After OS/2 1.x was released as a joint project between Microsoft and IBM, these two companies began work on two other joint projects. The first of these was to be geared toward workstations and became OS/2 2.x. The second of these was going to be geared toward network servers and eventually became Windows NT 3.0 which is why NT's first release was 3.0.
As the OS/2 2.x API was not stable when work began on NT, there was no good way for Microsoft to include OS/2 2.x support during original development. By the time IBM actually released OS/2 2.x, Microsoft and IBM had already went their seperate ways so there was no business reason for Microsoft to include compatability with a competing operating system.
I bought my first computer in 1993. It was a 486DX2-66. The sales guy talked me down from a 486DX4-100. The DX2-66 ran me well over 2.3k without a soundcard.
Not to mention that the Pentium was already available in 1993. The 486-DX33 was certainly not a high end machine at the time.
Precisely where in US federal law is the act of settling out of court in such a fashion that the defendant buys the plaintiff made illegal?
If there were such a law, the many complaints made against Microsoft (Borland and Corel are two that come to mind) would not have ended in sealed settlements that included Microsoft investment in the plaintiffs to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
I don't know which publication the numbers in the article are based on, but the US Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted last year that Computer Programming positions would increase 16% (about the same rate that they predict the economy in general is expected to grow) and Software Engineering positions will increase by 95%.
A computer programmer per the BLS, will:
Convert project specifications and statements of problems and procedures to detailed logical flow charts for coding into computer language. Develop and write computer programs to store, locate, and retrieve specific documents, data, and information. May program web sites.
A software engineer for applications per the BLS, will:
Develop, create, and modify general computer applications software or specialized utility programs. Analyze user needs and develop software solutions. Design software or customize software for client use with the aim of optimizing operational efficiency. May analyze and design databases within an application area, working individually or coordinating database development as part of a team. Exclude "Computer Hardware Engineers" (17-2061).
And a software engineer for systems will:
Research, design, develop, and test operating systems-level software, compilers, and network distribution software for medical, industrial, military, communications, aerospace, business, scientific, and general computing applications. Set operational specifications and formulate and analyze software requirements. Apply principles and techniques of computer science, engineering, and mathematical analysis.
The BLS also mentions that a job as a software engineer is only likely with at least a bachelor's degree in a related discipline.
Give me a finance system backed by a real relational database, and not by some funny-formatted file. Some of the reporting problems would almost solve themselves that way.
GnuCash allows the use of PostgreSQL for a back end instead of their xml file format.
Re:Who needs a "Palm" device of ANY kind?
on
Palm PDA Roundup
·
· Score: 1
A PDA is better for me than option (a) because (1) I type far, far faster than I can write; (2) I write almost illegibly; and (3) I can't copy and paste from paper and pen to the paper I'm writing in LaTeX. I use my PDA (with a Targus Stowaway keyboard) to take notes and write papers. This combination works better than option (b) because (1) it is far, far less expensive; (2) has far, far better battery life; (3) transfers files with my desktop far, far more seemlessly; (4) is far, far more intuitive to use; and (5) is far, far more portable.
Did you notice that the most recent of those was datestamped in the year 2000? Julian Taylor may very well have worked for Sun in the past and yet not currently be employed by Sun.
SQL servers, good ones, do table indexing and cacheing enableing lightning fast lookups even when there are hundreds of thousands of people accessing database (assumeing a fast enough server).
Presumably the DNS software could also index and cache the data enabling lighting fast lookups even when there are hundreds of thousands of people accessing the database.
Which way do you think Mother board manufacturers will want? I'm guessing the cheap route, Software.
Some will. Some won't. I'd imagine that one day only machines where TPM functionality is turned on via hardware (the jumper option) will be trusted for certain applications, especially applications involving security.
So you can turn Off tcpa, then the OS could turn it back on 'for' you
True. But how is this different in kind from the current status quo? There is already good reason not to trust many software packages (spyware, worms, trojans).
And we also need to imagine the flip side. Imagine software that turns your TPM off for you. Wouldn't that rain on more than a few parades.
Plus, tt would seem to me that verifying TPM state will be a future feature of security software.
But that doesn't matter, because a company with a history of abuses in the market place, and a convicted monopoly, won't have an issue with popping up a message telling the user to enable tcpa, or there OS won't run. Probably After its been installed for a month for 'convience' sake.
Regrettably, this is a real possibility. It seems to me that it would also be the basis of a new round of lawsuits. I would think that it would also push people to migrate to a new OS.
So naturally, you believe that if I send the gas company a check with the comment filled in: "unlimited lifetime supply, payment in full, presentation of this blah blah, blah, acceptance blah blah", and they cash it, they are legally bound to give me free gas for the rest of my life?
Unless I'm mistaken, writing in the comment section won't do anything for you. On the other hand I have read many news articles that stated if you write on the back of the check verbiage to the effect of "by endorsing this check, GasX agrees to supply..." then it will be a legal and binding contract.
Is this not what happens when long distance companies send out checks that when cashed give them permission to switch your long distance provider? Another example is restrictive endorsement verbiage.
The anabaptists are not a particularly ancient form of Christianity. At best they predate the Reformation by several hundred years. Go back further. Read the history of the Churches of the first millenium.
It's a shame you don't have time to reply. Your response is basically that I'm wrong, but you don't supply any reasons that I'm wrong. If you can find a passage of scripture that says in context anything close to "only those doctrines found in the Bible are true" than I'm all ears. But you'll also have to explain the passages where oral tradition is held up as a valid means of passing along doctrines.
You can read John Whitford's essay Sola Scriptura if you have the time.
You can't discount a person (who tends to defy strict categorization) from a category just because they don't strictly fit.
That's not what the true Scotsman fallacy is about. The true Scotsman fallacy is about making a tautological generalization and then arguing by tautology that counter examples don't belong in the set.
It's a form of question begging. It isn't really a logical fallacy. (Tautologies are not, after all, logically unsound.) However, it isn't cogent to anyone that doesn't accept your tautology to begin with.
You are confusing irrationality with provisional assent.
No, I do not.
Scientitst do not give credence to the process of science and the collected results of that process because they are irrational; they give credence to science because it works.
To believe that "because it works" is a good reason to believe in science is irrational because there is no rational basis to believe that "because it works" is a good reason to believe something. There is no rational reason to believe the correlation implies causation. We can use this supposition as the basis of science, but that we cannot rationally demonstrate its truth.
You cannot refute my assertion, becuase in responding to my post, you demonstrate that science can be applied to produce technologies that objectively work.
This is neither here nor there. In fact it only begs the question.
Science is the application of human reason to the principle of universal conformity and the law of non-contradiction. Mathematics and logic, for example, are not instances of science.
Science isn't anti-religion, but religion is anti-science. There's no rule about science that says it can't be used to determine religious truth, but there is usually a rule in religion that you can't use science.
This is not true on three levels.
First, science is often anti-religious. Just read some of the other comments in this thread.
Second, religion is often not anti-religious. Comparatively speaking, there are few religious movements that are genuinely anti-science.
Third, science and religion can co-exist quite nicely. The Averoist mentality that religion and science must be compartmentalized is a relatively recent phenomenon and dates to the late medeival period.
You aren't supposed to examine religion closely, it requires faith, which from a religious person basically boils down to not peeking behind the curtain to see how things run, or even trying to find out without peeking.
Bulldookey. Certainly there are religions like that, but that mentality is not a necessary part of religion. I would advise you to read up on the history of various religions. Events such as the multiple sackings of the library of Alexandria (once by Pagans, once by Christians, once by Muslims) are relatively rare. Far more frequent is the embrace of science by religion. Science is, after all, only a formal methodology.
Try reading Summae Theologica by Thomas Aquinas or An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by Saint John of Damascus or some of the works by Spinoza or Pascal or Mamionides. Various religious traditions are ripe full of the application of science to religion.
Proposition SS: the theological doctrine that only those theological doctrines that are found within Bible are true.
SS is true. (Assertion.)
SS is a theological doctrine. (Axiomatic from definition of SS.)
SS is found within the Bible (From 1 and 2.)
SS is not found within the Bible. (Observation.)
SS is both true and not true. (From 3 and 4.)
The Bible teaches many doctrines about the notion of "scripture." None of these are the doctrine that only those doctrines found in the Bible are true. In fact, some passages in the Bible teach that some theological doctrines passed through oral transmission or non-extant letters are true.
It is perhaps illustrative that no extent forms of Christianity that significantly predate the Reformation (Roman Catholocism, Nestorianism, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syrian Jacobites, the Egyptian and Ethiopian Coptic Churches, the Indian Mankala Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, etc.) hold to Sola Scriptura.
Have you seen John Whiteford's essay on the subject?
However, in our age of science, people should know better. They should know to question everything - and certainly not to base their entire way of life on a highly dubious premise!
Why should they know to question everything? It is not rational to question something without having some grounds for disbelief?
Religion causes a lot of pain.
Irrelevant. Science also causes a lot of pain. Arguably, science has caused far more pain than religion ever has. How much damage would the Hitlers and Stalins of the world been able to do without science?
Not to mention that religion and science also both have much to commend them.
Unfortunately, few schools teach the skill of questioning everything - and it tends to become atrophyed in both the apolitical (who don't bother to question) and the highly politicised (who tend to have a blind spot where the beliefs of "their own side" are concerned - I know I do).
I see no application for the true Scotsman fallacy to our discussion. You made a generalization. I called you on it. You said my criticism didn't matter. I see no "he is not a true Scott" in any of the discussion.
I wrote:
The principles of the law of universal conformity and of the law of noncontradiction have no possible proof.
To which you responded:
Neither does anything else.
As a believer in logic, I categorically reject the notion that nothing can be proved. Aside from axioms and a few other special types of assertions (such as unfalsifiable statements such as "unicorns do not exist") very few things are improvable.
When I said proved, I meant that it should satisfy all skeptics.
An absurd meaning of the word, even in a discussion on skepticism.;)
I didn't mean in the sense that a notion could be declared absoultely true. No knowlege has that status, as you appear to know.
Actually, I don't know that. I am of the opinion that only some things are not able to be absolutely known.
Though, it seems to me that we most likely have vastly different understandings of what it means to "know" something. Not surprising as there is no one well accepted theory of epistemology.
All definitions are romantic then, since humans don't fit neatly into the categories defined.
This does not counter my point at all, which was that you provided a sweeping generality that was false. Somehow I doubt that you would let me off the hook with an equally sweeping generalization of theists. I could be wrong on that point.
and the foundations [of the skeptical worldview] have been proven.
They most certainly have not. The principles of the law of universal conformity and of the law of noncontradiction have no possible proof. If you have a valid proof of either of these, you have something that has not yet been found by thousands of years of working on the problem by the best minds in the field of epistemology.
Science is based on skepticism, and if you compare the progress in scientific knowlege compared to the progress from other methods (revelation, prophesy, astrology, tea-leaf reading, random guessing, etc.) it's quite clear that skepticism has proven to be very successful.
First, science is not of necessity based on skepticism. Science was widespread far before skepticism was widespread. Rather you should state that science and skepticism share some of the same axioms. That much I agree to.
Second, it is not obvious that skepticism has resulted in any scientific progress at all. I think you confuse skepticism with rationality. The two are most decidedly not the same.
To deny the success of the skeptical worldview is to deny all the many inventions and ideas that we have at our disposal today.
Aside from the confusion over rationality and skepticism, either can still offer genuine insight and not be the only source of knowledge.
Intentional not, your former post does imply to me a religion/rationality dichotomy. I'll take your word that it was not intentional. Perhaps it is a latent presupposition. Perhaps, I merely misunderstood.
Which religions do you think are build on rigorous analysis, out of curiosity?
Religious systems with coherent epistemological analysis
Some forms of Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism. Read Shunryi Suzuki.
Some forms of Judaism, especially medievel era Kabalism. Read Mamionides Ben Moses.
Ancient forms of Christianity. Read Saint John of Damascus and Thomas Aquinas.
Some forms of Islam, especially Sufiism.
Pythagoreanism.
Many forms of Platonism and neo-platonism. (Read Spinoza.)
Some forms of atheism.
Technically, you can't just empirically debunk a religion, since most of the foundations of a religion are based on matters that are generally accepted as beyond the reach of empirical methods.
Do you consider both rational and historical inquiry to be outside the realm of empiricism? (I consider the form to be so, but not the latter.)Many religious systems are internally incoherent (such as forms of Christianity that are based on the notion of Sola Scriptura) and as such refute themselves. Many religious systems can be demonstrated to be frauds through historical analysis.
I wrote:
Except the very principles of science dictate that this cannot be the case. Scientific inquiry is built on the twin axioms of the law of universal conformity and the law of non-contradiction. Science offers no reason to believe that either of these can be the case, nor can it. The difference between accepting only these axioms and accepting the axioms of some of the more coherent religious movements is only one of extent.
To which you replied:
This is true, but this is where I switch into pragmatic concerns and go with what has been working best for me. You no like-ah dee science? That's-ah fine with me. Just don't expect me to find much to talk about with you.
I fear you have missed my point: that the scientific method differs from other systems of belief only in extent, not in kind. As the scientific method is based on irrationalities, if we accept science as being valid then we have to accept that knowledge can have an irrational basis. Which leads to the next point.
Regardless, the flexible changing of the model, dropping old ideas in favor of more correct and new ones, is in keeping with universal conformity and non-contradiction. The model was wrong given the information at hand, so something in the model was fixed. The two "laws" of which you speak are not regulations against this.
I agree. But my point was that these axioms necessarily transcend science. There is no way to prove that they are true by using the scientific method. If we trust in them, it is due to irrationality.
A skeptic is one who accepts no statment without reason (evidence, backing, logic) to support it. The skeptic never needs to disprove anything, because the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Once the claim is demonstrated or proven to the skeptics' satisfaction, then the skeptic has no choice to accept it.
That is a rather romantic depiction of a skeptic. However, as skeptics tend to be humans they tend not to live up to that idealized depiction.
Not to mention that the skeptic bears as much onus to prove the foundations of the skeptical worldview as a constituent of any other belief system has for his or hers. Unfortunately for the consistent skeptic, many of the axioms of the skeptical worldview are improvable.
It is rigorous analysis and philosophy, not religion or spirituality, that is the real tool for generating understanding here. Religion and spirituality are, by comparison, random speculation and arm-waving.
The analysis-philosophy/religion-spirituality dichotomy is a false one. Your hidden premis is that no "religious" system can be founded on proper analysis or philosophy. To my observations, there are several religious systems for which this hidden premis is incorrect.
It's an attitude you would do well to work on, because if the history of science is any indication, a whole bunch of the stuff you believe in is wrong.
I'm not certain where this comes from. To my knowledge there is no scientific discovery that has debunked any major world religion. If you are referring to the Christian fundamentalist movement which believes in a 5,000 year old earth, be aware that they are a very small minority of Christians. (Albeit very numerous in North America.)
That's the whole point of science- things indicated by experiment are right until they're indicated by further experiment and analysis to not be. Science is self-correcting in this way, and every idea is really a tentative one, waiting for a better idea to unseat it. Strongly believing in the veracity of that which is indicated makes sense, though. Just because what you agree with today can be overturned tomorrow doesn't mean that belief isn't useful today. You just have to be willing to toss it aside with something better comes along. Most scientists do that.
Except the very principles of science dictate that this cannot be the case. Scientific inquiry is built on the twin axioms of the law of universal conformity and the law of non-contradiction. Science offers no reason to believe that either of these can be the case, nor can it. The difference between accepting only these axioms and accepting the axioms of some of the more coherent religious movements is only one of extent.
Slashdot Mirror
As the OS/2 2.x API was not stable when work began on NT, there was no good way for Microsoft to include OS/2 2.x support during original development. By the time IBM actually released OS/2 2.x, Microsoft and IBM had already went their seperate ways so there was no business reason for Microsoft to include compatability with a competing operating system.
Not to mention that the Pentium was already available in 1993. The 486-DX33 was certainly not a high end machine at the time.
If there were such a law, the many complaints made against Microsoft (Borland and Corel are two that come to mind) would not have ended in sealed settlements that included Microsoft investment in the plaintiffs to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
And 50K/year is diddly squat in silicon valley.
The variety of aged geek toys at Hamvention is second to none.
A computer programmer per the BLS, will:
A software engineer for applications per the BLS, will:
And a software engineer for systems will:
The BLS also mentions that a job as a software engineer is only likely with at least a bachelor's degree in a related discipline.
(2) Your accounts are set up wrong.
Let's just say it works for me, I get deeper into the red every month.
A PDA is better for me than option (a) because (1) I type far, far faster than I can write; (2) I write almost illegibly; and (3) I can't copy and paste from paper and pen to the paper I'm writing in LaTeX. I use my PDA (with a Targus Stowaway keyboard) to take notes and write papers. This combination works better than option (b) because (1) it is far, far less expensive; (2) has far, far better battery life; (3) transfers files with my desktop far, far more seemlessly; (4) is far, far more intuitive to use; and (5) is far, far more portable.
Did you notice that the most recent of those was datestamped in the year 2000? Julian Taylor may very well have worked for Sun in the past and yet not currently be employed by Sun.
And we also need to imagine the flip side. Imagine software that turns your TPM off for you. Wouldn't that rain on more than a few parades.
Plus, tt would seem to me that verifying TPM state will be a future feature of security software.
Regrettably, this is a real possibility. It seems to me that it would also be the basis of a new round of lawsuits. I would think that it would also push people to migrate to a new OS.Is this not what happens when long distance companies send out checks that when cashed give them permission to switch your long distance provider? Another example is restrictive endorsement verbiage.
It's a shame you don't have time to reply. Your response is basically that I'm wrong, but you don't supply any reasons that I'm wrong. If you can find a passage of scripture that says in context anything close to "only those doctrines found in the Bible are true" than I'm all ears. But you'll also have to explain the passages where oral tradition is held up as a valid means of passing along doctrines.
You can read John Whitford's essay Sola Scriptura if you have the time.
Regards,
-l
It's a form of question begging. It isn't really a logical fallacy. (Tautologies are not, after all, logically unsound.) However, it isn't cogent to anyone that doesn't accept your tautology to begin with.
So, yeah, clear as mud.
No, I do not.
To believe that "because it works" is a good reason to believe in science is irrational because there is no rational basis to believe that "because it works" is a good reason to believe something. There is no rational reason to believe the correlation implies causation. We can use this supposition as the basis of science, but that we cannot rationally demonstrate its truth.
This is neither here nor there. In fact it only begs the question.
Science is the application of human reason to the principle of universal conformity and the law of non-contradiction. Mathematics and logic, for example, are not instances of science.
This is not true on three levels.
First, science is often anti-religious. Just read some of the other comments in this thread.
Second, religion is often not anti-religious. Comparatively speaking, there are few religious movements that are genuinely anti-science.
Third, science and religion can co-exist quite nicely. The Averoist mentality that religion and science must be compartmentalized is a relatively recent phenomenon and dates to the late medeival period.
Bulldookey. Certainly there are religions like that, but that mentality is not a necessary part of religion. I would advise you to read up on the history of various religions. Events such as the multiple sackings of the library of Alexandria (once by Pagans, once by Christians, once by Muslims) are relatively rare. Far more frequent is the embrace of science by religion. Science is, after all, only a formal methodology.
Try reading Summae Theologica by Thomas Aquinas or An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by Saint John of Damascus or some of the works by Spinoza or Pascal or Mamionides. Various religious traditions are ripe full of the application of science to religion.
The Bible teaches many doctrines about the notion of "scripture." None of these are the doctrine that only those doctrines found in the Bible are true. In fact, some passages in the Bible teach that some theological doctrines passed through oral transmission or non-extant letters are true.
It is perhaps illustrative that no extent forms of Christianity that significantly predate the Reformation (Roman Catholocism, Nestorianism, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syrian Jacobites, the Egyptian and Ethiopian Coptic Churches, the Indian Mankala Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, etc.) hold to Sola Scriptura.
Have you seen John Whiteford's essay on the subject?
Why should they know to question everything? It is not rational to question something without having some grounds for disbelief?
Irrelevant. Science also causes a lot of pain. Arguably, science has caused far more pain than religion ever has. How much damage would the Hitlers and Stalins of the world been able to do without science?
Not to mention that religion and science also both have much to commend them.
I agree with you on this last paragraph.
I see no application for the true Scotsman fallacy to our discussion. You made a generalization. I called you on it. You said my criticism didn't matter. I see no "he is not a true Scott" in any of the discussion.
I wrote:
To which you responded:
As a believer in logic, I categorically reject the notion that nothing can be proved. Aside from axioms and a few other special types of assertions (such as unfalsifiable statements such as "unicorns do not exist") very few things are improvable.
An absurd meaning of the word, even in a discussion on skepticism.
Actually, I don't know that. I am of the opinion that only some things are not able to be absolutely known.
Though, it seems to me that we most likely have vastly different understandings of what it means to "know" something. Not surprising as there is no one well accepted theory of epistemology.
This does not counter my point at all, which was that you provided a sweeping generality that was false. Somehow I doubt that you would let me off the hook with an equally sweeping generalization of theists. I could be wrong on that point.
They most certainly have not. The principles of the law of universal conformity and of the law of noncontradiction have no possible proof. If you have a valid proof of either of these, you have something that has not yet been found by thousands of years of working on the problem by the best minds in the field of epistemology.
First, science is not of necessity based on skepticism. Science was widespread far before skepticism was widespread. Rather you should state that science and skepticism share some of the same axioms. That much I agree to.
Second, it is not obvious that skepticism has resulted in any scientific progress at all. I think you confuse skepticism with rationality. The two are most decidedly not the same.
Aside from the confusion over rationality and skepticism, either can still offer genuine insight and not be the only source of knowledge.
Do you consider both rational and historical inquiry to be outside the realm of empiricism? (I consider the form to be so, but not the latter.)Many religious systems are internally incoherent (such as forms of Christianity that are based on the notion of Sola Scriptura) and as such refute themselves. Many religious systems can be demonstrated to be frauds through historical analysis.
I wrote:
To which you replied:
I fear you have missed my point: that the scientific method differs from other systems of belief only in extent, not in kind. As the scientific method is based on irrationalities, if we accept science as being valid then we have to accept that knowledge can have an irrational basis. Which leads to the next point.
I agree. But my point was that these axioms necessarily transcend science. There is no way to prove that they are true by using the scientific method. If we trust in them, it is due to irrationality.
(Not that irrationality is always a bad thing.)
That is a rather romantic depiction of a skeptic. However, as skeptics tend to be humans they tend not to live up to that idealized depiction.
Not to mention that the skeptic bears as much onus to prove the foundations of the skeptical worldview as a constituent of any other belief system has for his or hers. Unfortunately for the consistent skeptic, many of the axioms of the skeptical worldview are improvable.
The majority of scientists follow Feynman no more than most Christians follow Mother Theresa.
The analysis-philosophy/religion-spirituality dichotomy is a false one. Your hidden premis is that no "religious" system can be founded on proper analysis or philosophy. To my observations, there are several religious systems for which this hidden premis is incorrect.
I'm not certain where this comes from. To my knowledge there is no scientific discovery that has debunked any major world religion. If you are referring to the Christian fundamentalist movement which believes in a 5,000 year old earth, be aware that they are a very small minority of Christians. (Albeit very numerous in North America.)
Except the very principles of science dictate that this cannot be the case. Scientific inquiry is built on the twin axioms of the law of universal conformity and the law of non-contradiction. Science offers no reason to believe that either of these can be the case, nor can it. The difference between accepting only these axioms and accepting the axioms of some of the more coherent religious movements is only one of extent.