Why on EARTH should I copy music, file by file, to my portable player? Do you address individual sectors on your hard drive manually when you want to save a document?
I've never understood why this copying-MP3's-using-a-dumb-file-browser was so important.
"Lyra as a standard, portable USB hard drive. That's not an option on his iPod"
I don't understand. I plug in the iPod, it's recognized as a USB mass storage device. Windows and Mac. No drivers necessary. Your objection doesn't exist.
Then again, you totally blasted your UI cred by saying MUSIC MATCH FREAKIN' JUKEBOX is superior to iTunes.
Hey, what works for you, works for you, and that's great. Good! I'm glad you've found a device that suits your needs. It does not suit mine.
I'm a pragmatist. If it looks like a wrench, and feels like a wrench, and works, like a wrench, it's a wrench. What faith do I need to know that, when I make observations, and make predictions based on those observations, and those predictions come true, that I have understood something? Could my observations, or my train of reasoning, be incorrect or incomplete? Absolutely. But, as a pragmatist, tools are tools, and results are results, and higher notions about the "True Nature of Reality" are irrelevant.
The three-body problem is indeed complicated...but it's not magical. Just because it's beyond my ken, doesn't mean it can't be solved. I CAN measure F=MA accurately enough to make predictions about the world around me. There are certainly situations where F=MA does not yield results sufficient to make accurate predictions, just as a wrench is not very good at cooking my dinner. Again: This is not a matter of faith.
Maybe I'm just too much of a simple person to appreciate your subtle distinctions. I'm an engineer, not a philosopher.
That just doesn't make any sense to me. I can look at a wrench, and tell it's a wrench. The thing defined as "wrench" has some properties, that I can measure with my eyes and my brain. There is no leap of faith.
Similarly, it doesn't take a leap of faith to assume that the physics that define our universe aren't going to change very much just because I no longer hold a wrench.
" Can you point me to a scientific hypothesis that is not based on an assumption. "
F=MA. I don't have to make assumptions. I can measure it. That's what science IS. I can indeed draw hypotheses (testable assumptions), but the hypothesis is not the thing that's significant: The experiment that supports or disproves the hypothesis is significant.
Again: Faith exists only in the absence of proof. If I prove something, it no longer requires faith. I suppose you could assert that it takes faith to believe that the universe won't in fact transform itself dramatically when I close my eyes, but that seems to be a very silly definition for "faith".
Even though observing the universe requires little faith, it can inspire great awe. I don't understand the correlation you seem to be trying to refute. Of COURSE scientists find themselves in awe of the universe. Anybody who thinks the world is simple doesn't understand it very well.
If I hold a wrench in my hand, and let go of it, it will fall.
If there are two apples on a table, and somebody takes one apple away, there's one apple remaining.
What "faith" is required? Faith only exists in the absence of proof, and science and mathematics are all about proof. A hypothesis isn't a statement of faith...it's a supposition.
It's almost as if...there are different people, with different opinions, posting in the same place! Shocking!
Having said that, if you don't understand the difference between copying a movie to watch it at home, and copying somebody's code and selling it as your own, I don't think there's much I can do to explain it to you.
I question the journalistic integrity of anybody who finds ideas revolting. And, since I question your journalistic integrity, I question your standing to assert what is and what is not news.
I consider myself a pretty intelligent, literate person. If I watch/read/listen to something, and I don't understand it, I'm inclined to not think "IT'S SO GREAT, BECAUSE I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT!" If I don't get something out of the experience, it is not of value to me. Sometimes, I can go back and get something out of it. Sometimes, I go back, and it's still impenetrable. Philip Glass is in this category.
Does that mean it has no value? Surely not. Simply that I (me this carbon unit) didn't derive any value from the work.
So, you criticize others for providing no specific issues they had with the film (which, by the way, I haven't taken the time to view), while at the same time mouthing an empty platitude like "less is more"?
Let me turn that around on you. Is there any secret that our leaders want to keep, that you believe should be exposed?
There's a difference between causing an immediate threat to forces in the field (publishing troop movements) and discussing and exposing persons, acting under the imprimatur of Government, who are doing things they shouldn't be (widespread wiretapping and data mining).
If the activities are so innocuous, why are they so secret? Do you think that the fact that governments surveil is a deep dark secret, and we're giving the terrorists a clue by mentioning that fact in a newspaper?
Slashdot Mirror
Why on EARTH should I copy music, file by file, to my portable player? Do you address individual sectors on your hard drive manually when you want to save a document?
I've never understood why this copying-MP3's-using-a-dumb-file-browser was so important.
"What's with the iPod only having one shuffle option, and no option to shuffle based on genre, artist, etc?"
Huh? Load a play list (or an artist or a genre or an album). Set to shuffle. It works just fine.
Does the iPod have UI shortcomings? Absolutely. It's not psychic. I would like to be able to browse artists by alphabetical range...that'd be faster.
But after staring at iRiver and Creative devices trying to figure out which button does what...meh.
Whatever works for you. But don't make the mistake of thinking that people who don't share your values have inferior values.
"Lyra as a standard, portable USB hard drive. That's not an option on his iPod"
I don't understand. I plug in the iPod, it's recognized as a USB mass storage device. Windows and Mac. No drivers necessary. Your objection doesn't exist.
Then again, you totally blasted your UI cred by saying MUSIC MATCH FREAKIN' JUKEBOX is superior to iTunes.
Hey, what works for you, works for you, and that's great. Good! I'm glad you've found a device that suits your needs. It does not suit mine.
"What does the Apple player do that my Lyra or iRiver MP3 players do not"
Have a decent user interface. That may not be important to you, but it is important to a couple of people. Those people bought iPods.
Keep saying that. You might be able to make it true some day.
What difference does it make? That which is indistinguishable from a thing, is that thing. If I cannot percieve something, for me, it does not exist.
I'm a pragmatist. If it looks like a wrench, and feels like a wrench, and works, like a wrench, it's a wrench. What faith do I need to know that, when I make observations, and make predictions based on those observations, and those predictions come true, that I have understood something? Could my observations, or my train of reasoning, be incorrect or incomplete? Absolutely. But, as a pragmatist, tools are tools, and results are results, and higher notions about the "True Nature of Reality" are irrelevant.
The three-body problem is indeed complicated...but it's not magical. Just because it's beyond my ken, doesn't mean it can't be solved. I CAN measure F=MA accurately enough to make predictions about the world around me. There are certainly situations where F=MA does not yield results sufficient to make accurate predictions, just as a wrench is not very good at cooking my dinner. Again: This is not a matter of faith.
Maybe I'm just too much of a simple person to appreciate your subtle distinctions. I'm an engineer, not a philosopher.
That just doesn't make any sense to me. I can look at a wrench, and tell it's a wrench. The thing defined as "wrench" has some properties, that I can measure with my eyes and my brain. There is no leap of faith.
Similarly, it doesn't take a leap of faith to assume that the physics that define our universe aren't going to change very much just because I no longer hold a wrench.
" Can you point me to a scientific hypothesis that is not based on an assumption. "
F=MA. I don't have to make assumptions. I can measure it. That's what science IS. I can indeed draw hypotheses (testable assumptions), but the hypothesis is not the thing that's significant: The experiment that supports or disproves the hypothesis is significant.
Again: Faith exists only in the absence of proof. If I prove something, it no longer requires faith. I suppose you could assert that it takes faith to believe that the universe won't in fact transform itself dramatically when I close my eyes, but that seems to be a very silly definition for "faith".
Even though observing the universe requires little faith, it can inspire great awe. I don't understand the correlation you seem to be trying to refute. Of COURSE scientists find themselves in awe of the universe. Anybody who thinks the world is simple doesn't understand it very well.
Huh?
If I hold a wrench in my hand, and let go of it, it will fall.
If there are two apples on a table, and somebody takes one apple away, there's one apple remaining.
What "faith" is required? Faith only exists in the absence of proof, and science and mathematics are all about proof. A hypothesis isn't a statement of faith...it's a supposition.
Far, far too late.
From the mandatory ID badges to the metal detectors to the transparent backpacks and forbidden black trenchoats, we're already there.
It's almost as if...there are different people, with different opinions, posting in the same place! Shocking!
Having said that, if you don't understand the difference between copying a movie to watch it at home, and copying somebody's code and selling it as your own, I don't think there's much I can do to explain it to you.
"Prostitutes wont screw lawyers for profit."
Huh?
"Too bad that the Mac community is so full of mindless toadies"
Where are there communities without mindless toadies?
I question the journalistic integrity of anybody who finds ideas revolting. And, since I question your journalistic integrity, I question your standing to assert what is and what is not news.
None of them? Really?
*looks at photo of marathon runners*
You might not like them, and I might not like them, but that doesn't exactly make your point, does it?
That moist "splat" sound was the joke hitting you in the forehead. Go get a washcloth.
I prefer "y'all", and I defy anybody to criticize my grammar when I use it. : )
I think you misspelled "Object Orientatifimicitatistified".
I consider myself a pretty intelligent, literate person. If I watch/read/listen to something, and I don't understand it, I'm inclined to not think "IT'S SO GREAT, BECAUSE I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT!" If I don't get something out of the experience, it is not of value to me. Sometimes, I can go back and get something out of it. Sometimes, I go back, and it's still impenetrable. Philip Glass is in this category.
Does that mean it has no value? Surely not. Simply that I (me this carbon unit) didn't derive any value from the work.
So, you criticize others for providing no specific issues they had with the film (which, by the way, I haven't taken the time to view), while at the same time mouthing an empty platitude like "less is more"?
Mr. Pot? Allow me to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
Let me turn that around on you. Is there any secret that our leaders want to keep, that you believe should be exposed?
There's a difference between causing an immediate threat to forces in the field (publishing troop movements) and discussing and exposing persons, acting under the imprimatur of Government, who are doing things they shouldn't be (widespread wiretapping and data mining).
If the activities are so innocuous, why are they so secret? Do you think that the fact that governments surveil is a deep dark secret, and we're giving the terrorists a clue by mentioning that fact in a newspaper?
So, you don't use envelopes for mail either, do you?
"Is the government enforcing a law that terrifying to you?"
Depends on the law. A substantial fraction of the recent ones are, in fact, pretty terrifying.
Simply refraining from eating babies does not make baby-eating impossible.
What's your point?
And sometimes less is less. Yay tautologies!
Me giving away my code for free is none of your damn business, which is the real point of this story.
If I choose to release my work under the GPL, that's my decision, not yours.