i would argue that the average american wants to live, and that the terrorist wants us to die. they could not care less about the state of our civil liberties.
what, you read fahrenheit 451, 1984, brave new world, animal farm, and suddenly you're some sort of expert in the world of politics?
i don't even think you read 1984 if you think the world we live in vaguely resembles that book. you do orwell a disservice to suggest otherwise.
if you want to have a taste of what he was writing of, think of the khemer rouge, the USSR in the 40s-50s, PRC in the 80s, and iraq today. this was what orwell was warning us of. in cambodia, people were killed for wearing glasses - that being a sign of being a member of the intelligentsia. for control of thought and ideology, the USSR and PRC were both world ahead of where we stand in the US. you can still be jailed in China for being a part of the falung gong, loosely classifiable as a religion. the only news you would get is from the state-run media.
you spoiled, spoiled person. of course we need to be vigilante, or people will try to take away our rights for their own power. but to paint a picture where we have close to the situation in 1984 is outright nonsense. 80% of the world doesn't enjoy the rights we do in the US. and if you don't want to end up in an orwellian dystopia, then vote these people out of office. we still live in a democracy, lest you forget.
what, you read fahrenheit 451, 1984, brave new world, animal farm, and suddenly you're some sort of expert in the world of politics?
i don't even think you read 1984 if you think the world we live in vaguely resembles that book. you do orwell a disservice to suggest otherwise.
if you want to have a taste of what he was writing of, think of the khemer rouge, the USSR in the 40s-50s, PRC in the 80s, and iraq today. this was what orwell was warning us of. in cambodia, people were killed for wearing glasses - that being a sign of being a member of the intelligentsia. for control of thought and ideology, the USSR and PRC were both world ahead of where we stand in the US. you can still be jailed in China for being a part of the falung gong, loosely classifiable as a religion. the only news you would get is from the state-run media.
you spoiled, spoiled person. of course we need to be vigilante, or people will try to take away our rights for their own power. but to paint a picture where we have close to the situation in 1984 is outright nonsense. 80% of the world doesn't enjoy the rights we do in the US. and if you don't want to end up in an orwellian dystopia, then vote these people out of office. we still live in a democracy, lest you forget.
anyway, wiles et al actually proved the taniyama-shimura conjecture that all elliptic curves are modular. someone had already noted that fermat's last theorem and the taniyama-shimura conjecture were equivalent.
I'd rather not have the content of entertainment I watch driven by an amorphous blob of 'consumers'. I'd rather have the content driven by my interests or desires, and those of people who want to make a particular type of film or entertainment.
welcome to the real world.... or do you seriously think american pie 2 is driven by artistic vision?
they're in the process of merging. I believe one of the heirs to one of the Hewlett-Packard owners is vigorously opposing it (you'd have to look that up).
95% of movies being produced are utter garbage who's plot couldn't be hurt if you forced the producer at gunpoint to edit in 2 aliens, a flamboyant gay roomate, and a cheerleading squad into the movie after filming was complete... and the other 5% won't sacrifice vision for clarity.
but then again, i've almost completely limited myself to watching independent films for quite a while...
you're right, and in the spirit of science i will admit i was wrong (but semantics games aside, they thought the earth was the center of the universe in a much more concrete way than that:) )
You may notice that in fields where empirical evidence is less certain (evolution, geology) and massive time scales are involved, there is more controversy over new theory. This is because the body of proof needed to overturn existing theory is much more difficult to build. Additionally, Wegener did not seem to have an air-tight claim (from your NASA link): "Scientifically, of course, Wegener's case was not as good as Galileo's, which was based on mathematics. His major problem was finding a force or forces that could make the continents "plow around in the mantle," as one critic put it. Wegener tentatively suggested two candidates: centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the Earth, and tidal-type waves in the Earth itself generated by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon. " You may note that he was wrong on both causes...
Anyway, an exception to the rule doesn't change the overwhelming trend in science to accept ideas on their agreement with experimental evidence.
CLARIFICATION: I have little sympathy for researchers unwilling to work within the scientific process. An idea is the first part of research. Next you devise an experiment, and justify that it will prove your idea correct. Then you perform that experiment as accurately as possible. Then you see how the results from your experiment match your idea. If they don't, then you admit it. Anything else isn't real science.
I see how I misinterpreted the first post - I think I agree with you...
I think it's unfortunate that most people (in general) can't be more objective. However, I think scientists are, for the most part, some of the more objective ones out there...
Galileo was PUT UNDER HOUSE ARREST BY THE _CHURCH_.
And note this: do we believe in a Earth-centric solar system any more? No. Galileo's ideas were accepted, albeit slowly (and not rejected because of empirical science but the ludicrously anthro-centric 'science' imposed by the catholic church)
Some scientific changes in world view.
1. Evolution (darwin, of course)
3. Quantum nature of energy (many, early 20th century)
4. Relative nature of the speed of life. (Mickelson, Morley, Einstein, Grossman...)
5. Goedel's theorem, incompleteness (not empirical, but monstrous revelation at the time)
6. Microbial cause of disease (Pasteur).
i don't believe you. ideas have momentum, but historically, science has gotten more and more accurate at describing the natural world.
many times existing theory has inertia, but if the evidence is strong enough, the more correct hypothesis will subplant the weaker one.
now, if you are going to accuse people who resist new ideas of small mindedness, then you are doing them a great disservice. Skepticism must be on both sides of a scientific dispute. Fawning over and prematurely accepting new theory is just as bad for Good Science as being to stubborn to accept that your idea is wrong.
if you want to dispute this, show me some evidence. Recall that astronomy has gone from a geo-centric world (with heaven in the out spheres)to a helio-centric universe. Newtonian mechanics were replaced by general relativity. the whole history of science shows the same trends.
There are no absolutes in science, only hypotheses. And they are valid only as long as they fit with evidence. Evidence can be flawed, misinterpreted, and outright lied about.
So no, it doesn't bother me. It would bother me if they were too confident.
yeah, swing was a problem, and hashmaps might have been useful:)
visual cafe, forte
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
forte is free (Free too, i believe), but isn't the best. The text editting is cumbersome. but heck, try it out (from Sun... you can find it from java.sun.com), and if you like it, you've saved a buck.
visual cafe will cost you, but is quite good.
honestly, J++ was my favorite (i'm ashamed to admit), but i certainly would recommend it any more:)
metrowerks has one, too, but i wasn't very favorably impressed with my limited usage of it.
do you really think it's mature? have you had deep exposure to physics and math - now those are very mature fields...
i'd say CS is maturing, but not quite there yet (of course, it's maturation process has been immensely accelerated by reliance on some existing theory (mathematical logic was advanced before ENIAC...) and financial incentives.
and having been in biology/genetics in an academic level, they're pretty mature too... just some neat new tools have come around like the DNA sequencers and such.
Slashdot Mirror
i would argue that the average american wants to live, and that the terrorist wants us to die. they could not care less about the state of our civil liberties.
what, you read fahrenheit 451, 1984, brave new world, animal farm, and suddenly you're some sort of expert in the world of politics?
i don't even think you read 1984 if you think the world we live in vaguely resembles that book. you do orwell a disservice to suggest otherwise.
if you want to have a taste of what he was writing of, think of the khemer rouge, the USSR in the 40s-50s, PRC in the 80s, and iraq today. this was what orwell was warning us of. in cambodia, people were killed for wearing glasses - that being a sign of being a member of the intelligentsia. for control of thought and ideology, the USSR and PRC were both world ahead of where we stand in the US. you can still be jailed in China for being a part of the falung gong, loosely classifiable as a religion. the only news you would get is from the state-run media.
you spoiled, spoiled person. of course we need to be vigilante, or people will try to take away our rights for their own power. but to paint a picture where we have close to the situation in 1984 is outright nonsense. 80% of the world doesn't enjoy the rights we do in the US. and if you don't want to end up in an orwellian dystopia, then vote these people out of office. we still live in a democracy, lest you forget.
what, you read fahrenheit 451, 1984, brave new world, animal farm, and suddenly you're some sort of expert in the world of politics?
i don't even think you read 1984 if you think the world we live in vaguely resembles that book. you do orwell a disservice to suggest otherwise.
if you want to have a taste of what he was writing of, think of the khemer rouge, the USSR in the 40s-50s, PRC in the 80s, and iraq today. this was what orwell was warning us of. in cambodia, people were killed for wearing glasses - that being a sign of being a member of the intelligentsia. for control of thought and ideology, the USSR and PRC were both world ahead of where we stand in the US. you can still be jailed in China for being a part of the falung gong, loosely classifiable as a religion. the only news you would get is from the state-run media.
you spoiled, spoiled person. of course we need to be vigilante, or people will try to take away our rights for their own power. but to paint a picture where we have close to the situation in 1984 is outright nonsense. 80% of the world doesn't enjoy the rights we do in the US. and if you don't want to end up in an orwellian dystopia, then vote these people out of office. we still live in a democracy, lest you forget.
oh, what a circus our DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS.
first you remind us of our rights as US citizens, then you mock our democratic process. you are such a hypocrite.
try to remember you medicine.
i feel obligated to correct you:
...
3**2+ 4**2 == 5**2
so -- Andrew Wiles a**n + b**n != c**n for n>2.
anyway, wiles et al actually proved the taniyama-shimura conjecture that all elliptic curves are modular. someone had already noted that fermat's last theorem and the taniyama-shimura conjecture were equivalent.
</anal retentive rant>
I'd rather not have the content of entertainment I watch driven by an amorphous blob of 'consumers'. I'd rather have the content driven by my interests or desires, and those of people who want to make a particular type of film or entertainment.
welcome to the real world.... or do you seriously think american pie 2 is driven by artistic vision?
they're in the process of merging. I believe one of the heirs to one of the Hewlett-Packard owners is vigorously opposing it (you'd have to look that up).
or they would charge you a penny, and give half of that to the site that they were mirroring.
still a pretty awful idea, though.
i loved Pi for how much it entertained me... but i would certainly dispute it's value in a philosophy class.
95% of movies being produced are utter garbage who's plot couldn't be hurt if you forced the producer at gunpoint to edit in 2 aliens, a flamboyant gay roomate, and a cheerleading squad into the movie after filming was complete... and the other 5% won't sacrifice vision for clarity.
but then again, i've almost completely limited myself to watching independent films for quite a while...
spirited discussion is what it's all about - sorry, i could've been clearer.
you're right, and in the spirit of science i will admit i was wrong (but semantics games aside, they thought the earth was the center of the universe in a much more concrete way than that :) )
Overstated. you may have put a pin hole in it.
You may notice that in fields where empirical evidence is less certain (evolution, geology) and massive time scales are involved, there is more controversy over new theory. This is because the body of proof needed to overturn existing theory is much more difficult to build. Additionally, Wegener did not seem to have an air-tight claim (from your NASA link): "Scientifically, of course, Wegener's case was not as good as Galileo's, which was based on mathematics. His major problem was finding a force or forces that could make the continents "plow around in the mantle," as one critic put it. Wegener tentatively suggested two candidates: centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the Earth, and tidal-type waves in the Earth itself generated by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon. " You may note that he was wrong on both causes...
Anyway, an exception to the rule doesn't change the overwhelming trend in science to accept ideas on their agreement with experimental evidence.
CLARIFICATION: I have little sympathy for researchers unwilling to work within the scientific process. An idea is the first part of research. Next you devise an experiment, and justify that it will prove your idea correct. Then you perform that experiment as accurately as possible. Then you see how the results from your experiment match your idea. If they don't, then you admit it. Anything else isn't real science.
I see how I misinterpreted the first post - I think I agree with you...
I think it's unfortunate that most people (in general) can't be more objective. However, I think scientists are, for the most part, some of the more objective ones out there...
Galileo was PUT UNDER HOUSE ARREST BY THE _CHURCH_.
And note this: do we believe in a Earth-centric solar system any more? No. Galileo's ideas were accepted, albeit slowly (and not rejected because of empirical science but the ludicrously anthro-centric 'science' imposed by the catholic church)
Some scientific changes in world view.
1. Evolution (darwin, of course)
3. Quantum nature of energy (many, early 20th century)
4. Relative nature of the speed of life. (Mickelson, Morley, Einstein, Grossman...)
5. Goedel's theorem, incompleteness (not empirical, but monstrous revelation at the time)
6. Microbial cause of disease (Pasteur).
there are so many.
yeah, you know how 'Joe Public' is dying for some fresh news on the high energy particle physics front...
But, it's Friday, damnit, and I want answers!
:)
that is an awesome quote
i don't believe you. ideas have momentum, but historically, science has gotten more and more accurate at describing the natural world.
many times existing theory has inertia, but if the evidence is strong enough, the more correct hypothesis will subplant the weaker one.
now, if you are going to accuse people who resist new ideas of small mindedness, then you are doing them a great disservice. Skepticism must be on both sides of a scientific dispute. Fawning over and prematurely accepting new theory is just as bad for Good Science as being to stubborn to accept that your idea is wrong.
if you want to dispute this, show me some evidence. Recall that astronomy has gone from a geo-centric world (with heaven in the out spheres)to a helio-centric universe. Newtonian mechanics were replaced by general relativity. the whole history of science shows the same trends.
There are no absolutes in science, only hypotheses. And they are valid only as long as they fit with evidence. Evidence can be flawed, misinterpreted, and outright lied about.
So no, it doesn't bother me. It would bother me if they were too confident.
They are 'telling it how it is'
yeah, swing was a problem, and hashmaps might have been useful :)
forte is free (Free too, i believe), but isn't the best. The text editting is cumbersome. but heck, try it out (from Sun... you can find it from java.sun.com), and if you like it, you've saved a buck.
:)
visual cafe will cost you, but is quite good.
honestly, J++ was my favorite (i'm ashamed to admit), but i certainly would recommend it any more
metrowerks has one, too, but i wasn't very favorably impressed with my limited usage of it.
what's 144 petabytes over a cable modem?
(kidding, for all the humor impaired)
Man, I have missed that site... it is (how sweet to use the present tense!) the best reference math site in the world.
Congratulations, Eric!
do you really think it's mature? have you had deep exposure to physics and math - now those are very mature fields...
i'd say CS is maturing, but not quite there yet (of course, it's maturation process has been immensely accelerated by reliance on some existing theory (mathematical logic was advanced before ENIAC...) and financial incentives.
and having been in biology/genetics in an academic level, they're pretty mature too... just some neat new tools have come around like the DNA sequencers and such.
just my opinion, of course.