"However it is a fact that electrons do tunnel through junctions in semiconductors due to the same effect. Am I repeating myself too much here?"
yes you are. did you ever see an electron? or did you just indirectly observe the effect of the model describing some made up particle called an 'electron' in a semiconductor?
"Russell did not resolve the issues. He tackled them and so did many before him and after, see Plato,Descartes, Kant, Moore, etc."
i was specifically referring to the religion-science barrier and the role truth and fact plays in distinguishing between the two. Russell wrote a book adressing this very issue (with the very creative title 'religion and science'). of course subjects like facts, truths, etc have been discussed by ancient Greek philosophers already... but this discussion (creationism related) led me to specifically use Russell as an example. Plato philosophised a few hundred years before Christ was even (alledgedly) born.
if you are aware of the differences between "popular fact" and "scientific model", why do you choose to use the popular definition in a post where you state "Science is a process by which an explanation can be given for facts" (my emphasis)?
to someone who is aware of the philosophical issues surrounding truth and such, your argumentation sounds like it is trying to impress someone less knowledgeable. i regret to inform you that i'm not the least impressed. and i'm not even *that* smart! *grin*
anyway, this response comes too late and i wonder why i even bother. i guess i need to fill my late nights with some kind of silly activity *grin*
2. If it has audio capability, turn it into a digital audio recorder that works kind of like a mini-cassette recorder (ie. shitty quality, but lots of record time)
Check. The video function works fine for this, and if you leave the lens cap on, the black-frame video takes up almost no space.
in fact on my snapshot camera (Canon A75) there's a function to record wavs associated with a photograph. make a pic of a nice lookin' babe and ask her number. good for supporting your memory the next day *grin*
of course, this was meant for you guys who use a camera for something else than taking pictures *under* ladies' skirts;^)
true but you shoot a zillion pictures once you have a digicam... anyway kodak has to do something to survive. analog film is going the way of the dinosaur.
> # Linux is more popular as a desktop operating > system than SVR4. >
Maybe, but maybe not. People at home and dorm geeks dork'ing around don't count. I'll guarantee you their are more scientific and engineering shops that are using SVR4 based desktops than Linux.
well as a postdoc fellow working in a university computer science department, i can tell you that the amount of linux desktops/workstations clearly outnumbers the amount of workstations running other unices (unixes? - whatever). oh ya, and many of the workstations run windows XP by-the-way.
that put aside, using the argument that science and engineering shops running "desktop" software is indicatiove of success or failure of linux on the desktop is a bit silly IMO. the largest market for desktop computing is corporate offices, and then perhaps home computing. and yes, "desktop linux" didn't penetrate that market sufficiently (yet). but much more than solaris etc ever will. why do you think sun jumped the linux bandwagon?
but most importantly, the separation between desktop and server is kinda artificial, as the original article already suggested. so this discussion is kinda pointless IM-not-so-HO.
the examples you state (or anyone could state) are just highly probable events, not facts. facts do not exist (in science). they are just artifical constructs to stop us from panicking *grin*
like you rightfully state later on in your post, it's all about hypotheses. even if facts existed, our inherently biased observatory powers would prevent us from identifying them.
sheesh, people like Russell tackled the issues you are putting forward beginning last century already.
"Ballmer is largely credited for tripling the company's cash balance, with sales growing from less than $23 billion in 2000 to $36.8 billion last year."
their main revenues are form selling the OS and Office suites, right? well, he was still in the luxury position of building on a monopoly. i'm pretty sure it won't stay like this as competition gets more stiff.
and yeah, OSS and/or Free software are a big competitor in the fields where MS wants to make money in the future (embedded space, servers, for example).
and the added value is that, even if you'd want to keep the source, you can write it as a binary driver. not that i personally like this, but it's hard to imagine that people would worry about their precious IP like Mike Hall suggested.
"If its supposed to be like a little machine, its got to be explainable in a deterministic way. Otherwise its magic. I have no problem with magic (see my sig), but its nice if you admit to it rather than pretending its science."
two things: - determinism is waaaaaaaaaaaaay outdated. - magic is just a word to explain things we don't understand. like god, or mother nature, or fate.
science is not about absolutes**. anyone who got that wrong didn't pay attention during philosophy of science courses... read some bertrand russell or something.
it's exactly that attitude that keeps the American two party system in place.
mod me flamebait, or troll, or offtopic, i don't care. i'm one of them pesky conceited Europeans anyway, and i am ALWAYS right *grin*
Re:Welcome to capitalism
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
[quote] The top 10 pharmaceutical companies make more money than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined.
Good. How much is a few more years of life worth to you? Or not being impotent? Or relief from chronic pain? And if it's not worth to you what people are paying, switch to an insurance plan that doesn't cover prescription drugs and opt out of the whole affair. [/quote]
while i agree with your point, it's mostly valid for the case where you as a 1st world citizen get HIV infected (or something)
drug development and marketing of pharmaceutical companies is money-centric. whereas the ones most in need of for example HIV drugs don't have a penny/dollarcent/whatever to scratch their butt with.
"Your chances are good, I think. But avoid things that weaken your immune system, like sleeping too little. Also, this is a fungus, so try to get some solar radiation and fresh air."
are you sure it's a fungus? i'm pretty sure it's a gram positive bacterium... IIRC it does have hyphae-resembling thread-like structures (god microbiology was sooooo long ago for me so excuse me if i use incorrect terminology) attached to the cell wall, and was therefore wrongly determined as a fungus originally.
pseudo transparency is not exactly a nice solution, but it's all that's possible with the current version of X. keith packard is working on integrating true alpha blending in the x server, but it's rather resource intensive i understood.
if you look at what the E team is doing with their new EFL framework, you'll be impressed. they use a canvas (evas) that does true transparency. on the current X server (and much faster than via the render extension), but also on the framebuffer, etc. raster is working with embedded systems atm, looking much further than just an X11 windowmanager.... plenty of nice things to come from the E-team, it seems:)
the internet took off prior to IE dominating it. it transformed into hell after IE started dominating it. so there. your logic sucks as much as WAP phones.
"I used to run Enlightenment, but like you, I got annoyed with the font issue."
check out DR16.7 (just out). enlightenment got ported to imlib2 and freetype2, and doesn't use fnlib and freetype1 for font handling anymore. fonts look beautiful:)
as the article says, they don't keep a log of *who* they are blocking. take off your tinfoil hat. it's pretty straightforward that child abuse is a bad thing. and this is the issue at hand. why extrapolate it to a possible future with 1984 scenarios?
it's not that i agree with censoring any webpage, but let's not make BT look more "big brother like" than they really are.
now, my personal view is that *nothing* should be blocked, but people should be educated instead. type in "child porn" or "kiddie porn" in google, and you will find a plethora of sites saying it is a bad thing and how you can fight it (no i didn't use 'safe search':P).
information is freedom. but people need to know what to do with freedom... and there lies the challenge IMHO
a loudness function doesn't have much use to me then, since i listen at high enough volume
so: a loudness function should then be dynamic, and not overdrive my amps when i switch it on at higher volume, no? are there such implementations? i only encountered the "boom at any volume" type of loudness on hifi equipment.
i know it wasn't your point, but this loudness thing always puzzled me... why do you have to correct for the nonlinear characteristics of the human ear when you hear live music in the same way?
i would say that it's best to reproduce music linearly with your hifi equipment (as linear as possible at least), to let your ears receive the same signal they would hear when they'd be in the studio.
Slashdot Mirror
"However it is a fact that electrons do tunnel through junctions in semiconductors due to the same effect. Am I repeating myself too much here?"
yes you are. did you ever see an electron? or did you just indirectly observe the effect of the model describing some made up particle called an 'electron' in a semiconductor?
"Russell did not resolve the issues. He tackled them and so did many before him and after, see Plato,Descartes, Kant, Moore, etc."
i was specifically referring to the religion-science barrier and the role truth and fact plays in distinguishing between the two. Russell wrote a book adressing this very issue (with the very creative title 'religion and science'). of course subjects like facts, truths, etc have been discussed by ancient Greek philosophers already... but this discussion (creationism related) led me to specifically use Russell as an example. Plato philosophised a few hundred years before Christ was even (alledgedly) born.
if you are aware of the differences between "popular fact" and "scientific model", why do you choose to use the popular definition in a post where you state "Science is a process by which an explanation can be given for facts" (my emphasis)?
to someone who is aware of the philosophical issues surrounding truth and such, your argumentation sounds like it is trying to impress someone less knowledgeable. i regret to inform you that i'm not the least impressed. and i'm not even *that* smart! *grin*
anyway, this response comes too late and i wonder why i even bother. i guess i need to fill my late nights with some kind of silly activity *grin*
imagine a beowulf clu... no, seriously!
a little (cool! as in temperature) box with specs like the minimac has great potential for clustering applications, or not?
2. If it has audio capability, turn it into a digital audio recorder that works kind of like a mini-cassette recorder (ie. shitty quality, but lots of record time)
;^)
Check. The video function works fine for this, and if you leave the lens cap on, the black-frame video takes up almost no space.
in fact on my snapshot camera (Canon A75) there's a function to record wavs associated with a photograph. make a pic of a nice lookin' babe and ask her number. good for supporting your memory the next day *grin*
of course, this was meant for you guys who use a camera for something else than taking pictures *under* ladies' skirts
http://www.dcviews.com/press/Mamiya-ZD.htm
ok it's a bit expensive, but it is The Good Stuff (TM)
true but you shoot a zillion pictures once you have a digicam... anyway kodak has to do something to survive. analog film is going the way of the dinosaur.
> # Linux is more popular as a desktop operating
> system than SVR4.
>
Maybe, but maybe not. People at home and dorm
geeks dork'ing around don't count. I'll guarantee
you their are more scientific and engineering
shops that are using SVR4 based desktops than
Linux.
well as a postdoc fellow working in a university computer science department, i can tell you that the amount of linux desktops/workstations clearly outnumbers the amount of workstations running other unices (unixes? - whatever). oh ya, and many of the workstations run windows XP by-the-way.
that put aside, using the argument that science and engineering shops running "desktop" software is indicatiove of success or failure of linux on the desktop is a bit silly IMO. the largest market for desktop computing is corporate offices, and then perhaps home computing. and yes, "desktop linux" didn't penetrate that market sufficiently (yet). but much more than solaris etc ever will. why do you think sun jumped the linux bandwagon?
but most importantly, the separation between desktop and server is kinda artificial, as the original article already suggested. so this discussion is kinda pointless IM-not-so-HO.
"Of course there are facts in science."
the examples you state (or anyone could state) are just highly probable events, not facts. facts do not exist (in science). they are just artifical constructs to stop us from panicking *grin*
like you rightfully state later on in your post, it's all about hypotheses. even if facts existed, our inherently biased observatory powers would prevent us from identifying them.
sheesh, people like Russell tackled the issues you are putting forward beginning last century already.
"Ballmer is largely credited for tripling the company's cash balance, with sales growing from less than $23 billion in 2000 to $36.8 billion last year."
their main revenues are form selling the OS and Office suites, right? well, he was still in the luxury position of building on a monopoly. i'm pretty sure it won't stay like this as competition gets more stiff.
and yeah, OSS and/or Free software are a big competitor in the fields where MS wants to make money in the future (embedded space, servers, for example).
and the added value is that, even if you'd want to keep the source, you can write it as a binary driver. not that i personally like this, but it's hard to imagine that people would worry about their precious IP like Mike Hall suggested.
"If its supposed to be like a little machine, its got to be explainable in a deterministic way. Otherwise its magic. I have no problem with magic (see my sig), but its nice if you admit to it rather than pretending its science."
two things:
- determinism is waaaaaaaaaaaaay outdated.
- magic is just a word to explain things we don't understand. like god, or mother nature, or fate.
science is not about absolutes**. anyone who got that wrong didn't pay attention during philosophy of science courses... read some bertrand russell or something.
**if you want that, get into religion.
LOL
it's exactly that attitude that keeps the American two party system in place.
mod me flamebait, or troll, or offtopic, i don't care. i'm one of them pesky conceited Europeans anyway, and i am ALWAYS right *grin*
[quote]
The top 10 pharmaceutical companies make more money than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined.
Good. How much is a few more years of life worth to you? Or not being impotent? Or relief from chronic pain? And if it's not worth to you what people are paying, switch to an insurance plan that doesn't cover prescription drugs and opt out of the whole affair.
[/quote]
while i agree with your point, it's mostly valid for the case where you as a 1st world citizen get HIV infected (or something)
drug development and marketing of pharmaceutical companies is money-centric. whereas the ones most in need of for example HIV drugs don't have a penny/dollarcent/whatever to scratch their butt with.
"Your chances are good, I think. But avoid things that weaken your immune system, like sleeping too little. Also, this is a fungus, so try to get some solar radiation and fresh air."
are you sure it's a fungus? i'm pretty sure it's a gram positive bacterium... IIRC it does have hyphae-resembling thread-like structures (god microbiology was sooooo long ago for me so excuse me if i use incorrect terminology) attached to the cell wall, and was therefore wrongly determined as a fungus originally.
else why would penicillin work as a treatment?
oh like in eterm? :P
:)
pseudo transparency is not exactly a nice solution, but it's all that's possible with the current version of X. keith packard is working on integrating true alpha blending in the x server, but it's rather resource intensive i understood.
if you look at what the E team is doing with their new EFL framework, you'll be impressed. they use a canvas (evas) that does true transparency. on the current X server (and much faster than via the render extension), but also on the framebuffer, etc. raster is working with embedded systems atm, looking much further than just an X11 windowmanager.... plenty of nice things to come from the E-team, it seems
wouldn't be surprised if azundris did that on purpose. she's a funny character - check out her website
the internet took off prior to IE dominating it. it transformed into hell after IE started dominating it. so there. your logic sucks as much as WAP phones.
"I used to run Enlightenment, but like you, I got annoyed with the font issue."
:)
check out DR16.7 (just out). enlightenment got ported to imlib2 and freetype2, and doesn't use fnlib and freetype1 for font handling anymore. fonts look beautiful
as the article says, they don't keep a log of *who* they are blocking. take off your tinfoil hat. it's pretty straightforward that child abuse is a bad thing. and this is the issue at hand. why extrapolate it to a possible future with 1984 scenarios?
:P).
it's not that i agree with censoring any webpage, but let's not make BT look more "big brother like" than they really are.
now, my personal view is that *nothing* should be blocked, but people should be educated instead. type in "child porn" or "kiddie porn" in google, and you will find a plethora of sites saying it is a bad thing and how you can fight it (no i didn't use 'safe search'
information is freedom. but people need to know what to do with freedom... and there lies the challenge IMHO
thanks for your reply, makes perfect sense.
a loudness function doesn't have much use to me then, since i listen at high enough volume
so: a loudness function should then be dynamic, and not overdrive my amps when i switch it on at higher volume, no? are there such implementations? i only encountered the "boom at any volume" type of loudness on hifi equipment.
two words: prior art
last updated may 2001...
i know it wasn't your point, but this loudness thing always puzzled me... why do you have to correct for the nonlinear characteristics of the human ear when you hear live music in the same way?
i would say that it's best to reproduce music linearly with your hifi equipment (as linear as possible at least), to let your ears receive the same signal they would hear when they'd be in the studio.
class B amplifiers? hmmm didn't even know they were even in use, distortion around zero signal is ugly as hell.
(i know you meant class AB, just pulling yer leg)
but google *is* good!
"Counting them out before they even get started is a little unfair, don't you think?"
yeah we only do that when we talk about MS or SCO or something *grin*