...don't believe in the theory of evolution at least in principle? I know there are actual scientists who are skeptical of climate change but evolution?
What scientists believe in - if they are worthy of their name - is observable facts and scientific method, even if it means they have to change some of their dearest opinions.
So, they believe in the facts of evolution - ie, that evolution has happened - because the mass of data is now quite unambiguous. The theory of evolution is by and large as well proven as any theory can be: it makes predictions about what you should be able to find and where, and it has held up in practice. But an with any scientific theory, there are details that still need to be studied; this will always be the case. Scientists are not looking for "The Truth", but for a reliable, working model of reality, which is something different.
With regards to the second part of your statement: The exact same applies. The data we have compiled so far have now been scrutinised so much that we can consider them solid facts - the climate is in fact changing, and the only reasonable explanation so far is that human activities cause this. As far as I can see, the only scientists that are "sceptical" of this, are the wishful thinkers. I mean, even Lomborg, hailed as the prophet of climate scepticism, is now saying explicitly that he believes human are causing climate change. That ought to speak with some authority to the sceptics, I would have thought.
Obama is provably the bitch of the powers-that-be. Sarah Palin is provably a clueless bitch, and the same kind of bitch as Obama.
Bitch, you say? Let us consult the dictionary (here: www.etymonline.com):
bitch (n.) Look up bitch at Dictionary.com
O.E. bicce, probably from O.N. bikkjuna "female of the dog" (also fox, wolf, and occasionally other beasts), of unknown origin. Grimm derives the O.N. word from Lapp pittja, but OED notes that "the converse is equally possible." As a term of contempt applied to women, it dates from c.1400; of a man, c.1500, playfully, in the sense of "dog." In modern (1990s, originally black English) slang, its use with reference to a man is sexually contemptuous, from the "woman" insult.
BITCH. A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore. ["Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue," 1811]
Used among male homosexuals from 1930s. Insult son of a bitch is O.N. bikkju-sonr. Bitch goddess coined 1906 by William James; the original one was success.
I can follow the idea that Palin is a bitch - the gender matches, and it is not difficult to imagine that some may regard her with contempt.
As for Obama - I think you are being unfair. It is cheap of the opposition to descend to any low level of obstruction and sabotage and then point fingers, saying "Look, he runs from his promises". The truth of the matter is that he has delivered a remarkable list of results against almost impossible odds.
At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.
This is of a very cute soundbite, but let us not go entirely overboard here. But first of all, just to get it out of the way: I don't believe in astrology or any other religious stuff.
However, the fundamental difference between creationism and things like astrology, tarot and other similar superstitions, is that where creationism exists in plain and obvious contradiction to facts that are well-known to the believers, many other superstitions are based on "experience", all be it muddled and misinterpreted experience.
Take tarot: you spread a number of cards with symbols in a basically random sequence, interpret them and experience the feeling of insight in your situation and your future - and the prediction often turns out to be true. To the believer this is a proof that you have gained occult insight into the future, to the scientific non-believer, the explanation is that the attempt at interpreting a random set of symbols has forced you to think outside box, thereby allowing you to get a deeper understanding of the facts you already possess, and making you better able to make a reasonable estimate of what will happen.
I may live to regret choosing this title; what I mean, of course, is that this is hard dilemma, legally speaking. No, honest.
I mean, if the court makes it illegal to give away valuables for free, what would happen to charity? Or giving free samples as part of advertising? Etc etc. There was never any way this could stand up in court. Oops, sorry sorry, I mustn't get carried away.
Whatever happened to the 1950's/1960's America that the entire world looked to and admired?
I'm sure it istill there, back in the 50s and 60s. The thing is, you have to move with the times, and the US didn't; instead, you sat down, looked around and thought you had won the game and it would last forever. And then you let the religious in.
And yes, you should be glad, because this ought to get you guys focused a bit on the things at hand; because you don't want to just sit there on your hands saying "Oh no, we can't catch up", do you?
I don't about the rest of the people around here, but I get really weary of all the snide remarks, sometimes.
Wherever we live in the world, and whatever you think of the Chinese government, should we not be able to be glad on behalf of the Chinese? And for ourselves too - because the West are not going to let China just run away with the full benefits of developing this technology; and it is going to do us all a lot of good.
So let us all be glad, and not too petty to congratulate others for achieving things.
- is to avoid pissing off your employees. This is not so much about paying loads of money, but about making everybody feel they are valued and respected. It is a strange thing, really; modern businesses, and especially technological businesses depend very strongly on being able to hold on to their experienced staff, since it commonly takes a year or more before a new employee is fully up to speed. So why is it that management so rarely try to understand the really quite simply basics of encouraging and nurturing qualities like loyalty, team-spirit and respect?
I think there is a more fundamental problem: These countries - Egypt etc - are all countries that have tried to introduce Western style, secular democracy to a culture that is deeply religious and haven't gone through the learning phase that we have in Europe and America. Democracy can only work if both the politicians/parties and the population understand and accept the rules of the game; and that requires education and a shift in culture. We should know this from our own past - it didn't come to us overnight either, it just happened a long time ago, and we seem to have forgotten that.
This should come as no surprise, I think. I can spot three reasons without even trying:
1. In the West (not just the US) people with a high education are regarded with something only just short of barefaced contempt. At best you are a nerd or boffin, at worst some sad wanker that has studied something idiotic and wasted taxpayers' money.
2. The celebrity culture: we see all the time that in order to be successful, you have to be "a celebrity" - ie someone too stupid to make much of their life except appear on "I'm a sad egomaniac, get me out of here"
3. Objectively speaking, you can go to university for 5 - 10 years, study hard under unfavourable conditions, work in your spare time to make enough money and still end up have a huge debt, which you then spend the next decade paying off on while holding a so-so job. Or you can learn something fairly easy and useful, like repairing cars, get paid while you are an apprentice, and then after 3 years work in job that pays as much or more. Plus: no debt, so you can buy house, car etc straight away.
Based on these circumstances, which would a sensible young person choose?
I also predict that I will make the argument that open source really *isn't* always all it's cracked up to be--and be shouted down by many, many voices
You sound so bitter, almost like a broken man...
First, for the shouting - I don't really see so much of it, but perhaps it is still early days. Or perhaps the many repetitions of the same old sentence has finally made it sound rather tired and unimportant.
Whatever, I can't see any reason to shout - of course open source isn't "always all it's cracked up to be", after all, what is? When people write code to satisfy their own motives, you will necessarily see a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to have much of a point. That doesn't mean that the quality of things like Linux isn't absolutely top class.
As for the skepticism - I think any report should be met with skepticism; or rather, it should be met with honest scrutiny. If it is just a biased opinion piece tainted by a hidden agenda, then it is right to expose it as such, and if it is a genuinely scientific report, then it deserves the attention of careful scrutiny, since that is the way science works.
The article proposes the argument that open source is more expensive because the costs of learning and the costs of making it work together with other SW is bigger.
I am not convinced - Firstly, the cost of learning is a one-off cost; and while taking the first steps into Linux system administration may seem daunting, once you've got it, you will find learning new things under linux quite easy - configurations files are text based, the terminology is fairly uniform etc. And of course, the same applies to Windows; having worked with UNIX only for more than 10 years, I find Windows almost incomprehensible; things are not where they should be, the terminology is different etc etc.
As for interoperability, I find the biggest problem is to interface with systems that are deliberately designed in such a way that it is difficult. This is not a common problem in the world of open source - but it certainly is when it comes to closed source, although the problem is getting smaller. And the point is, when open source has trouble interfaccing with a closed source program, so does other closed source programs.
Let's consider this; 30 years ago it was very difficult for foreigners to enter China, let alone do business there - now people travel there all the time and big business is happening all the time. How does that not count as "opening up"? OK, so they haven't just opened the floodgates and let everybody from everywhere come and wade all over the place, but that is little different from, say EU or the US, as far as I can see.
They have no morals in business... because of the Communist mentality that they were brain washed when they were little.
Unlike Enron, Halliburton,...
The idea that morals are irrelant is a very capitalist and, dare I say it, American one. Isn't is in America that you go to business school to learn that the only thing that matters is shareholder profit? That if you have a clear suspicion that your company's products are harming people's health, you ignore it until a court ruling forces you to do otherwise? And so on - this is not about Communism, mate.
What kind of a business man will put melamine in milk - this is the same type immoral thinking that they have.
The kind of business man that has gone to business school in America. Bear in mind that these businesses have arisen after China have opened up their markets; their managers have gone to mostly American universities to get their MBAs - they have learned their ways from you guys. What you are saying is that people and community should matter more than profit - very, very Communist ideas, if I am any judge.
So your argument is that America has taken over technical development and therefore we should be ashamed?
No need to be ashamed - just pointing out that this has gone on all through history. The Romans took over from the Greeks, for example; each new generation learns from its predecessors and progresses from there. Now it is China's turn, as well as India and others. They have been there before, too - once China and India were on the top while Europe were in the dark ages.
But you are simply being both unfair and out of touch with reality when you imply that the Chinese are chronically incapable of doing anything worthwhile on their own.
..Was reportedly walking. Now we need a study that links walking with mental problems!
Oh dear, yet another of the "because I can dream up a silly example I have now disproved..." sort comments.
Or the slightly more informed comment: "Correlation is not causation". Friends, I think we are beginning to approach the point where can't honestly reject that there is some sort of causation going on; if there were just 1 - 10 studies showing a correlation, yes, but we are talking an ever increasing number of studies, and not only that, but there are other studies that supplement the suspicion, that computer games can cause a number of unfortunate consequences, by suggesting a number of plausible mechanisms. So, in the name of honesty, let's at least try to be open to the possibility that this may be true.
None of these studies say that "if you play computer games, then you will definitely become psychotic/have a heart attack/turn into a killing machine"; all they talk about is an increased risk - ie. it is something worth keeping in mind. You may still prefer to take the risk, but I think it is a good idea to be well informed when you decide to, don't you?
NUTRI-MATIC MACHINE This machine provides the user with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
The way it functions is very interesting. When the Drink button is pressed it makes an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's taste buds, a spectroscopic analysis of the subject's metabolism and then sends tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the taste centers of the subject's brain to see what is likely to be well received.
However, no one knew quite why it does this because it then invariably delivers a cupful of liquid that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
The Nutri-Matic was designed and manufactured by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation whose complaints department now covers all the major land masses of the first three planets in the Sirius Tau Star system.
Japanese always invent first. The Chinese just steal the IP and clone it.:)
30 years ago: Americans always invent first. The Japanese just steal the IP and clone it.:) 60 years ago: The English always invent first. The Americans just steal the IP and clone it.:)...
They are an unfriendly, communist, totalitarian regime. We exactly do we care if they are on the Internet?
Because they are an unfriendly, communist, totalitarian regime; the more they enter into dialog with the rest of the world, other than through a megaphone and the barrel of a gun, the better.
If you have ever been ostracised for a prolonged period of time, as I have, then you will know that it doesn't do much to make you more open and willing to participate in the normal, more peaceful activities of life. The fact that China has broken out of isolation like they have, is exceptional, and we can't expect a country like NK with its delusional leadership to do this.
All in all, we should welcome them - then, perhaps they will find the courage to open up more and loose their paramoia, which can only be a good thing for all.
What somehow seems to be lacking in the furore over the issue of "piracy" and DRM is the fact that the realtion between seller and buyer is a business one - even if one side is a multi-billion dollar business and the other is a pennyless student. And what are the fundamentally important things in any business relationship? Respect and trust. And those two come from both sides experiencing mutually beneficial transactions.
In the past we've seen that book publishers have charged very high prices for their materials, especially for study books - and what was it actually they were paying for? Considering the fact that, say, the mathematical department at my old university could produce basic, but very useable course material for about 1/20'th of the price of a book from a global publisher, I think there must have been a lot of excessive profit involved - so students quite reasonably felt cheated by the big publishers.
And now, with ebooks, it is even more crass: no expensive printing, binding and physically transporting tons of paper books, and on top, many abooks now have a limited lifetime, so you can't even buy second-hand. And the prices, I bet, remain the same as ever, or more. So how can one even start on building a respectful business relationship?
Hmm, you come over all emotional. And not all that knowledgeable either.
There is a growing number of people in America that eat insects - why not check it out instead of airing your bigotry and insulting people in other cultures?
What is disgusting is simply a matter of what you are used to; humans being apes with less hair means that we throughout our evolution have eaten insects much more than chordates, so our metabolism is much more at home with insect protein and fat.
As a result, students may leave an introductory biology course with the ability to recite the reactions in the Calvin cycle but still believing that plants obtain most of their mass from the soil rather than from the atmosphere, that plants photosynthesize but do not respire, or that the mass of a decomposing organism will primarily return to the soil.
The main point of this article is that biology students do not learn science: scientific method and scientific thinking. Ironically, this quote is a good example: it lists a number of items of information as if that was it was all about. It isn't.
Biologists are supposed to be scientists. The single defining characteristic of a scientists is that they understand and apply scientific method - everything else is secondary to that. And the reason that this is so, is that the scientific method is the only reasonably reliable tool we have that can reliable identify what is not true. This, incidentally, seems to be one of the most mistunderstood parts of science: that it is not so much about finding the truth, as it is about identifying the falsehoods.
I can see that technology can make driving safer - when it works. Unfortunately, the more gadgets you have, and the more advanced (read: complicated) they are, the more there is that can break or malfunction. If you are lucky, that only means that you have to foot the bill for repairing more things, but as far as I can see, if you are not used to driving unassisted, and some crucial gadget breaks while you are driving under difficult conditions, you may be facing a rather steep learning curve.
I don't care much about horsepower, but I prefer to trust my own skills.
An increasing amount of research in recent years seems to demonstrate that the distinction between humans on one side and "animals" on the other is artificial. There is not one single trait that sets us apart from all the other animals - it is only a matter of degrees, really: more intelligence, more complex language, more tool use,... Even the idea that only we somehow have personality or self-awareness has turned out to be rather dubious, and some researchers are seriously suggesting that these traits may occur even in animals whose entirely neural network consists of no more than a few hundred neurons.
And in fact, the very idea that only humans have a soul is in itself a rather unique occurence, AFAIK confined to the cultures of Judaism, Christianism and Islam; most cultures seem not to have made that distinction and regarded the other animals as our "brothers" in some sense, more or less our equals. This is an outlook we would do well to adopt, in my view.
Slashdot Mirror
...don't believe in the theory of evolution at least in principle? I know there are actual scientists who are skeptical of climate change but evolution?
What scientists believe in - if they are worthy of their name - is observable facts and scientific method, even if it means they have to change some of their dearest opinions.
So, they believe in the facts of evolution - ie, that evolution has happened - because the mass of data is now quite unambiguous. The theory of evolution is by and large as well proven as any theory can be: it makes predictions about what you should be able to find and where, and it has held up in practice. But an with any scientific theory, there are details that still need to be studied; this will always be the case. Scientists are not looking for "The Truth", but for a reliable, working model of reality, which is something different.
With regards to the second part of your statement: The exact same applies. The data we have compiled so far have now been scrutinised so much that we can consider them solid facts - the climate is in fact changing, and the only reasonable explanation so far is that human activities cause this. As far as I can see, the only scientists that are "sceptical" of this, are the wishful thinkers. I mean, even Lomborg, hailed as the prophet of climate scepticism, is now saying explicitly that he believes human are causing climate change. That ought to speak with some authority to the sceptics, I would have thought.
Obama is provably the bitch of the powers-that-be. Sarah Palin is provably a clueless bitch, and the same kind of bitch as Obama.
Bitch, you say? Let us consult the dictionary (here: www.etymonline.com):
bitch (n.) Look up bitch at Dictionary.com
O.E. bicce, probably from O.N. bikkjuna "female of the dog" (also fox, wolf, and occasionally other beasts), of unknown origin. Grimm derives the O.N. word from Lapp pittja, but OED notes that "the converse is equally possible." As a term of contempt applied to women, it dates from c.1400; of a man, c.1500, playfully, in the sense of "dog." In modern (1990s, originally black English) slang, its use with reference to a man is sexually contemptuous, from the "woman" insult.
BITCH. A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore. ["Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue," 1811]
Used among male homosexuals from 1930s. Insult son of a bitch is O.N. bikkju-sonr. Bitch goddess coined 1906 by William James; the original one was success.
I can follow the idea that Palin is a bitch - the gender matches, and it is not difficult to imagine that some may regard her with contempt.
As for Obama - I think you are being unfair. It is cheap of the opposition to descend to any low level of obstruction and sabotage and then point fingers, saying "Look, he runs from his promises". The truth of the matter is that he has delivered a remarkable list of results against almost impossible odds.
At least we can know for certain the people trying to get creationism taught as science in our schools have equally wacky friends around the globe.
This is of a very cute soundbite, but let us not go entirely overboard here. But first of all, just to get it out of the way: I don't believe in astrology or any other religious stuff.
However, the fundamental difference between creationism and things like astrology, tarot and other similar superstitions, is that where creationism exists in plain and obvious contradiction to facts that are well-known to the believers, many other superstitions are based on "experience", all be it muddled and misinterpreted experience.
Take tarot: you spread a number of cards with symbols in a basically random sequence, interpret them and experience the feeling of insight in your situation and your future - and the prediction often turns out to be true. To the believer this is a proof that you have gained occult insight into the future, to the scientific non-believer, the explanation is that the attempt at interpreting a random set of symbols has forced you to think outside box, thereby allowing you to get a deeper understanding of the facts you already possess, and making you better able to make a reasonable estimate of what will happen.
I may live to regret choosing this title; what I mean, of course, is that this is hard dilemma, legally speaking. No, honest.
I mean, if the court makes it illegal to give away valuables for free, what would happen to charity? Or giving free samples as part of advertising? Etc etc. There was never any way this could stand up in court. Oops, sorry sorry, I mustn't get carried away.
Whatever happened to the 1950's/1960's America that the entire world looked to and admired?
I'm sure it istill there, back in the 50s and 60s. The thing is, you have to move with the times, and the US didn't; instead, you sat down, looked around and thought you had won the game and it would last forever. And then you let the religious in.
And yes, you should be glad, because this ought to get you guys focused a bit on the things at hand; because you don't want to just sit there on your hands saying "Oh no, we can't catch up", do you?
I don't about the rest of the people around here, but I get really weary of all the snide remarks, sometimes.
Wherever we live in the world, and whatever you think of the Chinese government, should we not be able to be glad on behalf of the Chinese? And for ourselves too - because the West are not going to let China just run away with the full benefits of developing this technology; and it is going to do us all a lot of good.
So let us all be glad, and not too petty to congratulate others for achieving things.
- is to avoid pissing off your employees. This is not so much about paying loads of money, but about making everybody feel they are valued and respected.
It is a strange thing, really; modern businesses, and especially technological businesses depend very strongly on being able to hold on to their experienced staff, since it commonly takes a year or more before a new employee is fully up to speed. So why is it that management so rarely try to understand the really quite simply basics of encouraging and nurturing qualities like loyalty, team-spirit and respect?
I think there is a more fundamental problem: These countries - Egypt etc - are all countries that have tried to introduce Western style, secular democracy to a culture that is deeply religious and haven't gone through the learning phase that we have in Europe and America. Democracy can only work if both the politicians/parties and the population understand and accept the rules of the game; and that requires education and a shift in culture. We should know this from our own past - it didn't come to us overnight either, it just happened a long time ago, and we seem to have forgotten that.
This should come as no surprise, I think. I can spot three reasons without even trying:
1. In the West (not just the US) people with a high education are regarded with something only just short of barefaced contempt. At best you are a nerd or boffin, at worst some sad wanker that has studied something idiotic and wasted taxpayers' money.
2. The celebrity culture: we see all the time that in order to be successful, you have to be "a celebrity" - ie someone too stupid to make much of their life except appear on "I'm a sad egomaniac, get me out of here"
3. Objectively speaking, you can go to university for 5 - 10 years, study hard under unfavourable conditions, work in your spare time to make enough money and still end up have a huge debt, which you then spend the next decade paying off on while holding a so-so job. Or you can learn something fairly easy and useful, like repairing cars, get paid while you are an apprentice, and then after 3 years work in job that pays as much or more. Plus: no debt, so you can buy house, car etc straight away.
Based on these circumstances, which would a sensible young person choose?
Who said anything about a complaint? I was just making an idle observation.
...an amount that would eat into a 1GB allowance in 20 days
A strange expression - I would have thought even 1 byte would "eat into" any size allowance, technically speaking.
I also predict that I will make the argument that open source really *isn't* always all it's cracked up to be--and be shouted down by many, many voices
You sound so bitter, almost like a broken man...
First, for the shouting - I don't really see so much of it, but perhaps it is still early days. Or perhaps the many repetitions of the same old sentence has finally made it sound rather tired and unimportant.
Whatever, I can't see any reason to shout - of course open source isn't "always all it's cracked up to be", after all, what is? When people write code to satisfy their own motives, you will necessarily see a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to have much of a point. That doesn't mean that the quality of things like Linux isn't absolutely top class.
As for the skepticism - I think any report should be met with skepticism; or rather, it should be met with honest scrutiny. If it is just a biased opinion piece tainted by a hidden agenda, then it is right to expose it as such, and if it is a genuinely scientific report, then it deserves the attention of careful scrutiny, since that is the way science works.
The article proposes the argument that open source is more expensive because the costs of learning and the costs of making it work together with other SW is bigger.
I am not convinced - Firstly, the cost of learning is a one-off cost; and while taking the first steps into Linux system administration may seem daunting, once you've got it, you will find learning new things under linux quite easy - configurations files are text based, the terminology is fairly uniform etc. And of course, the same applies to Windows; having worked with UNIX only for more than 10 years, I find Windows almost incomprehensible; things are not where they should be, the terminology is different etc etc.
As for interoperability, I find the biggest problem is to interface with systems that are deliberately designed in such a way that it is difficult. This is not a common problem in the world of open source - but it certainly is when it comes to closed source, although the problem is getting smaller. And the point is, when open source has trouble interfaccing with a closed source program, so does other closed source programs.
But China hasn't opened up its markets?
Let's consider this; 30 years ago it was very difficult for foreigners to enter China, let alone do business there - now people travel there all the time and big business is happening all the time. How does that not count as "opening up"? OK, so they haven't just opened the floodgates and let everybody from everywhere come and wade all over the place, but that is little different from, say EU or the US, as far as I can see.
They have no morals in business... because of the Communist mentality that they were brain washed when they were little.
Unlike Enron, Halliburton, ...
The idea that morals are irrelant is a very capitalist and, dare I say it, American one. Isn't is in America that you go to business school to learn that the only thing that matters is shareholder profit? That if you have a clear suspicion that your company's products are harming people's health, you ignore it until a court ruling forces you to do otherwise? And so on - this is not about Communism, mate.
What kind of a business man will put melamine in milk - this is the same type immoral thinking that they have.
The kind of business man that has gone to business school in America. Bear in mind that these businesses have arisen after China have opened up their markets; their managers have gone to mostly American universities to get their MBAs - they have learned their ways from you guys. What you are saying is that people and community should matter more than profit - very, very Communist ideas, if I am any judge.
So your argument is that America has taken over technical development and therefore we should be ashamed?
No need to be ashamed - just pointing out that this has gone on all through history. The Romans took over from the Greeks, for example; each new generation learns from its predecessors and progresses from there. Now it is China's turn, as well as India and others. They have been there before, too - once China and India were on the top while Europe were in the dark ages.
But you are simply being both unfair and out of touch with reality when you imply that the Chinese are chronically incapable of doing anything worthwhile on their own.
..Was reportedly walking. Now we need a study that links walking with mental problems!
Oh dear, yet another of the "because I can dream up a silly example I have now disproved ..." sort comments.
Or the slightly more informed comment: "Correlation is not causation". Friends, I think we are beginning to approach the point where can't honestly reject that there is some sort of causation going on; if there were just 1 - 10 studies showing a correlation, yes, but we are talking an ever increasing number of studies, and not only that, but there are other studies that supplement the suspicion, that computer games can cause a number of unfortunate consequences, by suggesting a number of plausible mechanisms. So, in the name of honesty, let's at least try to be open to the possibility that this may be true.
None of these studies say that "if you play computer games, then you will definitely become psychotic/have a heart attack/turn into a killing machine"; all they talk about is an increased risk - ie. it is something worth keeping in mind. You may still prefer to take the risk, but I think it is a good idea to be well informed when you decide to, don't you?
NUTRI-MATIC MACHINE
This machine provides the user with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
The way it functions is very interesting. When the Drink button is pressed it makes an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's taste buds, a spectroscopic analysis of the subject's metabolism and then sends tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the taste centers of the subject's brain to see what is likely to be well received.
However, no one knew quite why it does this because it then invariably delivers a cupful of liquid that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
The Nutri-Matic was designed and manufactured by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation whose complaints department now covers all the major land masses of the first three planets in the Sirius Tau Star system.
Japanese always invent first. The Chinese just steal the IP and clone it. :)
30 years ago: Americans always invent first. The Japanese just steal the IP and clone it. :) :) ...
60 years ago: The English always invent first. The Americans just steal the IP and clone it.
Perhaps this comment was a two-edged sword?
They are an unfriendly, communist, totalitarian regime. We exactly do we care if they are on the Internet?
Because they are an unfriendly, communist, totalitarian regime; the more they enter into dialog with the rest of the world, other than through a megaphone and the barrel of a gun, the better.
If you have ever been ostracised for a prolonged period of time, as I have, then you will know that it doesn't do much to make you more open and willing to participate in the normal, more peaceful activities of life. The fact that China has broken out of isolation like they have, is exceptional, and we can't expect a country like NK with its delusional leadership to do this.
All in all, we should welcome them - then, perhaps they will find the courage to open up more and loose their paramoia, which can only be a good thing for all.
What somehow seems to be lacking in the furore over the issue of "piracy" and DRM is the fact that the realtion between seller and buyer is a business one - even if one side is a multi-billion dollar business and the other is a pennyless student. And what are the fundamentally important things in any business relationship? Respect and trust. And those two come from both sides experiencing mutually beneficial transactions.
In the past we've seen that book publishers have charged very high prices for their materials, especially for study books - and what was it actually they were paying for? Considering the fact that, say, the mathematical department at my old university could produce basic, but very useable course material for about 1/20'th of the price of a book from a global publisher, I think there must have been a lot of excessive profit involved - so students quite reasonably felt cheated by the big publishers.
And now, with ebooks, it is even more crass: no expensive printing, binding and physically transporting tons of paper books, and on top, many abooks now have a limited lifetime, so you can't even buy second-hand. And the prices, I bet, remain the same as ever, or more. So how can one even start on building a respectful business relationship?
Hmm, you come over all emotional. And not all that knowledgeable either.
There is a growing number of people in America that eat insects - why not check it out instead of airing your bigotry and insulting people in other cultures?
What is disgusting is simply a matter of what you are used to; humans being apes with less hair means that we throughout our evolution have eaten insects much more than chordates, so our metabolism is much more at home with insect protein and fat.
As a result, students may leave an introductory biology course with the ability to recite the reactions in the Calvin cycle but still believing that plants obtain most of their mass from the soil rather than from the atmosphere, that plants photosynthesize but do not respire, or that the mass of a decomposing organism will primarily return to the soil.
The main point of this article is that biology students do not learn science: scientific method and scientific thinking. Ironically, this quote is a good example: it lists a number of items of information as if that was it was all about. It isn't.
Biologists are supposed to be scientists. The single defining characteristic of a scientists is that they understand and apply scientific method - everything else is secondary to that. And the reason that this is so, is that the scientific method is the only reasonably reliable tool we have that can reliable identify what is not true. This, incidentally, seems to be one of the most mistunderstood parts of science: that it is not so much about finding the truth, as it is about identifying the falsehoods.
And what's wrong with assisted driving technology
OK, let me try to be the devil's advocate here.
I can see that technology can make driving safer - when it works. Unfortunately, the more gadgets you have, and the more advanced (read: complicated) they are, the more there is that can break or malfunction. If you are lucky, that only means that you have to foot the bill for repairing more things, but as far as I can see, if you are not used to driving unassisted, and some crucial gadget breaks while you are driving under difficult conditions, you may be facing a rather steep learning curve.
I don't care much about horsepower, but I prefer to trust my own skills.
An increasing amount of research in recent years seems to demonstrate that the distinction between humans on one side and "animals" on the other is artificial. There is not one single trait that sets us apart from all the other animals - it is only a matter of degrees, really: more intelligence, more complex language, more tool use, ... Even the idea that only we somehow have personality or self-awareness has turned out to be rather dubious, and some researchers are seriously suggesting that these traits may occur even in animals whose entirely neural network consists of no more than a few hundred neurons.
And in fact, the very idea that only humans have a soul is in itself a rather unique occurence, AFAIK confined to the cultures of Judaism, Christianism and Islam; most cultures seem not to have made that distinction and regarded the other animals as our "brothers" in some sense, more or less our equals. This is an outlook we would do well to adopt, in my view.