"Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
Darwin noted the variations of animals. And stated that if his theory was correct we should find transitional forms.
If Intelligent Design were true, we'd see similarities and patterns in the design of a variety of species. Even similar design patterns in the genetic code and make-up across a variety of species on various levels.
There you have it. And it's testable and discoverable. It may require further analysis beyond our current level of understanding. However, the same can be said true of Darwin's theory. So now you have it. The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design
***
I've often heard staunch atheists/evolutionists use the above argument. And i think it is one of the most absurd. Furthermore, if you refuse any dialog, you do not allow people to postulate their theory or the requirements.
It's like a dictator censoring western websites and then at the same time arguing that there is no interest in those websites as evidenced by the lack of visits from his nation.
***
"Evolutionary theory (all of which have been answered)"
Really, well, I think it's interesting that numerous species cited as transitional forms later fail the test often turning out to be contemporaries.
"evolution can be talked about in school and ID should not is that evolution is science, and can change as new information is acquired."
I do not see how such precludes ID. Perhaps it precludes a Genesis creation but not ID. Especially as scientists discover greatest aspects of design patterns, and similarities to code re-use in biology.
"Evolution is not based on any traditional truth. It is based on observation, and it's connection to the holy," I see quite a few traditional myths in regards to evolution. And I find it's adherents to be quite religious and zealous. They too like to cover the mistakes, misinterpretations and mistranslations of their own as well.
The amount of fraudulent evidence used in many schools to teach evolution is immense. Be it drawings and depictions based on psuedo men derived from a single jawbone or a tooth of an extinct pig. And while those in the know may be aware that these mistakes and frauds are incorrect. These representations are STILL being used to teach kids the religion of evolution (as opposed to the theory of evolution).
But to me, the discussion should not be closed and censored. Such action is far worse than what the Catholic church did to Galileo. At least the Catholic church's stance allowed Galileo to express his views so long as he merely stated them as a theory for discussion rather than declared them fact. Evolutionists are far worse, because they won't even allow discussion on that level.
Yes, if you use 10 cubit diameter (or 5 cubit radius) and use 2*Pi*r (or 2*3.14*5) you get 31.4 cubits. However, this can easily be accounted for by simple rounding to the nearest whole cubit.
For example I have a large bowl. I make it 9ft 7.2 inches wide. It equates to a circumference of 30ft 1.7 inches.
Except since we're just using a basis of feet as our measurement and not inches. We could easily and justifiably state that we had a diameter of 10ft and a circumference of 30ft.
Oh my random dice...my Bible is so so wrong. Because it round the figures to the nearest whole measurements. *gasp*
I should make fun of it and show how bias and stupid I am because this is done in science and statistics ALL the time. But yes my little bias' like to make me look real stupid in my attempt to make others look stupid.
Really, I have yet to see any evolution be observed in my can of peanut butter. And heck, I've given it the advantage of tons of organic matter.
Oh wait...it's supposed to be observed over millions of years. Even though we constantly have discovered where x variant of animal is thought to have been derived from y. But then we later find y concurrent or even before x. Leading one to conclude that if anything. We're not witnessing evolution but a continual loss of species to extinction.
But then again, survival of the fittest dictates that in the end there will be only one species within the environment. Yes, people like to point to symbiotic relationships. This is only necessary until a species can supersede the symbiotic relationship inherently by itself.
"Your willingness to tolerate creationism"
Let's not tolerate creationism but at least consider intelligent design. If you look at the genetic code, the similarities the re-use of design patterns. Any true scientist who is not bias should at least accept the theoretical prospect of design within the evidence that we have observed.
In truth, I think scientists are afraid. They're afraid that if they admit there are aspects and evidence of design that they will be condoning creation as a whole rather than the simple design aspect. And then I think a few just are afraid of admitting to the possibility of design as it reflects on their being and existence personally. And that my dear, is a cowardly scientist who would rather be blind than face a mere possibility of his fear.
"who's philosophy espouses striving for neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc."
Or greed, ego, sorry...I meant EGO. The fact that so much in science is about competition rather then science.
I guess we can in part thank the National Geographic and the public education system for a large number of unconvinced. They're continued iconic use of artist illustrations of evolution of man from ape to homo sapien. Even after a fair number of list were proven to be frauds or at best honest but foolish mistakes.
Yes, people like to point out that science is about learning and change. However, our science is often more about EGO. And often an unwillingness to admit the mistakes of science. Science will deride religion for the same fallacies it makes daily.
"who's philosophy espouses striving for neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc."
Having worked with a great number of scientists in my life, I would not note them for lack of bias or neutrality. In fact, I'd say scientists are noted for their strong opinions and personal bias'.
It's amazing, I never had this problem until about 2 yrs ago. You see, I used to live in Connecticut. But then I got married and moved down to York, Pennsylvania area. If you know where that is, you will realize it's like 25 minutes north of the Baltimore area. Ever since moving I've noticed a trend where my "g's" turn into "k's".
It must be somethink in the water that makes one tawk this way.;)
As I like to point out, Disney would not exist today if they had not borrowed from public domain. Disney has yet to contribute anything substantial to public domain.
Frankly, I think we need a class action lawsuit on the behalf of "The People" to declare Disney's ownership of the following movies null.
> Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs > Sleeping Beauty > Beauty & the Beast > Pinocchio > Cinderella > Alice in Wonderland > The Sword in the Stone > The Jungle Book > Robin Hood > The Little Mermaid > Pocahontas > The Hunchback of Notre Dame > Hercules > Tarzan
Sorry, I've never bought two wrongs don't make a right. False philosophy used by those with authority to subdue those from gaining authority.
***
That aside...
What about the three-thousand CDs I already own? If the record industry is going to change the rules. I'll start respecting them as soon as they refund me the money for all the albums I have already purchased.
Thank you very much...
***
Lastly,
Two wrongs don't make a right...
But acting within your right doesn't make it wrong...just merely illegal. I care about wrong or right. Not legal and illegal...
Really, I saw nothing that really stood out or impressed me.
Okay, the bank think was cute...but I think it'd be better if the eyes could also identify a coin and track it. And if it was like "feed me, feed me...oh oh...pretty puh-lease".
But 80% of what I saw, I'd seen equivalents before here in the U.S. (I swear Samsung makes a phone for Verizon that does both the top and side flip.)
Can do everything but is bugging as all heck. And not integrated. It has next to no memory built in. And an inability to fully utilize memory cards. (ie; ring tones, etc). It has trouble being memory aware.
I have a Verizon XV6700 (HTC) I have a bluetooth GPS, mapping & driving software, guitar & violin tuning software. Tons of stuff.
But it is not very well integrated. Takes 7 clicks to close a program. Is buggy. Has no where near the capacity of my iPod. I would be happy if I could fill up a memory card and have it point to different ring-tones on the card.
The sad thing is I memory is dirt cheap. You can get gigs for $15-$40. But these stupid HTC and other Windows Mobile phones still ship with 32/64/128/256 mb of memory. Pittance...
Probably along the lines of the royalty rates charged to web radio on behalf of artists* - likely more than the average light-duty DJ makes. They'll base the prices on the top club and wedding DJs and expect the small time DJs to be able to cough it up.
* NOTE - Artists were completely robbed on web radio royalty. RIAA was granted by Congress a card of opportunity to steal all the royalties of artists. Artists were never given the right to negotiate. Soundexchange collects royalties from all the web radio stations, which mainly play independent artists not on RIAA's labels. But those independent artists seldom get enough plays to ever receive royalties. But for web radio stations have to pay for ALL broadcasts. So SoundExchange gets to sit on all the proceeds, and never pay out cash.
The real problem is that DJ's don't have a massive lobby group like the record labels and radio station conglomerate.
Realize, at least in the U.S. that something like 80%-90% of albums rights are held by four conglomerate corporations. Likewise, probably about 80%-90% of radio stations are owned by 4-5 major conglomerates.
DJ's are thousands of independent joe-average people, many working part time on the side.
> We have to buy the albums but are never given a license. We have albums stolen, broken, etc. at a much higher rate. But have to replace said albums at the full price (even though we already have a license).
> We have to pay performance licensing for the right to play songs in public. (FYI, weddings are a private event and different rules apply.)
> We receive few guarantees and protections. While a specific grant in the DCMA allows for radio stations to make ephereal recordings. DJ's are not given that protection. For one simple reason...they didn't have a mega-association with millions of dollars to lobby (bribe) Congress. Yes there are some DJ associations, but the industry doesn't really lend itself to such a conglomerate as labels & radio does.
> Advantage of digital recordings. Our masters are safe from theft. Instead of having to lug 4 80lb suitcases of CDs to bring all our stock. We can lug one 5 lbs external hard drive.
It's disgusting...
Oh, by the way, if you are a musical artist and you want me to respect your copyrights. Get the law changed to protect DJs and web radio.
Cause I quit recognizing your copyrights as soon as the laws stopped. If your an artist...don't gripe to me about the violation of your rights. Cause us DJs have had our rights violated repeatedly.
Copyright is a two way system. If you want it honored, you have to honor the users as well. If you're going to claim people are only buying a "license". Then give them a real license and let them register their license. Otherwise, more and more people are going to cease recognizing your copyrights.
I no longer do. Anyone who wants copies of any of my CDs are welcome to make them. I've got a burner in the basement. Having lost several hundred dollars to copyright law abuse, I've cease recognizing your right. While you may have the law on your side.
Most people don't care about legality, rather, they care about right & wrong. (There are plenty of laws on the books that are 'legal' but far from moral.) And most people only feel a moral contractual obligation to another party if that party is acting in good faith. (Which the conglomerate copyright holders are NOT doing.)
The ones that need to change the system are the artists!
I know Buzzword is to be ported to AIR down the road. It'd be pretty sweet to be able to get AIR versions of Sliderocket, Blist, Photoshop Express, etc.
Be able to sync your data to the web. Buzzword AIR & web. Work locally, access from anywhere.:)
And they may never need to buy them. But if the functionality arrives, it can start to make an impact. Especially once these apps like Buzzword & Sliderocket are ported to AIR.
And while it is fairly unchanged since I've bought it. So was my Netflix stock. Of course, while my stinkin IRA did little to perform. My Netflix stock over the past three years almost doubled...
First off, you create the UI for your application. AIR apps will use the default system UI for windows, etc.
Or you can break away from that and have a very customized application window.
***
If you mean development UI. Well you can use a simple text editor to create your apps. Though I recommend Adobe's Flex Builder 3 (built on Eclipse). Nice tool...and only $250 for Flex Builder stand-a-lone or plug-in.
AIR, is not so different than Java, except based on delivery of Flash, Flex, AJAX content.
As for what uses it may have. Well, one we're considering is moving the offline version of our product to AIR, which would enable us to track certain content usage and report back to the publisher when reconnected with the internet.
A lot of the talk of use is in disconnected internet applications. (ie: Downloading a data set, working with it offline and than merging when internet access becomes available again).
Furthermore, Flash's performance is sometimes inhibited by the browser. AIR potentially frees it from such constraints.
As for creation of AIR applications. It's frightening how easy it is to convert an Adobe Flex app into an AIR app. For small ones, it's simply re-publishing the code and adding some icons and titles for application display purposes.
"Three PDAs for the Elven Lords Seven cell phones for the Dwarf Lords and their halls of stone Nine MP3 players for the
Three Cell Phones for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven PDAs for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine MP3 players for Mortal Men doomed to die,
We want...
One Gadget the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. One Gadget to rule them all, One Gadget to find them, One Gadget to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
***
(ie: I don't want a separate cell phone, PDA, MP3 player, GPS and batman utility belt. Especially NOT when the technology is available to easily have all 4 in a single device. And the only thing stopping it from happening is BS marketing idiots.)
"Why people in the USA own guns, and why they're needed!"
- We believe in Equality. A gun gives a 4'5" petite woman an even chance against a 6'4" 285lb male armed with a knife.
- Because calling 911 often does not receive a timely enough response to keep you safe.
- Because America was born out of revolution. Without our guns we'd have continued being oppressed by the British, as would much of the world.
***
"A gun should be considered always as loaded even when it's not."
Yes it should...
***
"Have you ever thought about the reason why USA is the country with more killings compared to ALL the other countries in the world?"
Yes, I have...and it has nothing to do with guns. In fact, the states in the USA with the most stringent gun laws have the highest murder rates. Those with the most relaxed gun laws have the lowest.
The reason is culture and a lack of responsibility. As well as oppression in some cases.
***
"Guns should be owned only by police and military forces"
So Americans can be victimized by their government as happens in China, Sudan, Soviet Union, Tibet and numerous other countries where police and military are the only ones armed.
***
"In all the other cases (90% IMHO) guns and any other kind of firearm should not be owned by the common people: "
You can try to take my gun away....you'll end up wishing you had one if you try. Oh, and look at Australia and Great Britain. Two nations with stringent gun laws and confiscation. G.B. has major increase in stabbing deaths. Australia has increased crime in the rural areas.
***
"MORE GUNS = MORE DEATHS, it's a matter of a fact."
Actually, it's not. In fact, you can compare two Virginia college shootings. One ended with dozens dead the other did not. Why? Because two students had weapons and subdued the perpetrators.
***
"All countries with strict gun controls are safer than the US (at least when it comes to diying of a gun related injury)."
Really, Mexico = strict gun laws. Also equals far more violence with or without guns than the U.S.
***
"In the US the gun lobby has managed to convince a majority that having a gun is a right."
Any right is a duty. Sadly, we've grown into a society that wants "priveledges" without the prerequisite responsibility. And that is where the true problem lies - and not in a handgun.
However, the U.S. is founded upon a document that expresses certain rights. Not as granted by the document, but merely recognized as inherent.
Why "duties" are not expressed in said document? Because government is quite adept at passing laws and declaring the duties and limitations of it's citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
"Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
Darwin noted the variations of animals. And stated that if his theory was correct we should find transitional forms.
If Intelligent Design were true, we'd see similarities and patterns in the design of a variety of species. Even similar design patterns in the genetic code and make-up across a variety of species on various levels.
There you have it. And it's testable and discoverable. It may require further analysis beyond our current level of understanding. However, the same can be said true of Darwin's theory. So now you have it. The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design
***
I've often heard staunch atheists/evolutionists use the above argument. And i think it is one of the most absurd. Furthermore, if you refuse any dialog, you do not allow people to postulate their theory or the requirements.
It's like a dictator censoring western websites and then at the same time arguing that there is no interest in those websites as evidenced by the lack of visits from his nation.
***
"Evolutionary theory (all of which have been answered)"
Really, well, I think it's interesting that numerous species cited as transitional forms later fail the test often turning out to be contemporaries.
"evolution can be talked about in school and ID should not is that evolution is science, and can change as new information is acquired."
I do not see how such precludes ID. Perhaps it precludes a Genesis creation but not ID. Especially as scientists discover greatest aspects of design patterns, and similarities to code re-use in biology.
"Evolution is not based on any traditional truth. It is based on observation, and it's connection to the holy,"
I see quite a few traditional myths in regards to evolution. And I find it's adherents to be quite religious and zealous. They too like to cover the mistakes, misinterpretations and mistranslations of their own as well.
The amount of fraudulent evidence used in many schools to teach evolution is immense. Be it drawings and depictions based on psuedo men derived from a single jawbone or a tooth of an extinct pig. And while those in the know may be aware that these mistakes and frauds are incorrect. These representations are STILL being used to teach kids the religion of evolution (as opposed to the theory of evolution).
But to me, the discussion should not be closed and censored. Such action is far worse than what the Catholic church did to Galileo. At least the Catholic church's stance allowed Galileo to express his views so long as he merely stated them as a theory for discussion rather than declared them fact. Evolutionists are far worse, because they won't even allow discussion on that level.
Okay, so let me see....
Yes, if you use 10 cubit diameter (or 5 cubit radius) and use 2*Pi*r (or 2*3.14*5) you get 31.4 cubits. However, this can easily be accounted for by simple rounding to the nearest whole cubit.
For example I have a large bowl. I make it 9ft 7.2 inches wide. It equates to a circumference of 30ft 1.7 inches.
Except since we're just using a basis of feet as our measurement and not inches. We could easily and justifiably state that we had a diameter of 10ft and a circumference of 30ft.
Oh my random dice...my Bible is so so wrong. Because it round the figures to the nearest whole measurements. *gasp*
I should make fun of it and show how bias and stupid I am because this is done in science and statistics ALL the time. But yes my little bias' like to make me look real stupid in my attempt to make others look stupid.
"Mommy, he started it..."
News => Tabloid
Documentary => Propaganda
World => Hell (or collapse of all matter if your prefer)
"Um... because evolution can be observed"
Really, I have yet to see any evolution be observed in my can of peanut butter. And heck, I've given it the advantage of tons of organic matter.
Oh wait...it's supposed to be observed over millions of years. Even though we constantly have discovered where x variant of animal is thought to have been derived from y. But then we later find y concurrent or even before x. Leading one to conclude that if anything. We're not witnessing evolution but a continual loss of species to extinction.
But then again, survival of the fittest dictates that in the end there will be only one species within the environment. Yes, people like to point to symbiotic relationships. This is only necessary until a species can supersede the symbiotic relationship inherently by itself.
"Your willingness to tolerate creationism"
Let's not tolerate creationism but at least consider intelligent design. If you look at the genetic code, the similarities the re-use of design patterns. Any true scientist who is not bias should at least accept the theoretical prospect of design within the evidence that we have observed.
In truth, I think scientists are afraid. They're afraid that if they admit there are aspects and evidence of design that they will be condoning creation as a whole rather than the simple design aspect. And then I think a few just are afraid of admitting to the possibility of design as it reflects on their being and existence personally. And that my dear, is a cowardly scientist who would rather be blind than face a mere possibility of his fear.
"who's philosophy espouses striving for neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc."
Or greed, ego, sorry...I meant EGO. The fact that so much in science is about competition rather then science.
I guess we can in part thank the National Geographic and the public education system for a large number of unconvinced. They're continued iconic use of artist illustrations of evolution of man from ape to homo sapien. Even after a fair number of list were proven to be frauds or at best honest but foolish mistakes.
Yes, people like to point out that science is about learning and change. However, our science is often more about EGO. And often an unwillingness to admit the mistakes of science. Science will deride religion for the same fallacies it makes daily.
"who's philosophy espouses striving for neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc."
Having worked with a great number of scientists in my life, I would not note them for lack of bias or neutrality. In fact, I'd say scientists are noted for their strong opinions and personal bias'.
It's amazing, I never had this problem until about 2 yrs ago. You see, I used to live in Connecticut. But then I got married and moved down to York, Pennsylvania area. If you know where that is, you will realize it's like 25 minutes north of the Baltimore area. Ever since moving I've noticed a trend where my "g's" turn into "k's".
;)
It must be somethink in the water that makes one tawk this way.
As I like to point out, Disney would not exist today if they had not borrowed from public domain. Disney has yet to contribute anything substantial to public domain.
Frankly, I think we need a class action lawsuit on the behalf of "The People" to declare Disney's ownership of the following movies null.
> Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs
> Sleeping Beauty
> Beauty & the Beast
> Pinocchio
> Cinderella
> Alice in Wonderland
> The Sword in the Stone
> The Jungle Book
> Robin Hood
> The Little Mermaid
> Pocahontas
> The Hunchback of Notre Dame
> Hercules
> Tarzan
"Multiply two negatives and you get a positive."
Sorry, I've never bought two wrongs don't make a right. False philosophy used by those with authority to subdue those from gaining authority.
***
That aside...
What about the three-thousand CDs I already own? If the record industry is going to change the rules. I'll start respecting them as soon as they refund me the money for all the albums I have already purchased.
Thank you very much...
***
Lastly,
Two wrongs don't make a right...
But acting within your right doesn't make it wrong...just merely illegal. I care about wrong or right. Not legal and illegal...
Really, I saw nothing that really stood out or impressed me.
Okay, the bank think was cute...but I think it'd be better if the eyes could also identify a coin and track it. And if it was like "feed me, feed me...oh oh...pretty puh-lease".
But 80% of what I saw, I'd seen equivalents before here in the U.S. (I swear Samsung makes a phone for Verizon that does both the top and side flip.)
The Remote Robot was cute...and somewhat useful.
But I really was disappointed.
My HTC...
Can do everything but is bugging as all heck. And not integrated. It has next to no memory built in. And an inability to fully utilize memory cards. (ie; ring tones, etc). It has trouble being memory aware.
I have a Verizon XV6700 (HTC) I have a bluetooth GPS, mapping & driving software, guitar & violin tuning software. Tons of stuff.
But it is not very well integrated. Takes 7 clicks to close a program. Is buggy. Has no where near the capacity of my iPod. I would be happy if I could fill up a memory card and have it point to different ring-tones on the card.
The sad thing is I memory is dirt cheap. You can get gigs for $15-$40. But these stupid HTC and other Windows Mobile phones still ship with 32/64/128/256 mb of memory. Pittance...
No, actually said what I meant...
Your browser's performance is inhibited by bad web designers...not Flash.
I love how XIAA's always say...
"Have to pay a fair rate/pay their share."
Which translates into "Paying whatever the !@#$% we want. Even if it's more than all their profits.
Probably along the lines of the royalty rates charged to web radio on behalf of artists* - likely more than the average light-duty DJ makes. They'll base the prices on the top club and wedding DJs and expect the small time DJs to be able to cough it up.
* NOTE - Artists were completely robbed on web radio royalty. RIAA was granted by Congress a card of opportunity to steal all the royalties of artists. Artists were never given the right to negotiate. Soundexchange collects royalties from all the web radio stations, which mainly play independent artists not on RIAA's labels. But those independent artists seldom get enough plays to ever receive royalties. But for web radio stations have to pay for ALL broadcasts. So SoundExchange gets to sit on all the proceeds, and never pay out cash.
The real problem is that DJ's don't have a massive lobby group like the record labels and radio station conglomerate.
Realize, at least in the U.S. that something like 80%-90% of albums rights are held by four conglomerate corporations. Likewise, probably about 80%-90% of radio stations are owned by 4-5 major conglomerates.
DJ's are thousands of independent joe-average people, many working part time on the side.
> We have to buy the albums but are never given a license. We have albums stolen, broken, etc. at a much higher rate. But have to replace said albums at the full price (even though we already have a license).
> We have to pay performance licensing for the right to play songs in public. (FYI, weddings are a private event and different rules apply.)
> We receive few guarantees and protections. While a specific grant in the DCMA allows for radio stations to make ephereal recordings. DJ's are not given that protection. For one simple reason...they didn't have a mega-association with millions of dollars to lobby (bribe) Congress. Yes there are some DJ associations, but the industry doesn't really lend itself to such a conglomerate as labels & radio does.
> Advantage of digital recordings. Our masters are safe from theft. Instead of having to lug 4 80lb suitcases of CDs to bring all our stock. We can lug one 5 lbs external hard drive.
It's disgusting...
Oh, by the way, if you are a musical artist and you want me to respect your copyrights. Get the law changed to protect DJs and web radio.
Cause I quit recognizing your copyrights as soon as the laws stopped. If your an artist...don't gripe to me about the violation of your rights. Cause us DJs have had our rights violated repeatedly.
Copyright is a two way system. If you want it honored, you have to honor the users as well. If you're going to claim people are only buying a "license". Then give them a real license and let them register their license. Otherwise, more and more people are going to cease recognizing your copyrights.
I no longer do. Anyone who wants copies of any of my CDs are welcome to make them. I've got a burner in the basement. Having lost several hundred dollars to copyright law abuse, I've cease recognizing your right. While you may have the law on your side.
Most people don't care about legality, rather, they care about right & wrong. (There are plenty of laws on the books that are 'legal' but far from moral.) And most people only feel a moral contractual obligation to another party if that party is acting in good faith. (Which the conglomerate copyright holders are NOT doing.)
The ones that need to change the system are the artists!
I know Buzzword is to be ported to AIR down the road. It'd be pretty sweet to be able to get AIR versions of Sliderocket, Blist, Photoshop Express, etc.
:)
Be able to sync your data to the web. Buzzword AIR & web. Work locally, access from anywhere.
"not yet"...
And they may never need to buy them. But if the functionality arrives, it can start to make an impact. Especially once these apps like Buzzword & Sliderocket are ported to AIR.
Of course I waited for a dip, I'm no dip...
And while it is fairly unchanged since I've bought it. So was my Netflix stock. Of course, while my stinkin IRA did little to perform. My Netflix stock over the past three years almost doubled...
First off, you create the UI for your application. AIR apps will use the default system UI for windows, etc.
Or you can break away from that and have a very customized application window.
***
If you mean development UI. Well you can use a simple text editor to create your apps. Though I recommend Adobe's Flex Builder 3 (built on Eclipse). Nice tool...and only $250 for Flex Builder stand-a-lone or plug-in.
"Adobe have said that they plan to move their apps gradually over to AIR"
Where did you hear that statement???
Check out desktop.ebay.com for an interesting beta app.
AIR, is not so different than Java, except based on delivery of Flash, Flex, AJAX content.
As for what uses it may have. Well, one we're considering is moving the offline version of our product to AIR, which would enable us to track certain content usage and report back to the publisher when reconnected with the internet.
A lot of the talk of use is in disconnected internet applications. (ie: Downloading a data set, working with it offline and than merging when internet access becomes available again).
Furthermore, Flash's performance is sometimes inhibited by the browser. AIR potentially frees it from such constraints.
As for creation of AIR applications. It's frightening how easy it is to convert an Adobe Flex app into an AIR app. For small ones, it's simply re-publishing the code and adding some icons and titles for application display purposes.
We're tired of...
"Three PDAs for the Elven Lords
Seven cell phones for the Dwarf Lords and their halls of stone
Nine MP3 players for the
Three Cell Phones for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven PDAs for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine MP3 players for Mortal Men doomed to die,
We want...
One Gadget the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Gadget to rule them all, One Gadget to find them,
One Gadget to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
***
(ie: I don't want a separate cell phone, PDA, MP3 player, GPS and batman utility belt. Especially NOT when the technology is available to easily have all 4 in a single device. And the only thing stopping it from happening is BS marketing idiots.)
"Why people in the USA own guns, and why they're needed!"
- We believe in Equality. A gun gives a 4'5" petite woman an even chance against a 6'4" 285lb male armed with a knife.
- Because calling 911 often does not receive a timely enough response to keep you safe.
- Because America was born out of revolution. Without our guns we'd have continued being oppressed by the British, as would much of the world.
***
"A gun should be considered always as loaded even when it's not."
Yes it should...
***
"Have you ever thought about the reason why USA is the country with
more killings compared to ALL the other countries in the world?"
Yes, I have...and it has nothing to do with guns. In fact, the states in the USA with the most stringent gun laws have the highest murder rates. Those with the most relaxed gun laws have the lowest.
The reason is culture and a lack of responsibility. As well as oppression in some cases.
***
"Guns should be owned only by police and military forces"
So Americans can be victimized by their government as happens in China, Sudan, Soviet Union, Tibet and numerous other countries where police and military are the only ones armed.
***
"In all the other cases (90% IMHO) guns and any other kind of firearm should
not be owned by the common people: "
You can try to take my gun away....you'll end up wishing you had one if you try. Oh, and look at Australia and Great Britain. Two nations with stringent gun laws and confiscation. G.B. has major increase in stabbing deaths. Australia has increased crime in the rural areas.
***
"MORE GUNS = MORE DEATHS, it's a matter of a fact."
Actually, it's not. In fact, you can compare two Virginia college shootings. One ended with dozens dead the other did not. Why? Because two students had weapons and subdued the perpetrators.
***
"All countries with strict gun controls are safer than the US (at least when it comes to diying of a gun related injury)."
Really, Mexico = strict gun laws. Also equals far more violence with or without guns than the U.S.
***
"In the US the gun lobby has managed to convince a majority that having a gun is a right."
Any right is a duty. Sadly, we've grown into a society that wants "priveledges" without the prerequisite responsibility. And that is where the true problem lies - and not in a handgun.
However, the U.S. is founded upon a document that expresses certain rights. Not as granted by the document, but merely recognized as inherent.
Why "duties" are not expressed in said document? Because government is quite adept at passing laws and declaring the duties and limitations of it's citizens.