIAA should be at liberty to use whatever methods are at its disposal, including shaking down innocent bystanders and victims of other crimes (such as identify theft or unauthorized use of an access point) in order to stamp out piracy?
You can decry their methods, but is doesn't change the fact that people are stealing from them!
Yes, we decry their methods because doing an evil to stop an evil doesn't change the fact that it is evil.
If I go home and find my laptop stolen, and the neighbors claim some blonde haired kid did it. I should be able to get the names and addresses of all blonde haired kids in my neighborhood and file for discovery of their computer possessions, right? I mean, sure I may end up harassing a few good kids, but one of them stole from me! Actually, that's a bad example. I should do it the RIAA way: I should sue every blonde haired kid in the neighborhood for stealing my laptop and offer to settle for $500. It'll cost them more than $500 to defend against my lawsuit, I suspect they'll just pay up.
So let's don't mix up theft with right of use, please.
What about my rights? My right to privacy? Why must I live in fear that RIAA may come and force me to pay them $3000 even though I haven't done anything wrong? Oh, maybe force is to strong a word; for $12,000 I could pay someone to defend me against their baseless charge.
But how about if your religious philosophy disallows fish?
You'll have to ask God if a grain of rice is a fish.
What if you're a vegetarian and really want to eat that tomato, but want to know if it's actually a vegetable?
If you're a vegetarian and this hangs you up, you have problems. It has absolutely no characteristics of a member of the animal kingdom.
This can be an environmental nightmare, and this contamination could lead to many people unwillingly needing to give up foods because of an irresponsible company.
For example??!!??
Let's just splice in lots of cloven-hoofed critters, dogs, cats, and genes from human fetuses into everyday foods and let that contaminate rice, too, and see how people like that. It's not going to kill you, but there are strong philosophical reasons against it.
Doesn't bother me. You do realize you are something like 90% genetically similar to the tomato, right? Are we really going to moan if you become 90.01% similar to the tomato? We are talking about protein production. A 'fetus' is far more than one or two proteins. If those proteins show up somewhere else, so what?
They're doing it for money.
If they get rich and starving children get food, I'm not going to shed a single tear.
So what you have is essentially a synthetic synthetic benchmark. Does this count the number of cycles spent on the bus fetching memory? Hyper Transport usually gets a win there. What about pipeline fill time for a branch mis-prediction? Why is the chip being compared an Allendale?
I'd be far more convinced if I saw an actual benchmark. Until we're running real code on real data and measuring the wallclock on it, we have, as I said, a synthetic synthetic benchmark. A lot of fluff. It seems kind of odd that nearly every timed benchmark shows C2D a hands-down winner, yet this says just the opposite without actually doing the timed benchmark.
Not really...we've been selecting from natural evolution what crop survived better (which would have happened anyways).
That is entirely false. Entirely. I'll ignore the rest of your comment because your basis is 100% wrong.
Prime example: the avocados you eat and the bananas you eat are all genetically identical because they are all grafts of a single mother plant. Cavendish bananas (99.9% of bananas in supermarkets) in particular would never have occurred naturally, because they are an evolutionary dead end. They cannot reproduce sexually. There is a problem with this of course: a single well adapted pathogen could theoretically wipe out the entire world's cavendish banana crop. It has happened before, and when it did people switched to eating cavendish bananas because Gros Michel bananas got wiped out.
Corn can reproduce sexually, but has been bred to depend on humans to do so. Same with silkworms.
Seems to me you have an odd comparison. You took the lowest end Core 2 Duo with the smallest L2 cache and pitted it against a high end AMD offering. And they about tied. What does this tell us?
The E6300 costs about $230. How much does the Opteron 885 cost?
But we've been engineering our food for at least the last 6,000 years. You like tomatoes that are larger than a grape, right? What about corn that is larger than your pinky and softer than gravel? Lettuce?
I find it amazing that they would get involved with a private business, but allow a president to ignore our rights.
We have a republican president and a republican-controlled congress. Don't think for a moment that if we had a democrat president and democrat-controlled congress we wouldn't have the exact same problem. Partisan politics means protecting your party even in cases of egregious wrong. American politics needs a serious dose of proportional representation. But that would require democrat and republican politicians to agree to change the system. Somehow, I don't think that's gonna happen. They both play the gerrymandering game - they're both fairly corrupt.
There's two ways BBS software comnonly handled multiple lines on DOS.
You forgot "created a state machine for each connection and polled the lines serially" which is what DLX did. I don't know about others, I don't have their source code, but DLX was released into the public domain. It's about 15K lines of very squirrely pascal with such ingenious variable names as "x" and "dd".
Just out of curiousity... Were you even around during the early 90's when BBSes hit their peak? There were several BBS products written on top of DOS that were multiline capable even back in the 80s. For those BBS products that couldn't, there was a TSR that could do task switching so you could run two lines.
DOS is single task and not network aware, so if you run a BBS it's one node, dialup only.
Back in my day we didn't have any fancy multithreaded pre-emptive kernel to run our 32 line BBSes. We had 486/66 DX2 DOS boxes with 4 digiboards in ISA slots each with 8 serial ports running DLX software. And we said "Hey look at me, I connected at 2400 baud!" And we watched ASCII art animations that were best viewed at 1200 baud, and we used X-modem for our downloads, AND WE LIKED IT.
Along this vein, I've been dying to share this true story of mine from back in the dot-com days...
I was working for one of the many "we're going to enhance the users internet experience" companies. The VP of development was a woman who had become independently wealthy from the IPO of a previous company and was only working here because being retired was too boring.
One day six of us, including said VP, go out to this new greek restaurant. The food is delicious, the service was warm, we were all happy. We all got the same thing which cost $8 after tax, and we all agreed that $2 each was an appropriate tip. Well the VP was too good to carry cash so she put it on her credit card. She received $50 in cash for a $48 bill.
SHE FILLED OUT THE CREDIT SLIP FOR $51!
I could not believe what I had just seen. Talk about your sense of entitlement. In my opinion she had just robbed the wait staff. Pitching in 1 of her several million dollars for an $8 meal was beyond belief. I'm not sure which pissed me off more: that she had done it, or that there wasn't a damned thing I could do about it.
If we knew for sure that we humans are causing changes, then we should mend our ways rapidly.
I think most scientists tend to agree that there is certainly some warming going on because of us humans. There is disagreement as to how much. The bigger thing in my mind is "so what?" This is where the grant-hungry doomsdayers come in. The earth almost certainly contained higher CO2 concentrations and had higher temperatures in the past due to volcanic activity. Life survived then just fine.
The easy pickings for the Global Warming denialists is far and away the statements made by the doomsayers because they are truly using bad science to justify their existence. This is why Al Gore's dumbass movie was also an easy target. Instead of the sticking to the rather boring probably factual stuff, he jumped into the doomsday argument and started spouting reams of crap based on poor process.
Okay, here's an easy one... Why is repeatable important? Does science require repeatability?
Whoa. You're right. I hadn't tried this before, but I just tried searching you tube for some videos I haven't seen since way back in the 80s. So far Youtube is 5 for 5 (oddly enough they all have an MTV 2 watermark). It has been too long since I watched the blonde bra-less babe in Dexy's Midnight Runner's Come On Eileen video. Still don't know who Johnny Ray is, still don't care.
Well, Occam's Razor is not a tool for proving anything, however it would be interesting to apply it to this line:
Seems like a petty game for an omnipotent being to play, no matter how you spin it
Given the information we have, is playing a petty game the simplest of all possible explanations for God having minimal interaction with us? In my mind, it is not. I'll let you decide for yourself.
Which is all fine and dandy *if* God chooses to "fuck" with your experiments. So it can be said that an actively capricious omnipotent God cannot co-exist with reliable science. People could still attempt science, but they would not converge on an answer. Thus a God who rarely, if ever, alters the physical properties of the universe to a measurable degree can coexist fine with the scientific inquiry of the sentient entities in that universe.
You know the great irony is that going back to your original post, you seem to be ill informed of both science and christian theology.
It should be obvious that an omnipotent God could just say "I'm going to sit back and just watch what they do for the next 3,000 years" and all the science done in those 3,000 years will be logically consistent with the physical laws of the universe. It should further be obvious that said God could then decide "I'm going to make this bush appear to burn and speak to this wandering dude for an hour, then go quiet for another 1,000 years" and will not result in changing the body of scientific data. There will not be sufficient evidence from that data point to analyze and incorporate.
You are saying that since an omnipotent God *could* change the laws of physics, you *would* not have a repeatable experiment. Which is nonsense. He could simply choose not to measurably change any physical law. It should also be relatively obvious that between his willful changing of physical laws, there will be experimental agreement - science can march on.
Knowing about something and not acting on it does not imply approval. This has been hashed out by philosophers and theologians for ages. The Christian theology is that God gave man free will. This doesn't mean God approves of man sinning. It means God chooses not to intervene so as to stop the sin. To sin or not to sin is something done of one's own free will. This also necessarily means that bad things will happen to good people.
It is also untrue that all Christians believe that God knows what will happen with perfect clarity. There are plenty of examples of God sending someone out on a fact finding mission. It's sort of like boats in a bath tub. God can reach in and pluck a boat out, or send it to the bottom, or turn it this way or that, or just blow on it, or make the water warmer, or colder, or shallower, or even change the viscosity of the water. He can completely control what the boat could do and the universe in which the boat floats, but he can't predict with certainty what the boat would do if he stirred the water.
Yes, I too used to think that my obsessive-compulsive urge to hook small creatures up to an air compressor, turn it on and blow them to pieces represented some deep seated flaw in the way my parents raised me. Now I realize I am a helpless victim of Dig Dug.
omnipotent means "all powerful." It does not mean "all controlling."
An omnipotent God can intervene any time he wants, or not intervene. He does not need to approve every action within the universe, nor slavishly perform all tasks miraculous and mundane.
Since omnipotence does not require performing every action in the universe, there must be some mechanistic functioning of the universe. This is the domain of science.
Hence, science and an omnipotent God are not mutually exclusive.
But this is the same thing I argued three posts back which you said misrepresented what you said.
What is your philosophical argument that precludes an omnipotent God and science co-existing?
Your argument is bordering on the daft. Your hacked server extension is a perfect example. One would have no way of knowing whether or not you tampered with the results, but as long as the results are consistent, then the science will still work. There is no reason science and an omnipotent God cannot exist.
Let's say that somewhere in the world there was "jump pad." A magical circle on the ground that when stepped on, caused a person to fly 10 feet into the air. Now further suppose that the force that causes the jump is unknown to the people, but you in fact know it is an omnipotent creator giving his creations a little "pick up." Is there anything you could scientifically analyze about this pad? How about the acceleration with which the jump occurs? Do heavier people accelerate at different speeds? Do non-person things jump? Do non-living things jump? Can you describe the jump function?
These are all the sorts of things we do with gravity today. Is it curved space time? Is there a fundamental graviton particle? Is gravity the will of God? We're not completely sure. We have some mathematical models that do an excellent job of predicting gravitational effects. But the models don't necessarily tell you what is going on any more than the model of a ferrari's acceleration tells you of the combustion in the 3rd cylinder of the engine.
You seem to assume that a universe created by an omnipotent God necessarily requires him to arbitrarily cause everything to happen. I would say if God simply created some rules and only interacts with the universe when he wishes, then you can have science and an omnipotent God in the same universe.
My point was that science can exist within a universe created by God.