If they want people to not know things about baseball players, they need to not say things about baseball players.
If I compile the statistics from reading the newspaper, or watching baseball games, or listening to the radio, they can take their licensing fees and stick 'em.
Having said that, I think that compiling baseball statistics is one of the most silly things to do ever...but that's just my opinion.
Booting? How quaint. I think I restarted my powerbook once last week. There was a big software update.
I never shut this thing down. It just goes to sleep, and I wake it up, and it's ready to go. Sure wish I could get all the PC laptops that cross my desk at work to do that. They all seem to go into various states of drooling idiocy whenever I try to wake them up.
You say "lazy", I say "I've got better ways to spend my time than dorking around with a zillion directories of poorly labeled MP3's".
That's why I like iTunes.
Re:Could be that iPod owners have more...
on
iPod Owners Not Thieves
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Uh, the stock Apple earbuds are way cheaper than that, and the very nice in-ear headphones are $40. Every Apple store I've seen also sells the well-regarded Sony in-ear phones, for about $40.
So either they were out of stock (which is a problem that does not just happen in Apple stores) or you're making stuff up.
Yeah, the Quadras were bulletproof, and that 14" Trinitron AV monitor was a pretty OK piece of hardware, although on my Powermac 6100 the display connector wore out long before I was done using the machine.
I seriously don't understand what you're on about.
There doesn't need to be a sticker in the front of science textbooks that say "evolution is just a theory". There needs to be a good explanation of what a theory is. Shockingly enough, all the science textbooks I've seen have that. Somehow, I managed to get through a public school in the Bible belt with a very clear understanding of science. Frankly, I neither know nor care what you mean by "absolute truth". Observations of the world around me are truth enough for me.
The stickers, and these curricula, are clearly designed by religious groups to create poorly-founded doubts about the veracity of a very important part of modern science. Their intent, as stated by the court in Dover, is clearly to mislead and prejudice students. That is not OK.
I don't know of any religion that's based on testing hypotheses.
I intentionally did not say "objective" science, because I don't care to engage you on the subjective vs. objective debate. Scientists observe. If I see a great big rock, I can safely conclude that, if I close my eyes, the rock will still be there. If the rock is not there, I can conclude that some force acted on the rock with a magnitude equal to its mass times its acceleration. I would be irresponsible to conclude that invisible, undetectible forces took the rock away to test my faith.
Religions don't work that way, which is what distinguishes them from science.
"faith means you're taking a chance on being wrong. That's the basic flaw of fundamentalists of any stripe- science, "
Any reputable scientist welcomes the opportunity to prove himself wrong. "Science fundamentalist" is a contradiction in terms.
"Then you'd have no problem with the disclaimer sticker proposed for textbooks in Kansas."
Those stickers, again, damn with faint praise. To say that "Evolution is just a theory" is to attempt to deceive the audience as to what it means to be "a theory". I absolutely agree that any good science class will have a clear discussion of what is, and is not, scientific inquiry.
"science can only be good science if it DOES accept alternate worldviews, beliefs, religions and faiths"
It is not the place of science to accept or deny those things. Science is about observable reality. Anything that is not about observing reality, formulating hypotheses, and attempting to disprove them is not science.
"working assumptions" is damning with faint praise, if (according to your definition) an "assumption" is something you take on faith, and never question.
Scientific "facts" (I think "facts" is a dangerous and misleading terms) are theories that are well-supported by observation, but by definition can and should be disproven with additional data. Science is the process of refining theories to more closely explain and predict observable phenomena. Science is not a set of "facts".
Alternate worldviews, beliefs, religions, and faiths have nothing whatsoever to do with science.
"This is the very point expressed by the veil of perception. Basically, we observe the world through our senses, but we have no guarentee that those senses are faithfully representing the "real world". We could be brains in a jar being electrically simulated."
So what? From a pragmatic perspective (see? I know a little about philosophy too), something that is indistinguishable from something else is identical with that thing. If I can't percieve it, why should I care about it? It is not germane to my existence, which is circumscribed by what I can percieve.
"Thus, they are studying the physics of The Matrix. Which in fact doesn't truely "exist", nor was it "reality.""
You're not seriously talking about The Matrix as serious philosophy, are you? Come on now. Surely you've got better arrows in your quiver than that.
"I don't ask you pass up the practical need for science, I ask you only to not get pissed when someone calls science a religion."
I'm not pissed at all. I just think you're kinda silly, and you haven't made a very good argument. I have argued that science is about what we can percieve, and that that set of things is germane to solving problems that exist in reality. I have asserted that religion is about things that cannot be percieved, and thus has less efficacy in solving problems that exist in reality. Religion (and its close cousin philosophy) are indeed interesting areas of study, but they do not include science as such.
You seem to want to conflate the modern understanding of philosophy with "natural philosophy", which is what we now call science. I think that yours is not a useful definition.
I don't know what "real" means apart from "what can be percieved". Science doesn't need to assume anything, other than if I do the same thing twice in the same conditions, the same results will occur. That's pretty darn solid as assumptions go.
How many diseases have been cured by the philosophy of assuming that we can't really know anything? How many bridges can you build by just thinking really hard that the gap you're trying to span doesn't exist?
"Because science is based on the untestable assumption that what you're observing is relevent to the true reality."
Huh? You posit the existence of a "true reality" that cannot be observed. Science is founded on the totally testable assumption that performing experiments with repeatable results that substantiate theories that produce accurate predictions is a useful way to solve problems.
Anything you'd like to make up about "true reality" belongs in the domain of philosophy or metaphysics, neither of which have anything to do with science.
Science is not a religion, though. Science is based on observations of nature. Religion is based on faith in something that you cannot detect. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Science can't explain everything, that's true. However, the "other religious philosophies" you espouse can't explain ANYTHING, whereas science does things like cure cancer.
I'm a religious person, and I don't understand this false conflict that you seem so intent on creating between religion and science.
Slashdot Mirror
What does hardware platform have to do with virus susceptibility? Oh, right...nothing. Now I remember.
If they want people to not know things about baseball players, they need to not say things about baseball players.
If I compile the statistics from reading the newspaper, or watching baseball games, or listening to the radio, they can take their licensing fees and stick 'em.
Having said that, I think that compiling baseball statistics is one of the most silly things to do ever...but that's just my opinion.
I'm so glad I bailed on this thread. This guy's a nutter.
Booting? How quaint. I think I restarted my powerbook once last week. There was a big software update.
I never shut this thing down. It just goes to sleep, and I wake it up, and it's ready to go. Sure wish I could get all the PC laptops that cross my desk at work to do that. They all seem to go into various states of drooling idiocy whenever I try to wake them up.
Hmm. A store was out of stock on something during the holiday rush. You're right, those Apple guys are money-grubbing bastards.
You say "lazy", I say "I've got better ways to spend my time than dorking around with a zillion directories of poorly labeled MP3's".
That's why I like iTunes.
Uh, the stock Apple earbuds are way cheaper than that, and the very nice in-ear headphones are $40. Every Apple store I've seen also sells the well-regarded Sony in-ear phones, for about $40.
So either they were out of stock (which is a problem that does not just happen in Apple stores) or you're making stuff up.
That was the part I didn't grok.
Yeah, the Quadras were bulletproof, and that 14" Trinitron AV monitor was a pretty OK piece of hardware, although on my Powermac 6100 the display connector wore out long before I was done using the machine.
And now I've got a sweet lil powerbook. Yay!
I'd mod you down for blathering on about your opinion and not attempting to support your argument. Fortunately for you, I don't have mod points.
Boy, I sho'wish I could buy a slow-ass G4 instead of the dual-core new hotness...
(I love my 12" Powerbook, and I'm very much looking forward to replacing it with the 2nd gen Intel powerbook.)
Please name me a single computer that was manufactured at the same time as the Quadra 650 (1993?) that could accept a gigabyte of RAM.
I think you're crazy.
You're not strengthening your argument by comparing to audiophiles. Those people are crazy.
I seriously don't understand what you're on about.
There doesn't need to be a sticker in the front of science textbooks that say "evolution is just a theory". There needs to be a good explanation of what a theory is. Shockingly enough, all the science textbooks I've seen have that. Somehow, I managed to get through a public school in the Bible belt with a very clear understanding of science. Frankly, I neither know nor care what you mean by "absolute truth". Observations of the world around me are truth enough for me.
The stickers, and these curricula, are clearly designed by religious groups to create poorly-founded doubts about the veracity of a very important part of modern science. Their intent, as stated by the court in Dover, is clearly to mislead and prejudice students. That is not OK.
I don't know of any religion that's based on testing hypotheses.
I intentionally did not say "objective" science, because I don't care to engage you on the subjective vs. objective debate. Scientists observe. If I see a great big rock, I can safely conclude that, if I close my eyes, the rock will still be there. If the rock is not there, I can conclude that some force acted on the rock with a magnitude equal to its mass times its acceleration. I would be irresponsible to conclude that invisible, undetectible forces took the rock away to test my faith.
Religions don't work that way, which is what distinguishes them from science.
"faith means you're taking a chance on being wrong. That's the basic flaw of fundamentalists of any stripe- science, "
Any reputable scientist welcomes the opportunity to prove himself wrong. "Science fundamentalist" is a contradiction in terms.
"Then you'd have no problem with the disclaimer sticker proposed for textbooks in Kansas."
Those stickers, again, damn with faint praise. To say that "Evolution is just a theory" is to attempt to deceive the audience as to what it means to be "a theory". I absolutely agree that any good science class will have a clear discussion of what is, and is not, scientific inquiry.
"science can only be good science if it DOES accept alternate worldviews, beliefs, religions and faiths"
It is not the place of science to accept or deny those things. Science is about observable reality. Anything that is not about observing reality, formulating hypotheses, and attempting to disprove them is not science.
"working assumptions" is damning with faint praise, if (according to your definition) an "assumption" is something you take on faith, and never question.
Scientific "facts" (I think "facts" is a dangerous and misleading terms) are theories that are well-supported by observation, but by definition can and should be disproven with additional data. Science is the process of refining theories to more closely explain and predict observable phenomena. Science is not a set of "facts".
Alternate worldviews, beliefs, religions, and faiths have nothing whatsoever to do with science.
"This is the very point expressed by the veil of perception. Basically, we observe the world through our senses, but we have no guarentee that those senses are faithfully representing the "real world". We could be brains in a jar being electrically simulated."
So what? From a pragmatic perspective (see? I know a little about philosophy too), something that is indistinguishable from something else is identical with that thing. If I can't percieve it, why should I care about it? It is not germane to my existence, which is circumscribed by what I can percieve.
"Thus, they are studying the physics of The Matrix. Which in fact doesn't truely "exist", nor was it "reality.""
You're not seriously talking about The Matrix as serious philosophy, are you? Come on now. Surely you've got better arrows in your quiver than that.
"I don't ask you pass up the practical need for science, I ask you only to not get pissed when someone calls science a religion."
I'm not pissed at all. I just think you're kinda silly, and you haven't made a very good argument. I have argued that science is about what we can percieve, and that that set of things is germane to solving problems that exist in reality. I have asserted that religion is about things that cannot be percieved, and thus has less efficacy in solving problems that exist in reality. Religion (and its close cousin philosophy) are indeed interesting areas of study, but they do not include science as such.
You seem to want to conflate the modern understanding of philosophy with "natural philosophy", which is what we now call science. I think that yours is not a useful definition.
What disclaimer is that? "Science class is about science"?
How'd that work for you?
I was thinking more about USB, DVI, and 802.11. But whatever.
All good, dude. Play nice with others. : )
I don't know what "real" means apart from "what can be percieved". Science doesn't need to assume anything, other than if I do the same thing twice in the same conditions, the same results will occur. That's pretty darn solid as assumptions go.
How many diseases have been cured by the philosophy of assuming that we can't really know anything? How many bridges can you build by just thinking really hard that the gap you're trying to span doesn't exist?
You really do need a hug, don't you? C'mere, big guy. It'll be OK.
"Because science is based on the untestable assumption that what you're observing is relevent to the true reality."
Huh? You posit the existence of a "true reality" that cannot be observed. Science is founded on the totally testable assumption that performing experiments with repeatable results that substantiate theories that produce accurate predictions is a useful way to solve problems.
Anything you'd like to make up about "true reality" belongs in the domain of philosophy or metaphysics, neither of which have anything to do with science.
That's the sales pitch. That is not what ID proponents believe, though.
Science is not a religion, though. Science is based on observations of nature. Religion is based on faith in something that you cannot detect. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Science can't explain everything, that's true. However, the "other religious philosophies" you espouse can't explain ANYTHING, whereas science does things like cure cancer.
I'm a religious person, and I don't understand this false conflict that you seem so intent on creating between religion and science.