Maybe should they should redefine "theory" from "educated guess" to "presumptive truth?"
Because "presumptive truth" just as wrong as "guess" -- a theory in the scientific sense is a predictive model. From that model, predictions can be made (hypotheses) that can be supported or not supported by the data.
A theory can be completely and totally wrong (in that the predictions it makes are not supported by the data) and still be a theory in the scientific sense.
Further, the process of science can not, by its very nature, lead to truth. To call a scientific theory a "presumptive truth" goes against the very philosophical and metaphysical principles which are the very foundation of the scientific enterprise. It's as anti-science a statement as you could make.
I wish they would stop meddling with proven science and trying to cloud out the classroom with questionable information.
There's no such thing as "proven science". Further, all of science is by definition questionable. It wouldn't be science otherwise!
See, science is not a process that leads us iteratively toward "the truth"; it can't make such a declaration and still be science. (If this is difficult for you to understand, consider the possibility of two theories that explain some known data equally well.)
Primary and secondary education should focus on established science, that much is not in question, but we shouldn't confuse the process of science by calling what is presently accepted as "truth" or "fact" -- that would be a horrible disservice to the students and the the scientific enterprise as a whole.
Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory.
Don't be stupid, of course it's a theory! That's the best Science can offer. The instant you call your model a fact or a truth you've officially stopped doing science.
That said, evolution is a wildly successful theory that I doubt will ever topple. Still, that doesn't change the fact that it's a theory!
I blame the ACA (especially Matt Dillahunty) for all the confusion about what is and is not a theory in the scientific sense. Here's my "bumper sticker" explanation: A theory is a predictive model. A hypothesis is a testable prediction.
I can't make it simpler than that . From that explanation, you can easily see that a theory can be totally wrong (the hypotheses it generates can all fail) and still be a scientific theory. (A theory doesn't start out as a hypothesis and later 'graduate' to theory once it's been 'well recieved and peer reviewed' like Dillahunty would have you believe. They're two totally different things, with theory preceding hypothesis.) Why this is so difficult for people, I'll never know.
Yes, people sell them, and they do comment a higher than average resale value. I'm saying that the vast majority of users don't sell their unwanted Apple brand devices. A quick check on ebay doesn't seem to yield millions upon millions of used Apple products!
if it becomes too hard and too expensive to fix issues, then consumers are going to start demanding lower prices or Apple can watch its precious resell brand value evaporate.
Apple doesn't care about resell brand value as most people don't resell their old Apple products. Apple also continues to sell the previous generation of products, which means the used market directly competes with their current offerings.
Even if the majority of their users resold their old hardware, and made their purchasing decisions based on that future resale value, all Apple cares about is the perception that their products have a high resale value.
Remember that old meme "Apple computers are the best for graphics"? How long was that actual true? Was it every really true?
What about other Apple memes like "Apple products are the easiest to use" (never true, as far as I can tell) or "Apple products have the highest quality" (also never true).
Apple doesn't give two-shits about what is true -- all they care about is public perception.
It is not clear from the sentence that parent believes that micro USB is a standard.
It's sensible to assume that the parent means that we should by products that use micro USB for charging only because micro USB is well known to this audience as being a standard.
Before you continue to bully that hapless Anonymous Coward, perhaps you should read the sentence in question again.
When you get right down to it, we're playing pretend.
Wow. That's the most concise and objective self-assessment I've ever seen. Bravo.
I'm not a game player myself, but I've always thought that story-telling games deserved a bit more respect than they've had in the past. While I agree that the social stigma isn't going to be reduced as a result of a YouTube show, I sincerely hope that it encourages new developments and innovations in the form. I would really like to see a few "casual" type story-telling games designed for a general audience.
Look at the MP3 players before the iPod came out. They largely all sucked. They had capacities which were measured in MBs, they sounded horrible, and they were difficult to load up and use.
i have a lot of apple products at home, but what innovation?
I haven't puzzled that one out yet either.
nice laptops, check. they have been around for years
If you didn't mind using an obscure OS with few apps than a WebOS smartphone:)
MP3 player? did it better than others
Except for all the other, better, products on the market at the time. See Taco's infamous description from a zillion years ago. That, and the need-to-have-or-no-one-will-know-how-cool-you-are white ear-buds were total garbage. Really, they were awful.
smart phone, apple just made it better
Unless you wanted or needed to do things like copy/paste or multitask (like the standard BB at the time) or send MMS like just about every dumbphone of the time, or didn't need to type much, or or or... The only thing it did really well was web browsing -- nice, but for PIM, messaging, and voice, it was total shit (terrible battery life in that first version as well). You couldn't even install apps on it like just about every other phone, smart or dumb. I'm really struggling to see how they "made it better". All things considered, it hardly qualified as a smartphone and feature-wise was second-rate compared to the average dumbphone.
tablet, apple made it better as well.
This is highly debatable, as we've seen in countless discussions elsewhere. If you want to see innovation in the tablet and smartphone market, take a look at WebOS and RIMs tablet -- both are way ahead of the curve in terms of UI.
TV? rumor is apple is going to make it better later this year
Better how? Apple is going to make a product, sure. But the Apple logo doesn't make it automatically better than existing products.
Most of what you want involves a stylus. As you know, capacitive touch screens are abysmal for pen input (writing, drawing, highlighting, etc.)
You might actually be happier with a cheap knock-off tablet with a resistive touch screen or something like the Galaxy Note that uses a Wacom digitizer.
It shipped with email though BlackBerry Bridge. If you wanted a stand-alone client, you could download one from App World from the very first day.
but not being able to figure out how to implement email in your own product is just straight-up insane.
Yeah, it would be crazy if it was true, which, of course, it's not. The PlayBook had email from day one.
Really, this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Is Apple "completely dead in the water" because they "couldn't figure out" copy/paste or MMS for a year after the iPhone was released?
But do any tablets offer network-based administrative control?
This comes as no surprise, but RIM offers enterprise tools for managing BlackBerry Playbook tablet computers and other brand handsets with BlackBerry Mobile Fusion.
Replace "iPhone" with "phone" or "mobile" or "smartphone" and absolutely nothing relevant changes.
That's it, though, isn't it? The story doesn't even involve Apple or its products save that it incidentally happened to be the brand of the specific stolen overpriced electronic toy. Hell, no iPad's were involved at all, and yet this click-bait summary managed to work them in anyhow all while mentioning that you can get one for less than the well-publicized $499!
When I clicked the check box to disable advertising I didn't expect the ads to reappear as articles. This is getting ridiculous.
"60 ns faster than the speed of light" is meaningless. "The neutrinos arrived 60ns sooner than they would have if they were travelling at c" isn't, as long as somewhere you could find out how far they went and then back out the speed they were going.
Yeah, the rest of us figured that out a long time ago -- you know, because we know how to communicate with each other and interpret what other people are saying.
Thanks for being needlessly pedantic about it though.
the one working in python will literally run circles around the guy working in C/C++
You should fire that python guy. Not only is he being unproductive, it's very disruptive and will likely really hurt the productivity of your other staff members.
Oh, and the c/c++ thing makes you look like an idiot... Wait... are you the guy running around that other developer?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You seem to be under the false impression that OOP makes development easier/faster/less error prone. Abstraction should offer at least some benefits, you know. All OOP has done is add unnecessary complexity, increase development time and costs, all while adding performance-killing overhead -- that's the opposite of what you want from abstraction.
Carrying a laptop and signature tablet is more cumbersome than the iPad.
That may be true, but unless your iPad has a resistive touchscreen, you're going to find that capturing signatures is an exercise in futility.
Capacitive touch screens are terrible for writing. They're horribly imprecise -- and, no, those fat-finger styluses don't magically give you more precision.
I expect that a proper business-oriented tablet will use a resistive touch-screen, hybrid resistive/capacitive (See RIM's patent), or some other technology that improves precision significantly over the current popular offering.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe should they should redefine "theory" from "educated guess" to "presumptive truth?"
Because "presumptive truth" just as wrong as "guess" -- a theory in the scientific sense is a predictive model. From that model, predictions can be made (hypotheses) that can be supported or not supported by the data.
A theory can be completely and totally wrong (in that the predictions it makes are not supported by the data) and still be a theory in the scientific sense.
Further, the process of science can not, by its very nature, lead to truth. To call a scientific theory a "presumptive truth" goes against the very philosophical and metaphysical principles which are the very foundation of the scientific enterprise. It's as anti-science a statement as you could make.
I wish they would stop meddling with proven science and trying to cloud out the classroom with questionable information.
There's no such thing as "proven science". Further, all of science is by definition questionable. It wouldn't be science otherwise!
See, science is not a process that leads us iteratively toward "the truth"; it can't make such a declaration and still be science. (If this is difficult for you to understand, consider the possibility of two theories that explain some known data equally well.)
Primary and secondary education should focus on established science, that much is not in question, but we shouldn't confuse the process of science by calling what is presently accepted as "truth" or "fact" -- that would be a horrible disservice to the students and the the scientific enterprise as a whole.
Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory.
Don't be stupid, of course it's a theory! That's the best Science can offer. The instant you call your model a fact or a truth you've officially stopped doing science.
That said, evolution is a wildly successful theory that I doubt will ever topple. Still, that doesn't change the fact that it's a theory!
I blame the ACA (especially Matt Dillahunty) for all the confusion about what is and is not a theory in the scientific sense. Here's my "bumper sticker" explanation: A theory is a predictive model. A hypothesis is a testable prediction.
I can't make it simpler than that . From that explanation, you can easily see that a theory can be totally wrong (the hypotheses it generates can all fail) and still be a scientific theory. (A theory doesn't start out as a hypothesis and later 'graduate' to theory once it's been 'well recieved and peer reviewed' like Dillahunty would have you believe. They're two totally different things, with theory preceding hypothesis.) Why this is so difficult for people, I'll never know.
Yes, people sell them, and they do comment a higher than average resale value. I'm saying that the vast majority of users don't sell their unwanted Apple brand devices. A quick check on ebay doesn't seem to yield millions upon millions of used Apple products!
if it becomes too hard and too expensive to fix issues, then consumers are going to start demanding lower prices or Apple can watch its precious resell brand value evaporate.
Apple doesn't care about resell brand value as most people don't resell their old Apple products. Apple also continues to sell the previous generation of products, which means the used market directly competes with their current offerings.
Even if the majority of their users resold their old hardware, and made their purchasing decisions based on that future resale value, all Apple cares about is the perception that their products have a high resale value.
Remember that old meme "Apple computers are the best for graphics"? How long was that actual true? Was it every really true?
What about other Apple memes like "Apple products are the easiest to use" (never true, as far as I can tell) or "Apple products have the highest quality" (also never true).
Apple doesn't give two-shits about what is true -- all they care about is public perception.
You may want to read up on how a comma is used
So should you.
It is not clear from the sentence that parent believes that micro USB is a standard.
It's sensible to assume that the parent means that we should by products that use micro USB for charging only because micro USB is well known to this audience as being a standard.
Before you continue to bully that hapless Anonymous Coward, perhaps you should read the sentence in question again.
How many do you honestly think are going in the landfill?
Most of them. How many former iPad and iPhone owners do you think actually sell their old device when they no longer have a need for it?
When you get right down to it, we're playing pretend.
Wow. That's the most concise and objective self-assessment I've ever seen. Bravo.
I'm not a game player myself, but I've always thought that story-telling games deserved a bit more respect than they've had in the past. While I agree that the social stigma isn't going to be reduced as a result of a YouTube show, I sincerely hope that it encourages new developments and innovations in the form. I would really like to see a few "casual" type story-telling games designed for a general audience.
Look at the MP3 players before the iPod came out. They largely all sucked. They had capacities which were measured in MBs, they sounded horrible, and they were difficult to load up and use.
You fail history forever.
i have a lot of apple products at home, but what innovation?
I haven't puzzled that one out yet either.
nice laptops, check. they have been around for years
If you didn't mind using an obscure OS with few apps than a WebOS smartphone :)
MP3 player? did it better than others
Except for all the other, better, products on the market at the time. See Taco's infamous description from a zillion years ago. That, and the need-to-have-or-no-one-will-know-how-cool-you-are white ear-buds were total garbage. Really, they were awful.
smart phone, apple just made it better
Unless you wanted or needed to do things like copy/paste or multitask (like the standard BB at the time) or send MMS like just about every dumbphone of the time, or didn't need to type much, or or or ... The only thing it did really well was web browsing -- nice, but for PIM, messaging, and voice, it was total shit (terrible battery life in that first version as well). You couldn't even install apps on it like just about every other phone, smart or dumb. I'm really struggling to see how they "made it better". All things considered, it hardly qualified as a smartphone and feature-wise was second-rate compared to the average dumbphone.
tablet, apple made it better as well.
This is highly debatable, as we've seen in countless discussions elsewhere. If you want to see innovation in the tablet and smartphone market, take a look at WebOS and RIMs tablet -- both are way ahead of the curve in terms of UI.
TV? rumor is apple is going to make it better later this year
Better how? Apple is going to make a product, sure. But the Apple logo doesn't make it automatically better than existing products.
Most of what you want involves a stylus. As you know, capacitive touch screens are abysmal for pen input (writing, drawing, highlighting, etc.)
You might actually be happier with a cheap knock-off tablet with a resistive touch screen or something like the Galaxy Note that uses a Wacom digitizer.
It shipped with email though BlackBerry Bridge. If you wanted a stand-alone client, you could download one from App World from the very first day.
but not being able to figure out how to implement email in your own product is just straight-up insane.
Yeah, it would be crazy if it was true, which, of course, it's not. The PlayBook had email from day one.
Really, this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Is Apple "completely dead in the water" because they "couldn't figure out" copy/paste or MMS for a year after the iPhone was released?
But do any tablets offer network-based administrative control?
This comes as no surprise, but RIM offers enterprise tools for managing BlackBerry Playbook tablet computers and other brand handsets with BlackBerry Mobile Fusion.
I hate apple
Replace "iPhone" with "phone" or "mobile" or "smartphone" and absolutely nothing relevant changes.
That's it, though, isn't it? The story doesn't even involve Apple or its products save that it incidentally happened to be the brand of the specific stolen overpriced electronic toy. Hell, no iPad's were involved at all, and yet this click-bait summary managed to work them in anyhow all while mentioning that you can get one for less than the well-publicized $499!
When I clicked the check box to disable advertising I didn't expect the ads to reappear as articles. This is getting ridiculous.
Hipsters won't notice...
Know what your ideas are worth.
Assuming that the ideas are original, most peoples ideas are worth about $0.00 dollars, many even less than that.
Do you remember that old advice: never work with an idea man? There's a reason that still rings true today.
"60 ns faster than the speed of light" is meaningless. "The neutrinos arrived 60ns sooner than they would have if they were travelling at c" isn't, as long as somewhere you could find out how far they went and then back out the speed they were going.
Yeah, the rest of us figured that out a long time ago -- you know, because we know how to communicate with each other and interpret what other people are saying.
Thanks for being needlessly pedantic about it though.
the one working in python will literally run circles around the guy working in C/C++
You should fire that python guy. Not only is he being unproductive, it's very disruptive and will likely really hurt the productivity of your other staff members.
Oh, and the c/c++ thing makes you look like an idiot... Wait ... are you the guy running around that other developer?
The point is, you can write the code in python several times in the same amount of time it takes to write it in C or C++.
Citation needed.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You seem to be under the false impression that OOP makes development easier/faster/less error prone. Abstraction should offer at least some benefits, you know. All OOP has done is add unnecessary complexity, increase development time and costs, all while adding performance-killing overhead -- that's the opposite of what you want from abstraction.
?
Real quick: An hypothesis is a testable prediction. I think you mean the Church-Turing thesis.
That said, I don't know where you got the idea that I was challenging that. In fact, my comment assumes the validity of Church-Turing.
Hasa diga eebowai!
Seriously though, "thinking machines"? Are we really anywhere near there yet?
Not even close. There's also reason to believe that computers as we know them will never get there.
Flawed analogy. Try "sex without orgasms".
That's the story for many, many women. Sad, isn't it?
Carrying a laptop and signature tablet is more cumbersome than the iPad.
That may be true, but unless your iPad has a resistive touchscreen, you're going to find that capturing signatures is an exercise in futility.
Capacitive touch screens are terrible for writing. They're horribly imprecise -- and, no, those fat-finger styluses don't magically give you more precision.
I expect that a proper business-oriented tablet will use a resistive touch-screen, hybrid resistive/capacitive (See RIM's patent), or some other technology that improves precision significantly over the current popular offering.