Here's a question that I've never heard answered or even asked before..
The people laughed at Noah building his boat, right? So ergo they knew where his boat was. Now the boat was big enough that there was no way that he could move it.
Now I don't know how much water would be needed to float a boat that big, but lets say as small as 1 meter.
Now if you were bad and evil and all that, and the water level started coming up to your waist, _and_ you knew where there was a boat.. wouldn't you try to hijack it? And there would be a fair number of people too.
Others have pointed out that they have seen scientist lose such arguments because they don't know how to deal with an argument.
For example, you need to hammer home that science is basically built on one or two principles such as that a theory has to be falsifiable.
Without knowing that you have to structure the argument with that foundation you end up having to fight "what makes your belief better than mine?" and you can never win that.
Why am I arguing that one side (evolution) should win, rather than just let then argue about it? Well otherwise they might feel since the ID side won the argument, that is the correct theory.
Stephen Hawking did indeed say something close to that. However I have read it many times and managed to make no sense of it at all. Why a sphere (imaginary+real time) can exist in nothingless but a circle/line (real time line) can't I do not understand.
I know it's more likely that I'm wrong than him, but I do think Hawking is a bit off base at times.
It's not about ID directly, but about the school board forcing teachers to teach it. Seems like a typical slashdot Your Rights or a political post, no?
gravity is just a theory as well. Dare you to jump off a building.
The problem with ID is that it doesn't fulfil the two basic requirements of a science - It's not falsifiable (how do you proof it wrong?) and it doesn't follow occam's razor (why not just argue invisible unicorns created us?)
As a Christian, do you agree that ID should be taught in schools, or that (at the risk of making it a loaded question) church and schools should be separate?
I don't think it's possible to have a good academic discussion about it. You either believe that in the scientific principles (all theories must be falsifiable to be valid, and occam's razor.. roughly;) ) and so think this is wrong, or you don't believe in that, and hence cannot be argued with via logic and so cannot have an academic discussion.
It's very funny to think that the neo conservatives go to war over oil - the compressed remains of million year old creatures, yet believes the world is young.
"Apple can be held liable for the resulting damages, including the damages incurred by the revocation of the APSL licensed code."
Really? This would be very interesting:):)
I tried reading the wikipedia article on libertarianism but my eyes just kinda glossed over about half way through, so I'll just cede the point.:)
About the KDE getting huffy about a license.. well I'm a KDE developer and have done a tiny bit coding with mdnsresponder but we are hoping to see what the gnome guys produce as a replacement.
I realise what you are saying, but can you imagine handing out CD's and saying "Here use this nice new kde live cd! You can use it as long as your company doesn't sue apple!"
But it isn't restricted to just software patents. What about hardware patents? Like I've been saying, Apple is mostly a hardware company.
Say IBM rolls out some distro on a large number of machines and the distro they use uses mDNSResponder.
Say now Apple violates one of IBM's hardware patents.
What should IBM do now?
And the BSD folks are more libertarian like you say - exactly why they are even less likely to accept such draconian licencing.
Btw as for reimplementing, yeah it can be done. Both gnome and kde development on zeroconf is pretty much waiting for the reimplementation of mDNSResponder.
Why share the code at all if it's license is designed not to be liked by any of the linux people? Who else will use the code? I can't see the motivation.
If you could find such p and q then that means PI is finite. Note that this holds in any integer number system. (Obviously you could chose the number system 'PI' and say pi = 10)
Consider the functions f_n(x) defined on [0, pi] by
Clearly f_n(0) = f_n(pi) = 0 for all n. Let f_n[m](x) denote the m-th derivative of f_n(x). Note that
f_n[m](0) = - f_n[m](pi) = 0 for m 2n; otherwise some integer
max f_n(x) = f_n(pi/2) = q^n (pi/2)^(2n) / n!
By repeatedly applying integration by parts, the definite integrals of the functions f_n(x) sin x can be seen to have integer values. But f_n(x) sin x are strictly positive, except for the two points 0 and pi, and these functions are bounded above by 1 / pi for all sufficiently large n. Thus for a large value of n, the definite integral of f_n sin x is some value strictly between 0 and 1, a contradiction.
What license? You know the community doesn't like the Apple open source license much.. Not to sound ungrateful if it is under the APSL then I doubt there will be much acceptance from the linux guys.
I love computers and love coding. I try to do what open source coding I can. I got a 1st in computer science and then.... I decided to do a PhD in engineering.
I'm now researching making holograms while studying physics in my own time. I rarely use a computer except to read slashdot and hobbiest coding (which is the best sort of coding).
Funny how life changes. A degree can open up your options.
I know its hard in the short term. I too use nvidia (what else is there?). But look at the server market for example - most (all?) companies that produce server hardware also have open source drivers. Look at the raid support etc. Would we have had such open source drivers if we made it so easy for the companies to produce closed source drivers?
Also using your own examples - would you hunt around so much for compatible hardware with open source drivers (hence rewarding that company) if all hardware had either closed or open source drivers?
I'm from the UK and I get annoyed when people complain about immigrants comming over and using our free NHS etc. Most of our NHS staff are immigrants! If it wasn't for immigrants we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of doctors and nurses that we have.
(Personally I think that's worse - brain drain from other countries seems immoral, but such moral points aren't good in the general public conversations).
There may be practical problems with that, however dealing with the wider picture....
One of the arguments is that we want it to be inconvient for companies to make closed source drivers. People argue that a short term gain (closed source) is better than the long term gamble in trying to force them to write an open source driver, but I would disagree.
Consider this - linux comes with more drivers than what windows XP comes with.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a question that I've never heard answered or even asked before..
The people laughed at Noah building his boat, right? So ergo they knew where his boat was. Now the boat was big enough that there was no way that he could move it.
Now I don't know how much water would be needed to float a boat that big, but lets say as small as 1 meter.
Now if you were bad and evil and all that, and the water level started coming up to your waist, _and_ you knew where there was a boat.. wouldn't you try to hijack it? And there would be a fair number of people too.
Others have pointed out that they have seen scientist lose such arguments because they don't know how to deal with an argument.
For example, you need to hammer home that science is basically built on one or two principles such as that a theory has to be falsifiable.
Without knowing that you have to structure the argument with that foundation you end up having to fight "what makes your belief better than mine?" and you can never win that.
Why am I arguing that one side (evolution) should win, rather than just let then argue about it? Well otherwise they might feel since the ID side won the argument, that is the correct theory.
Stephen Hawking did indeed say something close to that. However I have read it many times and managed to make no sense of it at all. Why a sphere (imaginary+real time) can exist in nothingless but a circle/line (real time line) can't I do not understand.
I know it's more likely that I'm wrong than him, but I do think Hawking is a bit off base at times.
Either spelling is good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor
Wikipedia has quite an extensive range of articles on this. (See the NPOV pages etc).
Basically it boils down to would it promote an even more open mind if we suggested that perhaps invisible unicorns did it?
Speaking of Galileo, it was the church the suppressed him...
It's not about ID directly, but about the school board forcing teachers to teach it.
Seems like a typical slashdot Your Rights or a political post, no?
gravity is just a theory as well. Dare you to jump off a building.
The problem with ID is that it doesn't fulfil the two basic requirements of a science - It's not falsifiable (how do you proof it wrong?) and it doesn't follow occam's razor (why not just argue invisible unicorns created us?)
Without flaming you....
As a Christian, do you agree that ID should be taught in schools, or that (at the risk of making it a loaded question) church and schools should be separate?
"looks" is considered a gift which if not used is considered sinful?
Is this correct in the gist of it?
Seems almost opposite to various other faiths, where women cover themselves almost completely.
I don't think it's possible to have a good academic discussion about it. You either believe that in the scientific principles (all theories must be falsifiable to be valid, and occam's razor.. roughly ;) ) and so think this is wrong, or you don't believe in that, and hence cannot be argued with via logic and so cannot have an academic discussion.
I think it's clearer just stick to the usual definition of "intelligent design" - i.e. God made adam and eve literally and we didn't come from apes.
Otherwise you are redefining the terms and arguing from there - not the clearest way to argue.
It's very funny to think that the neo conservatives go to war over oil - the compressed remains of million year old creatures, yet believes the world is young.
"Apple can be held liable for the resulting damages, including the damages incurred by the revocation of the APSL licensed code."
:) :)
:)
Really? This would be very interesting
I tried reading the wikipedia article on libertarianism but my eyes just kinda glossed over about half way through, so I'll just cede the point.
About the KDE getting huffy about a license.. well I'm a KDE developer and have done a tiny bit coding with mdnsresponder but we are hoping to see what the gnome guys produce as a replacement.
I realise what you are saying, but can you imagine handing out CD's and saying "Here use this nice new kde live cd! You can use it as long as your company doesn't sue apple!"
But it isn't restricted to just software patents. What about hardware patents? Like I've been saying, Apple is mostly a hardware company.
Say IBM rolls out some distro on a large number of machines and the distro they use uses mDNSResponder.
Say now Apple violates one of IBM's hardware patents.
What should IBM do now?
And the BSD folks are more libertarian like you say - exactly why they are even less likely to accept such draconian licencing.
Btw as for reimplementing, yeah it can be done. Both gnome and kde development on zeroconf is pretty much waiting for the reimplementation of mDNSResponder.
Hmm, I cannot see Sun or IBM, both hardware manufacturers, using code that their right to it would be revoked if they sue apple for anything at all.
BSD people... I would guess they feel the same as the linux people - but that's just a guess.
Yes - I loved it.
Why share the code at all if it's license is designed not to be liked by any of the linux people? Who else will use the code?
I can't see the motivation.
The proof that PI is infinite is trivial.
Suppose pi = p / q, where p and q are integers.
If you could find such p and q then that means PI is finite. Note that this holds in any integer number system. (Obviously you could chose the number system 'PI' and say pi = 10)
Consider the
functions f_n(x) defined on [0, pi] by
f_n(x) = q^n x^n (pi - x)^n / n! = x^n (p - q x)^n / n!
Clearly f_n(0) = f_n(pi) = 0 for all n. Let f_n[m](x) denote the m-th derivative of f_n(x). Note that
f_n[m](0) = - f_n[m](pi) = 0 for m 2n; otherwise some integer
max f_n(x) = f_n(pi/2) = q^n (pi/2)^(2n) / n!
By repeatedly applying integration by parts, the definite integrals of the functions f_n(x) sin x can be seen to have integer values. But
f_n(x) sin x are strictly positive, except for the two points 0 and pi, and these functions are bounded above by 1 / pi for all sufficiently large n. Thus for a large value of n, the definite integral of f_n sin x is some value strictly between 0 and 1, a contradiction.
Therefore PI goes on forever.
What license? You know the community doesn't like the Apple open source license much.. Not to sound ungrateful if it is under the APSL then I doubt there will be much acceptance from the linux guys.
My sig is better.
I love computers and love coding. I try to do what open source coding I can. I got a 1st in computer science and then.... I decided to do a PhD in engineering.
I'm now researching making holograms while studying physics in my own time. I rarely use a computer except to read slashdot and hobbiest coding (which is the best sort of coding).
Funny how life changes. A degree can open up your options.
Clear up some conspiracy theories about 9/11:
9 31/652">kuro5hin link</a>
<a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/28/104
I know its hard in the short term. I too use nvidia (what else is there?).
But look at the server market for example - most (all?) companies that produce server hardware also have open source drivers. Look at the raid support etc.
Would we have had such open source drivers if we made it so easy for the companies to produce closed source drivers?
Also using your own examples - would you hunt around so much for compatible hardware with open source drivers (hence rewarding that company) if all hardware had either closed or open source drivers?
I'm from the UK and I get annoyed when people complain about immigrants comming over and using our free NHS etc. Most of our NHS staff are immigrants! If it wasn't for immigrants we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of doctors and nurses that we have.
(Personally I think that's worse - brain drain from other countries seems immoral, but such moral points aren't good in the general public conversations).
There may be practical problems with that, however dealing with the wider picture....
One of the arguments is that we want it to be inconvient for companies to make closed source drivers. People argue that a short term gain (closed source) is better than the long term gamble in trying to force them to write an open source driver, but I would disagree.
Consider this - linux comes with more drivers than what windows XP comes with.