Re:how about "creationism" crap?
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
you know, I wouldn't say your cited example is any more crazy than a belief in the existence of some all-controlling entity which you call 'god'.
belief in god is as valid as belief in unicorns. You do believe in unicorns, right?
to risk pressing a point a little too far, have you ever considered the idea that your 'religious experiences' are little more than a firing of neurotransmitters in a particular way, caused by perhaps a particular mental and physical state?
Some people report feelings of 'religious euphoria' which are strikingly similar to what some clubbers report feeling when high on ecstasy. It seems to be basically a strange response to a particular chemical state in the brain, possibly related to being in a particular social situation too (evangelist tent rallies, meet open-air rave parties). It's a deep feeling of joy, perhaps with a strong sense of belonging mixed in, with generous helpings of contentment. Cosmic, man.
In the party example, you can explain it ("I felt great because I took drugs and danced") whereas the same feeling at church or during prayer is attributed to some higher power. Which is where it all breaks down, really, because there's no foundation for that conclusion. It's just meditation.
I wonder how difficult this hypothesis would be to test?
> Science is a self-consitent, closed-system model of observable data about the real world. It can never be the real world.
It doesn't claim to be.
Re:how about "creationism" crap?
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> Psychology and sociology are both science
I personally prefer to think of those as the 'soft' sciences. Sort of testable, with a heavy dose of subjectivity. As opposed to 'hard' sciences such as chemistry/physics, which are pretty solid really.
biology can sit somewhere in the middle, because it does have room for subjectivity.
> Ok, I'm trying... but I just can't get past the fact that "premium" means "expensive", and Mozilla is completely free.
So is IE - in this case the 'premium' factor comes from a perception of higher quality, and the fact that it takes an admittedly small investment of effort to get firefox as compared to IE, which is 'just there' on your newly delivered OEM machine. So it's cheaper in that sense.
when price goes out of the equation entirely, you can only compare by other factors, as minor as they seem.
Of course Opera, now there's a real premium product;-)
The goal of any large corporation is to get maximum milk (profit) for minimum moo (outlay)
the upshot of this is that the buying public never gets the best product, because the best product rarely has the biggest margin. Look at k-mart/wal-mart/your local megamall. They sell low-priced tat by the megaton. is any of that the best product on the market?
so how come anyone's suprised when AOL (big ass company marketing to the masses) comes out with a 'crappy' secondary browser, or a budget ISP that isn't up to your (geek) standards, or takes a company previously percieved as developing high quality stuff (nullsoft) and enforces the cheap tat formula there, or uses MS's browser engine for commercial reasons over a better product?
Let's step back for a moment and think of Mozilla as a premium brand which the corporation wants to keep relatively untainted, or a storehouse against future events, both of which also make some sort of sense in view of the relatively low cost of running.
It's not (neccessarily) corporate stupidity, just an obsessive focus on the bottom-line rather than the product itself.
when you get a new PC, it's probably going to have a little icon on the desktop saying 'sign up to AOL'. How do you think that icon gets there? Does AOL have a separate deal with every OEM, with all the attendant crap that implies, or does it get this sweet bit of marketing straight from MS? (hint: it's the second one)
hence the reluctance to dump IE, lest AOL be dumped from the OEM desktop.
Well, that's not the only reason cited. there's another
> And because broadband users get their Internet connection through a company other than AOL, they no longer need a software package that includes access tools.
and as for the policies one, I guess they think that a 'thinner' client is more likely to pass due dilligence in order to be included in policies. after all, the standard client isn't engineered for that sort of environment, is it?
before it started to fail though, I noticed the escapement violates the retentive geek's rules on colour matching in lego construction. Just because it's hidden doesn't mean you can just bodge it together out of mismatched pieces, you know.
Microsoft could be forced to change Internet Explorer and make it incompatible with some web pages
That's not even correctly worded though. back when this story was new, MS released a preview of IE which conformed and didn't violate the terms of the case. all it did was throw up a message box saying "do you want to load this plugin content"
so it doesn't actually make the browser "incompatible", just makes flash content infinitely more annoying when viewed in IE. note the "without prompting" bit on this summary
well, I'd say part of it is in the long drawn out patent process itself. you register your invention, then wait for the patent. and wait, and wait, and wait.
then the patent comes through, and you grab your legal flamethrower.
" The school and its spinoff company called Eolas share the rights to a patent that they claim covers plug-ins and applets that are invoked through a Web browser."
It sounds from the article if it would, and I'm sure it's been discussed before - what's the concensus?
I disagree. I think they have their moments. Such as displaying incidental information without interrupting the flow of something you're already doing (say, a help link in a wizard-style sequence of pages)
like everything else, popups are a tool which can be used or misused. Unfortunately they're mostly misused.
> I really wish they would add more device support (i.e., make the server product basically a souped-up version of XP Pro) so I could use it on my main machine at home.
that's what I've been doing for quite a while now. what's stopping you?
Slashdot Mirror
you know, I wouldn't say your cited example is any more crazy than a belief in the existence of some all-controlling entity which you call 'god'.
belief in god is as valid as belief in unicorns. You do believe in unicorns, right?
to risk pressing a point a little too far, have you ever considered the idea that your 'religious experiences' are little more than a firing of neurotransmitters in a particular way, caused by perhaps a particular mental and physical state?
Some people report feelings of 'religious euphoria' which are strikingly similar to what some clubbers report feeling when high on ecstasy. It seems to be basically a strange response to a particular chemical state in the brain, possibly related to being in a particular social situation too (evangelist tent rallies, meet open-air rave parties). It's a deep feeling of joy, perhaps with a strong sense of belonging mixed in, with generous helpings of contentment. Cosmic, man.
In the party example, you can explain it ("I felt great because I took drugs and danced") whereas the same feeling at church or during prayer is attributed to some higher power. Which is where it all breaks down, really, because there's no foundation for that conclusion. It's just meditation.
I wonder how difficult this hypothesis would be to test?
> Science is a self-consitent, closed-system model of observable data about the real world. It can never be the real world.
It doesn't claim to be.
> Psychology and sociology are both science
I personally prefer to think of those as the 'soft' sciences. Sort of testable, with a heavy dose of subjectivity. As opposed to 'hard' sciences such as chemistry/physics, which are pretty solid really.
biology can sit somewhere in the middle, because it does have room for subjectivity.
Your 'experience of god' is not testable. Therefore, it's non-scientific, subjective, and probably just some chemical imbalance in your brain.
Actually, this lunatic thinks you can transmit homeopathic power over da intarweb.
I really have little more than that to say on the subject.
> I also believe in Jesus Christ because of what you may call the scientific method: many repeated experiences of the power of God
/.
That's easily the most retarded thing I've ever read on
> Ok, I'm trying... but I just can't get past the fact that "premium" means "expensive", and Mozilla is completely free.
;-)
So is IE - in this case the 'premium' factor comes from a perception of higher quality, and the fact that it takes an admittedly small investment of effort to get firefox as compared to IE, which is 'just there' on your newly delivered OEM machine. So it's cheaper in that sense.
when price goes out of the equation entirely, you can only compare by other factors, as minor as they seem.
Of course Opera, now there's a real premium product
The goal of any large corporation is to get maximum milk (profit) for minimum moo (outlay)
the upshot of this is that the buying public never gets the best product, because the best product rarely has the biggest margin. Look at k-mart/wal-mart/your local megamall. They sell low-priced tat by the megaton. is any of that the best product on the market?
so how come anyone's suprised when AOL (big ass company marketing to the masses) comes out with a 'crappy' secondary browser, or a budget ISP that isn't up to your (geek) standards, or takes a company previously percieved as developing high quality stuff (nullsoft) and enforces the cheap tat formula there, or uses MS's browser engine for commercial reasons over a better product?
Let's step back for a moment and think of Mozilla as a premium brand which the corporation wants to keep relatively untainted, or a storehouse against future events, both of which also make some sort of sense in view of the relatively low cost of running.
It's not (neccessarily) corporate stupidity, just an obsessive focus on the bottom-line rather than the product itself.
As I say every time this subject comes up
when you get a new PC, it's probably going to have a little icon on the desktop saying 'sign up to AOL'. How do you think that icon gets there? Does AOL have a separate deal with every OEM, with all the attendant crap that implies, or does it get this sweet bit of marketing straight from MS? (hint: it's the second one)
hence the reluctance to dump IE, lest AOL be dumped from the OEM desktop.
Well, that's not the only reason cited. there's another
> And because broadband users get their Internet connection through a company other than AOL, they no longer need a software package that includes access tools.
and as for the policies one, I guess they think that a 'thinner' client is more likely to pass due dilligence in order to be included in policies. after all, the standard client isn't engineered for that sort of environment, is it?
bad form to reply to own post, blah blah....
"Courts have generally considered six years as the applicable time frame for a presumption of laches to arise."
OK. done that. now what?
OK, I see. look up laches as it refers to patent law. looks like I could be mistaken.
.. or so it seems. that poor little server!
before it started to fail though, I noticed the escapement violates the retentive geek's rules on colour matching in lego construction. Just because it's hidden doesn't mean you can just bodge it together out of mismatched pieces, you know.
.. from The Register
Laptops go on sperm killing rampage
> But why would you want flash based porn sites?
or in the same vein, why would you save porn as GIFs? 256 colours isn't all that great for flesh tones..
gimme ten bucks on "a week and a half"!
What is a public institution doing patenting things?
If they don't, someone else will! Won't somebody think of the children?!?!
Microsoft could be forced to change Internet Explorer and make it incompatible with some web pages
That's not even correctly worded though. back when this story was new, MS released a preview of IE which conformed and didn't violate the terms of the case. all it did was throw up a message box saying "do you want to load this plugin content"
so it doesn't actually make the browser "incompatible", just makes flash content infinitely more annoying when viewed in IE. note the "without prompting" bit on this summary
true. unlike trademarks, patents don't become watered down or genericised. so you can wait that bit extra and successfully sue.
"Does anyone know where the money goes if Eolas wins?"
the lawyers. on both sides.
/ cynicism
well, I'd say part of it is in the long drawn out patent process itself. you register your invention, then wait for the patent. and wait, and wait, and wait.
then the patent comes through, and you grab your legal flamethrower.
" The school and its spinoff company called Eolas share the rights to a patent that they claim covers plug-ins and applets that are invoked through a Web browser."
It sounds from the article if it would, and I'm sure it's been discussed before - what's the concensus?
All cash registers will now have a 'skip intro' button.
... useless as blink tags.
I disagree. I think they have their moments. Such as displaying incidental information without interrupting the flow of something you're already doing (say, a help link in a wizard-style sequence of pages)
like everything else, popups are a tool which can be used or misused. Unfortunately they're mostly misused.
> I really wish they would add more device support (i.e., make the server product basically a souped-up version of XP Pro) so I could use it on my main machine at home.
that's what I've been doing for quite a while now. what's stopping you?