BTW, how does our conception of logic conflict with an anthropomorphic deity? And what do you mean by that there is no reason in point #2?
I am done. I could've (and was planning) to spew forth about half a dozen paragraphs here, but I probably have better things to do.
Everyone here convinced me - there is an invisible man in the sky, he created the world because he was bored, and if were were good people all we would do would be have a big fucking circle-jerk all day long about how great he is. Sure you think I am oversimplyfing the matter and sapping it of it's eternal truth mojo or whatever. Am I though?
And while I'm at it, let's make sure we understand each other: by evolution I mean the development of new species...
You know what's great? We are not arguing about god in this thread (unlike the others), so how you define evolution, or what you "feel" or "believe" it should mean doesn't matter in the least. Scientific terms (including "evolution", "microevolution" and "macroevolution") are very well defined and carry specific meanings, and I use them properly. If you don't know what they mean - look them up.
Got that? You've got no evidence.
Do you selectively answer what I say just for fun, or did you just not come up with your own definition of "homolog" yet? I am just curious - don't bother replying, I'd like to be spared your opinion on genetic research as I am sure it would be incomprehensible to me.
religious outlook like evolution
calling evolution religious was cute at first, but its just old and tired now.
Oh, and in any case, inference is a hell of alot better than believing what voices in my head tell me, which is what much of religion is founded on.
Okay, now I'm pretty sure you're trolling. My fault.
I am not sure if my regular posting habbits can be easily diferentiated from trolling, but either way, people seem to anwer - discussion ensues.
And how, exactly, is that relevant to the usefulness or otherwise of this product?
Very simple - the original poster presented this (and only this, btw) as a use for this product, I was pointing out, that a better solution for what they used it to accomplish already exists in companies, its called an "intranet" and the only reason that it didn't appear to accomplish the task in this case, is because their IT does not appear to be doing their job. Here it is more briefly - why do you need a distributed P2P network for two people in the same bloody company to share information? Shared drives? File servers?
Care to explain the contradiction
I should've probably been more clear and articulate, here's my point. P2P sharing systems can be easy to use, or not. HTTP servers, can be easy to use or not. The ease of use, is not an intrinsic feature of the P2P paradigm, nor is it something that necessarily lacks from a free hosting service.
On a rather unrelated note, I pointed out that using an FTP program, should be something people who interact with computers know how to do, HTTP servers or not. This isn't a case where we geeks came up with something outlandish and now need to create a solution that the common man can use. We require people to learn to read, they should be able to handle FTP. I disintergrate into these rants simply because I am sick of working with PhD level scientists, who bitch and whine when they can't, for example, use a new Oracle backed LIMS in the same way they used Excel sheets before it. Never mind if its more useful and powerful (not to mention preserving data integrity) by orders of magnitude (according not to me, but to other scientists who were involved in developing it), its not what they are used to. Its a simple return on investment kind of thing - people just don't want to learn. But because it has to do with computers, its somehow our, the geek's, fault.
To recap, what it sounded to me like someone was implying was that introducing this fundamentally different approach to publishing content, from a technological point of view, was the solution to replace traditional servers, because those weren't user friendly enough. Am I getting across with the difference between the technology and the UI here, or am I just ranting?
False. The evidence is all around you (and in fact you are part of the evidence)
BS - I can say that my existing is evidence that Homer Simpson is god, makes about as much sense. Here's your argument: "Why do we exist? God made us. How do we know this? We exist." Let's play "Spot the circular argument!"
False.
Why?
You're repeating yourself.;-)
If you are not going to bother reading what I say, why do you try to answer? #4 dealt with the original creation of god stories, their roots and those who societies that originally accepted them. #5 on the other hand, referred to the political exploitation of religious beliefs on behalf of those who didn't have the faintest wish to adpot them themselves - organized, state sponsored and controlled religion, in other words.
rationality is actually dependent upon God
You like to say very broad things, and then not back them up with anything (I'll understand if backing them up would undermine god, of course). Which part of believing in a god is rational again? Is it the part where Noah crams two of each "kind" of animals on an ark (I love when people "scientifically" "prove" this is possible) or the part where Utnapishtim lives forever because he survived the flood?
You know what? I'll do this on your level - There is no god. Because there isn't. That is the one True Way.
Not quite true, it also aplies to the general concept of humans creating gods and the numerous examples throughout history. more importantly, you are missing the point - my last two "reasons" are far more important than the first three, in every situation. they are what explains why these silly arguments exist in the first place.
I personally define a "god" (for these purposes) as any deity described with anthropomorphic qualities, in either appearance or intellect, this leaves little room for grey areas (though some still exist). All the agnostic notions of an overrearching force, or fate or whatnot that controls and guides our lives, either fall under category of "god" by giving this entity human emotions or ideals, or is simply an exercise in "linguistic misdirection" (if I can wax poetic here), if you think about it, the concept of "fate" is rather meaningless. But the thinking is required.
Arguing about gods is useless (even more useless than arguing on the internet), in a "formal" argument, the idea of a god (especially of the Jedo-Christian variaty as it stands right now) is well, simply insulting to anyone who believes humans to posses intelligence. The more personal "argument" of "I believe in God because I want to/god told me/that's the only trught/the bible says so" cannot be approached with human inelligence since it refuses to conform to logic (I do realize that, that is specifically the intention), but more importantly - why would one bother to argue with that?
Don't get me wrong, religion has been a very important and powerful force in the shaping of our civilization. A lot of things, both good and bad have come from religion, but in the end, religion and the existence of a god are two things that really don't relate to each other.
To recap my rant - your friend can believe whatever the hell he or she wants, that's their right. My right remains, and that is to mock it because its silly, ridiculous, and in the end, manipulative. And until those who believe in a god start making sense, I will not take them seriously. God bless America.
Perhaps because his experiments can actually be reproduced in the lab today?
I am not sure what you mean. What I was subtly getting at was that the theory of evolution has evolved (pardon the pun) since Darwin's day to a point where his work (while obviously instrumental to the creation of this theory/movement/whatever) is somewhat inconsequential now.
Well I think that Creation by a God, or even an experiment by aliens, makes more sense and seem more likely than the theory of evolution, and both have more evidence than the theory of evolution, which is little if not zero reasonable evidence. While the son of God who created life on earth, there is evidence that Jesus existed.
First off, god - I specifically used the word "theory" as creationism doesn't qualify as such, but that's a minor point I suppose. I am sorry but there is not a shred of evidence supporting creationism (of any form, not just Jeudo-Christian). It's great that Jesus existed, but so did Pharaoh Tutankhamen, and Pharaohs, as we all know, are children of Ra (or even divine incarnations) - does it follow then, that Atum, or Kherpi created the world? In any case, all arguments for creationism I've ever heard, were those refuting evolution, and I think we can agree that's not the same thing. I'd love to hear new ones, though.
I am not sure why you believe that evolution has no evidence: I think I mentioned somewhere already that microevolution happens on a small enough time scale that we can, have and do observe it. There are fossil records with tremendous support for evolution. There are finally advances in the study of genetics, from the basic explanation of how mutation works (and natural selection achieves it's "goal") to study of cross-species gene homologies.
The alien idea is cute, and I am certainly not one to dismiss it outright simply because it sounds silly, but it shares two major problems with creationism: one, its simple conjecture, not a shred of (real) evidence exists for it and two, its just a transposition of sorts - where did the aliens come from, then? Did they evolve, or were they created by a god?
You are certainly free to believe what you want, and I am certainly not in the business of telling others what to believe, but as things stand right now, I'd say you are better of believing that god created earth around 5-6 billion years ago as a molten mess and we got here by something akin to the principle of evolution. But, like I said, not my place...
Step one: pick two words to describe the two different sides. The words should be commonly used, but laden with emotion and varying connotations so that they will not mean the same thing to any two different people, but the people will feel very strongly about them nonetheless. Also try to apply them as broadly as possible. "Evolution" and "design" are very good choices.
Step two: Select a medium where the "discussion" will propagate quickly. Preferrably it will also make it hard to communicate less straight-forward and non-technical ideas effectively and will also have a wide audience of people with little to do and little knowledge of anything (but high esteem of their opinions). The internet is by far the best choice.
Step Three: Create a statement that is fundamentally correct and impossible to disagree with, but obfuscate it by applying the ideas from Step One and further complicate it by presenting it in the fashion described in Step Two.
Bingo! A neat observation to flame war (complete with hurt feelings, personal insults, amazingly broad generalizations and god) in no time flat!
(please don't bother pointing out that I contribute more to step two than even most people - that just supports what I am saying)
Assuming that those who do not believe in a god do so simply because we cannot "see" a god is also very arrogant. Here's why there is no god:
1 there is no evidence of god
2 there is no reason for a god to exist
3 based on our conception of logic, a god cannot exist
4 we know why, when and how the stories of gods were made up and propagated
5 we know why and how the stories of gods were accepted and used, and for what purposes
I don't dismiss a god because of some inability to "see" one, I dismiss it because I've spent years studying history, mythology and theology and because I am a reasonable person.
I agree with everything you say, except for the glorifying of philosophy to the level of biology - ie an actual, respectable science.
Philosophy is a very personal an unstructured endeavour, designed to elevate the individual through self reflection. When, however, attempts are made to organize and structure it and create something akin to a science from it, what emerges is a useless glob of lost "brain cycles" mostly preoccupied with arguing (and making up) non-arguments and non-issues that are nonetheless imbued with highly hysterical humanistic connotations (the determinism vs. free will "argument" is a good example) and also just plain posturing. I've studied philosophy for a few years, so I speak from personal experience. Don't get me wrong, I think that philosophy is very useful, and important, but it is just not to be treated in the same way as a science, that defeats it's purpose.
Anyone can engage in philosophy, what determines how successful you are is nothing but your intellect (and general erudition), to call it a "field" is much more than it deserves. Arguing biology, on the other hand, requires one to possess a lot of prior knowledge on the subject, other wise it looks very silly (like in this thread, and to a somewhat lesser extent on the kernel thread)
Well, its either that or "revolution" and that gets into the whole Communist angle of it again...
Anyway, a fine example of misintepreting what he is trying to say completely, and instead focusing on nitpicking irrelevant details. (I am just in a bitchy mood today)
Anyway, I am not too knowledgeable about Darwin's personal feelings, but then we don't bother with, lets say, what Michael Faraday thought, when we talk about electrical engeneering nowadays, do we?
In any case, no matter how implausible or incomprehensible the theory of evolution seems to some people (and I don't mean anyone in particular here) the fact remains that no other theory exists to challenge it.
Heck, in the grand scheme of things it might very well turn out that the theory of evolution is wrong in many respects. It is hardly possible for it to be completely wrong, since things like microevolution are in fact very much observable phenomena. (hell I personally spent a bit of time writing software for tracking allele changes)
Ture - but what does uServe do then? If you take it out of the above, we are back where we started - before this "solution without a problem" was applied.
This program is for them (but useful for the rest of us too)
a) The comment wasn't from them it was from somone needing log files to do "debugging" (I am hoping its not your typical AOL user then). And there was no mention of email, the files came from a "co-worker" - meaning that their IT department was simply not doing their job. b)How are they useful for us? I haven't seen any reason yet.
Anyway, my point was this - being easier to use (supposedly) doesn't make this "technology" better than a traditional HTTP server (or a free service), a service or server that's itself easier to use would fill this role. The usablity of this should be judged on it's technological merits, not how "drag and drop" the user interface is.
PS I am well aware that the majority of people cannot use an FTP program. I still do believe that the solution to this is not bypassing it, but teaching them to use bloody FTP. If the general population doesn't learn something about computers, then what you and I do is just for our own fun - which is completely fine with me. I do my job, if they (the infamous "user") want to benefit from it, they'll need to make an investment (however inisgificant it actually is). Its the 21st century, pointing and clicking should be a required skill. (a good example: the majority of people can't drive for shit - are car manufacturers to be blamed for that?)
Who the fuck are you to have a "YO" about the theory of evolution?
Seriously. Most people don't even understand the basic principles of the theory of evolution (being content with something along the lines of "well, and then monkeys became people") and yet everyone has an opinion on how valid it is!
That's the American education system for you - all opinions are valid (and just as good as all other ones) simply because someone comes up with them.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. Oh wait, its enough for you to think that I am.
Brilliant proof of God's existance using a Linux kernel list comment and a dictionary. Go stand in the corner!
As much as I like the whole "intelligent design" "argument" I have one thing to ask - How many of you know how the human brain works? Really, can you trace the neuralogical processes from the conception of an idea to a blueprint, let's say, that a person designs?
Since we don't have the faintest clue about this - who is to say that our own process is that dissimilar to that of nature? ie that deep in the bowels of the brain somewhere, it's not just "massive undirected parallel development" that's taken place, and that solidifies in the form of a specific idea at one point? Natural evolution and "intelligent" engeenering, might not be as diametricaly opposed to each other as we tend to think.
I am confusied. The "killer app" of the P2P server is getting around the fact that your company's intranet is not setup properly to do the one thing its there to do in the first place (allow you to share information with your co-workers)?
I could just as easily have said "well, I don't know how to run Apache, so this userve thing sure saved my ass!"
To me it just seems like one of those things that are kinda cool, but fairly useless. But then, what do I know?
Wasn't Sun developing a Java P2P thing (API, protocol, platform, infrastructre, whatever they called it) that was supposed to be the greatest thing ever, solve all humanities problems, erradicate evil from the face of the earth and cure cancer? What happened to that?
(On the bright side, P2P seems to be the only one of the stupid X2X acronyms to actually catch on - the combinations of Bs, Cs and 2s were getting pretty obnoxious)
but 90% of people likely to use this, mostly like black backgrounds with flashing red text, the marquee tag and GIF animations that jump, twirl, bounce, rotate and "burn" also cursors that turn into comets and leave a trail of other lucky charms shapes behind them as they move.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do they do this to us? All biology, genetics and ethics experts around here just won't be able to type fast enough!
Stick to goddamn computers, at least some people around here know something about that.
BTW, how does our conception of logic conflict with an anthropomorphic deity? And what do you mean by that there is no reason in point #2?
I am done. I could've (and was planning) to spew forth about half a dozen paragraphs here, but I probably have better things to do.
Everyone here convinced me - there is an invisible man in the sky, he created the world because he was bored, and if were were good people all we would do would be have a big fucking circle-jerk all day long about how great he is. Sure you think I am oversimplyfing the matter and sapping it of it's eternal truth mojo or whatever. Am I though?
And while I'm at it, let's make sure we understand each other: by evolution I mean the development of new species...
You know what's great? We are not arguing about god in this thread (unlike the others), so how you define evolution, or what you "feel" or "believe" it should mean doesn't matter in the least. Scientific terms (including "evolution", "microevolution" and "macroevolution") are very well defined and carry specific meanings, and I use them properly. If you don't know what they mean - look them up.
Got that? You've got no evidence.
Do you selectively answer what I say just for fun, or did you just not come up with your own definition of "homolog" yet? I am just curious - don't bother replying, I'd like to be spared your opinion on genetic research as I am sure it would be incomprehensible to me.
religious outlook like evolution
calling evolution religious was cute at first, but its just old and tired now.
Oh, and in any case, inference is a hell of alot better than believing what voices in my head tell me, which is what much of religion is founded on.
Okay, now I'm pretty sure you're trolling. My fault.
I am not sure if my regular posting habbits can be easily diferentiated from trolling, but either way, people seem to anwer - discussion ensues.
And how, exactly, is that relevant to the usefulness or otherwise of this product?
Very simple - the original poster presented this (and only this, btw) as a use for this product, I was pointing out, that a better solution for what they used it to accomplish already exists in companies, its called an "intranet" and the only reason that it didn't appear to accomplish the task in this case, is because their IT does not appear to be doing their job. Here it is more briefly - why do you need a distributed P2P network for two people in the same bloody company to share information? Shared drives? File servers?
Care to explain the contradiction
I should've probably been more clear and articulate, here's my point. P2P sharing systems can be easy to use, or not. HTTP servers, can be easy to use or not. The ease of use, is not an intrinsic feature of the P2P paradigm, nor is it something that necessarily lacks from a free hosting service.
On a rather unrelated note, I pointed out that using an FTP program, should be something people who interact with computers know how to do, HTTP servers or not. This isn't a case where we geeks came up with something outlandish and now need to create a solution that the common man can use. We require people to learn to read, they should be able to handle FTP. I disintergrate into these rants simply because I am sick of working with PhD level scientists, who bitch and whine when they can't, for example, use a new Oracle backed LIMS in the same way they used Excel sheets before it. Never mind if its more useful and powerful (not to mention preserving data integrity) by orders of magnitude (according not to me, but to other scientists who were involved in developing it), its not what they are used to. Its a simple return on investment kind of thing - people just don't want to learn. But because it has to do with computers, its somehow our, the geek's, fault.
To recap, what it sounded to me like someone was implying was that introducing this fundamentally different approach to publishing content, from a technological point of view, was the solution to replace traditional servers, because those weren't user friendly enough. Am I getting across with the difference between the technology and the UI here, or am I just ranting?
False. The evidence is all around you (and in fact you are part of the evidence)
BS - I can say that my existing is evidence that Homer Simpson is god, makes about as much sense. Here's your argument: "Why do we exist? God made us. How do we know this? We exist." Let's play "Spot the circular argument!"
False.
Why?
You're repeating yourself.;-)
If you are not going to bother reading what I say, why do you try to answer?
#4 dealt with the original creation of god stories, their roots and those who societies that originally accepted them. #5 on the other hand, referred to the political exploitation of religious beliefs on behalf of those who didn't have the faintest wish to adpot them themselves - organized, state sponsored and controlled religion, in other words.
rationality is actually dependent upon God
You like to say very broad things, and then not back them up with anything (I'll understand if backing them up would undermine god, of course). Which part of believing in a god is rational again? Is it the part where Noah crams two of each "kind" of animals on an ark (I love when people "scientifically" "prove" this is possible) or the part where Utnapishtim lives forever because he survived the flood?
You know what? I'll do this on your level - There is no god. Because there isn't. That is the one True Way.
Not quite true, it also aplies to the general concept of humans creating gods and the numerous examples throughout history. more importantly, you are missing the point - my last two "reasons" are far more important than the first three, in every situation. they are what explains why these silly arguments exist in the first place.
I personally define a "god" (for these purposes) as any deity described with anthropomorphic qualities, in either appearance or intellect, this leaves little room for grey areas (though some still exist). All the agnostic notions of an overrearching force, or fate or whatnot that controls and guides our lives, either fall under category of "god" by giving this entity human emotions or ideals, or is simply an exercise in "linguistic misdirection" (if I can wax poetic here), if you think about it, the concept of "fate" is rather meaningless. But the thinking is required.
Arguing about gods is useless (even more useless than arguing on the internet), in a "formal" argument, the idea of a god (especially of the Jedo-Christian variaty as it stands right now) is well, simply insulting to anyone who believes humans to posses intelligence. The more personal "argument" of "I believe in God because I want to/god told me/that's the only trught/the bible says so" cannot be approached with human inelligence since it refuses to conform to logic (I do realize that, that is specifically the intention), but more importantly - why would one bother to argue with that?
Don't get me wrong, religion has been a very important and powerful force in the shaping of our civilization. A lot of things, both good and bad have come from religion, but in the end, religion and the existence of a god are two things that really don't relate to each other.
To recap my rant - your friend can believe whatever the hell he or she wants, that's their right. My right remains, and that is to mock it because its silly, ridiculous, and in the end, manipulative. And until those who believe in a god start making sense, I will not take them seriously. God bless America.
what an 8m telescope on the far side of the moon could discover
Just imagine... a Beowulf cluster of these!
heh, couldn't resist)
Perhaps because his experiments can actually be reproduced in the lab today?
I am not sure what you mean. What I was subtly getting at was that the theory of evolution has evolved (pardon the pun) since Darwin's day to a point where his work (while obviously instrumental to the creation of this theory/movement/whatever) is somewhat inconsequential now.
Well I think that Creation by a God, or even an experiment by aliens, makes more sense and seem more likely than the theory of evolution, and both have more evidence than the theory of evolution, which is little if not zero reasonable evidence. While the son of God who created life on earth, there is evidence that Jesus existed.
First off, god - I specifically used the word "theory" as creationism doesn't qualify as such, but that's a minor point I suppose. I am sorry but there is not a shred of evidence supporting creationism (of any form, not just Jeudo-Christian). It's great that Jesus existed, but so did Pharaoh Tutankhamen, and Pharaohs, as we all know, are children of Ra (or even divine incarnations) - does it follow then, that Atum, or Kherpi created the world? In any case, all arguments for creationism I've ever heard, were those refuting evolution, and I think we can agree that's not the same thing. I'd love to hear new ones, though.
I am not sure why you believe that evolution has no evidence: I think I mentioned somewhere already that microevolution happens on a small enough time scale that we can, have and do observe it. There are fossil records with tremendous support for evolution. There are finally advances in the study of genetics, from the basic explanation of how mutation works (and natural selection achieves it's "goal") to study of cross-species gene homologies.
The alien idea is cute, and I am certainly not one to dismiss it outright simply because it sounds silly, but it shares two major problems with creationism: one, its simple conjecture, not a shred of (real) evidence exists for it and two, its just a transposition of sorts - where did the aliens come from, then? Did they evolve, or were they created by a god?
You are certainly free to believe what you want, and I am certainly not in the business of telling others what to believe, but as things stand right now, I'd say you are better of believing that god created earth around 5-6 billion years ago as a molten mess and we got here by something akin to the principle of evolution. But, like I said, not my place...
If you think that "survival" or "fittest" are clearly defined in biology, then you obviously weren't here for that whole meteor/meteorite debacle. :)
Step one: pick two words to describe the two different sides. The words should be commonly used, but laden with emotion and varying connotations so that they will not mean the same thing to any two different people, but the people will feel very strongly about them nonetheless. Also try to apply them as broadly as possible. "Evolution" and "design" are very good choices.
Step two: Select a medium where the "discussion" will propagate quickly. Preferrably it will also make it hard to communicate less straight-forward and non-technical ideas effectively and will also have a wide audience of people with little to do and little knowledge of anything (but high esteem of their opinions). The internet is by far the best choice.
Step Three: Create a statement that is fundamentally correct and impossible to disagree with, but obfuscate it by applying the ideas from Step One and further complicate it by presenting it in the fashion described in Step Two.
Bingo! A neat observation to flame war (complete with hurt feelings, personal insults, amazingly broad generalizations and god) in no time flat!
(please don't bother pointing out that I contribute more to step two than even most people - that just supports what I am saying)
Assuming that those who do not believe in a god do so simply because we cannot "see" a god is also very arrogant. Here's why there is no god:
1 there is no evidence of god
2 there is no reason for a god to exist
3 based on our conception of logic, a god cannot exist
4 we know why, when and how the stories of gods were made up and propagated
5 we know why and how the stories of gods were accepted and used, and for what purposes
I don't dismiss a god because of some inability to "see" one, I dismiss it because I've spent years studying history, mythology and theology and because I am a reasonable person.
I agree with everything you say, except for the glorifying of philosophy to the level of biology - ie an actual, respectable science.
Philosophy is a very personal an unstructured endeavour, designed to elevate the individual through self reflection. When, however, attempts are made to organize and structure it and create something akin to a science from it, what emerges is a useless glob of lost "brain cycles" mostly preoccupied with arguing (and making up) non-arguments and non-issues that are nonetheless imbued with highly hysterical humanistic connotations (the determinism vs. free will "argument" is a good example) and also just plain posturing. I've studied philosophy for a few years, so I speak from personal experience. Don't get me wrong, I think that philosophy is very useful, and important, but it is just not to be treated in the same way as a science, that defeats it's purpose.
Anyone can engage in philosophy, what determines how successful you are is nothing but your intellect (and general erudition), to call it a "field" is much more than it deserves. Arguing biology, on the other hand, requires one to possess a lot of prior knowledge on the subject, other wise it looks very silly (like in this thread, and to a somewhat lesser extent on the kernel thread)
I think evolution is the wrong term to use.
Well, its either that or "revolution" and that gets into the whole Communist angle of it again...
Anyway, a fine example of misintepreting what he is trying to say completely, and instead focusing on nitpicking irrelevant details. (I am just in a bitchy mood today)
Stop injecting your insidious "rational thought" into this argument, or we will end up with nothing to talk about.
/. is all about people speaking about subjects outside their expertise (if such exists at all) with the air of an expert - its a perfect fit.
Yeah, I do tend to get riled up about this...
Anyway, I am not too knowledgeable about Darwin's personal feelings, but then we don't bother with, lets say, what Michael Faraday thought, when we talk about electrical engeneering nowadays, do we?
In any case, no matter how implausible or incomprehensible the theory of evolution seems to some people (and I don't mean anyone in particular here) the fact remains that no other theory exists to challenge it.
Heck, in the grand scheme of things it might very well turn out that the theory of evolution is wrong in many respects. It is hardly possible for it to be completely wrong, since things like microevolution are in fact very much observable phenomena. (hell I personally spent a bit of time writing software for tracking allele changes)
Ture - but what does uServe do then? If you take it out of the above, we are back where we started - before this "solution without a problem" was applied.
This program is for them (but useful for the rest of us too)
a) The comment wasn't from them it was from somone needing log files to do "debugging" (I am hoping its not your typical AOL user then). And there was no mention of email, the files came from a "co-worker" - meaning that their IT department was simply not doing their job.
b)How are they useful for us? I haven't seen any reason yet.
Anyway, my point was this - being easier to use (supposedly) doesn't make this "technology" better than a traditional HTTP server (or a free service), a service or server that's itself easier to use would fill this role. The usablity of this should be judged on it's technological merits, not how "drag and drop" the user interface is.
PS I am well aware that the majority of people cannot use an FTP program. I still do believe that the solution to this is not bypassing it, but teaching them to use bloody FTP. If the general population doesn't learn something about computers, then what you and I do is just for our own fun - which is completely fine with me. I do my job, if they (the infamous "user") want to benefit from it, they'll need to make an investment (however inisgificant it actually is). Its the 21st century, pointing and clicking should be a required skill. (a good example: the majority of people can't drive for shit - are car manufacturers to be blamed for that?)
One small question (and this one I have often):
Who the fuck are you to have a "YO" about the theory of evolution?
Seriously. Most people don't even understand the basic principles of the theory of evolution (being content with something along the lines of "well, and then monkeys became people") and yet everyone has an opinion on how valid it is!
That's the American education system for you - all opinions are valid (and just as good as all other ones) simply because someone comes up with them.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. Oh wait, its enough for you to think that I am.
Brilliant proof of God's existance using a Linux kernel list comment and a dictionary. Go stand in the corner!
As much as I like the whole "intelligent design" "argument" I have one thing to ask - How many of you know how the human brain works? Really, can you trace the neuralogical processes from the conception of an idea to a blueprint, let's say, that a person designs?
Since we don't have the faintest clue about this - who is to say that our own process is that dissimilar to that of nature? ie that deep in the bowels of the brain somewhere, it's not just "massive undirected parallel development" that's taken place, and that solidifies in the form of a specific idea at one point? Natural evolution and "intelligent" engeenering, might not be as diametricaly opposed to each other as we tend to think.
... but relevant
I am confusied. The "killer app" of the P2P server is getting around the fact that your company's intranet is not setup properly to do the one thing its there to do in the first place (allow you to share information with your co-workers)?
I could just as easily have said "well, I don't know how to run Apache, so this userve thing sure saved my ass!"
To me it just seems like one of those things that are kinda cool, but fairly useless. But then, what do I know?
Wasn't Sun developing a Java P2P thing (API, protocol, platform, infrastructre, whatever they called it) that was supposed to be the greatest thing ever, solve all humanities problems, erradicate evil from the face of the earth and cure cancer? What happened to that?
(On the bright side, P2P seems to be the only one of the stupid X2X acronyms to actually catch on - the combinations of Bs, Cs and 2s were getting pretty obnoxious)
Sure IBM is the 800 pound gorilla of the tech world, but wouldn't the MPAA and RIAA be a 950,000 kilo crocodile compared to it?
but 90% of people likely to use this, mostly like black backgrounds with flashing red text, the marquee tag and GIF animations that jump, twirl, bounce, rotate and "burn" also cursors that turn into comets and leave a trail of other lucky charms shapes behind them as they move.
Trust me, they'll be fine with static pages.