As with any theory that has been repeatedly tested, it's highly unlikely that any new observations will invalidate all previous results, but it can certainly be found to be incomplete, and it is conceivable that the processes it describes will change over time, making the theory useless for predictions.
When something attains the status of "theory", it's because it has been shown to be accurate at least in respect to known phenomena. A conjecture or a hypothesis may be shown to be false. Unless there were some major screw-ups in the experimentation and verification of a theory, though, it will usually only be shown to be incomplete (or to apply only to a sub-set of the phenomena it was originally thought to describe).
Even if a theory does explain a certain set of phenomena accurately, that theory is likely to be discarded if a new theory comes along that is (at least) equally accurate and a) is simpler or b) explains a bigger set of natural phenomena.
Newton's theory of gravitation is known to be incomplete, and inaccurate in some situations, since it does not take relativity into account. But it's still widely used by scientists, engineers, etc., because it gives accurate results in most situations. Was it "falsified" by relativity? Not really, it was just shown not to be quite as complete and "universal" as Newton thought.
No, the Bible never says the Earth is a square, nor have I heard anyone claim that it does. The Bible does say the Earth is a "circle" (and the word used is "circle", not "sphere" or "ball" - in every language, including the original Hebrew). It also says that the whole Earth could be seen from the top of a tall tree or a tall mountain, which is obviously impossible for a sphere. At most, you'd be able to see one hemisphere. Clearly, whoever wrote those passages of the Bible though the Earth was a flat disc (or flat enough to be described as a "circle", instead of a sphere or even a hemisphere). This was a common belief in some less civilised parts of the world, at the time, and unfortunately the Bible served to reinforce that (false) belief.
No, obersvation does not support it, unless it's seriously flawed observation. If you consider the hypotheses "the Earth is flat" and "the Earth is round", and proceed to test both hypotheses (ex., by measuring the shadows cast by itdentical vertical sticks, at the same time, in different places - think Eratosthenes), you will conclude that the "flat" hypothesis does not explain your observations. Maybe there's something else making the shadows different, but Ockham's razor says go with the simplest explanation.
Simply looking at ships slowly disappearing beyond the horizon will show that the Earth is curved (although it might not necessarily be a sphere). The shadow of the Earth on the Moon, during a lunar eclipse, is round. Couple that with the fact that the Moon isn't always in the same place, and it becomes obvious that the Earth cannot simply be a flat disc (and that the more likely shape is a sphere). In fact, the Earth was considered spherical long before Eratosthenes (he was just the first to measure its diameter). The fact that the Bible got it wrong is hardly surprising (it wasn't cutting-edge even back then).
You're right when you say that someone travelling within the mediterranean doesn't usually need to take the Earth's curvature into consideration (they couldn't even measure time accurately enough), but what that really means is that a theory regarding the shape of the Earth was not necessary. It does not tell you that there was a theory (in the scientific term of the word) saying the Earth was flat.
What do you mean by "evolution"? Are you referring to the theory of natural selection? If so, it's very much a scientific theory.
Darwin's book was called "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Nothing about "evolution" (although it is the mechanism of a kind of evolution).
The concept of "evolution" is somewhat ambiguous. Most people interpret "evolution" as "improvement". Natural selection simply rewards mutations that give organisms an advantage in their environment. They "improve" in the sense that they become better adapted to that environment, but that adaptation may cost them later, if the environemnt changes, or might make it impossible for them to move into new environments (as they lose abilities that are useless or detrimental in their current environment).
Can you elaborate on what "considered fact" means? Most definitions of "fact" revolve around "knowledge or information based on real occurrences". Since there are no "real occurrences" of ships falling off the edge of the Earth, a flat Earth could hardly be considered as a "fact". If you just mean "it was believed to be true by a lot of people", then yes, but so was (and is) a lot of other nonsense.
As to the Earth being the centre (meaning the "fixed point") of the universe, well, it's a "fact" that you can do all you calculations based on that assumption (you can even decide that your navel is the fixed point of the universe). It's just a lot more complicated. Astronomers use whichever referential is more practical for the type of work they're doing (that can be the Earth, the Sun, some other star, the centre of a galaxy, etc.).
A theory is not the same as a hypothesis (or conjecture), despite the fact that a lot of people confuse the terms.
A theory is a framework for describing a certain natural phenomenon. It's a formalized, systematic, predictive, logical, and testable expression of all previous observations that has never been falsified.
It's definitely a bit more than "a working idea".
There was never a "theory of the Earth being the centre of the universe" (and, BTW, it's perfectly acceptable to consider the Earth's position as your universe's "fixed point" - it just makes most calculations a lot harder). Nor was there ever a "theory of the flat Earth" (in fact, no observations would support that conjecture, so it could never become a theory).
They are more expensive to end users, not to OEMs.
Intel has lower production costs than AMD, and they don't even mind to lose money on some deals if it helps them take business away from their competitors (which is why they're currently under investigation in several countries).
The only brand Apple is interested in promoting is Apple. You never saw them make a big fuss about having Motorola or IBM CPUs, and I doubt they'll make a big fuss about using Intel (unless Intel gives them another big fat discount for that). They would have gone with AMD if it was cheaper for them.
I doubt they will have both AMD- and Intel-based models; Intel would probably cancel their discounts, as they do with some PC manufacturers (then again, Apple will represent less than 3% of Intel's CPU sales, so maybe they won't really care).
Judging from a few recent polls, only about 47% of Slashdot visitors are from the USA. So the expression "vast majority" used in the FAQ should be interpreted as "minority".:)
And yes, the USA is turning into a theocratic oligarchy, but it has sort of been an oligarchy all along, and so is Europe, deep down (only more fragmented and more bureaucratic) - the main difference is europeans are more cynical (i.e., we tend to assume that our politicians are dirty by default, so they can't be quite as obvious as the Bush junta).
Still, can you name one copy protection system that lasted more than a couple of weeks? The only people whose profits are really increased by copy protection are the ones selling the copy protection systems. We are getting screwed by money (it's not even individual CEOs or corporations - money becomes a separate entity after reaching a certain critical mass), but DRM is one battle where the resistance actually has a chance.
What makes you think I live in the same society you do? For good and bad, and as Morrisey put it, "America is not the world" (and that should have been "USA", not "America", but it wouldn't have sounded quite as good in the song).
We've tried fascism around here (and quite enjoyed it, for a while). The fascist regime's motto was "God, country, family". It's fun to see other people sliding down the same slope. Maybe it's a necessary step in a society's development, and it's a good way to see if there are any people left, of if the sheep have taken over completely.
Currently we're trying what can only be described as a bureaucratic bureaucracy. Not quite as glamorous as fascism, and not quite as entertaining as the USA's oligarchic theocracy, but we have a really good feeling about it, and we are going to write 7000 pages of regulations detailing how we can express that feeling. But first we must form a committee to decide what kind of paper to use.
If a company or group of companies tries to force consumers to do things in a way they don't want, then another company or group of companies will move in to fill that void. Not out of the kindness of their hearts, but simply because they're greedy, too. That's the fundamental difference between being evil and being greedy. They're not out to screw you, they're just out to get rich (screwing you is just a side effect).
And some (Google and the BBC, for example) have realised that a good reputation can be worth more in the long run than higher profits.
Of course, with the amount of "sheeple" in some parts of the world today, I suspect a lot of people will just eat whatever they're fed (just look at MSIE - slow, insecure, buggy, etc. - most people use it because they're too dumb and too lazy to even download and try the alternatives).
The end result is that when Windows Vista ships (and Apple's next OS), most people won't be able to watch protected HD content on their computers.
Then people who want to watch HD on their computers won't buy it, and publishers that don't use that kind of protection will move in and make a profit. Media companies are not evil; they are greedy (the two can be similar, but it's worth keeping the difference in mind).
Anyway, how does protection built into the monitor change anything as far as unauthorised copying of the files? Unless you stick the DVD (or whatever) straight into the monitor, it still has to go through playback software, which means it'll probably be cracked (and therefore easily converted to formats that play anywhere) less than a week after it's released.
I wonder if there's a reason why Opera doesn't reveal these numbers....
If you had bothered to RTFA, you would know that Opera does indeed "reveal those numbers". But knowing how many people use a certain product won't tell you anything about its market share unless you know the exact size and flow of the market. To determine effective market share, what you need to do is look at statistics from as many websites as possible.
Technically, every Windows user has a copy of MSIE. That doesn't mean they all use it.
And while it's true that Opera has much better caching than any other browser, it's also true that most decent website trackers won't count multiple accesses from the same IP in a short period of time, so the margin of error shouldn't be too big.
Also, Opera doesn't (quite) identify itself as MSIE. Even in "MSIE mode", it still includes "Opera" in its agent string, so any site that tries to determine the browser type will still detect it as Opera. MSIE mode mainly turns on certain MSIE "quirks" (i.e., bugs), so that some pages specifically designed for MSIE render correctly.
I think it's ridiculous that anyone could face jail (or any other kind of state punishment) for looking at anything. If looking at naked kids on the internet makes you a molester, does looking at dead bodies on the evening news make you a murderer?
Hm... come to think of it, people who watch Fox News do deserve to be executed...;-)
Of course, if he sent money (or any other kind of payment) to a site showing pictures of exploited children, then he actively contributed to that exploitation. Otherwise, I think everyone has the right to look at whatever they want. Hiding something doesn't make it go away; quite the contrary.
Looks like you've been watching Fox News. Only three countries participated in the invasion: USA, England and Australia. Lots of other countries sent peace-keeping forces (police and military) later, but only those three took part in the invasion.
BTW, most of the "oil for food" money went to the USA. Look it up; the documents are actually in the public domain.
The article seems to assume that the "girlfriend" would be able to somehow receive and (more importantly) understand morse code. Which I guess narrows it down a bit. But, this being Slashdot, the very concept of "girlfriend" is enough to make the whole thing highly unlikely.
No, they don't do the same thing (or at least they shouldn't). The one on the remote should always be a "soft off" button (turn screen off, leave receiver on), with the standby icon (open circle with line). The one on the TV (if it uses a closed circle icon) should be a "real" power cut-off button. Most TVs do have a real "off" button. Most DVDs and VCRs have only a "standby" button (sometimes there's a real power cut-off button at the back).
All my TVs (and in fact every TV I've ever seen) turns off the receiver when you use the actual power button (on the TV). My DVD player and VCR are always on standby as long as they're plugged in, but all the TVs have a real "off" mode.
I don't theink they can use the "power off" icon unless they really do cut the power completely (safety regulations). If parts of it remain powered, they have to use the "stand by" icon.
Your remote doesn't have a button to turn the TV screen off (but keep the remote receiver working)? That's stand by (soft off) mode. The icon on the remote should be identical to the one in XP's "standby" button. The power button on the actual TV set should turn the TV completely off (including the remote receiver), and should have an icon idential to the one XP uses for "shutdown". If not, your TV / remote are very unusual.
I haven't seen a TV with "power" written on it (in any language) for a long, long time. All my TVs since 1988 or so have just the "power" icon (circle with a vertical line inside it). The same goes for nearly all my computer monitors (I think I have a couple of old Philips that do have text). That way they can sell the exact same model in a lot of different countries.
Since most NTSC models are different anyway, maybe some manufacturers still write "power" on the sets sold in the USA. I know that in some american cities, pedestrian lights have "walk" and "don't walk" written on them. Maybe everyone there is colour-blind and picture-blind but very litterate...?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
As with any theory that has been repeatedly tested, it's highly unlikely that any new observations will invalidate all previous results, but it can certainly be found to be incomplete, and it is conceivable that the processes it describes will change over time, making the theory useless for predictions.
When something attains the status of "theory", it's because it has been shown to be accurate at least in respect to known phenomena. A conjecture or a hypothesis may be shown to be false. Unless there were some major screw-ups in the experimentation and verification of a theory, though, it will usually only be shown to be incomplete (or to apply only to a sub-set of the phenomena it was originally thought to describe).
Even if a theory does explain a certain set of phenomena accurately, that theory is likely to be discarded if a new theory comes along that is (at least) equally accurate and a) is simpler or b) explains a bigger set of natural phenomena.
Newton's theory of gravitation is known to be incomplete, and inaccurate in some situations, since it does not take relativity into account. But it's still widely used by scientists, engineers, etc., because it gives accurate results in most situations. Was it "falsified" by relativity? Not really, it was just shown not to be quite as complete and "universal" as Newton thought.
RMN
~~~
No, the Bible never says the Earth is a square, nor have I heard anyone claim that it does. The Bible does say the Earth is a "circle" (and the word used is "circle", not "sphere" or "ball" - in every language, including the original Hebrew). It also says that the whole Earth could be seen from the top of a tall tree or a tall mountain, which is obviously impossible for a sphere. At most, you'd be able to see one hemisphere. Clearly, whoever wrote those passages of the Bible though the Earth was a flat disc (or flat enough to be described as a "circle", instead of a sphere or even a hemisphere). This was a common belief in some less civilised parts of the world, at the time, and unfortunately the Bible served to reinforce that (false) belief.
Here:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Flat_Earth.htm
RMN
~~~
What does the value of Pi have to do with the Earth being flat...??
RMN
~~~
No, obersvation does not support it, unless it's seriously flawed observation. If you consider the hypotheses "the Earth is flat" and "the Earth is round", and proceed to test both hypotheses (ex., by measuring the shadows cast by itdentical vertical sticks, at the same time, in different places - think Eratosthenes), you will conclude that the "flat" hypothesis does not explain your observations. Maybe there's something else making the shadows different, but Ockham's razor says go with the simplest explanation.
Simply looking at ships slowly disappearing beyond the horizon will show that the Earth is curved (although it might not necessarily be a sphere). The shadow of the Earth on the Moon, during a lunar eclipse, is round. Couple that with the fact that the Moon isn't always in the same place, and it becomes obvious that the Earth cannot simply be a flat disc (and that the more likely shape is a sphere). In fact, the Earth was considered spherical long before Eratosthenes (he was just the first to measure its diameter). The fact that the Bible got it wrong is hardly surprising (it wasn't cutting-edge even back then).
You're right when you say that someone travelling within the mediterranean doesn't usually need to take the Earth's curvature into consideration (they couldn't even measure time accurately enough), but what that really means is that a theory regarding the shape of the Earth was not necessary. It does not tell you that there was a theory (in the scientific term of the word) saying the Earth was flat.
RMN
~~~
What do you mean by "evolution"? Are you referring to the theory of natural selection? If so, it's very much a scientific theory.
Darwin's book was called "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Nothing about "evolution" (although it is the mechanism of a kind of evolution).
The concept of "evolution" is somewhat ambiguous. Most people interpret "evolution" as "improvement". Natural selection simply rewards mutations that give organisms an advantage in their environment. They "improve" in the sense that they become better adapted to that environment, but that adaptation may cost them later, if the environemnt changes, or might make it impossible for them to move into new environments (as they lose abilities that are useless or detrimental in their current environment).
RMN
~~~
Can you elaborate on what "considered fact" means? Most definitions of "fact" revolve around "knowledge or information based on real occurrences". Since there are no "real occurrences" of ships falling off the edge of the Earth, a flat Earth could hardly be considered as a "fact". If you just mean "it was believed to be true by a lot of people", then yes, but so was (and is) a lot of other nonsense.
As to the Earth being the centre (meaning the "fixed point") of the universe, well, it's a "fact" that you can do all you calculations based on that assumption (you can even decide that your navel is the fixed point of the universe). It's just a lot more complicated. Astronomers use whichever referential is more practical for the type of work they're doing (that can be the Earth, the Sun, some other star, the centre of a galaxy, etc.).
RMN
~~~
A theory is not the same as a hypothesis (or conjecture), despite the fact that a lot of people confuse the terms.
A theory is a framework for describing a certain natural phenomenon. It's a formalized, systematic, predictive, logical, and testable expression of all previous observations that has never been falsified.
It's definitely a bit more than "a working idea".
There was never a "theory of the Earth being the centre of the universe" (and, BTW, it's perfectly acceptable to consider the Earth's position as your universe's "fixed point" - it just makes most calculations a lot harder). Nor was there ever a "theory of the flat Earth" (in fact, no observations would support that conjecture, so it could never become a theory).
RMN
~~~
Disguised? How is it disguised? People are just too stupid to understand what's right in front of their eyes.
If it's coming from Microsoft then I think there's even less reason to worry that it will become self-aware and super-intelligent.
RMN
~~~
Don't worry, this is just HAL-5. They still have 8995 versions to go through before it gets really dangerous.
RMN
~~~
They are more expensive to end users, not to OEMs.
Intel has lower production costs than AMD, and they don't even mind to lose money on some deals if it helps them take business away from their competitors (which is why they're currently under investigation in several countries).
The only brand Apple is interested in promoting is Apple. You never saw them make a big fuss about having Motorola or IBM CPUs, and I doubt they'll make a big fuss about using Intel (unless Intel gives them another big fat discount for that). They would have gone with AMD if it was cheaper for them.
I doubt they will have both AMD- and Intel-based models; Intel would probably cancel their discounts, as they do with some PC manufacturers (then again, Apple will represent less than 3% of Intel's CPU sales, so maybe they won't really care).
Stanislaw Lem predicted this in his short story "Professor A. Donda" (the first real information scientist).
RMN
~~~
Judging from a few recent polls, only about 47% of Slashdot visitors are from the USA. So the expression "vast majority" used in the FAQ should be interpreted as "minority". :)
And yes, the USA is turning into a theocratic oligarchy, but it has sort of been an oligarchy all along, and so is Europe, deep down (only more fragmented and more bureaucratic) - the main difference is europeans are more cynical (i.e., we tend to assume that our politicians are dirty by default, so they can't be quite as obvious as the Bush junta).
Still, can you name one copy protection system that lasted more than a couple of weeks? The only people whose profits are really increased by copy protection are the ones selling the copy protection systems. We are getting screwed by money (it's not even individual CEOs or corporations - money becomes a separate entity after reaching a certain critical mass), but DRM is one battle where the resistance actually has a chance.
RMN
~~~
What makes you think I live in the same society you do? For good and bad, and as Morrisey put it, "America is not the world" (and that should have been "USA", not "America", but it wouldn't have sounded quite as good in the song).
We've tried fascism around here (and quite enjoyed it, for a while). The fascist regime's motto was "God, country, family". It's fun to see other people sliding down the same slope. Maybe it's a necessary step in a society's development, and it's a good way to see if there are any people left, of if the sheep have taken over completely.
Currently we're trying what can only be described as a bureaucratic bureaucracy. Not quite as glamorous as fascism, and not quite as entertaining as the USA's oligarchic theocracy, but we have a really good feeling about it, and we are going to write 7000 pages of regulations detailing how we can express that feeling. But first we must form a committee to decide what kind of paper to use.
RMN
~~~
If a company or group of companies tries to force consumers to do things in a way they don't want, then another company or group of companies will move in to fill that void. Not out of the kindness of their hearts, but simply because they're greedy, too. That's the fundamental difference between being evil and being greedy. They're not out to screw you, they're just out to get rich (screwing you is just a side effect).
And some (Google and the BBC, for example) have realised that a good reputation can be worth more in the long run than higher profits.
Of course, with the amount of "sheeple" in some parts of the world today, I suspect a lot of people will just eat whatever they're fed (just look at MSIE - slow, insecure, buggy, etc. - most people use it because they're too dumb and too lazy to even download and try the alternatives).
RMN
~~~
The end result is that when Windows Vista ships (and Apple's next OS), most people won't be able to watch protected HD content on their computers.
Then people who want to watch HD on their computers won't buy it, and publishers that don't use that kind of protection will move in and make a profit. Media companies are not evil; they are greedy (the two can be similar, but it's worth keeping the difference in mind).
Anyway, how does protection built into the monitor change anything as far as unauthorised copying of the files? Unless you stick the DVD (or whatever) straight into the monitor, it still has to go through playback software, which means it'll probably be cracked (and therefore easily converted to formats that play anywhere) less than a week after it's released.
RMN
~~~
I wonder if there's a reason why Opera doesn't reveal these numbers....
If you had bothered to RTFA, you would know that Opera does indeed "reveal those numbers". But knowing how many people use a certain product won't tell you anything about its market share unless you know the exact size and flow of the market. To determine effective market share, what you need to do is look at statistics from as many websites as possible.
Technically, every Windows user has a copy of MSIE. That doesn't mean they all use it.
And while it's true that Opera has much better caching than any other browser, it's also true that most decent website trackers won't count multiple accesses from the same IP in a short period of time, so the margin of error shouldn't be too big.
Also, Opera doesn't (quite) identify itself as MSIE. Even in "MSIE mode", it still includes "Opera" in its agent string, so any site that tries to determine the browser type will still detect it as Opera. MSIE mode mainly turns on certain MSIE "quirks" (i.e., bugs), so that some pages specifically designed for MSIE render correctly.
RMN
~~~
I think it's ridiculous that anyone could face jail (or any other kind of state punishment) for looking at anything. If looking at naked kids on the internet makes you a molester, does looking at dead bodies on the evening news make you a murderer?
;-)
Hm... come to think of it, people who watch Fox News do deserve to be executed...
Of course, if he sent money (or any other kind of payment) to a site showing pictures of exploited children, then he actively contributed to that exploitation. Otherwise, I think everyone has the right to look at whatever they want. Hiding something doesn't make it go away; quite the contrary.
Looking at things means I own them? Well, then... Slashdot: all your base are belong to me!
Looks like you've been watching Fox News. Only three countries participated in the invasion: USA, England and Australia. Lots of other countries sent peace-keeping forces (police and military) later, but only those three took part in the invasion.
BTW, most of the "oil for food" money went to the USA. Look it up; the documents are actually in the public domain.
Does this mean we'll finally be able to make our Tamiya models look like the picture on the box?
The article seems to assume that the "girlfriend" would be able to somehow receive and (more importantly) understand morse code. Which I guess narrows it down a bit. But, this being Slashdot, the very concept of "girlfriend" is enough to make the whole thing highly unlikely.
RMN
~~~
No, they don't do the same thing (or at least they shouldn't). The one on the remote should always be a "soft off" button (turn screen off, leave receiver on), with the standby icon (open circle with line). The one on the TV (if it uses a closed circle icon) should be a "real" power cut-off button. Most TVs do have a real "off" button. Most DVDs and VCRs have only a "standby" button (sometimes there's a real power cut-off button at the back).
RMN
~~~
All my TVs (and in fact every TV I've ever seen) turns off the receiver when you use the actual power button (on the TV). My DVD player and VCR are always on standby as long as they're plugged in, but all the TVs have a real "off" mode.
I don't theink they can use the "power off" icon unless they really do cut the power completely (safety regulations). If parts of it remain powered, they have to use the "stand by" icon.
RMN
~~~
Your remote doesn't have a button to turn the TV screen off (but keep the remote receiver working)? That's stand by (soft off) mode. The icon on the remote should be identical to the one in XP's "standby" button. The power button on the actual TV set should turn the TV completely off (including the remote receiver), and should have an icon idential to the one XP uses for "shutdown". If not, your TV / remote are very unusual.
;-)
I haven't seen a TV with "power" written on it (in any language) for a long, long time. All my TVs since 1988 or so have just the "power" icon (circle with a vertical line inside it). The same goes for nearly all my computer monitors (I think I have a couple of old Philips that do have text). That way they can sell the exact same model in a lot of different countries.
Since most NTSC models are different anyway, maybe some manufacturers still write "power" on the sets sold in the USA. I know that in some american cities, pedestrian lights have "walk" and "don't walk" written on them. Maybe everyone there is colour-blind and picture-blind but very litterate...?
RMN
~~~