you are talking functional explanation here, not causal
i must agree with grandparent poster: there is something very suspect about causal explanation and determinism in general. the main caveat being (IMHO of course) the limited powers of observation we have.
then again: how can i be sure? i lack the observatory powers to build up this argument. ah! philosophy sucks:)
the only thing we learn while learning is that we don't know shit. it's a fun thing, cause if you like learning, you'll have a continuous huge challenge.
on topic: the very nature of the question posed in the article makes it impossible to answer. great discoveries (and their recognition by others) have always been a funny coincidence, and they are only perceived as great in hindsight. i dare to state even that the amount of great ideas remembered is by far outnumbered by the amount of great ideas lost.
i my own language (dutch) your point is still valid. i must note, as the AC righfully replied that it is just a figure of speech.
however, following your logic, i have no fact supporting my ideas about politics, just arguments founded on a 'gut feeling' and stuff i read in the papers. maybe that classifies to belief in a certain sense, acceptance of an idea without any real proof or factual information, just hearsay.
one could argue that modern technology is taking the place of god in current society perhaps. masturbation to a lesser extent, and smacking babies not at all. now i could start arguing about your examples being flawed...
but no.
i'm wrong:)
i won't be able to talk my way out of this:) all in all it has been a nice thought-exercise/wordplay
the difference between science and religion is simple. religion doesn't doubt it's basic principles. there is a God, this is a given fact.
science regards a God as an hypothesis. it can be proven (or made likely) when it aligns with how the world is (in our perception). however, it is allowed to be rejected, based on what we can observe. like Thomas, who didn't want to believe until he saw what Jesus could do in the bible story.
to reject the existence of God is mutually exclusive with being religious, since it is based on God existence.
i am a biologist. i think darwin was rather precise and correct in his observations and conclusions. but i will never say that i think darwins theory cannot be rejected. i will say it's unlikely, based on what i read of his work.
see what i mean? i am allowed to question the foundations of science, a religious person is not.
if you *want* to believe in God, i will be the last one to stop you, though. believing in God is just something i am not capable of.
would you care to explain "the Sceintific Method" to me?
what you are describing (empirical science) is just one end of the spectrum of methodology.
for example: have you ever heard of philosophy? the dialectic method, introduced by plato? or are you one of those people who think that science should be deterministic by definition? if so, you're wrong.
i will not go into the whole issue of morality here which would a. take ages to discuss, and b. we wouldn't agree upon (likely)
"religious thinking" is a funny expression though:)
unlike how you formulate it, i would rather say that ethics, moral, and religion are the boundaries which restrict the application of science in society. their role is passive, not a hand that guides the tool.
like the other reply to your post, i agree that the idea of 'religion being the hand that drives science' is a bit silly.
thanks for making me laugh out oud in front of my computer! got some weird looks from passing-by colleagues:)
(quote) Sadly, many scientists feel (correctly or otherwise) their careers can be threatened if word gets out their ideas are inviable. Something that is far less likely a risk for a Christian. (end quote)
well, let's not get into the nature vs nurture debate shall we? how do you know this for sure?
let's assume you are correct. still, their genetic makeup will be virtually indentical. much more so than the average human population. and since you now about these things obviously, you also know that this makes a population vulnerable to any selective pressure, say, a disease. bingo. all your (not looking very much alike but very much the same under the hood) clones will die because of a virus infection.
so one more time (last time i promise cause i said it before)
well i am a scientist, and although i try to stay a neutral observer, it is quite difficult at times.
i have seen many debates in scientific meetings. i can assure you that many scientists are *huge* bigots, religiously debating their point of view, whether it is based on fact or not. many people do not like to be told they are wrong;)
i'm lucky enough: i don't care. and good scientists should be like that, leave an idea when it's inviable and don't try to prove something because you believe it is true.
funny thing is that religion does have a *huge* influence on the way things are decided in the usa (and they are not the only government, let me add, but by far the biggest).
in a true democracy there should be an absolute separation between church and state. in real life, true democracy doesn't exist, unfortunately. like any political ideology, we will never find out if it is the 'best way'. just because the implementation of democracy (or any political system) is miles away from what the original idea was. just like communism as it is and was applied was not communism, but just a dictatorship.
i know this rant is slightly OT, but i think it matters in this discussion. it is essentially about ethics, moral, religion and not about facts. which is a shame in my opinion.
exactly! no-one would be helped by mass-cloning. there's this thing called genetic diversity, and it's the key to survival of a population in a changing, challenging environment.
for example, if a population is very homogeneous (many clones), one virus that normaly only effective in a smaller part of a population, will now be able to effectively wipe out complete cloned populations.
in analogy to the windows ubiquity/virus problem. if you are a big homogeneous target, you are becoming vulnerable to attacks. maybe M$ can learn from nature;)
i think one shouldn't prohibit cloning of humans. progress cannot be stopped, even though it is sometimes questionable whether progress in knowledge helps humans a step forward.
i personally think the the ethics are too human-centric in this debate. as if we are a more special breed of mammals or something. factors enter this debate that should be separate from science IMHO, and definetely from governmental decisions (religious arguments for example - don't mess with God's creation...).
the benefits can be many, and cloned humans will be a rare phenomenon, even if it happens. just like genetic engineering in general, cloning human cells or tissues can be a good thing if applied under very strong restricions. think of the (now very sci-fi) idea of growing new organs, or tissues from a patient. no more rejection of transplanted organs by the patient's immune system because they (the organs) are made up by his/her own cells.
regulations should be strict though, to prevent some mad scientist from running ahead of the facts and doing things that have unpredictable effects. although i doubt that regulations will stop a mad man anyway, but that's a different discussion alltogether, so i will not touch that subject:\
i don't get you... how do you mean "one tool please them all that they are trying to make Mozilla into?"
Mozilla *is* and *was* already a "swiss-knife" application. including a kitchensink;)
but yes, i agree completely that a more modular, plugin-style architecture would make things a lot better (more maintainable). just have a little patience... apparently it takes more time than planned
for one, because e didn't align with their new libraries and standards
it needs the old freetype for example, and it didn comply to the NETWM standards (until recently when the released DR16.6)
it is still a very cool WM, certainly when you consider the age of this beast. and rock stable.
now when they get this E17 thing going... just wait and see. i think they might surprise some people overhere.
the people at E.org, raster in particular, don't give a shit what time it will be released, as long as they release something wich is good, and will be good for a long time coming. they take pride in what they do and don't release some half-finished product. personally, i like that attitude. it will be finished when it's finished.
E16 was/is as good as any of those >= 1.0 WMs out there. i still use it every day.
it's always fun to find out there are people that take themselves more seriously than i do.
and btw: don't you tell me what to worry about. as far as i'm concerned, i have as little influence on the behaviour of a braindead electorate, than i have on the behaviour of/. editors.
idiocy is universal, stupidity is ubiquitous me, 2003
well perhaps i cannot be as laid-back about it as you. i can't stand hypocrisy. and, as you said, the editors *do* tend to take themselves quite seriously, thus i think i have the right to complain. simple:)
of course my post is very offtopic, and therefore who am i to use the pot-kettle-black remark...:)
Slashdot Mirror
you are talking functional explanation here, not causal
:)
:)
i must agree with grandparent poster: there is something very suspect about causal explanation and determinism in general. the main caveat being (IMHO of course) the limited powers of observation we have.
then again: how can i be sure? i lack the observatory powers to build up this argument. ah! philosophy sucks
the only thing we learn while learning is that we don't know shit. it's a fun thing, cause if you like learning, you'll have a continuous huge challenge.
on topic: the very nature of the question posed in the article makes it impossible to answer. great discoveries (and their recognition by others) have always been a funny coincidence, and they are only perceived as great in hindsight. i dare to state even that the amount of great ideas remembered is by far outnumbered by the amount of great ideas lost.
ignorance is ubiquitous, stupidity universal
hey i wasn't insulted at all :)
:)
:) all in all it has been a nice thought-exercise/wordplay
i my own language (dutch) your point is still valid. i must note, as the AC righfully replied that it is just a figure of speech.
however, following your logic, i have no fact supporting my ideas about politics, just arguments founded on a 'gut feeling' and stuff i read in the papers. maybe that classifies to belief in a certain sense, acceptance of an idea without any real proof or factual information, just hearsay.
one could argue that modern technology is taking the place of god in current society perhaps. masturbation to a lesser extent, and smacking babies not at all. now i could start arguing about your examples being flawed...
but no.
i'm wrong
i won't be able to talk my way out of this
excuse my horrible english, it's not my native language... allow me to rephrase:
i do not believe that political methods, as applied nowadays, offer a solution to run governments well.
maybe that's better. it's not complete, but it's a better approximation of how i feel about politics. see what i mean now?
(or were you merely joking?)
btw.(630000) -> wow pretty cool UID nr
no human is unbiased. period.
the difference between science and religion is simple. religion doesn't doubt it's basic principles. there is a God, this is a given fact.
science regards a God as an hypothesis. it can be proven (or made likely) when it aligns with how the world is (in our perception). however, it is allowed to be rejected, based on what we can observe. like Thomas, who didn't want to believe until he saw what Jesus could do in the bible story.
to reject the existence of God is mutually exclusive with being religious, since it is based on God existence.
i am a biologist. i think darwin was rather precise and correct in his observations and conclusions. but i will never say that i think darwins theory cannot be rejected. i will say it's unlikely, based on what i read of his work.
see what i mean? i am allowed to question the foundations of science, a religious person is not.
if you *want* to believe in God, i will be the last one to stop you, though. believing in God is just something i am not capable of.
would you care to explain "the Sceintific Method" to me?
what you are describing (empirical science) is just one end of the spectrum of methodology.
for example: have you ever heard of philosophy? the dialectic method, introduced by plato? or are you one of those people who think that science should be deterministic by definition? if so, you're wrong.
whatever. i don't even feel like discussing this.
bah
i will not go into the whole issue of morality here which would a. take ages to discuss, and b. we wouldn't agree upon (likely)
:)
"religious thinking" is a funny expression though
unlike how you formulate it, i would rather say that ethics, moral, and religion are the boundaries which restrict the application of science in society. their role is passive, not a hand that guides the tool.
like the other reply to your post, i agree that the idea of 'religion being the hand that drives science' is a bit silly.
this all IMHO of course
although among the biggest databases (his summary) is represented at a much lower percentage than 70
which doesn't mean M$ does not rule the world. as much as your statement doesn't prove M$ rules the world.
(can't believe i'm responding to a troll_
ha ha
:)
you just summarised in few sentences why i don't believe in politics!
thanks for once more confirming that i am right in being pessimistic about these matters
thanks for making me laugh out oud in front of my computer! got some weird looks from passing-by colleagues :)
(quote)
Sadly, many scientists feel (correctly or otherwise) their careers can be threatened if word gets out their ideas are inviable. Something that is far less likely a risk for a Christian.
(end quote)
well, let's not get into the nature vs nurture debate shall we? how do you know this for sure?
/RANT
let's assume you are correct. still, their genetic makeup will be virtually indentical. much more so than the average human population. and since you now about these things obviously, you also know that this makes a population vulnerable to any selective pressure, say, a disease. bingo. all your (not looking very much alike but very much the same under the hood) clones will die because of a virus infection.
so one more time (last time i promise cause i said it before)
RANT
genetic homogeneity is a bad thing
well i am a scientist, and although i try to stay a neutral observer, it is quite difficult at times.
;)
i have seen many debates in scientific meetings. i can assure you that many scientists are *huge* bigots, religiously debating their point of view, whether it is based on fact or not. many people do not like to be told they are wrong
i'm lucky enough: i don't care. and good scientists should be like that, leave an idea when it's inviable and don't try to prove something because you believe it is true.
i agree completely with you. period.
funny thing is that religion does have a *huge* influence on the way things are decided in the usa (and they are not the only government, let me add, but by far the biggest).
in a true democracy there should be an absolute separation between church and state. in real life, true democracy doesn't exist, unfortunately. like any political ideology, we will never find out if it is the 'best way'. just because the implementation of democracy (or any political system) is miles away from what the original idea was. just like communism as it is and was applied was not communism, but just a dictatorship.
i know this rant is slightly OT, but i think it matters in this discussion. it is essentially about ethics, moral, religion and not about facts. which is a shame in my opinion.
exactly! no-one would be helped by mass-cloning. there's this thing called genetic diversity, and it's the key to survival of a population in a changing, challenging environment.
;)
for example, if a population is very homogeneous (many clones), one virus that normaly only effective in a smaller part of a population, will now be able to effectively wipe out complete cloned populations.
in analogy to the windows ubiquity/virus problem. if you are a big homogeneous target, you are becoming vulnerable to attacks. maybe M$ can learn from nature
so don't flame me
:\
i think one shouldn't prohibit cloning of humans. progress cannot be stopped, even though it is sometimes questionable whether progress in knowledge helps humans a step forward.
i personally think the the ethics are too human-centric in this debate. as if we are a more special breed of mammals or something. factors enter this debate that should be separate from science IMHO, and definetely from governmental decisions (religious arguments for example - don't mess with God's creation...).
the benefits can be many, and cloned humans will be a rare phenomenon, even if it happens. just like genetic engineering in general, cloning human cells or tissues can be a good thing if applied under very strong restricions. think of the (now very sci-fi) idea of growing new organs, or tissues from a patient. no more rejection of transplanted organs by the patient's immune system because they (the organs) are made up by his/her own cells.
regulations should be strict though, to prevent some mad scientist from running ahead of the facts and doing things that have unpredictable effects. although i doubt that regulations will stop a mad man anyway, but that's a different discussion alltogether, so i will not touch that subject
there is an effort by a guy named daniel glazman to develop a standalone composer, to complement firebird and thunderbird.
so you'll have your precious composer! (no sarcasm intended, although i prefer editing suites like quanta, bluefish, screem)
the general idea is (i think) that development of mozilla in standalone applications will be more flexible, easier to keep bugfree etc.
of course this provides us with more choice (do i want this component or not) which is always good IMHO
i don't get you... how do you mean "one tool please them all that they are trying to make Mozilla into?"
;)
Mozilla *is* and *was* already a "swiss-knife" application. including a kitchensink
but yes, i agree completely that a more modular, plugin-style architecture would make things a lot better (more maintainable). just have a little patience... apparently it takes more time than planned
especially things like the NTLM authentication support on all platforms gives us a stick to beat the anti-opensource FUD spreaders with
see? it works!
i should've written EMWH instead of NETWM
(bows head in shame)
for one, because e didn't align with their new libraries and standards
it needs the old freetype for example, and it didn comply to the NETWM standards (until recently when the released DR16.6)
it is still a very cool WM, certainly when you consider the age of this beast. and rock stable.
now when they get this E17 thing going... just wait and see. i think they might surprise some people overhere.
the people at E.org, raster in particular, don't give a shit what time it will be released, as long as they release something wich is good, and will be good for a long time coming. they take pride in what they do and don't release some half-finished product. personally, i like that attitude. it will be finished when it's finished.
E16 was/is as good as any of those >= 1.0 WMs out there. i still use it every day.
you missed my point. it *is* a true statement, i do *not* argue with that.
/. is crowded with "linux apologists" as you like to call them.
it's flamebait, for the reasons you name in your own post already.
thanks for making me laugh my brains out :)
/. editors.
it's always fun to find out there are people that take themselves more seriously than i do.
and btw: don't you tell me what to worry about. as far as i'm concerned, i have as little influence on the behaviour of a braindead electorate, than i have on the behaviour of
idiocy is universal, stupidity is ubiquitous
me, 2003
well perhaps i cannot be as laid-back about it as you. i can't stand hypocrisy. and, as you said, the editors *do* tend to take themselves quite seriously, thus i think i have the right to complain. simple :)
:)
of course my post is very offtopic, and therefore who am i to use the pot-kettle-black remark...
ah well
wow. if all girls into lego towers are as cute as the one next to the WTC replicate....
:)
yep! i think i found myself a new hobby
stop trolling. and: when you troll, be a little less obvious please.
/.
for chrissakes, as if there isn't enough noise already in the discussions on
hey, did anyone else notice that some of the main topics are breaking the guidelines slashdot sets out itself for posts?
see moderator guidelines, under 'what is a good comment, 3rd paragraph: bad comments. it literally reads: "Bad comments are Flamebait".
i mean, the below comment would've gotten a (-1, Flamebait) for sure...
"and for Linux users the ability to click on a URL in an e-mail and have it actually launch in your default web browser (how novel)."
of course it is *true*, and of course people will mod this offtopic. i just get this pot-and-kettle feeling when i read this story.