Yes, I find it funny that I can easily get my nvidia card working flawlessly in linux, and yet my coworker has huge troubles with their dell machine that has loaded 2 drivers for the video card (???) according to device manager, and refuses to play any games.
(not making any general comparision or anything - just an ancedote)
You're still missing my point. I'm arguing porting across architectures should not be that difficult for almost all programs. (Oracle has an awful lot of very low level code, so no comment on that).
Porting across platforms doesn't even come into this argument.
platform != architecture. The cost for porting from windows to linux is change the widgets and the libraries, not the bit conversion. Pretty much any open source app works on loads of different architectures. It's not hard to fix code to do that.
Heh, the computer ethics course that we had was the only lecture that was mandatory to attend. Miss too many ( I think 2) and you failed the module. It was done so we could get BSA compliance or something. (UK)
Oi! Kids! You're punished for trying to learn about the machines! This is school, not.. uh..
How about having machines where they can bring up a terminal and having a play? You could have a select few machines with no restrictions for the kids to play with and learn about. It could be set with a network eprom to wipe and reinstall on reboot.
Actually some scientists showed that the mothers of gays were more fertile than average. The indication seems to be that there is a gay gene that is recessive and with just one recessive gene it makes you more fertile.
Which if true is another piece that confirms evolution.
There has been lots of hypothesis testing. One thing evolution predicted was animals with similar traits would have common dna fingerprints - a hypothesis that was given way before we could analyse DNA. There's been lots of hypotheses like that which should it is indeed falsiable.
"It absolutely requires it. Observations that are not repeatable are -- quite properly -- not considered valid."
Okay, I think we are arguing the same thing. I was saying we can predict things that we can't repeat, but that is scientific, and you say yes but that is based on what we can repeat. So I agree.:)
Btw, if God does affect our lives, then surely that theory makes the prediction that we could observe this statistically (statistically more good things than bad things happen to us) or even chemically (show that praying to one diety makes us happier than praying to another, to find out which deity exists and to try to reduce plaecbo effects etc).
I would say I'm one of those people then. I look very cynically at personal evidence because a single event is not statistically significant.
For example, many people cancel airplane flights - pretty much every flight has cancellations. Yet when the plane crashes you always get someone who should have been on the flight, but cancelled instead. Then you get people saying "see! Explain that! God did it!" without understanding statistics and the antromorphic principle (if he died, he wouldn't be there to say he survived, and someone else would be instead).
I don't get. If it's not a geosync, then it's going to be moving, so they could just use 2 images from a few seconds apart to get the required images. No?
"Something that we cannot observe reliably and repeatedly, as required by the scientific approach, could nevertheless affect us."
But I've already pointed out counter examples in science. Take the birth of the universe - we use science to predict what it looked like and yet it cannot be observed at all.
Scientific approach does not require that we observe reliably and repeatedly, but it sure does help!
Also for a god that is real. Either he affects our lives, and hence can be measured, or he doesn't so it doesn't matter if he exists or not (for future events).
Also I'm not sure what you mean by 'some people take their belief in science much further than this'. What I gave is what science is. Can you give any examples of what such a person would not believe in, other than some religous/spiritual idea?
Hmm, it's a bit strange to hear this theory because most of the creationalist sites that I've seen tend to go to quite long lengths to argue that the flood was a local one - in a small area only - in order to solve other problems (where did the water go etc).
"So, what you're saying is: Either you have faith in science, or you don't."
Yes. There are other beliefs like solipism (we are brain's in a vat, or in Matrix thing) or you could believe that a non-falsifiable theory is equally valid as a falsifiable one, or believe the opposite of occam's razor is better, and so on.
Of course I'm using the word 'belief' liberally. Probably a bad idea since some can use my words against me and just say 'what makes your belief better than mine?'.
Btw you wrong about 'faith' in science is that everything can be obvserved and repeatedly observed. 'faith' in science is pretty much just that falsifable beliefs are better and occam's razor is a good principle. There's really not too much more to it. (There's a few finer details, but going into requires pages of scientific philosophy which are already written in wikipedia).
And science has predicted various things that are extremely difficult to observe.
Btw, if we cannot observe something, directly or through any of its effects, with any tools, then why would it matter since it cannot affect us? If it did affect us, we'd be able to observe it surely,
Yes, I've been told off by quite a few posts and I have to be honest that I used the word in ignorance. Serves me right for trying to use a word that I hear all the time but don't understand. Ignorance of the worst kind:(
As an athiest/agnostic (No matter what I read, the two terms still seem unclear in meaning. Am I unicorn-athiest or unicorn-agnostic?) I do wonder if anti-religion is a religion and can, or even should, teachers attempt to not have 'athiest' teachings, whatever that means.
Hmm I'm going nowhere with this, so switching to your second point..;)
I have thought about the latter quite a lot, and even spoke to some venture capitalists about ways to make such a thing economically viable. I was thinking the first step would be to run an evening class at a local school to teach kids about electronics etc.
As for removing a support column - measure twice and cut once *grin*.
Slashdot Mirror
The brianiacs were from futurama... unless its in both with exactly the same story line.. Wouldn't surprise me.
Yes, I find it funny that I can easily get my nvidia card working flawlessly in linux, and yet my coworker has huge troubles with their dell machine that has loaded 2 drivers for the video card (???) according to device manager, and refuses to play any games.
(not making any general comparision or anything - just an ancedote)
> Whenever I'm doing maths problems I like to lie down. I get some weird looks,
From the lecturer??
You're still missing my point. I'm arguing porting across architectures should not be that difficult for almost all programs. (Oracle has an awful lot of very low level code, so no comment on that).
Porting across platforms doesn't even come into this argument.
platform != architecture. The cost for porting from windows to linux is change the widgets and the libraries, not the bit conversion.
Pretty much any open source app works on loads of different architectures. It's not hard to fix code to do that.
I'm guessing there's a catch, but I can't for the life of me see where. Maybe I'll give it a shot tonight.
No, this is why you need open source code so you can just recompile it :)
Hmm, that is trivial to do - I implemented the rich text copy and paste for many kde apps - including konqueror (well khtml - the html part of it)
I get your analogy, but actually I would check that there was indeed an accessiable art class.
Heh, the computer ethics course that we had was the only lecture that was mandatory to attend. Miss too many ( I think 2) and you failed the module.
It was done so we could get BSA compliance or something.
(UK)
Oi! Kids! You're punished for trying to learn about the machines! This is school, not .. uh..
How about having machines where they can bring up a terminal and having a play? You could have a select few machines with no restrictions for the kids to play with and learn about. It could be set with a network eprom to wipe and reinstall on reboot.
No, not hurricanes, but he does do floods :)
Actually some scientists showed that the mothers of gays were more fertile than average. The indication seems to be that there is a gay gene that is recessive and with just one recessive gene it makes you more fertile.
Which if true is another piece that confirms evolution.
"Silly louis, Christians don't believe in Gravity" - 401 family guy.
There has been lots of hypothesis testing. One thing evolution predicted was animals with similar traits would have common dna fingerprints - a hypothesis that was given way before we could analyse DNA.
There's been lots of hypotheses like that which should it is indeed falsiable.
"It absolutely requires it. Observations that are not repeatable are -- quite properly -- not considered valid."
:)
Okay, I think we are arguing the same thing. I was saying we can predict things that we can't repeat, but that is scientific, and you say yes but that is based on what we can repeat. So I agree.
Btw, if God does affect our lives, then surely that theory makes the prediction that we could observe this statistically (statistically more good things than bad things happen to us) or even chemically (show that praying to one diety makes us happier than praying to another, to find out which deity exists and to try to reduce plaecbo effects etc).
I would say I'm one of those people then. I look very cynically at personal evidence because a single event is not statistically significant.
For example, many people cancel airplane flights - pretty much every flight has cancellations. Yet when the plane crashes you always get someone who should have been on the flight, but cancelled instead. Then you get people saying "see! Explain that! God did it!" without understanding statistics and the antromorphic principle (if he died, he wouldn't be there to say he survived, and someone else would be instead).
Actually its to ensure the survival of open standards, not FOSS.
You realise the exact same post could have been made for why not to develop linux.
"I don't think I have the heart to go through that babysitting phase with another product."
so move over and let fresh blood through who are willing to babysit a new product and idea.
I don't get. If it's not a geosync, then it's going to be moving, so they could just use 2 images from a few seconds apart to get the required images. No?
Well do you simply believe there are no invisble unicorns, or have some sort of inkling that there may be invisible unicorns?
"Something that we cannot observe reliably and repeatedly, as required by the scientific approach, could nevertheless affect us."
But I've already pointed out counter examples in science. Take the birth of the universe - we use science to predict what it looked like and yet it cannot be observed at all.
Scientific approach does not require that we observe reliably and repeatedly, but it sure does help!
Also for a god that is real. Either he affects our lives, and hence can be measured, or he doesn't so it doesn't matter if he exists or not (for future events).
Also I'm not sure what you mean by 'some people take their belief in science much further than this'. What I gave is what science is. Can you give any examples of what such a person would not believe in, other than some religous/spiritual idea?
Hmm, it's a bit strange to hear this theory because most of the creationalist sites that I've seen tend to go to quite long lengths to argue that the flood was a local one - in a small area only - in order to solve other problems (where did the water go etc).
"So, what you're saying is: Either you have faith in science, or you don't."
Yes. There are other beliefs like solipism (we are brain's in a vat, or in Matrix thing) or you could believe that a non-falsifiable theory is equally valid as a falsifiable one, or believe the opposite of occam's razor is better, and so on.
Of course I'm using the word 'belief' liberally. Probably a bad idea since some can use my words against me and just say 'what makes your belief better than mine?'.
Btw you wrong about 'faith' in science is that everything can be obvserved and repeatedly observed.
'faith' in science is pretty much just that falsifable beliefs are better and occam's razor is a good principle. There's really not too much more to it. (There's a few finer details, but going into requires pages of scientific philosophy which are already written in wikipedia).
And science has predicted various things that are extremely difficult to observe.
Btw, if we cannot observe something, directly or through any of its effects, with any tools, then why would it matter since it cannot affect us? If it did affect us, we'd be able to observe it surely,
Yes, I've been told off by quite a few posts and I have to be honest that I used the word in ignorance. :(
Serves me right for trying to use a word that I hear all the time but don't understand.
Ignorance of the worst kind
As an athiest/agnostic (No matter what I read, the two terms still seem unclear in meaning. Am I unicorn-athiest or unicorn-agnostic?) I do wonder if anti-religion is a religion and can, or even should, teachers attempt to not have 'athiest' teachings, whatever that means.
;)
Hmm I'm going nowhere with this, so switching to your second point..
I have thought about the latter quite a lot, and even spoke to some venture capitalists about ways to make such a thing economically viable. I was thinking the first step would be to run an evening class at a local school to teach kids about electronics etc.
As for removing a support column - measure twice and cut once *grin*.