Correction: Science can best be described as an anti-belief system which requires reason and fact.
Anti-belief? Belief is not just restricted to the realm of religion, you know. For something to be a fact, you have to believe it to be so, you have to believe in the evidence. Whether something is intrinsically true or not is irrelevant in this case. Perhaps you are talking about blind faith? Which is not a part of all religions to begin with.
Science is *not* a "way of life," it is nothing more than a methodology for inquiry.
May scientists, me included, use science as a way of life. The strict definition of the word science may be just a method, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the broader, more encompassing definition. Science is many things.
I'm not aware of any definition of "naive" that fits my position, please explain how I am "naive."
Because you think that all religious people take everything literally, and that you think you know enough about every religion to say that such a thing is a problem to begin with.
Science might not be a belief system, but it is also more than just a word or a single definition. When I said science, I meant science as a profession, an area interest, a way of life, etc.. As for the rest of your point on religion, it still seems very naive to me.
I haven't read his books, but I did see his DVDs, and I have to agree. He has the same attitude towards religious people as some religious people have toward atheists. In some of the interviews, the way he was arguing, it was like watching two like-minded individuals. They both seemed to believe they are Right and despise or ridiculed the other person for not seeing things their way.
But they were also terrorists, and fellow humans with family and friends. Does that mean no one deserves any respect? Or perhaps we should grow up and stop pretending that people are inherently related to the labels we put on them. There are bad scientists out there, should we stop respecting all of science?
They feel as though a bunch of cells that cannot possibly have a consciousness yet have the same human value as a late term fetus.
Before I say anything else, I should say that I'm an atheist and pro-choice. How do you know that a bunch of cells can have no form of consciousness whatsoever? We don't have enough of an understanding of consciousness or life to say that. Assuming that you are right, can you please tell me exactly when consciousness does start? What is the threshold here?
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I expect a resurgence of WYSIWYG-like tools sooner or latter, but unlike the current tools, they'd be aimed at people who already know the underlying technology and will also be aimed more at creating CSS for templates. I do all my CSS by hand, but it would be nice not to have to switch between my text editor and browser all the time for what really is a graphical job.
A designer might need Dreamweaver, but that's most likely because he doesn't know the underlying structures. Now, I admit, the Designer-Tech profile is quite seldom though;-))
All the good web designers I know do their own HTML and CSS. Although in bigger places, the design and implementation in to code may be split. But Dreamweaver has been dead for a while to most decent web designers.
Like it keep saying, I'm talking about most users. And for most users wanting a mid-range computer, FireWire 800 is enough. There's also plenty of FireWire 800 enclosures out there. Perhaps no as many as eSATA, but we are talking about Macs here, they are still a smaller market, so there is less of a range for some things, of course. However, I'm happy with the enclosures on offer.
Yeah, sorry about the HDD, that isn't easily upgradable. But plugging in an external drive is pretty easy. All the big media files which are the cause of my HDD upgrading are OK on an external drive to me. I suspect this is quite common.
Some would argue that the idea of innate abilities in the dualistic way you've put it is a silly idea to begin with. Learning something new changes your abilities. Innate abilities seem just like an arbitrary starting point. I'm ADDish, so I sometimes take dexamphetamine. I don't feel the help I've had from this has made my achievements hollow at all, as it doesn't give me abilities, but aids my own development of them. Perhaps it's because I follow Buddhist philosophy and subscribe to the theory of no-self which makes many of your points moot from my point of view.
I don't think people who want to install an eSATA or SCSI card in a mid-ranged Apple computer are in the majority. I'm sure it sucks for those that need to, but that wasn't my point.
Looks like Apple has finally moved on from FireWire 400, as all the new products only have FireWire 800 ports. About time -- two different FireWire ports was starting to get annoying, although it does mean you'll need to get an adapter for old stuff.
Expansion isn't as important these days. Most people will only want to upgrade the HDD and perhaps the RAM, both of which the iMac will do. You can also add a 2nd monitor to it, USB will do the rest. People who make their own computers or have some niche requirements may not like the all-in-one designs, but that's not the majority, and hardly a glaring gap in their line-up.
Personally, I'd rather have the Macbook Pro. I know it may not seem like much sense at first, but no laptop with a 2nd screen is going to make me feel at home like a nice, big desktop set-up will -- it's always going to be a compromise, and a compromise which also compromises the portability of the laptop. Compromises all around. Not what I want in this case.
As a graphic designer and photographer, I can tell you that professional graphic designers use the keyboard all the time. They just spend a lot of time with only one hand on the keyboard. Keyboard shortcuts are a graphic designer's best friend.
Still, I think the screen is on the correct side, even though I don't like the laptop very much. Perhaps there is enough of a "Windows graphic designer or photographer on the go" market to make it worth it, but it wouldn't surprise me if it flops in its target market.
Looks like it's on the correct side to me. Most people seem to have their 2nd monitor on the right, rather than left, from what I've seen. The fact that it has a built-in Wacom tablet should have clued you in as to who this laptop was designed for. If you use one hand on the keyboard and the other hand on the tablet or an external mouse on the right, the the screen is better off on the right. Either way, I'm not sure that I buy your idea of it being a big problem to begin with.
Think this could possibly all be put down to Google being cheap. I'm sure Google care about privacy, but they also care about profit, and dealing with the privacy issues probably costs a lot of money. Hopefully they will decide to take the issue more seriously and set a precedent so that the government doesn't have to, as privacy issues don't appear to be going away anytime soon.
Apple's target audience is people who will pay more for aesthetics
No it isn't. It's design. It's just that aesthetics are a natural part of good design. Apple wouldn't be so successful if their products only looked good but functioned like Windows or Linux. I know most people on this site don't have a good understanding of design, but surely enough of you guys have used an Apple product by now to realise that Apple doesn't do well because of aesthetics and marketing alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: Science can best be described as an anti-belief system which requires reason and fact.
Anti-belief? Belief is not just restricted to the realm of religion, you know. For something to be a fact, you have to believe it to be so, you have to believe in the evidence. Whether something is intrinsically true or not is irrelevant in this case. Perhaps you are talking about blind faith? Which is not a part of all religions to begin with.
Science is *not* a "way of life," it is nothing more than a methodology for inquiry.
May scientists, me included, use science as a way of life. The strict definition of the word science may be just a method, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the broader, more encompassing definition. Science is many things.
I'm not aware of any definition of "naive" that fits my position, please explain how I am "naive."
Because you think that all religious people take everything literally, and that you think you know enough about every religion to say that such a thing is a problem to begin with.
Science might not be a belief system, but it is also more than just a word or a single definition. When I said science, I meant science as a profession, an area interest, a way of life, etc.. As for the rest of your point on religion, it still seems very naive to me.
I haven't read his books, but I did see his DVDs, and I have to agree. He has the same attitude towards religious people as some religious people have toward atheists. In some of the interviews, the way he was arguing, it was like watching two like-minded individuals. They both seemed to believe they are Right and despise or ridiculed the other person for not seeing things their way.
But they were also terrorists, and fellow humans with family and friends. Does that mean no one deserves any respect? Or perhaps we should grow up and stop pretending that people are inherently related to the labels we put on them. There are bad scientists out there, should we stop respecting all of science?
They feel as though a bunch of cells that cannot possibly have a consciousness yet have the same human value as a late term fetus.
Before I say anything else, I should say that I'm an atheist and pro-choice. How do you know that a bunch of cells can have no form of consciousness whatsoever? We don't have enough of an understanding of consciousness or life to say that. Assuming that you are right, can you please tell me exactly when consciousness does start? What is the threshold here?
I wouldn't be so sure of that. I expect a resurgence of WYSIWYG-like tools sooner or latter, but unlike the current tools, they'd be aimed at people who already know the underlying technology and will also be aimed more at creating CSS for templates. I do all my CSS by hand, but it would be nice not to have to switch between my text editor and browser all the time for what really is a graphical job.
Guess you've never seen what happens when a client decides to design their own site.
A designer might need Dreamweaver, but that's most likely because he doesn't know the underlying structures. Now, I admit, the Designer-Tech profile is quite seldom though ;-))
All the good web designers I know do their own HTML and CSS. Although in bigger places, the design and implementation in to code may be split. But Dreamweaver has been dead for a while to most decent web designers.
Perhaps if other computer makers made more inspiring products, the spotlight wouldn't be on Apple so much.
Well, I'd expect to start seeing a whole lot more.
Like it keep saying, I'm talking about most users. And for most users wanting a mid-range computer, FireWire 800 is enough.
There's also plenty of FireWire 800 enclosures out there. Perhaps no as many as eSATA, but we are talking about Macs here, they are still a smaller market, so there is less of a range for some things, of course. However, I'm happy with the enclosures on offer.
Yeah, sorry about the HDD, that isn't easily upgradable. But plugging in an external drive is pretty easy. All the big media files which are the cause of my HDD upgrading are OK on an external drive to me. I suspect this is quite common.
Some would argue that the idea of innate abilities in the dualistic way you've put it is a silly idea to begin with. Learning something new changes your abilities. Innate abilities seem just like an arbitrary starting point. I'm ADDish, so I sometimes take dexamphetamine. I don't feel the help I've had from this has made my achievements hollow at all, as it doesn't give me abilities, but aids my own development of them. Perhaps it's because I follow Buddhist philosophy and subscribe to the theory of no-self which makes many of your points moot from my point of view.
I don't think people who want to install an eSATA or SCSI card in a mid-ranged Apple computer are in the majority. I'm sure it sucks for those that need to, but that wasn't my point.
Looks like Apple has finally moved on from FireWire 400, as all the new products only have FireWire 800 ports. About time -- two different FireWire ports was starting to get annoying, although it does mean you'll need to get an adapter for old stuff.
I like the new keyboard that ships with the iMac -- basically a wired version of the compact wireless keyboard.
Expansion isn't as important these days. Most people will only want to upgrade the HDD and perhaps the RAM, both of which the iMac will do. You can also add a 2nd monitor to it, USB will do the rest. People who make their own computers or have some niche requirements may not like the all-in-one designs, but that's not the majority, and hardly a glaring gap in their line-up.
Personally, I'd rather have the Macbook Pro. I know it may not seem like much sense at first, but no laptop with a 2nd screen is going to make me feel at home like a nice, big desktop set-up will -- it's always going to be a compromise, and a compromise which also compromises the portability of the laptop. Compromises all around. Not what I want in this case.
As a graphic designer and photographer, I can tell you that professional graphic designers use the keyboard all the time. They just spend a lot of time with only one hand on the keyboard. Keyboard shortcuts are a graphic designer's best friend.
Still, I think the screen is on the correct side, even though I don't like the laptop very much. Perhaps there is enough of a "Windows graphic designer or photographer on the go" market to make it worth it, but it wouldn't surprise me if it flops in its target market.
Looks like it's on the correct side to me. Most people seem to have their 2nd monitor on the right, rather than left, from what I've seen. The fact that it has a built-in Wacom tablet should have clued you in as to who this laptop was designed for. If you use one hand on the keyboard and the other hand on the tablet or an external mouse on the right, the the screen is better off on the right. Either way, I'm not sure that I buy your idea of it being a big problem to begin with.
Think this could possibly all be put down to Google being cheap. I'm sure Google care about privacy, but they also care about profit, and dealing with the privacy issues probably costs a lot of money. Hopefully they will decide to take the issue more seriously and set a precedent so that the government doesn't have to, as privacy issues don't appear to be going away anytime soon.
It's not all about features.
How is a flip phone more private? Perhaps if you leave your cellphone out on the table, the iPhone is a bit less private.
Yeah, but MS don't make a single computer that runs their main OS. I think the generalization fits.
Apple's target audience is people who will pay more for aesthetics
No it isn't. It's design. It's just that aesthetics are a natural part of good design. Apple wouldn't be so successful if their products only looked good but functioned like Windows or Linux. I know most people on this site don't have a good understanding of design, but surely enough of you guys have used an Apple product by now to realise that Apple doesn't do well because of aesthetics and marketing alone.