No, manned space missions are not foolish. The issue at hand is the great number of us who believe we need to get off this rock.
If you just want scientific data and never want to move mankind in the stars. Then yes, ROBOTS are for you WAL-E!
But many of us, believe that we need to move out. a) it protects our extinction from a catastrophic cosmic event b) it alleviates population issues
Say the new world (Americas) were discovered today. Would it be foolish to send people over? Better to just send robots right? Well...only if you want nothing but pictures and soil samples. But if you want to expand, colonize...you send people.
I like you the way you say things...conveys a nice tone. I think I've become so tired of banging my head against the wall metaphorically speaking that I've grown far too cynical - and it shows. *sigh*
"Provably false. The Heliocentric model was supported by data which had been gathered by Brahe as far back as 1580's."
But we're not debating whether the Heliocentric model is true. We know that to be the case (hindsight). But whether the arguments Galileo made for it constituted proof - and they did not.
There were arguments that could have helped Galileo's case. Except Galileo said they were wrong.
"More to the point, Galielo's main arguments for Heliocentrism were the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus, both clearly objective observations."
So Galileo's argument was the observation of a smaller model with the hypothesis that the Earth might do around the Sol, as the IO, Ganymede, etc did around Jupiter.
While such a conclusion is a good hypothesis. I do not believe that an observation of one model necessary proves that another different model must also follow the same case.
Just cause most vehicles on the highway have four wheels does not mean that they all must have four wheels. Some have two and other eighteen...
***
"The tidal argument is a straw man, as it is neither central to the Heliocentric argument and also ignores the fact that, prior to Newtonian mechanics, there was no concrete understanding of the mechanics of either water, centrifugal forces or the tides, and so the matter was, and remained for some time, an open question."
But there were contemporaries of Galileo who had postulated, correctly I might add, that the tides were caused by the moon. Of course...Galileo dismissed such ideas as false.
"He did bring quite solid proof forward." Please...go on...waiting to hear the solid proof?
"to persons who accepted, demonstrably incorrect, dogmas without any proof whatsoever." How were they demonstrably incorrect - at the time?
"The very fact that it was heresy to take a position contrary to church teachings at all is proof that the regime under which Galileo lived was an oppressive and theocratic one."
Well we must live in an oppressive sciencratic society. Because stating something is factual without proof gets most people labelled a heretic these days. Heck, just being one of the several thousands scientists who disagree with the CO2 / global warming concept is assured to get you labelled a heretic by the media & pop-scientific crowd.
So it's nice to know that in approx 500 yrs worth of time - mankind hasn't changed much at all. *lol*
***
"Again he had objective proof; the moons of jupiter and the phases of Venus among them."
What about Earth's moon? it's phases? mankind had seen those for ages...obviously such proof was not conclusive. But proof often isn't one intriguing observation, but rather, being able to put forth a model that handles all the related aspects. One is also better off stating only that which they know from observation rather than concocting other explanations which are known to not stand. (ie: single tide, when it was known that there were diurnal tides). Such alone is cause for skepticism on the part of the reviewers.
***
"Their main arguments consisted of quotes from the bible and Aristotle. In the face of this, accusations of "sarcasm" and "ridiculing opponents" can obviously be mitigated."
The burden of proof is always on the one endeavoring the change the status quo. Those who proposed the speed of light was not quite the constant we thought it to be were ridiculed by the scientific community. It was nearly 20 yrs ago when I heard mention of the idea. Only now has the scientific community changed their view and begun to swing around to the idea that the speed of light is a little bit odder than they first supposed.
***
"Galileo was prosecuted for expressing an opinion"
No, the fact remains, that people like you keep postulating that this is why Galileo was prosecuted. But it's not...rather, it's for stating his opinion to be fact.
***
"He was prosecuted by persons who accepted dogma and s
Quite true. And perhaps we can let Galileo slide on the whole 'cause and effect' not being as well understood back then. But if you're not going to be polite, expect consequences.
Cause science does not mandate that others need to respond kindly to those who are impolite.;-)
***
"As to peer review, since the very concept was in its infancy, or had not yet emerged, it's hard to justify the accusation that Galileo did not subject himself to it."
Actually there was a form of it existent, via the Catholic Church. Which had established principles regarding the hypothetical/theoretical and declaration of absolutes.
I know, we like to put the Galileo affair as "Church versus Scientists" but it's rather inaccurate as many many scientists were affiliated with the Catholic Church. And I don't just mean members of the laity but rather members of the priestly orders.
***
"That is if you don't consider his published observations and data proof, or indeed facts."
No, I do not believe the tides are caused by the movement of the earth.
***
"And no doubt as distinct from his detractors who could prove their geocentric theories by citing biblical passages and Aristotle."
The issue was not an inability to change, the Catholic Church has a precept that puts natural law above interpretation. However, it requires that there be conclusive proof. Galileo was not able to furnish such at the time.
***
"They banned his books. They locked him in a prison, which while pretty and comfortable, was still a prison. If this is "back-handed censure", I'm glad people aren't subjected to it nowadays."
Yes, in particular a book that was to be published with the Pope's blessing and was supposed to take an unbiased review of the matter. And did not...
In otherwords, I signed a book deal with a company. Agree to x premise and than enact fraud and write something different. Guess what...today, that can still land you in prison.;-)
***
The essential facts are preserved. Namely that a) Galileo made objective scientific observations b) Galileo published these observations and his theories on their meaning c) The Catholic church considered his views to be heeretical d) The church used its political influence to force Galileo, under threat, to publically retract his theories. e) Galileo publicly retracted his theories.
a) Galileo never directly observed the movement of the earth. Nor could prove conclusively that it did. Furthermore, he stated supporting works of fellow scientists were wrong. Without that proof, the Catholic Church instructed Galileo to recant on his statements. They did not forbid him to hypothetically discuss the matter.
b) He also bit the hand that fed him. When given support by the Pope (who was actually quite fond of Galileo) to write an unbiased review on the two views and to use essentially the Pope's seal of approval. He didn't. And in some parts made his biggest proponent look like a fool.
c) Yes, and rightly so, in that Galileo could not prove his point to be true. While believing something likely is one thing. I believe that man can travel faster-than-light. But I can't prove that belief. If I went around teaching that belief - I'd be labelled a heretic by the scientific community. However, if I could prove that it could be done. I'd cease being a heretic. Likewise...
d) You mean like the modern scientific community does all the time. Silencing and ridiculing scientists who propose things that the scientific community has taken for granted as fact. (ie: Speed of Light not being quite the constant we've thought it was, but those who initially proposed such were ridiculed. Furthermore, people who don't toe the line often lose their jobs, and well-being.
e) Galileo had to make a public retraction because he was purporting something to be fact but could not as of yet prove it. If Galileo h
Galileo was an asshole who refused to subject his work to peer review. Could not prove his theory at the time but was so egotistical that he claimed it as fact. Was critical and insulting of his contemporary peers dismissing their work as completely baseless. (Not only were some of these contemporaries right on, but their work could have helped substantiate Galileo's.) Then Galileo in fact insulted one of his biggest supporters publicly (who also happened to be both one of the top political entities and the head of the review board). Because this head of the review board (the Pope) asked Galileo just to state his premise as a theory until he could prove it.
The Catholic Church censured Galileo. This resulted in a house arrest, in a very nice house with catered food and all his needs met. Or in other words, a back-handed censure that actually included a patronage enabling Galileo to continue his work.
Sadly, most of this is lost in the popular sensationalism of Galileo. If this event happened today....Galileo wouldn't be lauded. He'd be considered one of those sensationalist jerks that goes to the media before peer reviewing and proving his work. And then trashes and insults every other scientist who comments on the matter or claims Galileo is mistaken, or has yet to prove his work.
***
What this is really about.... "Politics" to accommodate a bunch of uneducated, unlearned individuals who lack any knowledge of history (and probably not much more of science)...who like to consider themselves scientifically minded and well-educated, when they're not.
(A good example is most of the people commenting in this Slashdot thread who probably don't have a single iota about Galileo other than the motif that somehow the Catholic Church was imprisoned him because they didn't want people to believe the earth revolved around the sun. )
Because you uneducated mis-thinking fools need to be placated. You gribe about science and the church. But your idol was a man who made great folly's and while contributing much to science also fell far short of it as well.
I guess Slashdot's trend toward suckage continues. Yes, I love that Slashdot is becoming a political site more than a tech site and the bias' run deep.
So Slashdot rejected the story submission about Adobe's release of AIR, and announcement that they were open-sourcing the Flex 3 SDK. And had released a new open-source project site for Flex, Tamarin and a few other products. Nope...that stuff isn't noteworthy to Slashdot's editors.
Bah!...rest assured if there is any political BS topic it'll be posted (even if it's been posted 2-3 times and is a year old).
So yes...
> Adobe AIR launches > AIR being ported to Linux > Flex Builder 3 being ported to Linux > Flex 3 SDK being open sourced
Ask her to pick three of her favorite things that she knows how to write & spell. Have her use those three items (not words but items, younger minds can grasp objects more than words).
(ie: catbookrose)
Then have her append her birthdate (ie: if June 7, then "catbookrose7"). The odds of anyone guessing the three words plus number is very slim.
First off, if you have access to any of the higher speed broadbands (FIOS or even 6/10mbps cable) then performance will clearly be better with the landline broadband.
That said, I had EvDO via Verizon on my 6700 which I tethered to my laptops. Now performance varied considerably depending on location and quality of service. But at my home was near a highway we had excellent signal quality.
EvDO Broadband Wireless actually outperformed my DSL connections at times. However, it was not as consistent. I found the DSL performance to be much more consistent in load times. I only had basic DSL 700kbps. Where at my EVDO could burst to 1mbps+, though more often than not I was getting around 400kbps.
I hope you find this analysis useful.
***
Lastly, for performance testing I used the following site. It's a photography site. I did so because I could I could load numerous differing pages and compare without caching images (by going to different image categories, etc).
I think on a straight file-download wireless broadband will be fairly slower. So you must also consider what type of work you are doing.
****
Lastly, I am a web developer. Using Verizon's Wireless EVDO Broadband I was able to travel from Connecticut to Maryland while having internet access nearly the entire time. Sometimes I would drop to the slower connection but I was truly surprised that most of the time I had a EVDO signal.
From what I gather, no other carrier provides quite the broadband coverage. And don't compare the "offered in 120 markets" bologne. As carriers consider different areas different markets. And while one might consider San Francisco area a single market another carrier will count it as three. So be sure to check the actual coverage maps.
--
- The Saj
Re:I saw we temporarily drop the embargo for 2 mon
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
While it has not eradicated the human rights issues, it has been a continual incentive for change.
I saw we temporarily drop the embargo for 2 months
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Allow for tourism and trade, let the economic ramifications encourage a change of policy.
(ie: people enjoying $$$ influx, will demand that it continues)
* The sin of draft dodging when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry.
[You're point? GWB did not dodge the draft. Did he going into a safer service...perhaps. But that's not dodging the draft. Big difference...]
* The importance of having served in the military when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry. [ Air National Guard Service...hmm...would you dismiss my service because I only served in the U.S. Coast Guard? Do you know how many Coast Guardsmen died in WWII in service to their country escorting freighters and on D-day?]
* How much responsibility the president bears for the actions of law enforcement agencies on Ruby Ridge (when H.W. Bush had been president for three and a half years) and Waco (when Clinton had been in office for 38 days). [ Or 9-11 when President Bush was only in office for several months. More so, his appointments to the intelligent services were held up for many months. Key appointments weren't filled until as late as August 2001. Your point?]
* Whitewater vs Harken Energy.
* How serious lying under oath is (which Clinton didn't even do [huppi.com]) versus Scooter Libby. [ When it is directly removing a citizens rights to due process. Pretty darn serious. How serious is it when a Democrat Senator is stealing top secret documents and smuggling them out in his pants?]
* How Clinton "disgraced the office" by having an affair vs Gengrich and Vitter, just to name two of many Republicans who have had affairs while in office. [ Oh, see, this is EXACTLY MY POINT, you prove my point about liberals. Gingrich resigned for his action. Clinton, not only didn't resign, but fired a general in the armed services for having an affair. Now that takes some balls. ]
* "Cutting and running" from areas where we've deployed troops on Somalia [youtube.com] in 1993 and Haiti [youtube.com] in 1994, vs Iraq today. [Well, as I recall, we having cut and run from Iraq as of yet. So I'm not sure what your point is on this. Now if you mean 1991, then yes...bad move on our part in listening and conceding to the U.N.]
* Surveillance: the conservatives that freaked the fuck out over Carnivore and the Clipper Chip (both of which would have required the use of warrants) vs the far larger NSA warrantless wiretapping. [Guess what, they're still flipping out over the Patriot Act, etc. And if you haven't noticed yet. The Republican Party really isn't much of a conservative party anymore. It's become much more moderate and liberal - except on a few token political areas, the Republican Party is no longer acting for small government and sound fiscal ideals..sadly. ]
* Impeachment. Republicans impeached Clinton...because they wanted to impeach him, and settled for a manufactured perjury charge after countless investigations of Whitewater turned up nothing. Whereas the Bush Administration breaks the law (warrantless wiretapping, using federal agencies for partisan gain), subverts the separation of powers (ignores power of the purse, signing statemnts), and has broken four amendments (searches and seizures, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, speedy trials). [First off, Clinton was impeached for violating a U.S. citizens rights by lying in a sexual harassment trial. But once again you exemplify my point. Liberals are all up in arms over the questionable legality of the actions of President Bush, with regards to the invasion of privacy in the name of keeping us safe. But they like to brush under all the FBI files the Clintons accessed NOT for any pretense of keeping the nation safe but for mere political use.]
Ironically, all these people accusing of hate, etc. Are the same ones accusing Rush of lying & using false and misleading facts.
Of course, they're all blithering idiots too stupid to understand that facts are often open to interpretation unless they are hard facts. And in the political world there are few hard facts, most are warm, eewwy goey brown facts to be honest.
***
The #1 fact I hate about liberals is that I always feel they have a double-standard. They demonize anyone who thinks differently than them for doing what they do. There are very few things I hate in life more than the fact that "life ain't fair". And I hated double standards throughout my childhood.
That's what the Democrat Party means to me...double-standards. We can do x, and it's okay, but if you do x you're a racist, a bigot, a liar, a Nazi, etc.
BTW, I found that I didn't care for Rush too much, but I love Glenn Beck. Both are really about delivering commentary & opinion with entertainment, satire & sarcasm. Do I always agree, no, but I am blown away by the people who will demonize them for pieces that are clearly satirical. Or who will decry censorship and how it is wrong to create an.xxx domain, but then in another post express how Rush should be censored, removed from radio, etc.
People may not agree, but we should agree to be free. And to speak freely. Otherwise, one day it will be us who won't be allowed to voice our disagreements.
If I could, I'd MOD your post with +1 Intelligent!
Yes, I've said for a while, that if we don't stop the corruption of the IP systems, we would find ourselves with perpetual copyrights.
Everytime Mickey Mouse comes up for public domain, copyrights are extended. Ironically, if these big copyright whores had to live by their own laws, they'd never exist:
Let's review Disney's early movies (and latter movies):
> Snow White (stolen) > Cinderella (stolen) > Sleep Beauty > Pinnochio > Sword in the Stone > The Little Mermaid > Beauty and the Beast
And please, don't give me the argument that "well, all of those were in public domain - so they didn't steal them". My point is THEY ARE STEALING PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Disney would not exist today without public domain, the fact they are unwilling to contribute while willing to benefit is sad.
Same with the music industry, look how many old songs are revisited, covered, etc. by artists. Who will never put back into public domain.
***
More so, the artists and the the animators, see very little profit. So really, it's not the creators getting paid for a lifetime. Rather it is corporations who do not age, wither and die. Is it any wonder they're manipulating the law to a perpetual copyright.
There must be public domain. If you are one who thinks that IP property rights beyond a very short time are a good thing. Then you simply lack an education on history. Were we to have perpetual IP rights, we'd have nothing invented today but lawyers. No patents on cars because the wheel would still be IP. No pistons because the lever would still be owned.
***
We need to fight this...and in fact, I believe this is a matter worth the sacrifice of blood. Why? Because I believe it is better to "live free or die" than "be a slave". Right now, this is merely talk of control of CDs. But eventually, this will become the control of minds. As technology advances and we decipher more and more of how the brain works. In 95 yrs, when iPods are merely iMplants. If you happen to recall a song or sing it, you'll find yourself hit with a pay-per-think royalty. Oh, and how long until you're called before a legal system for pirating music (I mean, whistling a tune you've heard).
While that future is afar off, it is an eventual possibility, and that possibility will lead to the enslaving of thought and ideas. Even in the horrors of past slavery, the thoughts within one's mind were always free.
Right now, this is just a political issue. 95 yrs from now, it might be a blood issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, you do realize the latest Flash Player supports h264 - right?
Further more, if you're just using Flash for ads and video, you haven't even touched on the power that is Flash.
Well, in this case...Apple is neither providing choice nor the best experience.
Great read...one of my favorites when younger.
No, manned space missions are not foolish. The issue at hand is the great number of us who believe we need to get off this rock.
If you just want scientific data and never want to move mankind in the stars. Then yes, ROBOTS are for you WAL-E!
But many of us, believe that we need to move out.
a) it protects our extinction from a catastrophic cosmic event
b) it alleviates population issues
Say the new world (Americas) were discovered today. Would it be foolish to send people over? Better to just send robots right? Well...only if you want nothing but pictures and soil samples. But if you want to expand, colonize...you send people.
=)
I like you the way you say things...conveys a nice tone. I think I've become so tired of banging my head against the wall metaphorically speaking that I've grown far too cynical - and it shows. *sigh*
"Provably false. The Heliocentric model was supported by data which had been gathered by Brahe as far back as 1580's."
But we're not debating whether the Heliocentric model is true. We know that to be the case (hindsight). But whether the arguments Galileo made for it constituted proof - and they did not.
There were arguments that could have helped Galileo's case. Except Galileo said they were wrong.
"More to the point, Galielo's main arguments for Heliocentrism were the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus, both clearly objective observations."
So Galileo's argument was the observation of a smaller model with the hypothesis that the Earth might do around the Sol, as the IO, Ganymede, etc did around Jupiter.
While such a conclusion is a good hypothesis. I do not believe that an observation of one model necessary proves that another different model must also follow the same case.
Just cause most vehicles on the highway have four wheels does not mean that they all must have four wheels. Some have two and other eighteen...
***
"The tidal argument is a straw man, as it is neither central to the Heliocentric argument and also ignores the fact that, prior to Newtonian mechanics, there was no concrete understanding of the mechanics of either water, centrifugal forces or the tides, and so the matter was, and remained for some time, an open question."
But there were contemporaries of Galileo who had postulated, correctly I might add, that the tides were caused by the moon. Of course...Galileo dismissed such ideas as false.
"He did bring quite solid proof forward."
Please...go on...waiting to hear the solid proof?
"to persons who accepted, demonstrably incorrect, dogmas without any proof whatsoever."
How were they demonstrably incorrect - at the time?
"The very fact that it was heresy to take a position contrary to church teachings at all is proof that the regime under which Galileo lived was an oppressive and theocratic one."
Well we must live in an oppressive sciencratic society. Because stating something is factual without proof gets most people labelled a heretic these days. Heck, just being one of the several thousands scientists who disagree with the CO2 / global warming concept is assured to get you labelled a heretic by the media & pop-scientific crowd.
So it's nice to know that in approx 500 yrs worth of time - mankind hasn't changed much at all. *lol*
***
"Again he had objective proof; the moons of jupiter and the phases of Venus among them."
What about Earth's moon? it's phases? mankind had seen those for ages...obviously such proof was not conclusive. But proof often isn't one intriguing observation, but rather, being able to put forth a model that handles all the related aspects. One is also better off stating only that which they know from observation rather than concocting other explanations which are known to not stand. (ie: single tide, when it was known that there were diurnal tides). Such alone is cause for skepticism on the part of the reviewers.
***
"Their main arguments consisted of quotes from the bible and Aristotle. In the face of this, accusations of "sarcasm" and "ridiculing opponents" can obviously be mitigated."
The burden of proof is always on the one endeavoring the change the status quo. Those who proposed the speed of light was not quite the constant we thought it to be were ridiculed by the scientific community. It was nearly 20 yrs ago when I heard mention of the idea. Only now has the scientific community changed their view and begun to swing around to the idea that the speed of light is a little bit odder than they first supposed.
***
"Galileo was prosecuted for expressing an opinion"
No, the fact remains, that people like you keep postulating that this is why Galileo was prosecuted. But it's not...rather, it's for stating his opinion to be fact.
***
"He was prosecuted by persons who accepted dogma and s
"Science does not require politeness."
;-)
;-)
Quite true. And perhaps we can let Galileo slide on the whole 'cause and effect' not being as well understood back then. But if you're not going to be polite, expect consequences.
Cause science does not mandate that others need to respond kindly to those who are impolite.
***
"As to peer review, since the very concept was in its infancy, or had not yet emerged, it's hard to justify the accusation that Galileo did not subject himself to it."
Actually there was a form of it existent, via the Catholic Church. Which had established principles regarding the hypothetical/theoretical and declaration of absolutes.
I know, we like to put the Galileo affair as "Church versus Scientists" but it's rather inaccurate as many many scientists were affiliated with the Catholic Church. And I don't just mean members of the laity but rather members of the priestly orders.
***
"That is if you don't consider his published observations and data proof, or indeed facts."
No, I do not believe the tides are caused by the movement of the earth.
***
"And no doubt as distinct from his detractors who could prove their geocentric theories by citing biblical passages and Aristotle."
The issue was not an inability to change, the Catholic Church has a precept that puts natural law above interpretation. However, it requires that there be conclusive proof. Galileo was not able to furnish such at the time.
***
"They banned his books. They locked him in a prison, which while pretty and comfortable, was still a prison. If this is "back-handed censure", I'm glad people aren't subjected to it nowadays."
Yes, in particular a book that was to be published with the Pope's blessing and was supposed to take an unbiased review of the matter. And did not...
In otherwords, I signed a book deal with a company. Agree to x premise and than enact fraud and write something different. Guess what...today, that can still land you in prison.
***
The essential facts are preserved. Namely that
a) Galileo made objective scientific observations
b) Galileo published these observations and his theories on their meaning
c) The Catholic church considered his views to be heeretical
d) The church used its political influence to force Galileo, under threat, to publically retract his theories.
e) Galileo publicly retracted his theories.
a) Galileo never directly observed the movement of the earth. Nor could prove conclusively that it did. Furthermore, he stated supporting works of fellow scientists were wrong. Without that proof, the Catholic Church instructed Galileo to recant on his statements. They did not forbid him to hypothetically discuss the matter.
b) He also bit the hand that fed him. When given support by the Pope (who was actually quite fond of Galileo) to write an unbiased review on the two views and to use essentially the Pope's seal of approval. He didn't. And in some parts made his biggest proponent look like a fool.
c) Yes, and rightly so, in that Galileo could not prove his point to be true. While believing something likely is one thing. I believe that man can travel faster-than-light. But I can't prove that belief. If I went around teaching that belief - I'd be labelled a heretic by the scientific community. However, if I could prove that it could be done. I'd cease being a heretic. Likewise...
d) You mean like the modern scientific community does all the time. Silencing and ridiculing scientists who propose things that the scientific community has taken for granted as fact. (ie: Speed of Light not being quite the constant we've thought it was, but those who initially proposed such were ridiculed. Furthermore, people who don't toe the line often lose their jobs, and well-being.
e) Galileo had to make a public retraction because he was purporting something to be fact but could not as of yet prove it. If Galileo h
Historical Fact:
Galileo was an asshole who refused to subject his work to peer review. Could not prove his theory at the time but was so egotistical that he claimed it as fact. Was critical and insulting of his contemporary peers dismissing their work as completely baseless. (Not only were some of these contemporaries right on, but their work could have helped substantiate Galileo's.) Then Galileo in fact insulted one of his biggest supporters publicly (who also happened to be both one of the top political entities and the head of the review board). Because this head of the review board (the Pope) asked Galileo just to state his premise as a theory until he could prove it.
The Catholic Church censured Galileo. This resulted in a house arrest, in a very nice house with catered food and all his needs met. Or in other words, a back-handed censure that actually included a patronage enabling Galileo to continue his work.
Sadly, most of this is lost in the popular sensationalism of Galileo. If this event happened today....Galileo wouldn't be lauded. He'd be considered one of those sensationalist jerks that goes to the media before peer reviewing and proving his work. And then trashes and insults every other scientist who comments on the matter or claims Galileo is mistaken, or has yet to prove his work.
***
What this is really about.... "Politics" to accommodate a bunch of uneducated, unlearned individuals who lack any knowledge of history (and probably not much more of science)...who like to consider themselves scientifically minded and well-educated, when they're not.
(A good example is most of the people commenting in this Slashdot thread who probably don't have a single iota about Galileo other than the motif that somehow the Catholic Church was imprisoned him because they didn't want people to believe the earth revolved around the sun. )
Because you uneducated mis-thinking fools need to be placated. You gribe about science and the church. But your idol was a man who made great folly's and while contributing much to science also fell far short of it as well.
Here's some education on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#_note-contrary_to_scripture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
I. A completely new software release is fairly significant. Especially when released by one of the largest software firms in the world.
II. When else has Slashdot NOT posted concerning a major company deciding to open source one of their software products?
I guess Slashdot's trend toward suckage continues. Yes, I love that Slashdot is becoming a political site more than a tech site and the bias' run deep.
So Slashdot rejected the story submission about Adobe's release of AIR, and announcement that they were open-sourcing the Flex 3 SDK. And had released a new open-source project site for Flex, Tamarin and a few other products. Nope...that stuff isn't noteworthy to Slashdot's editors.
Bah!...rest assured if there is any political BS topic it'll be posted (even if it's been posted 2-3 times and is a year old).
So yes...
> Adobe AIR launches
> AIR being ported to Linux
> Flex Builder 3 being ported to Linux
> Flex 3 SDK being open sourced
Ask her to pick three of her favorite things that she knows how to write & spell. Have her use those three items (not words but items, younger minds can grasp objects more than words).
(ie: catbookrose)
Then have her append her birthdate (ie: if June 7, then "catbookrose7"). The odds of anyone guessing the three words plus number is very slim.
First off, if you have access to any of the higher speed broadbands (FIOS or even 6/10mbps cable) then performance will clearly be better with the landline broadband.
That said, I had EvDO via Verizon on my 6700 which I tethered to my laptops. Now performance varied considerably depending on location and quality of service. But at my home was near a highway we had excellent signal quality.
EvDO Broadband Wireless actually outperformed my DSL connections at times. However, it was not as consistent. I found the DSL performance to be much more consistent in load times. I only had basic DSL 700kbps. Where at my EVDO could burst to 1mbps+, though more often than not I was getting around 400kbps.
I hope you find this analysis useful.
***
Lastly, for performance testing I used the following site. It's a photography site. I did so because I could I could load numerous differing pages and compare without caching images (by going to different image categories, etc).
http://www.dpchallenge.com/
I think on a straight file-download wireless broadband will be fairly slower. So you must also consider what type of work you are doing.
****
Lastly, I am a web developer. Using Verizon's Wireless EVDO Broadband I was able to travel from Connecticut to Maryland while having internet access nearly the entire time. Sometimes I would drop to the slower connection but I was truly surprised that most of the time I had a EVDO signal.
From what I gather, no other carrier provides quite the broadband coverage. And don't compare the "offered in 120 markets" bologne. As carriers consider different areas different markets. And while one might consider San Francisco area a single market another carrier will count it as three. So be sure to check the actual coverage maps.
--
- The Saj
While it has not eradicated the human rights issues, it has been a continual incentive for change.
Allow for tourism and trade, let the economic ramifications encourage a change of policy.
(ie: people enjoying $$$ influx, will demand that it continues)
And at least one "Communist Libertarian"
Just to warn you...
More and more Conservatives are switching to Macs!
If this was the "Wizard of Oz", it'd mean you lack courage... ;)
You must be a liberal...
;)
How can I tell? Because you take offense at a minimal slight but are disgustingly offensive and rude yourself.
* The sin of draft dodging when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry.
[You're point? GWB did not dodge the draft. Did he going into a safer service...perhaps. But that's not dodging the draft. Big difference...]
* The importance of having served in the military when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore, and Kerry.
[ Air National Guard Service...hmm...would you dismiss my service because I only served in the U.S. Coast Guard? Do you know how many Coast Guardsmen died in WWII in service to their country escorting freighters and on D-day?]
* How much responsibility the president bears for the actions of law enforcement agencies on Ruby Ridge (when H.W. Bush had been president for three and a half years) and Waco (when Clinton had been in office for 38 days).
[ Or 9-11 when President Bush was only in office for several months. More so, his appointments to the intelligent services were held up for many months. Key appointments weren't filled until as late as August 2001. Your point?]
* Whitewater vs Harken Energy.
* How serious lying under oath is (which Clinton didn't even do [huppi.com]) versus Scooter Libby.
[ When it is directly removing a citizens rights to due process. Pretty darn serious. How serious is it when a Democrat Senator is stealing top secret documents and smuggling them out in his pants?]
* How Clinton "disgraced the office" by having an affair vs Gengrich and Vitter, just to name two of many Republicans who have had affairs while in office.
[ Oh, see, this is EXACTLY MY POINT, you prove my point about liberals. Gingrich resigned for his action. Clinton, not only didn't resign, but fired a general in the armed services for having an affair. Now that takes some balls. ]
* "Cutting and running" from areas where we've deployed troops on Somalia [youtube.com] in 1993 and Haiti [youtube.com] in 1994, vs Iraq today.
[Well, as I recall, we having cut and run from Iraq as of yet. So I'm not sure what your point is on this. Now if you mean 1991, then yes...bad move on our part in listening and conceding to the U.N.]
* Surveillance: the conservatives that freaked the fuck out over Carnivore and the Clipper Chip (both of which would have required the use of warrants) vs the far larger NSA warrantless wiretapping.
[Guess what, they're still flipping out over the Patriot Act, etc. And if you haven't noticed yet. The Republican Party really isn't much of a conservative party anymore. It's become much more moderate and liberal - except on a few token political areas, the Republican Party is no longer acting for small government and sound fiscal ideals..sadly. ]
* Impeachment. Republicans impeached Clinton...because they wanted to impeach him, and settled for a manufactured perjury charge after countless investigations of Whitewater turned up nothing. Whereas the Bush Administration breaks the law (warrantless wiretapping, using federal agencies for partisan gain), subverts the separation of powers (ignores power of the purse, signing statemnts), and has broken four amendments (searches and seizures, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, speedy trials).
[First off, Clinton was impeached for violating a U.S. citizens rights by lying in a sexual harassment trial. But once again you exemplify my point. Liberals are all up in arms over the questionable legality of the actions of President Bush, with regards to the invasion of privacy in the name of keeping us safe. But they like to brush under all the FBI files the Clintons accessed NOT for any pretense of keeping the nation safe but for mere political use.]
But you're just talking national....I am talki
Ironically, all these people accusing of hate, etc. Are the same ones accusing Rush of lying & using false and misleading facts.
Of course, they're all blithering idiots too stupid to understand that facts are often open to interpretation unless they are hard facts. And in the political world there are few hard facts, most are warm, eewwy goey brown facts to be honest.
***
The #1 fact I hate about liberals is that I always feel they have a double-standard. They demonize anyone who thinks differently than them for doing what they do. There are very few things I hate in life more than the fact that "life ain't fair". And I hated double standards throughout my childhood.
That's what the Democrat Party means to me...double-standards. We can do x, and it's okay, but if you do x you're a racist, a bigot, a liar, a Nazi, etc.
*yawn*
OMG, someone who actually gets it!
.xxx domain, but then in another post express how Rush should be censored, removed from radio, etc.
BTW, I found that I didn't care for Rush too much, but I love Glenn Beck. Both are really about delivering commentary & opinion with entertainment, satire & sarcasm. Do I always agree, no, but I am blown away by the people who will demonize them for pieces that are clearly satirical. Or who will decry censorship and how it is wrong to create an
People may not agree, but we should agree to be free. And to speak freely. Otherwise, one day it will be us who won't be allowed to voice our disagreements.
If I could, I'd MOD your post with +1 Intelligent!
Actually I find a mix of liberals and libertarians, few conservatives in the mix.
That was sarcasm right?
I mean come on, there are probably 10 left (and left not equal moderate FYI) posts for every 1 post that is even mildly conservative or Republican.
Yes, I've said for a while, that if we don't stop the corruption of the IP systems, we would find ourselves with perpetual copyrights.
Everytime Mickey Mouse comes up for public domain, copyrights are extended. Ironically, if these big copyright whores had to live by their own laws, they'd never exist:
Let's review Disney's early movies (and latter movies):
> Snow White (stolen)
> Cinderella (stolen)
> Sleep Beauty
> Pinnochio
> Sword in the Stone
> The Little Mermaid
> Beauty and the Beast
And please, don't give me the argument that "well, all of those were in public domain - so they didn't steal them". My point is THEY ARE STEALING PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Disney would not exist today without public domain, the fact they are unwilling to contribute while willing to benefit is sad.
Same with the music industry, look how many old songs are revisited, covered, etc. by artists. Who will never put back into public domain.
***
More so, the artists and the the animators, see very little profit. So really, it's not the creators getting paid for a lifetime. Rather it is corporations who do not age, wither and die. Is it any wonder they're manipulating the law to a perpetual copyright.
There must be public domain. If you are one who thinks that IP property rights beyond a very short time are a good thing. Then you simply lack an education on history. Were we to have perpetual IP rights, we'd have nothing invented today but lawyers. No patents on cars because the wheel would still be IP. No pistons because the lever would still be owned.
***
We need to fight this...and in fact, I believe this is a matter worth the sacrifice of blood. Why? Because I believe it is better to "live free or die" than "be a slave". Right now, this is merely talk of control of CDs. But eventually, this will become the control of minds. As technology advances and we decipher more and more of how the brain works. In 95 yrs, when iPods are merely iMplants. If you happen to recall a song or sing it, you'll find yourself hit with a pay-per-think royalty. Oh, and how long until you're called before a legal system for pirating music (I mean, whistling a tune you've heard).
While that future is afar off, it is an eventual possibility, and that possibility will lead to the enslaving of thought and ideas. Even in the horrors of past slavery, the thoughts within one's mind were always free.
Right now, this is just a political issue. 95 yrs from now, it might be a blood issue.
*shudder*