One of my favorite examples is git -- git doesn't do anything that several other distributed version control systems didn't do first, but git's primary innovation was to do it all hugely faster.
I use git (I actually use hg more, but same points apply, as they are extremely similar), and I love it, but I disagree that speed has anything to do with it. The biggest selling point, by far, is the fact that it is distributed. The second biggest selling point is the existence of Github (or Bitbucket for hg people), which have had a huge impact your average programmers workflow and how code is distributed. The fact that hg and git are faster is cool and all, but I just do not see it affecting that many users. I have worked in environments with 5-10 million lines of code running Visual Source Safe (*barf* not by choice, I swear) and not had any issues with performance.
Good luck with the whole "trust" thing in business. Your response reminds me of the game Risk. In Risk, alliances tend to naturally form in almost any game. Two people trust each other to not attack each other until the third person is killed off. What typically happens is one person devotes a lot of resources to defeating the common enemy while the other person discretely hangs back a bit while building up forces. Right before the common enemy is defeated, the person hanging back turns on their ally, annihilating their unprotected forces and finishing off what remains of the enemy. Without fail, the backstabbed ally will become extremely pissed about the entire situation, despite the fact that their ally was playing the game exactly according to the rules.
Business is exactly like Risk. Never trust anyone. Assume that everyone is trying to pull a fast one on you... because they probably are, and that is the entire f***ing point. There are alternative systems not based on the competitive treachery model; none of them are currently ours.
OK, but what if I told you they did? No organized religion runs off of good will and magic, including Buddhism. I have been asked for a donation to a Buddhist organization in my are a couple months ago on the street. I guarantee that nearly every organized Buddhist sect collects donations in one way or another.
It was meant to be tongue in cheek, but at the prices it typically sells for, I would not say that it would not be too much of a stretch. I have known plenty of people that spent 10s of thousands of dollars on it over several years. Combine that with productivity losses and it seems plausible.
This argument is roughly as valid as the "jews killed jesus" argument. Also, Hitler was not an atheist. I do not think that many people at all have actually died from religion. Typically mass killing has a political motivation. Religion (one way or the other) is used as an alibi. Mao and Stalin were atheists, but do you think that they would not have killed anyone if they were not? It is much easier to imagine a different justification than a different action.
What I am saying is that - by definition - those people are not true Wiccans or Buddhists.
I think we have all heard that one before. The only useful "definition" of a particular religious doctrine is how it practiced in the real world. Let the practitioners bicker over the shouldas, wouldas, and couldas.
I think it depends on the type of church, but being in the south, I can definitely say that its true for the nondenoms and baptists around here. They might not have gold chairs like the catholics, but their sound systems are not far from it. Many of the ones around here have $500k+ sound systems. The big nondenominational in my city is like walking into a damn mall (When you have a sign pointing to the food court or the coffeeshop in your church, something is getting weird). In Atlanta there is one that might as well be an airport terminal. It has and entire self contained Chucky Cheese style play place inside of it. Watch, 2000 years from now everyone will be waiting for the second coming of Cheezus of Nazareth, the giant, holy, pizza-loving rat.
I do not have a study in front of me, but I do recall some research suggesting short term memory loss after many years of use. Regardless, that does not take into account the poverty, inability to stop eating "Half Baked" Ben and Jerrys, and desire to watch every episode of arrested development in a row that it also causes.
It would not surprise me at all if a leather ball hitting your head point blank at 120 mph did some damage over time. The ball might weigh less, but it is going far faster than a punch or a linebacker.
That is how science works: people testing other people's ideas and results. I don't know about your use of the word ''dissent'', since that implies ideological views, these are the very antithesis of the scientific method
Thank you. I think a huge problem is that we are lumping together too many concepts in one. There are thousands of different claims being debated under the umbrella of climate change currently. By voting straight ticket on either side you are really showing your ignorance. Real scientists are asking more specific questions, since that is the only way science can be done. This kind of mass misunderstanding by the public is seen in genetics all the time. All it does is stir up worthless arguments.
Red herring, red herring, ad hominem. How about both sides get a grip and look at the evidence. Climate Scientists: stop sounding like sadomasochists and trying to make normative claims, which is not the roll of science. Skeptics: stop sounding like the reptilian humanoid conspirisists and use the actual scientific method; instead of anecdotal evidence, why not try falsifying some of the claims made by the "lamestream" scientific community and getting it peer reviewed - per usual, do it and collect your Nobel prize and an infinite supply of "I told ya so"s.
left wing, self important, conceded nut jobs who know practically nothing about the topics on which they comment other than what they hear in their progressive echo chamber.
I do agree except for the claim that slashdot is leftist. It seems to me that it strongly leans libertarian. Slashdotters seem just as likely to bitch about Creationists as they are about nanny states. In fact, even on this topic, it seems split down the middle from a casual assessment of the comments.
Don't bash the scientists, bash to politicians who don't have the guts to do what they should.
OK, what should a politician do in a case where science has not reached a consensus? Going one way or the other is making a scientific judgment. Maybe we need more politicians who did not cheat their way through high school chemistry, so that they can at least make the educated guess required to do their job.
These aren't deniers, these are scientific dissenters.
There primary characteristic is being unscientific or using pseudoscience, so lets just call them "dissenters". "Dissenter" and "Denier" sound close enough to me.
Slashdot Mirror
One of my favorite examples is git -- git doesn't do anything that several other distributed version control systems didn't do first, but git's primary innovation was to do it all hugely faster.
I use git (I actually use hg more, but same points apply, as they are extremely similar), and I love it, but I disagree that speed has anything to do with it. The biggest selling point, by far, is the fact that it is distributed. The second biggest selling point is the existence of Github (or Bitbucket for hg people), which have had a huge impact your average programmers workflow and how code is distributed. The fact that hg and git are faster is cool and all, but I just do not see it affecting that many users. I have worked in environments with 5-10 million lines of code running Visual Source Safe (*barf* not by choice, I swear) and not had any issues with performance.
I am pretty certain you can easily turn off autocorrect.
Business is exactly like Risk. Never trust anyone. Assume that everyone is trying to pull a fast one on you... because they probably are, and that is the entire f***ing point. There are alternative systems not based on the competitive treachery model; none of them are currently ours.
OK, but what if I told you they did? No organized religion runs off of good will and magic, including Buddhism. I have been asked for a donation to a Buddhist organization in my are a couple months ago on the street. I guarantee that nearly every organized Buddhist sect collects donations in one way or another.
It was meant to be tongue in cheek, but at the prices it typically sells for, I would not say that it would not be too much of a stretch. I have known plenty of people that spent 10s of thousands of dollars on it over several years. Combine that with productivity losses and it seems plausible.
I have had diabetes for 10 years now. Sign me up.
This argument is roughly as valid as the "jews killed jesus" argument. Also, Hitler was not an atheist. I do not think that many people at all have actually died from religion. Typically mass killing has a political motivation. Religion (one way or the other) is used as an alibi. Mao and Stalin were atheists, but do you think that they would not have killed anyone if they were not? It is much easier to imagine a different justification than a different action.
Oh wow, religion AND nationalism are bad. Nice insight.
What I am saying is that - by definition - those people are not true Wiccans or Buddhists.
I think we have all heard that one before. The only useful "definition" of a particular religious doctrine is how it practiced in the real world. Let the practitioners bicker over the shouldas, wouldas, and couldas.
I think it depends on the type of church, but being in the south, I can definitely say that its true for the nondenoms and baptists around here. They might not have gold chairs like the catholics, but their sound systems are not far from it. Many of the ones around here have $500k+ sound systems. The big nondenominational in my city is like walking into a damn mall (When you have a sign pointing to the food court or the coffeeshop in your church, something is getting weird). In Atlanta there is one that might as well be an airport terminal. It has and entire self contained Chucky Cheese style play place inside of it. Watch, 2000 years from now everyone will be waiting for the second coming of Cheezus of Nazareth, the giant, holy, pizza-loving rat.
I guess G-d saw the error of his ways and repented.
I do not have a study in front of me, but I do recall some research suggesting short term memory loss after many years of use. Regardless, that does not take into account the poverty, inability to stop eating "Half Baked" Ben and Jerrys, and desire to watch every episode of arrested development in a row that it also causes.
It would not surprise me at all if a leather ball hitting your head point blank at 120 mph did some damage over time. The ball might weigh less, but it is going far faster than a punch or a linebacker.
Stalone got brain damage just from playing a boxer on TV.
But how does that make you feel?
I guess that just means the Prime Directive is working.
Thanks Commander Data. That was very informative.
The scientists used atomic force microscopy, a visualization method with resolution of less than a nanometer, to scan the wounds for blood residue.
I am no expert, but isn't a RBC typically visible under a standard microscope?
We need to clone him, let him grow to an adult, stab him with a spear, and then put the clone back into the ice. Leave no trace!
That is how science works: people testing other people's ideas and results. I don't know about your use of the word ''dissent'', since that implies ideological views, these are the very antithesis of the scientific method
Thank you. I think a huge problem is that we are lumping together too many concepts in one. There are thousands of different claims being debated under the umbrella of climate change currently. By voting straight ticket on either side you are really showing your ignorance. Real scientists are asking more specific questions, since that is the only way science can be done. This kind of mass misunderstanding by the public is seen in genetics all the time. All it does is stir up worthless arguments.
So...problem solved?
Red herring, red herring, ad hominem. How about both sides get a grip and look at the evidence. Climate Scientists: stop sounding like sadomasochists and trying to make normative claims, which is not the roll of science. Skeptics: stop sounding like the reptilian humanoid conspirisists and use the actual scientific method; instead of anecdotal evidence, why not try falsifying some of the claims made by the "lamestream" scientific community and getting it peer reviewed - per usual, do it and collect your Nobel prize and an infinite supply of "I told ya so"s.
left wing, self important, conceded nut jobs who know practically nothing about the topics on which they comment other than what they hear in their progressive echo chamber.
I do agree except for the claim that slashdot is leftist. It seems to me that it strongly leans libertarian. Slashdotters seem just as likely to bitch about Creationists as they are about nanny states. In fact, even on this topic, it seems split down the middle from a casual assessment of the comments.
Don't bash the scientists, bash to politicians who don't have the guts to do what they should.
OK, what should a politician do in a case where science has not reached a consensus? Going one way or the other is making a scientific judgment. Maybe we need more politicians who did not cheat their way through high school chemistry, so that they can at least make the educated guess required to do their job.
These aren't deniers, these are scientific dissenters.
There primary characteristic is being unscientific or using pseudoscience, so lets just call them "dissenters". "Dissenter" and "Denier" sound close enough to me.