And yes, these tests are adjusted for that. Your point makes no sense when you take that in consideration.
Lets say that a majority of 'smart' people choke on test, but do slightly better than 'nonsmart' people, then the test makers would adjust performance around that metric.
If we take the same test, and relax the pressure, than the smart people will do better.
The abortion thing isn't something I'd really want to get in here, it is a certain flamewar.
And yes, a fetus is alive, and killing one is... well killing one. But before anything reaches the fetus state we might as well be killing a sea sponge. And I don't view it as new life, being that at that point it is completely dependent on its mothers body for survival, and lacks all of the function that entails higher order life (resperation, heartbeat, brain). So I guess we can say that they are alive in the same sense as a parasite, a REALLY stupid simple parasite. Like a colony of aemebas living in your womb.
Only when there is higher order functioning does i become wrong in my book. Once it has a brain, it is human. Once it is human, to terminate is the definition of murder.
But then I'm always guilty of the middle ground. The worlds only angry moderate!
Perhaps I summed that up to rashly. The real question here is embryos, which are just a collection of replicating cells, with no finer structure. With embryos I have no qualms in the slightest of using/cloning, being that we are not dealing with a feeling individual, but an undifferenciated mass of cells. When we can feel is about as sticky as the fundies asking when the soul hit the body, though, but not quite as bad in the fact that we can have a measurable metric of 'life'. I prefer to take when the brain is operating as the operational definition of human life. Though some go for the heart, some go for some other structual cue.
I'm sorry for mistyping.
As for Soylent Green, we're not (fictionally) dealing with murder, we're dealing with people who choose to die in an over populated dystopia. Whats wrong with it? It feeds the masses, and it's source helps overpopulation, and all but the lack of disclosure of ingredients is completely willing.
and the time tested answer is to throw metaphysics to the wind. Metaphysics are unprovable by nature, and are at best nothing but complicated logical structures with minimal functional value. At worse they are existant in the colloquial dogmatic or emotional sense, meaning purely subjective. We should dismiss metaphysics, and actually look at the humanistic and scientific values, as weighed against the possible negative consiquences.
Exagerate much? A handful of replicating cells is much different than an aware individual. Your on a slippery slope, and soon you must admit that every sperm is indeed sacred, and that menstration is murder. We're dealing with cells, not conscious entities. An embryo is not conscious. A germ/stem cell is not conscious either.
The only leg you have left to stand on is potenciality, which is also a flawed arguement, since it leads down the same slippery slope.
This is to say that you beleive that some concrete ethical standard can be developed. I doubt that this is the case, especailly in todays "intellectual" climate (especially in the US).
What we have is science vs. religion. Science coming from a rational direction. Religion screaming "God doesn't like it!" Same as in all the big ticket ethical questions, such as abortion. Compromise is impossible, both sides are fixed and dogmatic, even if their might be a silent minority with median views.
Science seems to lack some of the possible humanistic issues, while religion fails to take in account that some people really don't give a rats ass what their interpretation of their mythology tells them. I think the atheistic side might be capable of compromise, while the religious will never. Sadly the religious side is in control in the US.
I think what is needed is to censor the religious people. Only allow logical/scientific arguements, and resort to real ethiks, being that all issues are inevitable, and pointless to ban.
I personally can't only think of a handful of pragmatic ethical considerations against any form of cloning, and a plethera of positive humanistic benefits.
On the down side we have the fact that only the wealthy could afford genetic treatments. The unforseen effects of germ line therapies, and the fact that decendants have no choice. The trite sci-fi full human cloning, which would go under my first condition. And then the whole fetus issue, which is pretty much mute in a world without souls.
Perhaps banning certain aspects might be in the best interest, but not the full genetic horse.
First, I never really attacked the author, actually as outlined in the review I agree with some of his points. I don't think that he applied them well, though, and this might not be completely his fault, all I know is that if Sw:G is his attempt to impliment his strategy, then it is for the most part a borderline failure, as can be seen by the general concensus.
I'm sorry, if it is arrogance, it is grounded arrogance. The public hasn't been schooled on what makes a good interface, and most of them have never put much thought into it, besides giving good ones the nod, and rejecting bad ones. This is visceral, and is quite different than trying to design a new one from the ground up. Notice the stagnant nature of this, if developers decide to make what consumers like, what they have been exposed to in games already. To inovate (as the foil to stagnation) the developer must break popular concensus, and makes something new, what is currently the hot style may not be applicable, or may rub against the developers creative ideals.
I never claimed to know what is good for the public. Not my job, I just claimed a negation in that fact that they DON'T, I never advanced an ideal, nor am I qualified to do so. But then again, just because I'm not qualified, does not mean that someone else isn't. Perhaps if I went to school for years, and had years of experience, and put time into thinking of the ideal game interface, I might be slightly more qualified than Joe Public, don't you think?
Also we have to add to this, that the public does not have concensus, and if they do, it is VERY rare. As a developer listening to the streets, you would have a different conception of the ideal game interface from almost every person you asked. There is too much noise to even try to listen to the public. If THEY as a whole knew what was good for them at least a decent majority would agree to one format.
Truth is; egalitarianism is bunk. We have experts for a reason. The average person MIGHT know something about their own area of interest, but jack about most others. And in games, the public knows a lot about playing them, but not much about making them. You can add your own examples to my side, at will (autos, computers, literature, art). Name one thing that the public knows best about, and I mean the public as a whole.
Yeah, I'll agree with your former points, that this man blows in practice as a designer. But as for the second point it may have some modicum (or more, I dare say) of validity.
For the most part the public doesn't actually know what is good for them. Most people want what their familiar with, and cannot think of that which is novel. If I create a novel interface, I should disreguard it because it's not what people want, without exposure? How many of the unwashed do you know of who have any knowledge of game or interface design, ergonomics? Not many. Good, then leave it up to the experts.
Being left handed, I've learned to use my mouse on the left side, but with the default buttons. Meaning I'm pretty much doing what you described. I actually find it nicer, being that my left-click is done with my middle finger, and right with the index. But being that this is a Mac, my index is mostly used for scrolling, which seems more natural, and doesn't make me loose a quick left click, unlike righties.
I don't like the new apple mice though, they are too damn click sensative, and I have a habit of bearing down on he mouse when I'm involved. I also don't dig the one buttoned-ness thing because while the right button isn't needed most of the time, it's nice to have around just in case. Then again I'm a switcher, so it might be different for the people who grew up on Apple PCs.
The touch pad on my iBook is teh suck though. Even with sensativity at max it feels sluggish, the button seems to be... er... misplaced.
I pose to you, why would a planet two hundred degrees hotter than our current tempatures be 'unhealthy', and the tempatures today or one thousand years ago be considered 'healthy'? Why is a certain amount of carbon or ozone or any other material healthy? Answer this question non-egoistically.
A tempature 200deg hotter could be considered unhealthy within the context of the sum of the current biosphere, meaning it would be within a margin where a signifigant (most, all?) species currently in existence would cease to exist, leaving the remainder in a state of disequalibrium, meaning unhealthy. Whether humans can survive this or not is not an issue, nor any other individual species, but only the health of the system.
It's like comparing the stock market crash of the 20's, to a single company going bankrupt. Companies go bankrupt all the time, sucks to be them, but it does not overly affect the health of the market taken as a whole.
I am talking about the CURRENT ecosystem, too. In the grand scheme of things Earth can wink out of existance without interupting equalibrium of the universe. Unless we're going for specicentric solipsism, where we must exist to keep things running (ala Berkeley), to observe.
How the hell did you get from supporting life, to "especially human life", why do we exist, objectivly, in some privilaged space? Sure, from a bastardized evolutionary (and erronious) Darwinian view that makes sense. But evolution isn't even about species, it is about individuals. You might as well rephrase your reply as; "A 'healthy' ecosystem is one which supports and promotes life, especially ME.
Some would argue (not me per se, being an enviromental fence sitter) that humans are bad for the ecosystem, by disturbing fragile equalibrium, so that which promotes human life over all other forms of life is NOT healthy, being that we are unhealthy. Some would even go so far as to argue (and I somewhat agree), that that which hinders uncontrolled human reproduction is good for the system as a whole, as a regulatory agent.
I think that our version of healthy, and a more balanced ecosystem view is at odds. When you look at it from a systems level you can blithly ignore egostism, and just see if the overall system is healthy. Right now the answer is that the full system is not so healthy, and the cause it appearently us.
When we look at the "to whom" version, it only serves only to put things on the logically flawed anthropocentric POV, one to maximize our egotistical short-term self interest.
I'd be quite interested to see your reasoning behind that statement. Wouldn't the earth without us just be the earth where we do not exist? Probably a slightly healthier biosphere, even. Wouldn't you mean that we are nothing without the Earth, it seems like it could chug along just fine without us.
I'm not saying down with humans or anything, I just find your statement borderline nonsensical.
Even in windows I still use CLI, even if it is just crippled DOS emu. ipconfig, and ping are indespensable. Also sometime XP won't let you delete files, and the only way to do it is to use cmd, or using CLI via safe mode.
Um, great. So we have a question, and he brought it up as such, even saying perhaps it needs more research. In my eyes that always seemed to be perfectly valid in science.
But not if you get in the way of the rights groups. Then you must keep your mouth shut. Making people feel good about themselves is much better than inquiry.
And, I pretty much ignore most gender/race science discoveries. They are bad science for the most part, with researchers bubbleing with good intentions, working towards a certain conclusion that they want. While I think those who find opposite from the groupthink perfer to remain quiet.
Please not, I'm not racist/sexist. I just think that there is some truth in the fact that we are all diverse, and that certain groups might have propencities towards certain aptitudes. But thats to the flexible nature of humans, it might take more work, but we all can be equal, even if we aren't by default.
In my experience, I've informally noticed that women don't seem as good at logical arguments as men, resorting to emotive statements instead of logical proofs. "I just feel that way!". One of my best freinds was really guilty of this. But over the years she took many philosophy and math classes, and now can pretty much kick my ass in the logic department. The fact is, Americans don't want to work to be equal, we just want to be by default.
For most of these stereotypes on innate behavior, capabilities, I actually would not deny some actual biological basis. No before I'm flamed into oblivion, or modded troll, this does not mean you can find any race/gender superior to anyother, just that each race/gender might have a very slight genetic advantage in certain areas, which are then potentiated (or not) by society. Though I think that the line here is very very hard to see. Especially since I think that the innate differences are reinforced by cultural bias. Say, for the sake of arguement, that women do have less analytic abilities, the fact that society would further reinforce this would be bad, since he abilities that one had, could never reach their potential.
I really do hate the whole idea we have of blind equality. People, reguardless of race/gender, are just NOT equal. Some of us are good at some things, and suck at others. Equality is just the bastard step-brother of relativism. Especially when it comes to gender equality, you can look around and see that there is some VERY obvious differences. While women might not be more nurturing (which I wouldn't doubt that they were, still), they sure as hell have the plumbing for it, and a decent genetic/histortical reason for it. Same thing with women in life-saving physical jobs, they should have to make the same grade as a male firefighter, police officer, being that they must perform the same duties, meaning to get the job both genders should be forced to meet the same requirements, to a T.
I don't think it will work, I doubt that SE will work ANYTHING like crack. People like power, if Joe User bought it, then found out it was crippled I think it would actually turn him off of MS products. Also, people don't like little windows popping up telling them what they can't do.
Also I can't think of any use for it besides rising nations, it would be useless in schools, buisness, libraries, anywhere (including the home IMO). Unless their gonna get a contract from the US gov't to airdrop them on war-torn villages in Iraq, or something. Giving a people a choice though would be a bad idea, since people wouldn't choose it. There are enough tech savvy individuals in China and India to know that this is crippled, and it will be more than five years before the yokels in outer China and India have the means to afford something as superflous as a crippled computer. Then there is the problem that a lot of rural areas in the places you describe lack the infrastucture to make these computers feasable, mainly phone and stable power.
It is sad that our schools do this, indoctrinate us into MS. I remember when our school moved away from their cute little AT&T DOS terminals, to a full blown win 95 network, it was a sad day, they spent a couple million on two 95 labs, and one measily Mac lab. And then forced his students to tech the new machines. But Apple was guilty of this too. With young people though I don't think that this type of exposure actually matters. How many of the younger/. crowd were forced to use either a windows box, or a Mac box in school (k-12, now)? And how many of them still use what they were stuck on? And for those that do, are they using it solely because they were indoctrinated into it?
I think they need to hit the older market, older people are more fixed in their ways. Force older computer novices to use one type of computer, and that is all they'll get.
A long while ago I was setting up some mass-manufactured box (I think a HP, or Packard Bell) for my folks, and I had to sit through some damn mouse tutorial, and if I remember right it would not not load, sneaky bugger loaded at boot everytime.
Though I guess it is needed, since my parents consitantly forget that they can right click, though the scroll wheel seems to be easily graspable. Actually when I rclick to open a context menu my father gets flustered, screaming "slow down, how did you get that?!".
I was spoiled with a nice IBM keyboard, where you could basically drop a nuke on it, and it would still work, albeit weighed 2 pounds. All keyboards feel cheap to me now after that. It was the only keyboard that could break your knee when you got pissed at it.
The eject (and volume) buttons on the Mac keyboard are the easiest, and hence most Macish, ways to control these things though. Though I'm not familiar with this "Happy Hacker" keyboard you have, do you have a link to it?
Actually it is available at the online Apple Store too, and both models of the Mini have bluetooth and airport options. Actually it looks like it has default Airport, since to pick on without says -$75.
Make all the fun you want of the Apple mouse, but don't disreguard the keyboard. The mouse is GREAT for people who grew up, or are really used to Macs, BUT... They just don't cut it for "switchers", or people who are used to PCs. Also I find the mice to be too pressure sensative, I end up clicking non-stop because of grinding it down. Though I'm slowly getting used to them, they still are annoying as hell with firefox with gestures, especially when you have right mapped for gestures. And firefox does not support the click-hold action that makes Mac mice operational with context menus.
The keyboards lack all the superflous crap that most decent PC keyboards have though, by default. No stupid "check my email" button, no "fast forward" button, no "default open IE" button. Volume and Eject, thats it. Good action on the keys too, and they are nice to look at.
And on this new Mini, they are needed, I fear, since it doesn't have an eject button. Sure you could drag media down to the trash, but it is much nicer to just hit eject to unmount media. Also, with only 2 USB ports to work on, your gonna need both for keyboard and mouse, so using the built in USB port on the keyboard would be nice. Unless, of course, you shell out the extra cash for the bluetooth option, of course.
Thing is... My wonderous gameing/work computer died a couple months back, giving me a nervous breakdown, so I shipped it off to my 'rents house. Bought a nice little iBook instead, got a copy of Office. Decided not playing games would be an acceptable sacrafice for not worrying about hardware, or Windows deciding to die from time to time.
And then I discovered that I'm an adult. I don't need a large gaming box to show off how manly I am. Girls never respected my case mods, and I learned why, they are a laughable trend. I learned that I can get more done without messing with the registry, adaware, spybot, defrag, diskclean, and scndisk. Sure, I can't play doom3, or even UT2k3 anymore. But I haven't really noticed, I just dug out my PS1, and my old Dreamcast.
Office on OS X is much better than on Windows. Stable. It hasn't eaten a single doc yet, nor has it completely froze more than once, but it didn't take my OS with it.
I've noticed that my computer habits were wrong. I spent to much time on my stupid glowing, fan encrusted, box. Always tweaking and fixing it. It was like having a bloody second girlfriend, without the perks.
Now my PC is windows free, running Fedora, acting as a nice dumb wifi router with extra HD space.
And, OT, I'm gonna pick up one of these mini's, selling my PC for the price, for a respectable 1.45ghz, 512, superdrive box with Bluetooth, it comes to $900. I'll get it once Tiger comes out, installed on it, so I can use the disks to stick it on my iBook as well, saving myself $200. Then I will be PC free, no more hardware investments after that for 3 years, no not even a video card.
Yeah, but Mac keyboards cost some change, without any added functionality besides aesthetics. And most USB keyboards have all those damn dash buttons on them (hate them, someday I'll find a nice cordless keyboard with no extra buttons, probably the same day I find a decent left-handed trackball).
Though, lookinh at it, there is no eject button on the case, so you might need a Mac Keyboard.
That really isn't a problem, most keyboards either have a USB->PS/2 or visa versa adapter in the box.
What I worry about is the fact this this thing only has 2 USB slots, and with a keyboard and a mouse, it leaves you with a grand total of none. Meaning all you have is the silly firewire port. So now I have my Mm, and I want to use their new iPhoto, I'm left with a choice, do I unplug my keyboard, or my mouse to sync my camera. Ditto for a printer. They should ship it with a USB hub.
Actually facts are quite easy to present without bias. "The Sky is Blue", there is no bias in that statement, neither for "1+1=2". But when you get down to interpreting he facts into something meaningful, then you have bias raise its ugly head. Intentional, or non.
But then you have 'facts' like, "G.W.B. sucks", which some wanker out there will consider a fact, since people seem to have a pretty skewed vision of what a fact is these days. God bless relativism, where one mans opinion can be his version of fact too.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, these tests are adjusted for that. Your point makes no sense when you take that in consideration.
Lets say that a majority of 'smart' people choke on test, but do slightly better than 'nonsmart' people, then the test makers would adjust performance around that metric.
If we take the same test, and relax the pressure, than the smart people will do better.
The abortion thing isn't something I'd really want to get in here, it is a certain flamewar.
And yes, a fetus is alive, and killing one is... well killing one. But before anything reaches the fetus state we might as well be killing a sea sponge. And I don't view it as new life, being that at that point it is completely dependent on its mothers body for survival, and lacks all of the function that entails higher order life (resperation, heartbeat, brain). So I guess we can say that they are alive in the same sense as a parasite, a REALLY stupid simple parasite. Like a colony of aemebas living in your womb.
Only when there is higher order functioning does i become wrong in my book. Once it has a brain, it is human. Once it is human, to terminate is the definition of murder.
But then I'm always guilty of the middle ground. The worlds only angry moderate!
flameon!
Perhaps I summed that up to rashly. The real question here is embryos, which are just a collection of replicating cells, with no finer structure. With embryos I have no qualms in the slightest of using/cloning, being that we are not dealing with a feeling individual, but an undifferenciated mass of cells. When we can feel is about as sticky as the fundies asking when the soul hit the body, though, but not quite as bad in the fact that we can have a measurable metric of 'life'. I prefer to take when the brain is operating as the operational definition of human life. Though some go for the heart, some go for some other structual cue.
I'm sorry for mistyping.
As for Soylent Green, we're not (fictionally) dealing with murder, we're dealing with people who choose to die in an over populated dystopia. Whats wrong with it? It feeds the masses, and it's source helps overpopulation, and all but the lack of disclosure of ingredients is completely willing.
and the time tested answer is to throw metaphysics to the wind. Metaphysics are unprovable by nature, and are at best nothing but complicated logical structures with minimal functional value. At worse they are existant in the colloquial dogmatic or emotional sense, meaning purely subjective. We should dismiss metaphysics, and actually look at the humanistic and scientific values, as weighed against the possible negative consiquences.
Exagerate much? A handful of replicating cells is much different than an aware individual. Your on a slippery slope, and soon you must admit that every sperm is indeed sacred, and that menstration is murder. We're dealing with cells, not conscious entities. An embryo is not conscious. A germ/stem cell is not conscious either.
The only leg you have left to stand on is potenciality, which is also a flawed arguement, since it leads down the same slippery slope.
This is to say that you beleive that some concrete ethical standard can be developed. I doubt that this is the case, especailly in todays "intellectual" climate (especially in the US).
What we have is science vs. religion. Science coming from a rational direction. Religion screaming "God doesn't like it!" Same as in all the big ticket ethical questions, such as abortion. Compromise is impossible, both sides are fixed and dogmatic, even if their might be a silent minority with median views.
Science seems to lack some of the possible humanistic issues, while religion fails to take in account that some people really don't give a rats ass what their interpretation of their mythology tells them. I think the atheistic side might be capable of compromise, while the religious will never. Sadly the religious side is in control in the US.
I think what is needed is to censor the religious people. Only allow logical/scientific arguements, and resort to real ethiks, being that all issues are inevitable, and pointless to ban.
I personally can't only think of a handful of pragmatic ethical considerations against any form of cloning, and a plethera of positive humanistic benefits.
On the down side we have the fact that only the wealthy could afford genetic treatments. The unforseen effects of germ line therapies, and the fact that decendants have no choice. The trite sci-fi full human cloning, which would go under my first condition. And then the whole fetus issue, which is pretty much mute in a world without souls.
Perhaps banning certain aspects might be in the best interest, but not the full genetic horse.
First, I never really attacked the author, actually as outlined in the review I agree with some of his points. I don't think that he applied them well, though, and this might not be completely his fault, all I know is that if Sw:G is his attempt to impliment his strategy, then it is for the most part a borderline failure, as can be seen by the general concensus.
I'm sorry, if it is arrogance, it is grounded arrogance. The public hasn't been schooled on what makes a good interface, and most of them have never put much thought into it, besides giving good ones the nod, and rejecting bad ones. This is visceral, and is quite different than trying to design a new one from the ground up. Notice the stagnant nature of this, if developers decide to make what consumers like, what they have been exposed to in games already. To inovate (as the foil to stagnation) the developer must break popular concensus, and makes something new, what is currently the hot style may not be applicable, or may rub against the developers creative ideals.
I never claimed to know what is good for the public. Not my job, I just claimed a negation in that fact that they DON'T, I never advanced an ideal, nor am I qualified to do so. But then again, just because I'm not qualified, does not mean that someone else isn't. Perhaps if I went to school for years, and had years of experience, and put time into thinking of the ideal game interface, I might be slightly more qualified than Joe Public, don't you think?
Also we have to add to this, that the public does not have concensus, and if they do, it is VERY rare. As a developer listening to the streets, you would have a different conception of the ideal game interface from almost every person you asked. There is too much noise to even try to listen to the public. If THEY as a whole knew what was good for them at least a decent majority would agree to one format.
Truth is; egalitarianism is bunk. We have experts for a reason. The average person MIGHT know something about their own area of interest, but jack about most others. And in games, the public knows a lot about playing them, but not much about making them. You can add your own examples to my side, at will (autos, computers, literature, art). Name one thing that the public knows best about, and I mean the public as a whole.
Yeah, I'll agree with your former points, that this man blows in practice as a designer. But as for the second point it may have some modicum (or more, I dare say) of validity.
For the most part the public doesn't actually know what is good for them. Most people want what their familiar with, and cannot think of that which is novel. If I create a novel interface, I should disreguard it because it's not what people want, without exposure? How many of the unwashed do you know of who have any knowledge of game or interface design, ergonomics? Not many. Good, then leave it up to the experts.
Ahem. Plato was right.
Being left handed, I've learned to use my mouse on the left side, but with the default buttons. Meaning I'm pretty much doing what you described. I actually find it nicer, being that my left-click is done with my middle finger, and right with the index. But being that this is a Mac, my index is mostly used for scrolling, which seems more natural, and doesn't make me loose a quick left click, unlike righties.
I don't like the new apple mice though, they are too damn click sensative, and I have a habit of bearing down on he mouse when I'm involved. I also don't dig the one buttoned-ness thing because while the right button isn't needed most of the time, it's nice to have around just in case. Then again I'm a switcher, so it might be different for the people who grew up on Apple PCs.
The touch pad on my iBook is teh suck though. Even with sensativity at max it feels sluggish, the button seems to be... er... misplaced.
I pose to you, why would a planet two hundred degrees hotter than our current tempatures be 'unhealthy', and the tempatures today or one thousand years ago be considered 'healthy'? Why is a certain amount of carbon or ozone or any other material healthy? Answer this question non-egoistically.
A tempature 200deg hotter could be considered unhealthy within the context of the sum of the current biosphere, meaning it would be within a margin where a signifigant (most, all?) species currently in existence would cease to exist, leaving the remainder in a state of disequalibrium, meaning unhealthy. Whether humans can survive this or not is not an issue, nor any other individual species, but only the health of the system.
It's like comparing the stock market crash of the 20's, to a single company going bankrupt. Companies go bankrupt all the time, sucks to be them, but it does not overly affect the health of the market taken as a whole.
I am talking about the CURRENT ecosystem, too. In the grand scheme of things Earth can wink out of existance without interupting equalibrium of the universe. Unless we're going for specicentric solipsism, where we must exist to keep things running (ala Berkeley), to observe.
How the hell did you get from supporting life, to "especially human life", why do we exist, objectivly, in some privilaged space? Sure, from a bastardized evolutionary (and erronious) Darwinian view that makes sense. But evolution isn't even about species, it is about individuals. You might as well rephrase your reply as; "A 'healthy' ecosystem is one which supports and promotes life, especially ME.
Some would argue (not me per se, being an enviromental fence sitter) that humans are bad for the ecosystem, by disturbing fragile equalibrium, so that which promotes human life over all other forms of life is NOT healthy, being that we are unhealthy. Some would even go so far as to argue (and I somewhat agree), that that which hinders uncontrolled human reproduction is good for the system as a whole, as a regulatory agent.
I think that our version of healthy, and a more balanced ecosystem view is at odds. When you look at it from a systems level you can blithly ignore egostism, and just see if the overall system is healthy. Right now the answer is that the full system is not so healthy, and the cause it appearently us.
When we look at the "to whom" version, it only serves only to put things on the logically flawed anthropocentric POV, one to maximize our egotistical short-term self interest.
The Earth is truly nothing without us.
I'd be quite interested to see your reasoning behind that statement. Wouldn't the earth without us just be the earth where we do not exist? Probably a slightly healthier biosphere, even. Wouldn't you mean that we are nothing without the Earth, it seems like it could chug along just fine without us.
I'm not saying down with humans or anything, I just find your statement borderline nonsensical.
Even in windows I still use CLI, even if it is just crippled DOS emu. ipconfig, and ping are indespensable. Also sometime XP won't let you delete files, and the only way to do it is to use cmd, or using CLI via safe mode.
Um, great. So we have a question, and he brought it up as such, even saying perhaps it needs more research. In my eyes that always seemed to be perfectly valid in science.
But not if you get in the way of the rights groups. Then you must keep your mouth shut. Making people feel good about themselves is much better than inquiry.
And, I pretty much ignore most gender/race science discoveries. They are bad science for the most part, with researchers bubbleing with good intentions, working towards a certain conclusion that they want. While I think those who find opposite from the groupthink perfer to remain quiet.
Please not, I'm not racist/sexist. I just think that there is some truth in the fact that we are all diverse, and that certain groups might have propencities towards certain aptitudes. But thats to the flexible nature of humans, it might take more work, but we all can be equal, even if we aren't by default.
In my experience, I've informally noticed that women don't seem as good at logical arguments as men, resorting to emotive statements instead of logical proofs. "I just feel that way!". One of my best freinds was really guilty of this. But over the years she took many philosophy and math classes, and now can pretty much kick my ass in the logic department. The fact is, Americans don't want to work to be equal, we just want to be by default.
For most of these stereotypes on innate behavior, capabilities, I actually would not deny some actual biological basis. No before I'm flamed into oblivion, or modded troll, this does not mean you can find any race/gender superior to anyother, just that each race/gender might have a very slight genetic advantage in certain areas, which are then potentiated (or not) by society. Though I think that the line here is very very hard to see. Especially since I think that the innate differences are reinforced by cultural bias. Say, for the sake of arguement, that women do have less analytic abilities, the fact that society would further reinforce this would be bad, since he abilities that one had, could never reach their potential.
I really do hate the whole idea we have of blind equality. People, reguardless of race/gender, are just NOT equal. Some of us are good at some things, and suck at others. Equality is just the bastard step-brother of relativism. Especially when it comes to gender equality, you can look around and see that there is some VERY obvious differences. While women might not be more nurturing (which I wouldn't doubt that they were, still), they sure as hell have the plumbing for it, and a decent genetic/histortical reason for it. Same thing with women in life-saving physical jobs, they should have to make the same grade as a male firefighter, police officer, being that they must perform the same duties, meaning to get the job both genders should be forced to meet the same requirements, to a T.
Ignore me. It's early. I need my coffee.
I don't think it will work, I doubt that SE will work ANYTHING like crack. People like power, if Joe User bought it, then found out it was crippled I think it would actually turn him off of MS products. Also, people don't like little windows popping up telling them what they can't do.
/. crowd were forced to use either a windows box, or a Mac box in school (k-12, now)? And how many of them still use what they were stuck on? And for those that do, are they using it solely because they were indoctrinated into it?
Also I can't think of any use for it besides rising nations, it would be useless in schools, buisness, libraries, anywhere (including the home IMO). Unless their gonna get a contract from the US gov't to airdrop them on war-torn villages in Iraq, or something. Giving a people a choice though would be a bad idea, since people wouldn't choose it. There are enough tech savvy individuals in China and India to know that this is crippled, and it will be more than five years before the yokels in outer China and India have the means to afford something as superflous as a crippled computer. Then there is the problem that a lot of rural areas in the places you describe lack the infrastucture to make these computers feasable, mainly phone and stable power.
It is sad that our schools do this, indoctrinate us into MS. I remember when our school moved away from their cute little AT&T DOS terminals, to a full blown win 95 network, it was a sad day, they spent a couple million on two 95 labs, and one measily Mac lab. And then forced his students to tech the new machines. But Apple was guilty of this too. With young people though I don't think that this type of exposure actually matters. How many of the younger
I think they need to hit the older market, older people are more fixed in their ways. Force older computer novices to use one type of computer, and that is all they'll get.
A long while ago I was setting up some mass-manufactured box (I think a HP, or Packard Bell) for my folks, and I had to sit through some damn mouse tutorial, and if I remember right it would not not load, sneaky bugger loaded at boot everytime.
Though I guess it is needed, since my parents consitantly forget that they can right click, though the scroll wheel seems to be easily graspable. Actually when I rclick to open a context menu my father gets flustered, screaming "slow down, how did you get that?!".
I was spoiled with a nice IBM keyboard, where you could basically drop a nuke on it, and it would still work, albeit weighed 2 pounds. All keyboards feel cheap to me now after that. It was the only keyboard that could break your knee when you got pissed at it.
The eject (and volume) buttons on the Mac keyboard are the easiest, and hence most Macish, ways to control these things though. Though I'm not familiar with this "Happy Hacker" keyboard you have, do you have a link to it?
Actually it is available at the online Apple Store too, and both models of the Mini have bluetooth and airport options. Actually it looks like it has default Airport, since to pick on without says -$75.
Video upgrades I agree.
Make all the fun you want of the Apple mouse, but don't disreguard the keyboard. The mouse is GREAT for people who grew up, or are really used to Macs, BUT... They just don't cut it for "switchers", or people who are used to PCs. Also I find the mice to be too pressure sensative, I end up clicking non-stop because of grinding it down. Though I'm slowly getting used to them, they still are annoying as hell with firefox with gestures, especially when you have right mapped for gestures. And firefox does not support the click-hold action that makes Mac mice operational with context menus.
The keyboards lack all the superflous crap that most decent PC keyboards have though, by default. No stupid "check my email" button, no "fast forward" button, no "default open IE" button. Volume and Eject, thats it. Good action on the keys too, and they are nice to look at.
And on this new Mini, they are needed, I fear, since it doesn't have an eject button. Sure you could drag media down to the trash, but it is much nicer to just hit eject to unmount media. Also, with only 2 USB ports to work on, your gonna need both for keyboard and mouse, so using the built in USB port on the keyboard would be nice. Unless, of course, you shell out the extra cash for the bluetooth option, of course.
Thing is... My wonderous gameing/work computer died a couple months back, giving me a nervous breakdown, so I shipped it off to my 'rents house. Bought a nice little iBook instead, got a copy of Office. Decided not playing games would be an acceptable sacrafice for not worrying about hardware, or Windows deciding to die from time to time.
And then I discovered that I'm an adult. I don't need a large gaming box to show off how manly I am. Girls never respected my case mods, and I learned why, they are a laughable trend. I learned that I can get more done without messing with the registry, adaware, spybot, defrag, diskclean, and scndisk. Sure, I can't play doom3, or even UT2k3 anymore. But I haven't really noticed, I just dug out my PS1, and my old Dreamcast.
Office on OS X is much better than on Windows. Stable. It hasn't eaten a single doc yet, nor has it completely froze more than once, but it didn't take my OS with it.
I've noticed that my computer habits were wrong. I spent to much time on my stupid glowing, fan encrusted, box. Always tweaking and fixing it. It was like having a bloody second girlfriend, without the perks.
Now my PC is windows free, running Fedora, acting as a nice dumb wifi router with extra HD space.
And, OT, I'm gonna pick up one of these mini's, selling my PC for the price, for a respectable 1.45ghz, 512, superdrive box with Bluetooth, it comes to $900. I'll get it once Tiger comes out, installed on it, so I can use the disks to stick it on my iBook as well, saving myself $200. Then I will be PC free, no more hardware investments after that for 3 years, no not even a video card.
Yeah, but Mac keyboards cost some change, without any added functionality besides aesthetics. And most USB keyboards have all those damn dash buttons on them (hate them, someday I'll find a nice cordless keyboard with no extra buttons, probably the same day I find a decent left-handed trackball).
Though, lookinh at it, there is no eject button on the case, so you might need a Mac Keyboard.
That really isn't a problem, most keyboards either have a USB->PS/2 or visa versa adapter in the box.
What I worry about is the fact this this thing only has 2 USB slots, and with a keyboard and a mouse, it leaves you with a grand total of none. Meaning all you have is the silly firewire port. So now I have my Mm, and I want to use their new iPhoto, I'm left with a choice, do I unplug my keyboard, or my mouse to sync my camera. Ditto for a printer. They should ship it with a USB hub.
Actually facts are quite easy to present without bias. "The Sky is Blue", there is no bias in that statement, neither for "1+1=2". But when you get down to interpreting he facts into something meaningful, then you have bias raise its ugly head. Intentional, or non.
But then you have 'facts' like, "G.W.B. sucks", which some wanker out there will consider a fact, since people seem to have a pretty skewed vision of what a fact is these days. God bless relativism, where one mans opinion can be his version of fact too.
Ahhhh... My Neiborhood Totoro... My first anime. I still think it is one of the better of Miyazaki though, silly and surreal.