In addition to establishing the national "do not call" registry, the amended TSR calls for other changes, including limiting abandoned calls, restricting unauthorized billing and requiring telemarketers to transmit Caller ID information.
This by itself would help me greatly. I still have relatives that show up unavailable, but I do not ever answer the phone if it says "Unavailable" (neither am I) or "Unknown". If all of the telemarketers will show up on Caller Id, the likelyhood that these unknown numbers are actually friends and relatives trying to get in touch with me is much greater. Not to say that I won't still ignore them though...:-)
until the most basic needs of students are met, laptops shouldn't be integrated into the curriculum.
This reminds me of when President Clinton made the comment in South Africa that he wanted to see the Internet in every school in South Africa. The response: that's nice, but perhaps we should get electricity first.
Should we mobilize many many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops and our military's finest and best to isolated whackos dispersed around the globe in various loosely confederated pockets of extremism? Nope. This is a job for CIA snipers, not heavy bombers and tanks.
Actually, this is not possible given the current international laws (assuming, of course, you wish to abide by them). The world generally condemns personal assassinations in preference to the traditional style of general warfare. The logic of this, I must confess, escapes me. Why is it worse to kill the single leader (or small group) than to wage a war on a populace of followers killing thousands while the leader continues to live and prepare for the next war? If someone could explain this, I would truly appreciate it, for it has confused me for some time (and it is my hope that there in fact is an intelligent reason for this). However, like it or not, this is the current state of international law and opinion. If we are to remove Saddam Hussein from office, we have to do it through a military invasion.
You gave a cast of superb actors the worst screenplay I think I have ever seen.
Uh... try watching Star Wars: Attack of the Clones to gain perspective. True, Nemesis could have been much better than it was, but Star Wars had me either wretching or laughing uncontrollably at what should have been serious scenes. That was a truly childish script -- a sign of yet another fading sci-fi franchise.
I think it mostly wastes a lot of our time which we could be using to better purposes.
You bring up an interesting point here that is in itself worthy of discussion. While there are certainly good uses for the Internet for gathering information, it seems most of the time spent with it is actually entertainment oriented. Furthermore, this entertainment is inherently anti-social. While multiplayer gaming networks and chat rooms abound, these relationships are often very shallow. They can never replace relationships built with direct interaction with other people. On of the most profound impacts on society is the generation of a perceived unity in the world even as it isolates the individual from strong, close relationships.
Another impact is taking an already entertainment driven society and expanding the problem. When you look at the new developments in the Internet, nearly all of them are driven by the demand for improved entertainment. What kind of impact is this having on our society? One could argue, as in the case with computers, that the improvements made in computer hardware to support the gaming industry also enabled work to be more efficiently performed due to GUI interfaces and more powerful applications. However, as the Internet continues to build, are we really seeing major productivity boosts as a result? When I consider the time I spend reading Slashdot, I sometimes wonder if the opposite may be true. We (and I mean we) spend so much time entertaining ourselves that we lose sight of real issues and problems that need to be addressed (poverty, pollution, abuse, etc.). The Internet may actually prove to be more of a curse than a blessing when all is said and done if we simply entertain ourselves while Rome burns to the ground.
On the other hand, one could argue that the Internet is merely a tool, and the problems mentioned above are purely a result of our society. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
The key difference here is market stability. Yahoo! was THE search engine in the very early days of the Internet when things were just getting started. Same with Netscape. Wordperfect was THE word processing package before the real craze began for office productivity suites. Now, like it or not, Microsoft Word is THE word processor in what has now become a stable market. As the original post pointed out, the people who are subscribed to google are not the techincally savvy, but the general users. They find something they like (Word, Internet Explorer, Google), and they stick to it. It will take a lot to make them change their minds.
Yes, I know that Mozilla has some very useful features, and I truly hope that it starts gaining momentum, but the sad fact is that most people are content with IE and don't want to be bothered with the process of installing a new browser. These are the people we are talking about here. In the early days of the Internet, most of the people who used it were technically savvy which meant they were more willing to make sacrifices and take the time to learn new technoligies if they were better. Most of the public (though possibly a minority on./) are not willing to take the time and effort to do so. This example breaks down a bit since Google does not require installation, but the same effect applies. People, in general, do not like change.
Google placed itself at the right time when the majority of the public first met and acclimated themselves to the Internet. Getting them to switch will require a lot more work. Besides, Yahoo! is still in the top three. I expect the top three will not change a whole lot for the next five years or more.
This problem makes me sometimes wonder if Microsoft and the hard disk manufacturers really are working together. Not only does Microsoft's software consume more and more disk space, but their new licensing schemes require you to purchase additional licenses after one two many hardware replacements. This is bad enough when you want to upgrade your computer. It is downright disgusting when you have to repurchase Windows XP because your hard drive crashed!
I definitely agree with the previous post (no moderation points though *sigh*). I have also had times where having the ability to set a variable value at the time of debug would have been useful in tracking down hard to reproduce bugs by forcing a different code path -- like, for instance, testing an error condition that could be difficult or time consuming to generate (out of memory, locking issues, etc.). When dealing with a customer's complaint in a situation you have never seen before, having the ability to tweak variables to match their situation would be useful.
Isn't that a bad thing? It would increase power requirements, create heat, etc. Even if a diamond chip could stand that, not everything else in the box can - not to mention being a problem for laptop batteries.
As stated in the article:
This property means that diamond chips can... be placed in a high-temperature environment, such as a vehicle's engine.
As I understand this, the chips allow computer components to be placed in areas that were prohibitive with silicon due to cooling requirements. High-end mainframes could also be designed differently around the new capabilities.
Someday I will think up a good sig.
Re:More apocalyptic blather?
on
New Mad Max Film
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Same thing with the new Terminator movie... It seems to me that Hollywood is scrambling for new ideas since their current batch of writers have run out. Meanwhile, some strange Kiwi's down south had the novel concept (no pun intended) of taking a famous piece of literature, adding massive amounts of love and care, and a heavy dose of creativity and integrity (both severely lacking in Hollywood) to make what looks to be a truly spectacular set of films on a relatively low budget ($70 million per film). Is anyone in Hollywood taking notes? If they are, are they taking the right notes? (I expect to see a slew of terrible fantasy clones released in the coming years until Hollywood once again learns the wrong lesson that fantasy films don't work...*sigh*)
Hollywood today seems to be only capable of rehashing old ideas without any real creative imagination. I do not doubt that this creativity exists, but for some reason it is not allowed to thrive. Why is Lord of the Rings successful? There was very little involvement from the high level, Hollywood executives. They let the creative people be creative with plenty of financial backing and time to truly let them imaginations fly. It was something new and distinctive.
Mad Max IV? When will Hollywood realize that what they need is true creativity. Throwing massive amounts of money at an old, fading idea does not equate to a great movie.
And Farscape is not the only show that may be leaving for good. There is also talk of cancelling Firefly on FOX. I find it somewhat depressing that we finally get two creative and innovative sci-fi shows, and both are squashed. Both actions are blaimed on "lack of ratings", but what do you expect when putting a show on on a Friday night. Only nerds have time on Friday... er, oh right. I'm posting this on Slashdot...
Anyway, I wish more people knew about these two shows because they are far more intelligently written and produced than 90% of the junk that's on TV the rest of the week. Are these shows too intelligent for the average viewer, or is it the sci-fi image that pushes people away? Or is it simply the strange times that these shows are offered (anyone remember Babylon 5 at 11:30 pm if you were lucky)? When will sci-fi get its fair share of good time slots? Will sci-fi ever be considered as or more valuable than the rehashed sitcoms we have today?
Just an idea on the renewing hardware department... The upperclassmen get new laptops, and the freshmen get the hand-me-downs. Most early college courses involve writing papers and more simplistic calculations. You usually don't get into the heavy stuff until later, and you also have fewer students typically due to drop-out rates. The college or university could purchase N computers which are given first to the older students, and then to younger classes until all N computers are dispersed. Priority would also be based on grade point average (or some other criteria) to handle the case where there are not enough computers for an entire class. Each student offered a new computer would have the option of trading in their old computer or keeping the old one if they have a strong attachment to it.
This plan would save the university money since they would not have to buy as many laptops, and it would also see that the computers make it to the most dedicated students (and not ones who will drop out soon). The downside, however, is that it might not be as enticing to incoming freshmen who are looking for the instant gratification instead of future benefits.
One serious problem I see with Galaxies is that a major part of the Star Wars dealt either with spaceships or speeders/racers/vehicles. If this game is very similar to Everquest, then this whole aspect of the game will be missing. How is travel from planet-to-planet going to be handled? As a former player of Everquest, I can tell you that sitting for 15 minutes while a ship passes through black space between planets is not exactly condusive to a good time.:-)
Fantasy really works well for this type of genre because there are built in limitations. You don't expect to be able to fly anywhere, generally, and the technology is expected to be limited. The most advanced thing you might deal with is riding a horse which requires only a slight change in perspective and speed.
While the Star Wars universe is large and interesting, I see most of the fun resting in the ability to hop into a speeder and race with someone else, not walk into the cantina and stare at the scantily clad women (oh wait, that was Everquest....). I saw no mention of this ability in the article. It sounds like a glorified EverQuest to me. Though the graphics quite good, the real key will be in the gameplay, and whether or not the fans can accept their limitations.
Since the XIX century, we have seen how the crumbling of this "truth" is painfully received among several religions.
I personnally find it funny that a study such as this one would cause a Christian to doubt his faith. Quite the opposite. The Bible says that man was created in the image of God, and as such, we have been given a great amount of creative power. It should not be surprising that we are trying to "play God". Afterall, we have been doing this since the beginning: supplanting and planting certain plants to grow our desired food or be asthetically pleasing, mining and refining metals to form tools that allow us to make even more changes to the world, the domestication of animals, etc.
Rather, the question which should be raised is not really "moral" but an issue of sound judgement. God, as described in the Bible, is not only all-powerful but all-wise. In other words, he not only has the ability, but he has the sound judgement required to wield that power. He knows how to handle the massive power of a star without incinerating Himself in the process. Do we have that kind of wisdom or judgement? History would tell us that we do not. While technology has been and will continue to be used for great good, people have shown time and time again how it can be used for great evil. This is not to say that we should not develop new and exciting technologies. Rather, we should carefully consider our steps before we open what could be a Pandora's box.
Back to the issue of religion, this does not even come close to the true act of creation. As another poster pointed out, the scientists have not had to "get their own dirt" for this experiment. When mankind can actually create something out of nothing, well... then we'll talk!
You people are reading WAY TOO MUCH into this expression. "We should eat our own dogfood" merely expresses the sentiment that the company should use it's own product. It is in no way an admission of poor quality.
In fact, quite the opposite is true. This policy is usually used to promote the idea that "if the product is good enough for us, it will be good enough for you." By using their own products, they are also much more likely to discover problems and develop ideas for new enhancements. They place themselves in the position of the user which gives them a great amount of insight that can often be difficult to get any other way.
That is because Wordperfect 6.0 was trying to look more like Word 2.0. I remember well when Word 2.0 came out. It was a vast improvement over the DOS based Word perfect. It was much easier to use for someone who never really got into the key mappings (I had tried working with Wordstar and Word perfect, but had switched to PFS Write for simplicity.) Word was the first word processing to give real power while still making it very easy to write a simple paper. It also beat out WordPerfect into the world of WYSIWYG. It took a bit before WordPerfect was able to match this ability.
Really, if you get picky, all word processors and spreadsheet programs are just continuations of the same idea. What Microsoft did with their office is change the way these standard tools were used by making the process much easier to learn and adding additional power.
Re:So why do machine-level programmers confuse...
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 1
In a similar vein...
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
The problem with religion in general is that by its definition, it doesn't allow scrutiny as this means a one-way ticket to Hell -- correct me if I'm wrong please!
Absolutely not! In the Bible, people who scrutinized the teachings of Paul (the most prolific writer in the New Testament) were commended for that fact. Scrutiny is essential to divining truth, and when one believes that every word of the Bible is the Word of God, then scrutiny comes into play every day it is read.
If you are religious, then you should probably believe that Science is a study of the works of the creation of God and therefore a form of the most hands-on and practical spiritual activities;-)
I could not have said it better myself! That is precisely what I believe, and it is why I am fascinated with all of the discoveries that are made. I am also fascinated when discoveries confirm things that the Bible has long held to be true. Example: all humans came from a single mother (frontpage news a few years ago on Time I believe). Could this perhaps be Eve?
We must be careful to realize that the conclusions drawn at any point in history may not be the correct one. Newton's laws remained cannon for several centuries before relativity came along and sent them for a bit of a loop. In fact, many scientists today question whether our current theories of evolution are true or merely based on speculation.
I do not deny the existence of dinosaurs, fossils, etc. Rather, I question the current explanations for their existence. After all, petrified forests and fossils were formed after the Mount Saint Helens eruption in the space of a few years. Need the fossils that we have found have taken millions of years to form?
You make a very good point, although 25,000 years, when one really considers it (our recorded history with all that transpired in it only goes back a few thousand years) is a very long time. Furthermore, with the oral traditions of many civilizations, the learned could have been passed on from generation to generation in that manner. Your point is very much valid still: there is no conclusive proof either way.
There are actually many reasons why I place trust in the Bible. For one, the Bible is the most accurate ancient document in the world. The amount of archaelogical evidence in support of the Bible is enormous, to the point where many archaelogists turn to the Bible before making a dig to see if it offers any clues that can help. There have been no archaelogical discoveries to disprove the Bible, though admittedly, many of the accounts either have not or cannot be confirmed by external evidence (ie. many of the miracles). While this does not help in the scientific realm, it certainly gives the book a lot of credence in the historical realm.
The Bible also contains hundreds of prophecies that have been fulfilled exactly as they were foretold. In the book of Daniel, written several hundred years before the events it fortells, Daniel predicted to the day when Jesus would ride into the Jerusalem on what we would later call Palm Sunday. He also foretold the very name (Darius) of the ruler who would release the Isrealites from captivity and help them build the temple 70 years before it happened. There are many other prophecies I could talk about, but that would make this post far too long.
Another reason is the accuracy of the manuscripts. With the Dead Sea Scrolls, the book of Isaiah was found that predated Jesus by nearly 100 years, and it was virtually identical to the book of Isaiah we use today. This is significant due to the fact that the book of Isaiah contains most of the prophecies concerning Jesus the Messiah.
There is also the fact that the Bible is very different from any other book. It was written over 1400 years by authors from multiple continents and from backgrounds ranging from a doctor to a king to a shepherd. And yet, in all of this, a consistent message is presented. Throughout time, people have tried repeatedly to destroy the Bible, and it has failed everytime with the opposite result of it being spread even faster despite the persecution.
Another reason (and this one may sound a little strange) is its absurdity. David, the hero of Isreal, is shown at one point to be a lustful murdurer who commits adultery and then kills the woman's husband when she gets pregnant. What other ancient civilization would speak so plainly of their leaders great failure? Jesus, raised as a devout Jew, claimed to be the Son of God, extreme blasphemy for His culture. People today say that He was "just a good teacher", but do good teacher's claim to be God? If someone walked up to one of us today and said that he was God, we would probably send him to a mental ward. Either Jesus was in fact God, or He deserved to be killed by the Jews according to their law. Also, the Bible claims that the gift of eternal life is free -- there is no human work or practice required to follow Jesus Christ: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph 2:8-9). In every other religion in the world, there is some practice or ritual that must be performed in order to find happiness, salvation, etc. This strangeness makes it almost unbelievable that a person or a group of people could have created this on their own. It is contrary to human nature which wants to promote itself and make it look more glamorous and important rather than the Biblical example of humility and service -- we are said to be completely reliant upon God for everything. People, by nature, want to be independent, either culturally or individually.
The Bible has a very solid grasp of reality and truth, and even in the style of its writing, I can feel the power behind the words. The advice in Proverbs is solid and real, even in admitting that bribes can make friends. Ecclesiastes is so applicable to our society in which we search for meaning in entertainment, and we still can find no purpose for life.
The Bible has also changed lives dramatically. How can you explain a group of uneducated Jewish fisherman suddenly speaking out boldly that the man they followed was the Son of God to the point of death? Not one of the disciples changed their story even in the face of hideous torture and death (all but one of the 11 disciples of Jesus were killed for their faith). Their example of faith is a strong example for me to follow in mine.
The Bible has also changed my life by giving me a purpose: I was created by God to glorify Him. It explains the pain in the world: we rebelled against God and the pain and suffering came as a direct result from our disobedience (Romans 6:23). It explains how God offered us a way to find our true purpose in life by paying the penalty of our rebellion with His only Son (John 3:16, Romans 5:1). The advice it gives for how to live life is profound, and experience shows it to be right.
As I look at this world, I cannot help but see a master hand behind every design. When I see similar skeletal structures among mammals (notably, the limbs even in whales), I see a great design that works for many purposes. When I consider the complexities of DNA, I see a Master Builder's careful design. Even the very laws of physics require an explanation for their existence which God provides. How else can you explain why the universe works the way it does without something to bring it into being?
While there are many questions that remain that are brought up by science, they are not enough to convince me that the Bible is untrue. Many of the things we see in this world support the view of Creation, just as many seem to support evolution. What I do see often in the evolutionist camp is a lot of assumptions... just about as many as their are in the creationist camp. They assume that the world must be a certain age based on assumptions of radioactive decay or the speed of light (the distance to the stars), but perhaps the discoveries have not yet been made that will show that these assumptions are actually incorrect: the decay rate is not constant under certain conditions or the speed of light is not always constant (which, by the way, there is growing evidence that it is not, even in space).
The fact is, it is certainly an issue of faith. God has chosen not to reveal Himself directly, so without the direct evidence, there can be no scientific proof. However, even evolution is hard to prove scientifically since it has not been reproduced (at least on a macro scale) in a lab. Also, no scientific explaination for what life actually is or how it actually came into being has been presented. This does not necessarily disprove the theory of evolution, but it certainly marks some weaknesses in it.
The evidence I do see for the Bible provides enough reason in my mind that what the Bible says is true and can be trusted. I am sure that I am forgetting other reasons as I write this and others have certainly made more eloquent statements in its defense, but I trust that this will answer your question.
First, I want to thank you for your comments at the end which are both gracious and true. You have made some good points that I will definitely have to consider, and I see that there are indeed several problems in my logic. This is why I wanted to post on this issue, because it is something I have wondered about and I wanted to get some feedback on the issue.
Thank you for giving me more to chew on. I definitely have some re-thinking to do on this issue.
BTW, I will post the answer to your other question within that thread.
And the endless arguments between Picard and Q about the humans having "evolved" past violence and aggressive behaviour.
Exactly right. And it is not the only place where I have seen this thought growing (college history courses, popular media, etc.). It is this line of reasoning that I find very troubling. As I stated in reply to another post in this thread, I do not believe that people have changed much at all throughout history, though some people try to read in evolutionary changes in the "progress" they see in society. I am not attempting in this arguments to confront macro-evolution (history does not necessarily serve as a good avenue for this, as you have pointed out), but merely to point out potential flaws in our view of the past 10,000 - 25,000 years of human culture. Even the methods at which we have placed dates for the human development may be considerably wrong. On the same token, the commonly held belief (among creationists) in a 6500 year old earth may prove to be wrong as well.
While I believe the 7-day creation of the earth, there still remain many questions as to exactly how everything progressed from there. There are many question marks even within the Bible, especially in regards to giants, the Nephiim, the "Sons of God", etc., that I believe are worth looking into. We may find that there is much knowledge to share on both sides of the camp, and the truth may very well lie between what both sides how as their absolute truths. Afterall, even the interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is believed to be quite different than what was originally thought -> "In the beginning, God created the spaces and the matter" (instead of "heavens" and "earth") gives a more interesting and enlightening meaning, especially combined with what we know about science today (it is believed that outer space is not actually empty as has been supposed: Outer Space in a Bottle).
There are also frequent references throughout the Bible to "God spread out the heavens" which one could tie into a concept of a "Big Bang" as the stars where spread out across the universe.
I am not trying to make a conversion here or anything. I am merely trying to point out that there are some interesting things that might be gained from the Bible if it is not catagorically dismissed, and likewise, all of the scientific discoveries, evolutionary or otherwise, should not be thrown out either. I believe there is a lot of common ground that can be researched if we keep a somewhat open mind. This is where, getting back to the article, it would be nice to actually see all of the evidence. While the current theory may be vastly flawed, the actual evidence could help develop the next, more accurate theory.
Another factor that you seem to not have grasped is that the ancient cultures you are refering to really are the exact same species of animal that we are today.
I apologize if this is what was implied, for it is certainly not what I believe -- quite the contrary. I believe there has only ever been one race of man. The concept of de-evolution as it were is merely an interesting thought to me rather than a conviction. If we are getting dumber, it could easily be a problem of culture or society as opposed to changes in the species.
My point is basically that I cannot really see any evidence of some of the language structure, mathematics, etc. in pre-historic man, and then suddenly, we have complex writing structures (for example, the library of Ebla in cuneiform (sp?)) and mathematics. Historians are frequently being surprised at the level of technology and understanding that existed in many of the ancient cultures, most of whose knowledge was lost in invasions and intellectual purges that we humans seem to be so fond of.
I do not see this as a rationalization of a "faith-based system", but rather as a question concerning where humans came from. We have ages of time in which no progress happened, and then suddenly, and in an alarmingly short period of time according to the evolutionary scale, in which humans have flourished and innovated. This is what seems very strange to me. If I remember my history correctly, homo sapiens first "appeared" around 35,000 BC, and the first civilizations that we acknowledge in history formed around 10,000 BC. My point is that there are 25,000 years (that actually is a very long period of time) in which homo sapiens, people very much like you and me, did nothing by hunting and gathering with no development of language, culture or intellectual pursuits beyond a few rough pictures in caves? Perhaps this was lost in the wars and purgings that I mentioned above, but surely something must have survived. Would we really have wasted so much time with no real discernable progress at all?
I guess that is the main thrust of my question, and it is why I have a problem with the current view of our early history. It makes me wonder if purhaps there could be errors with our dating methods and the assumptions made in generating the time-table that is currently taught in history corriculum.
Ok, if this was what you were trying to say all the time, I agree. Much talk about pre-historic man is bonkers, and have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with sensationalism. And of course, humans have an odd desire to want to feel superior to everything, so usually we portray or descendants as very stupid, despite any historic evidence to support it.
Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about, but I see now that I did a poor job of communicating it. I will also concede that my points were far to vague and general (in lopping the whole of history teaching into one group). Perhaps it was too much Star Trek mumbo-jumbo that got me turned off to the whole human improvement thing.:-)
Well, if nothing else, my original post started a bit of good conversation. I will take into consideration what you (and others) have said.
Also,
From someone really hungry? Your guess is as good as mine. But really, it isn't that much of a stress to imagine someone really enjoying plant X starting to grow them.
I agree, which also makes me question the current theory that agriculture took so long for homo sapiens to discover.
Slashdot Mirror
From the link posted:
In addition to establishing the national "do not call" registry, the amended TSR calls for other changes, including limiting abandoned calls, restricting unauthorized billing and requiring telemarketers to transmit Caller ID information.
This by itself would help me greatly. I still have relatives that show up unavailable, but I do not ever answer the phone if it says "Unavailable" (neither am I) or "Unknown". If all of the telemarketers will show up on Caller Id, the likelyhood that these unknown numbers are actually friends and relatives trying to get in touch with me is much greater. Not to say that I won't still ignore them though... :-)
"As an avid Microsoft fan..."
And you admit this on Slashdot?! You are brave.
until the most basic needs of students are met, laptops shouldn't be integrated into the curriculum.
This reminds me of when President Clinton made the comment in South Africa that he wanted to see the Internet in every school in South Africa. The response: that's nice, but perhaps we should get electricity first.
Should we mobilize many many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops and our military's finest and best to isolated whackos dispersed around the globe in various loosely confederated pockets of extremism? Nope. This is a job for CIA snipers, not heavy bombers and tanks.
Actually, this is not possible given the current international laws (assuming, of course, you wish to abide by them). The world generally condemns personal assassinations in preference to the traditional style of general warfare. The logic of this, I must confess, escapes me. Why is it worse to kill the single leader (or small group) than to wage a war on a populace of followers killing thousands while the leader continues to live and prepare for the next war? If someone could explain this, I would truly appreciate it, for it has confused me for some time (and it is my hope that there in fact is an intelligent reason for this). However, like it or not, this is the current state of international law and opinion. If we are to remove Saddam Hussein from office, we have to do it through a military invasion.
You gave a cast of superb actors the worst screenplay I think I have ever seen.
Uh... try watching Star Wars: Attack of the Clones to gain perspective. True, Nemesis could have been much better than it was, but Star Wars had me either wretching or laughing uncontrollably at what should have been serious scenes. That was a truly childish script -- a sign of yet another fading sci-fi franchise.
I think it mostly wastes a lot of our time which we could be using to better purposes.
You bring up an interesting point here that is in itself worthy of discussion. While there are certainly good uses for the Internet for gathering information, it seems most of the time spent with it is actually entertainment oriented. Furthermore, this entertainment is inherently anti-social. While multiplayer gaming networks and chat rooms abound, these relationships are often very shallow. They can never replace relationships built with direct interaction with other people. On of the most profound impacts on society is the generation of a perceived unity in the world even as it isolates the individual from strong, close relationships.
Another impact is taking an already entertainment driven society and expanding the problem. When you look at the new developments in the Internet, nearly all of them are driven by the demand for improved entertainment. What kind of impact is this having on our society? One could argue, as in the case with computers, that the improvements made in computer hardware to support the gaming industry also enabled work to be more efficiently performed due to GUI interfaces and more powerful applications. However, as the Internet continues to build, are we really seeing major productivity boosts as a result? When I consider the time I spend reading Slashdot, I sometimes wonder if the opposite may be true. We (and I mean we) spend so much time entertaining ourselves that we lose sight of real issues and problems that need to be addressed (poverty, pollution, abuse, etc.). The Internet may actually prove to be more of a curse than a blessing when all is said and done if we simply entertain ourselves while Rome burns to the ground.
On the other hand, one could argue that the Internet is merely a tool, and the problems mentioned above are purely a result of our society. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
The key difference here is market stability. Yahoo! was THE search engine in the very early days of the Internet when things were just getting started. Same with Netscape. Wordperfect was THE word processing package before the real craze began for office productivity suites. Now, like it or not, Microsoft Word is THE word processor in what has now become a stable market. As the original post pointed out, the people who are subscribed to google are not the techincally savvy, but the general users. They find something they like (Word, Internet Explorer, Google), and they stick to it. It will take a lot to make them change their minds.
Yes, I know that Mozilla has some very useful features, and I truly hope that it starts gaining momentum, but the sad fact is that most people are content with IE and don't want to be bothered with the process of installing a new browser. These are the people we are talking about here. In the early days of the Internet, most of the people who used it were technically savvy which meant they were more willing to make sacrifices and take the time to learn new technoligies if they were better. Most of the public (though possibly a minority on ./) are not willing to take the time and effort to do so. This example breaks down a bit since Google does not require installation, but the same effect applies. People, in general, do not like change.
Google placed itself at the right time when the majority of the public first met and acclimated themselves to the Internet. Getting them to switch will require a lot more work. Besides, Yahoo! is still in the top three. I expect the top three will not change a whole lot for the next five years or more.
This problem makes me sometimes wonder if Microsoft and the hard disk manufacturers really are working together. Not only does Microsoft's software consume more and more disk space, but their new licensing schemes require you to purchase additional licenses after one two many hardware replacements. This is bad enough when you want to upgrade your computer. It is downright disgusting when you have to repurchase Windows XP because your hard drive crashed!
I definitely agree with the previous post (no moderation points though *sigh*). I have also had times where having the ability to set a variable value at the time of debug would have been useful in tracking down hard to reproduce bugs by forcing a different code path -- like, for instance, testing an error condition that could be difficult or time consuming to generate (out of memory, locking issues, etc.). When dealing with a customer's complaint in a situation you have never seen before, having the ability to tweak variables to match their situation would be useful.
Khomar
Isn't that a bad thing? It would increase power requirements, create heat, etc. Even if a diamond chip could stand that, not everything else in the box can - not to mention being a problem for laptop batteries.
As stated in the article:
As I understand this, the chips allow computer components to be placed in areas that were prohibitive with silicon due to cooling requirements. High-end mainframes could also be designed differently around the new capabilities.
Someday I will think up a good sig.
Same thing with the new Terminator movie... It seems to me that Hollywood is scrambling for new ideas since their current batch of writers have run out. Meanwhile, some strange Kiwi's down south had the novel concept (no pun intended) of taking a famous piece of literature, adding massive amounts of love and care, and a heavy dose of creativity and integrity (both severely lacking in Hollywood) to make what looks to be a truly spectacular set of films on a relatively low budget ($70 million per film). Is anyone in Hollywood taking notes? If they are, are they taking the right notes? (I expect to see a slew of terrible fantasy clones released in the coming years until Hollywood once again learns the wrong lesson that fantasy films don't work...*sigh*)
Hollywood today seems to be only capable of rehashing old ideas without any real creative imagination. I do not doubt that this creativity exists, but for some reason it is not allowed to thrive. Why is Lord of the Rings successful? There was very little involvement from the high level, Hollywood executives. They let the creative people be creative with plenty of financial backing and time to truly let them imaginations fly. It was something new and distinctive.
Mad Max IV? When will Hollywood realize that what they need is true creativity. Throwing massive amounts of money at an old, fading idea does not equate to a great movie.
Someday I'll think up a good sig...
And Farscape is not the only show that may be leaving for good. There is also talk of cancelling Firefly on FOX. I find it somewhat depressing that we finally get two creative and innovative sci-fi shows, and both are squashed. Both actions are blaimed on "lack of ratings", but what do you expect when putting a show on on a Friday night. Only nerds have time on Friday... er, oh right. I'm posting this on Slashdot...
Anyway, I wish more people knew about these two shows because they are far more intelligently written and produced than 90% of the junk that's on TV the rest of the week. Are these shows too intelligent for the average viewer, or is it the sci-fi image that pushes people away? Or is it simply the strange times that these shows are offered (anyone remember Babylon 5 at 11:30 pm if you were lucky)? When will sci-fi get its fair share of good time slots? Will sci-fi ever be considered as or more valuable than the rehashed sitcoms we have today?
Just an idea on the renewing hardware department... The upperclassmen get new laptops, and the freshmen get the hand-me-downs. Most early college courses involve writing papers and more simplistic calculations. You usually don't get into the heavy stuff until later, and you also have fewer students typically due to drop-out rates. The college or university could purchase N computers which are given first to the older students, and then to younger classes until all N computers are dispersed. Priority would also be based on grade point average (or some other criteria) to handle the case where there are not enough computers for an entire class. Each student offered a new computer would have the option of trading in their old computer or keeping the old one if they have a strong attachment to it.
This plan would save the university money since they would not have to buy as many laptops, and it would also see that the computers make it to the most dedicated students (and not ones who will drop out soon). The downside, however, is that it might not be as enticing to incoming freshmen who are looking for the instant gratification instead of future benefits.
One serious problem I see with Galaxies is that a major part of the Star Wars dealt either with spaceships or speeders/racers/vehicles. If this game is very similar to Everquest, then this whole aspect of the game will be missing. How is travel from planet-to-planet going to be handled? As a former player of Everquest, I can tell you that sitting for 15 minutes while a ship passes through black space between planets is not exactly condusive to a good time. :-)
Fantasy really works well for this type of genre because there are built in limitations. You don't expect to be able to fly anywhere, generally, and the technology is expected to be limited. The most advanced thing you might deal with is riding a horse which requires only a slight change in perspective and speed.
While the Star Wars universe is large and interesting, I see most of the fun resting in the ability to hop into a speeder and race with someone else, not walk into the cantina and stare at the scantily clad women (oh wait, that was Everquest....). I saw no mention of this ability in the article. It sounds like a glorified EverQuest to me. Though the graphics quite good, the real key will be in the gameplay, and whether or not the fans can accept their limitations.
Since the XIX century, we have seen how the crumbling of this "truth" is painfully received among several religions.
I personnally find it funny that a study such as this one would cause a Christian to doubt his faith. Quite the opposite. The Bible says that man was created in the image of God, and as such, we have been given a great amount of creative power. It should not be surprising that we are trying to "play God". Afterall, we have been doing this since the beginning: supplanting and planting certain plants to grow our desired food or be asthetically pleasing, mining and refining metals to form tools that allow us to make even more changes to the world, the domestication of animals, etc.
Rather, the question which should be raised is not really "moral" but an issue of sound judgement. God, as described in the Bible, is not only all-powerful but all-wise. In other words, he not only has the ability, but he has the sound judgement required to wield that power. He knows how to handle the massive power of a star without incinerating Himself in the process. Do we have that kind of wisdom or judgement? History would tell us that we do not. While technology has been and will continue to be used for great good, people have shown time and time again how it can be used for great evil. This is not to say that we should not develop new and exciting technologies. Rather, we should carefully consider our steps before we open what could be a Pandora's box.
Back to the issue of religion, this does not even come close to the true act of creation. As another poster pointed out, the scientists have not had to "get their own dirt" for this experiment. When mankind can actually create something out of nothing, well... then we'll talk!
You people are reading WAY TOO MUCH into this expression. "We should eat our own dogfood" merely expresses the sentiment that the company should use it's own product. It is in no way an admission of poor quality.
In fact, quite the opposite is true. This policy is usually used to promote the idea that "if the product is good enough for us, it will be good enough for you." By using their own products, they are also much more likely to discover problems and develop ideas for new enhancements. They place themselves in the position of the user which gives them a great amount of insight that can often be difficult to get any other way.
That is because Wordperfect 6.0 was trying to look more like Word 2.0. I remember well when Word 2.0 came out. It was a vast improvement over the DOS based Word perfect. It was much easier to use for someone who never really got into the key mappings (I had tried working with Wordstar and Word perfect, but had switched to PFS Write for simplicity.) Word was the first word processing to give real power while still making it very easy to write a simple paper. It also beat out WordPerfect into the world of WYSIWYG. It took a bit before WordPerfect was able to match this ability.
Really, if you get picky, all word processors and spreadsheet programs are just continuations of the same idea. What Microsoft did with their office is change the way these standard tools were used by making the process much easier to learn and adding additional power.
In a similar vein...
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
The problem with religion in general is that by its definition, it doesn't allow scrutiny as this means a one-way ticket to Hell -- correct me if I'm wrong please!
Absolutely not! In the Bible, people who scrutinized the teachings of Paul (the most prolific writer in the New Testament) were commended for that fact. Scrutiny is essential to divining truth, and when one believes that every word of the Bible is the Word of God, then scrutiny comes into play every day it is read.
If you are religious, then you should probably believe that Science is a study of the works of the creation of God and therefore a form of the most hands-on and practical spiritual activities ;-)
I could not have said it better myself! That is precisely what I believe, and it is why I am fascinated with all of the discoveries that are made. I am also fascinated when discoveries confirm things that the Bible has long held to be true. Example: all humans came from a single mother (frontpage news a few years ago on Time I believe). Could this perhaps be Eve?
We must be careful to realize that the conclusions drawn at any point in history may not be the correct one. Newton's laws remained cannon for several centuries before relativity came along and sent them for a bit of a loop. In fact, many scientists today question whether our current theories of evolution are true or merely based on speculation.
I do not deny the existence of dinosaurs, fossils, etc. Rather, I question the current explanations for their existence. After all, petrified forests and fossils were formed after the Mount Saint Helens eruption in the space of a few years. Need the fossils that we have found have taken millions of years to form?
Food for thought.
You make a very good point, although 25,000 years, when one really considers it (our recorded history with all that transpired in it only goes back a few thousand years) is a very long time. Furthermore, with the oral traditions of many civilizations, the learned could have been passed on from generation to generation in that manner. Your point is very much valid still: there is no conclusive proof either way.
There are actually many reasons why I place trust in the Bible. For one, the Bible is the most accurate ancient document in the world. The amount of archaelogical evidence in support of the Bible is enormous, to the point where many archaelogists turn to the Bible before making a dig to see if it offers any clues that can help. There have been no archaelogical discoveries to disprove the Bible, though admittedly, many of the accounts either have not or cannot be confirmed by external evidence (ie. many of the miracles). While this does not help in the scientific realm, it certainly gives the book a lot of credence in the historical realm.
The Bible also contains hundreds of prophecies that have been fulfilled exactly as they were foretold. In the book of Daniel, written several hundred years before the events it fortells, Daniel predicted to the day when Jesus would ride into the Jerusalem on what we would later call Palm Sunday. He also foretold the very name (Darius) of the ruler who would release the Isrealites from captivity and help them build the temple 70 years before it happened. There are many other prophecies I could talk about, but that would make this post far too long.
Another reason is the accuracy of the manuscripts. With the Dead Sea Scrolls, the book of Isaiah was found that predated Jesus by nearly 100 years, and it was virtually identical to the book of Isaiah we use today. This is significant due to the fact that the book of Isaiah contains most of the prophecies concerning Jesus the Messiah.
There is also the fact that the Bible is very different from any other book. It was written over 1400 years by authors from multiple continents and from backgrounds ranging from a doctor to a king to a shepherd. And yet, in all of this, a consistent message is presented. Throughout time, people have tried repeatedly to destroy the Bible, and it has failed everytime with the opposite result of it being spread even faster despite the persecution.
Another reason (and this one may sound a little strange) is its absurdity. David, the hero of Isreal, is shown at one point to be a lustful murdurer who commits adultery and then kills the woman's husband when she gets pregnant. What other ancient civilization would speak so plainly of their leaders great failure? Jesus, raised as a devout Jew, claimed to be the Son of God, extreme blasphemy for His culture. People today say that He was "just a good teacher", but do good teacher's claim to be God? If someone walked up to one of us today and said that he was God, we would probably send him to a mental ward. Either Jesus was in fact God, or He deserved to be killed by the Jews according to their law. Also, the Bible claims that the gift of eternal life is free -- there is no human work or practice required to follow Jesus Christ: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph 2:8-9). In every other religion in the world, there is some practice or ritual that must be performed in order to find happiness, salvation, etc. This strangeness makes it almost unbelievable that a person or a group of people could have created this on their own. It is contrary to human nature which wants to promote itself and make it look more glamorous and important rather than the Biblical example of humility and service -- we are said to be completely reliant upon God for everything. People, by nature, want to be independent, either culturally or individually.
The Bible has a very solid grasp of reality and truth, and even in the style of its writing, I can feel the power behind the words. The advice in Proverbs is solid and real, even in admitting that bribes can make friends. Ecclesiastes is so applicable to our society in which we search for meaning in entertainment, and we still can find no purpose for life.
The Bible has also changed lives dramatically. How can you explain a group of uneducated Jewish fisherman suddenly speaking out boldly that the man they followed was the Son of God to the point of death? Not one of the disciples changed their story even in the face of hideous torture and death (all but one of the 11 disciples of Jesus were killed for their faith). Their example of faith is a strong example for me to follow in mine.
The Bible has also changed my life by giving me a purpose: I was created by God to glorify Him. It explains the pain in the world: we rebelled against God and the pain and suffering came as a direct result from our disobedience (Romans 6:23). It explains how God offered us a way to find our true purpose in life by paying the penalty of our rebellion with His only Son (John 3:16, Romans 5:1). The advice it gives for how to live life is profound, and experience shows it to be right.
As I look at this world, I cannot help but see a master hand behind every design. When I see similar skeletal structures among mammals (notably, the limbs even in whales), I see a great design that works for many purposes. When I consider the complexities of DNA, I see a Master Builder's careful design. Even the very laws of physics require an explanation for their existence which God provides. How else can you explain why the universe works the way it does without something to bring it into being?
While there are many questions that remain that are brought up by science, they are not enough to convince me that the Bible is untrue. Many of the things we see in this world support the view of Creation, just as many seem to support evolution. What I do see often in the evolutionist camp is a lot of assumptions... just about as many as their are in the creationist camp. They assume that the world must be a certain age based on assumptions of radioactive decay or the speed of light (the distance to the stars), but perhaps the discoveries have not yet been made that will show that these assumptions are actually incorrect: the decay rate is not constant under certain conditions or the speed of light is not always constant (which, by the way, there is growing evidence that it is not, even in space).
The fact is, it is certainly an issue of faith. God has chosen not to reveal Himself directly, so without the direct evidence, there can be no scientific proof. However, even evolution is hard to prove scientifically since it has not been reproduced (at least on a macro scale) in a lab. Also, no scientific explaination for what life actually is or how it actually came into being has been presented. This does not necessarily disprove the theory of evolution, but it certainly marks some weaknesses in it.
The evidence I do see for the Bible provides enough reason in my mind that what the Bible says is true and can be trusted. I am sure that I am forgetting other reasons as I write this and others have certainly made more eloquent statements in its defense, but I trust that this will answer your question.
First, I want to thank you for your comments at the end which are both gracious and true. You have made some good points that I will definitely have to consider, and I see that there are indeed several problems in my logic. This is why I wanted to post on this issue, because it is something I have wondered about and I wanted to get some feedback on the issue.
Thank you for giving me more to chew on. I definitely have some re-thinking to do on this issue.
BTW, I will post the answer to your other question within that thread.
And the endless arguments between Picard and Q about the humans having "evolved" past violence and aggressive behaviour.
Exactly right. And it is not the only place where I have seen this thought growing (college history courses, popular media, etc.). It is this line of reasoning that I find very troubling. As I stated in reply to another post in this thread, I do not believe that people have changed much at all throughout history, though some people try to read in evolutionary changes in the "progress" they see in society. I am not attempting in this arguments to confront macro-evolution (history does not necessarily serve as a good avenue for this, as you have pointed out), but merely to point out potential flaws in our view of the past 10,000 - 25,000 years of human culture. Even the methods at which we have placed dates for the human development may be considerably wrong. On the same token, the commonly held belief (among creationists) in a 6500 year old earth may prove to be wrong as well.
While I believe the 7-day creation of the earth, there still remain many questions as to exactly how everything progressed from there. There are many question marks even within the Bible, especially in regards to giants, the Nephiim, the "Sons of God", etc., that I believe are worth looking into. We may find that there is much knowledge to share on both sides of the camp, and the truth may very well lie between what both sides how as their absolute truths. Afterall, even the interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is believed to be quite different than what was originally thought -> "In the beginning, God created the spaces and the matter" (instead of "heavens" and "earth") gives a more interesting and enlightening meaning, especially combined with what we know about science today (it is believed that outer space is not actually empty as has been supposed: Outer Space in a Bottle).
There are also frequent references throughout the Bible to "God spread out the heavens" which one could tie into a concept of a "Big Bang" as the stars where spread out across the universe.
I am not trying to make a conversion here or anything. I am merely trying to point out that there are some interesting things that might be gained from the Bible if it is not catagorically dismissed, and likewise, all of the scientific discoveries, evolutionary or otherwise, should not be thrown out either. I believe there is a lot of common ground that can be researched if we keep a somewhat open mind. This is where, getting back to the article, it would be nice to actually see all of the evidence. While the current theory may be vastly flawed, the actual evidence could help develop the next, more accurate theory.
Another factor that you seem to not have grasped is that the ancient cultures you are refering to really are the exact same species of animal that we are today.
I apologize if this is what was implied, for it is certainly not what I believe -- quite the contrary. I believe there has only ever been one race of man. The concept of de-evolution as it were is merely an interesting thought to me rather than a conviction. If we are getting dumber, it could easily be a problem of culture or society as opposed to changes in the species.
My point is basically that I cannot really see any evidence of some of the language structure, mathematics, etc. in pre-historic man, and then suddenly, we have complex writing structures (for example, the library of Ebla in cuneiform (sp?)) and mathematics. Historians are frequently being surprised at the level of technology and understanding that existed in many of the ancient cultures, most of whose knowledge was lost in invasions and intellectual purges that we humans seem to be so fond of.
I do not see this as a rationalization of a "faith-based system", but rather as a question concerning where humans came from. We have ages of time in which no progress happened, and then suddenly, and in an alarmingly short period of time according to the evolutionary scale, in which humans have flourished and innovated. This is what seems very strange to me. If I remember my history correctly, homo sapiens first "appeared" around 35,000 BC, and the first civilizations that we acknowledge in history formed around 10,000 BC. My point is that there are 25,000 years (that actually is a very long period of time) in which homo sapiens, people very much like you and me, did nothing by hunting and gathering with no development of language, culture or intellectual pursuits beyond a few rough pictures in caves? Perhaps this was lost in the wars and purgings that I mentioned above, but surely something must have survived. Would we really have wasted so much time with no real discernable progress at all?
I guess that is the main thrust of my question, and it is why I have a problem with the current view of our early history. It makes me wonder if purhaps there could be errors with our dating methods and the assumptions made in generating the time-table that is currently taught in history corriculum.
Ok, if this was what you were trying to say all the time, I agree. Much talk about pre-historic man is bonkers, and have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with sensationalism. And of course, humans have an odd desire to want to feel superior to everything, so usually we portray or descendants as very stupid, despite any historic evidence to support it.
Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about, but I see now that I did a poor job of communicating it. I will also concede that my points were far to vague and general (in lopping the whole of history teaching into one group). Perhaps it was too much Star Trek mumbo-jumbo that got me turned off to the whole human improvement thing. :-)
Well, if nothing else, my original post started a bit of good conversation. I will take into consideration what you (and others) have said.
Also,
From someone really hungry? Your guess is as good as mine. But really, it isn't that much of a stress to imagine someone really enjoying plant X starting to grow them.
I agree, which also makes me question the current theory that agriculture took so long for homo sapiens to discover.