Why? Because certain things, or the universe as a whole, may just be, it doesn't mean you can make observations about it. I know someone may chime in as say that if scientists never wonder about things that theories would never get made and tested, but that's different.
You're right. Apple are obviously stupid. Just look at how unsuccessful the iPhone app store has been.
You can rant about the openness of the iPhone all you want, and I'd actually agree with you on many points. But to say Apple is stupid for doing it is pretty silly, since they seem to be doing incredibly well with it.
Oh god. Another idiot who thinks that OS X has a horrible interface simply because it's different to the one they're used to.
As for your fans, it sounds like you have a faulty computer.
I can right click with the mouse that came with my iMac, no problems. And it's not as if mice are expensive if you can't stand the one that ships with it. I actually prefer it over any other mouse I've tried.
Why would you want to open two copies of the same application?
I suspect that if you think that both Windows and Ubutu have better usability that OS X, you are probably a programmer with some very strange and wrong ideas about GUIs.
BS. I live in NZ and even Dick Smiths now sells Macs. There are at least 2 places in the tiny place of Lower Hutt alone. And that you think graphic design is heritage of the 80's shows just how much of a lack of understanding you have of the print industry.
I think the newer iMacs have a bit of a image problem with some techies. Many of them don't take iMacs seriously because they're an all-in-one, and anyone who has assembled their own tower from parts before couldn't possibly use such a computer. I'm very happy with my 24" iMac. It would have been about the same specs as I was looking for in a tower (Mac Pro is too much, Mac mini not powerful enough), and I got a really nice new screen. I guess if you already had a better screen than the iMac's and only wanted to run one display, you might have a good reason to not want an all-in-one of this spec. I do look forward to getting a Mac Pro at some stage, but my iMac is hardly a what I'd call a chore to use. Yeah, it's not easy to upgrade, but the last time I wanted to upgrade my old PC, the motherboard was so old that it required pretty-much all new stuff, anyway. I won't be upgrading my iMac, I'll be replacing it. The resell value on iMacs is pretty good compared to PCs.
Try maximizing a window on a mac. Minimize a window, then alt-tab back to that app. You get the app, with no window! You then get the 'pleasure' of moving the mouse to the menu bar, selecting the window menu, and hopefully finding the window you wanted.
If you just wanted to alt-tab, then why did you minimise the window to begin with? And why go to the window menu to get it back when there is a big icon in the dock? Personally, I expect a window to say minimised if I minimise it.
Unless you can explain what is so bad about this process other than that it's simply different to how you are used to doing things, I don't see what the big deal is.
I agree with you on most parts except "Religion too will be moot, unless one of them, despite the staggering unlikeliness of it all, turns out to be true." Because to say that one will turn out to be true seems to imply that there will be evidence for it. In many cases, part what makes faith different from science is that it is something for which there might never be proof or evidence, but that doesn't make it untrue. Even in science there is no such thing as absolute proof. So to use science as a tool against all religion simply shows a lack of understanding of science or faith. Whenever I see someone say that anything regarding faith or spirituality is unlikely, I always question just how much of a scientist they really are, because if they were that dedicated to the scientific principle, they would say that they simply don't know, rather than make baseless assumptions.
IMHO, a die-hard atheist is just as ignorant as a radical fundamentalist.
I never said that thinking it's possible that you're being followed makes you delusional, but being certain to the point of not accepting that you could be wrong or paranoid is delusional (assuming you're not actually being followed). The fact that you can't document the activity of angles is part of my point.
I'll try and keep this short. For starters, I never claimed that there is any inherit meaning or purpose in the universe. My problem here is that to talk about views on reality is philosophical and is not in the realm of science. Neither science or philosophy are greater than another, they are simply different. To say that science is all you need to develop a world view is itself a philosophy. The universe would indeed work just as well without philosophy. But it would also work without science, too.
For something to have meaning of it's own, to have an inherent purpose, implies that it was created with that purpose in mind.
Why, exactly? What is doing this implying? Why can only created things have meaning?
Science alone gives no evidence for a purpose, and that's just fine with me.
But science by its very definition has nothing to do with meaning so to use any evidence from science as to the meaning of something makes no sense to begin with.
The concept of "faith" regards the "held in the face of evidence to the contrary" part to be a virtue.
That is what some people call blind faith. That can be quite different to faith in the definition of some religions, such as Buddhism. Of course, some people would say that Buddhism is more of a philosophy, so I guess it depends. One could say that atheists are delusional, from the perspective of a religious person who also has no contradicting evidence from science (not all Christians take the Bible literally, you know). I tend to be agnostic. My point is that to think that all religious people are delusional is actually delusional.
Well, you first have to accept that it might not be true (not being able to accept that is a good sign of delusion), then you observe the cars. To see if they really are following you anymore than any other cars. You have to get scientific about, of course, record every car you see, and for how long they are following you. You record the plates etc. and try to follow them up and see where they end up. If they really were following you, it would become more obvious to anyone who wasn't already totally convinced. Often selective bias plays a large role in these kinds of things.
Of course, there is no such thing as absolute proof for these types of things, but my point was that the very concept of angles can be vague and open to interpretation, where as being followed is not.
Yeah, but 9/11 was done by individual terrorists, and the threat of military action did not prevent them. That a state military is capable of even more destruction is besides the point.
You're right! If only the US had better weapons, those terrorists, who aren't afraid of dying, would never have attacked the US. And had the US nuked "them", it would never have made "them" fight stronger for their cause. It seems you are doing your best to re-write history.
Don't see a pattern. People who claim abductions have often suffered from sleep paralysis. Sleep paralysis usually doesn't happen when you are walking down the street (even if you're sleep walking), so it's quite a different disorder.
There are plenty of very scientific aspects of psychology. I suggest you do your research. Yes, there is a lot of subjectivity, but what do you expect of a field that studies subjective experiences? As for disorders, it sounds like you are talking about the DSM, and as if every single psychologist and psychiatrist thinks that the DSM is some kind of scientific book. It never has been, and anyone who has ever thought it was didn't understand what it was supposed to be. The reason disorders get made is because enough people start having a certain group of symptoms or traits, where it then simply becomes easier to give it a label so that people in the field know what others are talking about.
It's subjective and "wish washy" because there is currently no other way to study it in many cases. People who are critical of psychology often don't understand that. Calling psychology a pseudo-science shows that you don't get the point.
Slashdot Mirror
The question as to whether there is a creator is nonsensical as far as we can fathom.
I thought that was type of agnosticism?
Really? All religions think that God created the universe?
Or perhaps some religions are simply a path to the answer? If that is arrogant, then so is science.
Why? Because certain things, or the universe as a whole, may just be, it doesn't mean you can make observations about it. I know someone may chime in as say that if scientists never wonder about things that theories would never get made and tested, but that's different.
C'mon, Steve, 1440x900 on 15" box with a price that starts on $2K?
Yeah, but it can also drive Apple's 30" display at its full 2560x1600. Can the T500 do that?
It's easy to make a silly analogy, but that doesn't mean it proves a point.
You're right. Apple are obviously stupid. Just look at how unsuccessful the iPhone app store has been.
You can rant about the openness of the iPhone all you want, and I'd actually agree with you on many points. But to say Apple is stupid for doing it is pretty silly, since they seem to be doing incredibly well with it.
Oh god. Another idiot who thinks that OS X has a horrible interface simply because it's different to the one they're used to.
As for your fans, it sounds like you have a faulty computer.
I can right click with the mouse that came with my iMac, no problems. And it's not as if mice are expensive if you can't stand the one that ships with it. I actually prefer it over any other mouse I've tried.
Why would you want to open two copies of the same application?
I suspect that if you think that both Windows and Ubutu have better usability that OS X, you are probably a programmer with some very strange and wrong ideas about GUIs.
BS. I live in NZ and even Dick Smiths now sells Macs. There are at least 2 places in the tiny place of Lower Hutt alone. And that you think graphic design is heritage of the 80's shows just how much of a lack of understanding you have of the print industry.
I think the newer iMacs have a bit of a image problem with some techies. Many of them don't take iMacs seriously because they're an all-in-one, and anyone who has assembled their own tower from parts before couldn't possibly use such a computer. I'm very happy with my 24" iMac. It would have been about the same specs as I was looking for in a tower (Mac Pro is too much, Mac mini not powerful enough), and I got a really nice new screen. I guess if you already had a better screen than the iMac's and only wanted to run one display, you might have a good reason to not want an all-in-one of this spec. I do look forward to getting a Mac Pro at some stage, but my iMac is hardly a what I'd call a chore to use. Yeah, it's not easy to upgrade, but the last time I wanted to upgrade my old PC, the motherboard was so old that it required pretty-much all new stuff, anyway. I won't be upgrading my iMac, I'll be replacing it. The resell value on iMacs is pretty good compared to PCs.
Try maximizing a window on a mac. Minimize a window, then alt-tab back to that app. You get the app, with no window! You then get the 'pleasure' of moving the mouse to the menu bar, selecting the window menu, and hopefully finding the window you wanted.
If you just wanted to alt-tab, then why did you minimise the window to begin with? And why go to the window menu to get it back when there is a big icon in the dock? Personally, I expect a window to say minimised if I minimise it.
Unless you can explain what is so bad about this process other than that it's simply different to how you are used to doing things, I don't see what the big deal is.
I agree with you on most parts except "Religion too will be moot, unless one of them, despite the staggering unlikeliness of it all, turns out to be true." Because to say that one will turn out to be true seems to imply that there will be evidence for it. In many cases, part what makes faith different from science is that it is something for which there might never be proof or evidence, but that doesn't make it untrue. Even in science there is no such thing as absolute proof. So to use science as a tool against all religion simply shows a lack of understanding of science or faith. Whenever I see someone say that anything regarding faith or spirituality is unlikely, I always question just how much of a scientist they really are, because if they were that dedicated to the scientific principle, they would say that they simply don't know, rather than make baseless assumptions.
IMHO, a die-hard atheist is just as ignorant as a radical fundamentalist.
I never said that thinking it's possible that you're being followed makes you delusional, but being certain to the point of not accepting that you could be wrong or paranoid is delusional (assuming you're not actually being followed). The fact that you can't document the activity of angles is part of my point.
I'll try and keep this short. For starters, I never claimed that there is any inherit meaning or purpose in the universe. My problem here is that to talk about views on reality is philosophical and is not in the realm of science. Neither science or philosophy are greater than another, they are simply different. To say that science is all you need to develop a world view is itself a philosophy. The universe would indeed work just as well without philosophy. But it would also work without science, too.
For something to have meaning of it's own, to have an inherent purpose, implies that it was created with that purpose in mind.
Why, exactly? What is doing this implying? Why can only created things have meaning?
Science alone gives no evidence for a purpose, and that's just fine with me.
But science by its very definition has nothing to do with meaning so to use any evidence from science as to the meaning of something makes no sense to begin with.
The concept of "faith" regards the "held in the face of evidence to the contrary" part to be a virtue.
That is what some people call blind faith. That can be quite different to faith in the definition of some religions, such as Buddhism. Of course, some people would say that Buddhism is more of a philosophy, so I guess it depends. One could say that atheists are delusional, from the perspective of a religious person who also has no contradicting evidence from science (not all Christians take the Bible literally, you know). I tend to be agnostic. My point is that to think that all religious people are delusional is actually delusional.
Well, you first have to accept that it might not be true (not being able to accept that is a good sign of delusion), then you observe the cars. To see if they really are following you anymore than any other cars. You have to get scientific about, of course, record every car you see, and for how long they are following you. You record the plates etc. and try to follow them up and see where they end up. If they really were following you, it would become more obvious to anyone who wasn't already totally convinced. Often selective bias plays a large role in these kinds of things.
Of course, there is no such thing as absolute proof for these types of things, but my point was that the very concept of angles can be vague and open to interpretation, where as being followed is not.
Technical skill has nothing to do with having a functioning bullshit detector.
Exactly. Glad you agree with my point.
Yeah, but 9/11 was done by individual terrorists, and the threat of military action did not prevent them. That a state military is capable of even more destruction is besides the point.
You're right! If only the US had better weapons, those terrorists, who aren't afraid of dying, would never have attacked the US. And had the US nuked "them", it would never have made "them" fight stronger for their cause. It seems you are doing your best to re-write history.
No. But I'm not sure what your point is, either.
That we are far from perfect comes as no surprise to me. But I don't see how it changes my point.
Don't see a pattern. People who claim abductions have often suffered from sleep paralysis. Sleep paralysis usually doesn't happen when you are walking down the street (even if you're sleep walking), so it's quite a different disorder.
Why is it sane for people to believe in angels, but not sane for people to believe they're being followed by secret agents in red cars?
Because the former is impossible to disprove whereas the later is much easier to disprove, generally.
There are plenty of very scientific aspects of psychology. I suggest you do your research. Yes, there is a lot of subjectivity, but what do you expect of a field that studies subjective experiences? As for disorders, it sounds like you are talking about the DSM, and as if every single psychologist and psychiatrist thinks that the DSM is some kind of scientific book. It never has been, and anyone who has ever thought it was didn't understand what it was supposed to be. The reason disorders get made is because enough people start having a certain group of symptoms or traits, where it then simply becomes easier to give it a label so that people in the field know what others are talking about.
It's subjective and "wish washy" because there is currently no other way to study it in many cases. People who are critical of psychology often don't understand that. Calling psychology a pseudo-science shows that you don't get the point.