I thought the human brain didn't do the calculations though. Rather for things like catching it learns from experience how to react to catch the object. There isn't any maths going on behind the scenes or anything.
That isn't to say it isn't powerful, but that it approaches such things very differently from how we usually make machines and computers to do them.
I write web/db stuff all the time for and intranet and extranet, and it used to be easier than a stand alone app with ASP vs writing a VB app. The end result would be a bit clunkier but it was fast.
With.Net its probably about the same, you use web controls rather than windows controls, but the same ADO.Net underneath.
Now so far the Ajax stuff is fiddly, but as good libraries come along (MS is doing one called Atlas for.Net 2.0, there will be others) putting Ajax using controls in will be as easy as any other.
Given some time to mature, it looks very promising.
You do know lots of science looks at stuff in the past right? From the near past with things like forensic science to the begining of the universe with astrophysics.
Its quite possible to have a scientific hypothesis that says "if event X occured we should see evidence of it in the form of Y".
You also seem to be discounting current and recent experiments in evolution that observe it happening right now.
As for "Theology however has authoritative divine revelation" theology is the study of the nature religion, relgious truth and God. It certainly does not have authoritative divine revelation. Some people may beleive their religion has such a thing, but that is different.
We have cures for some kinds of cancer. To able to cure astronauts on a trip though the cure would need to be small, light, have no major side effects and work for all kinds of cancer.
If you can come up with that, frankly its a much bigger thing than going to Mars (at least initally) would be.
Lots of people use FireFox becuase it is a better browser than IE an is free as in beer.
So they are going to be more than happy to install a Yahoo! bar or a Google bar if they want the functionality.
Free as in speech just really doesn't matter to most users, they will use software that happens to be that way if they like the software and the price.
I didn't say its OK to attack something because it is a security hole. I'm saying the person who supplies it can turn something off because it is a security hole. It isn't a malicious third party trying to cause harm.
So you seem to have misunderstood my line of thinking.
It would be nice if FireFox updates had some sort of info about what the update did. I've upgrade extensions in the past and had some odd things, but really its entirely my responsibility to check on what I'm downloading when I click OK.
I think perhaps some things could be learnt from this situation and it could be handled better, I won't argue with that. However when the user has agreed to the download you have their consent. Continuing to assert it is illegal when you appear on shaky ground doesn't help you other (IMO more reasonable) points that there ought to be a better way of doing this.
I still haven't had an answer on the "crippling" either, is GreaseMonkey rendered useless (seems unlikely) or just looses some functionality?
Intentionally causing damage is illegal, turning something off becuase it is a big security hole? I don't think that fits cleanly under "intentionally causing damage".
You can make an argument for it being "damage", but it doesn't seem nearly as cut and dried as you make it out when you say "this is illegal".
Even if you give an extention a new major version number it is still an "update" as far as Firefox is concerened. There isn't any way of calling it anything else.
As for trust, if they didn't plug a sersious vulnerability I think they would lose more.
Does 3.5 "totally cripple" GM? The article and this thread haven't been very clear.
But it isn't the same as cost, which was what you were talking about.
But the motive is always to maximise value and minimise cost.
And if a lot of value is perception, rather than cost of production, people make 'bad' decisions from a point of view of "one day we are going to run out of resources" perspective.
Sure, when we do the extra cost will kick in, but the free market isn't a magic panacea, and planing for future scarcity now can result in less impact and unpleasantness for people when it does happen. Sure things would eventually sort themselves out, but why not make it eaiser for people?
Most users don't particularly enjoy computers for their own sake and certainly don't want to tinker with them in their spare time. They don't want to spend any more time learning how to use them than the minimum.
Learning information is a waste of time if it is stuff you are uninterested in and don't need. A good OS and applications should minimise what you need to learn, so that people who don't want to spend time on it don't need to.
It may enable them to make better choices in regards to computers, but if they don't really care it still isn't a worth while investment of time. Particularly as you can buy a PC that will run windows + IE pretty cheaply.
You pay a liscence fee if you have a TV, so you can opt not to have a TV and then not pay the liscence.
The BBC Orchestra is certainly paid partially out of the liscence fee (although the BBC has other income), but how much of the fee this recording would come to would be tiny.
The car anlaogy is pretty poor, becuase once the BBC has recorded the music, it costs them almost nothing to distribute it to many people. Having made the recordings why not distribute? You may as well complain that the radio (including digital radio) broadcasts they do are unfair competion.
Well I'm a Brit and I'm pretty proud that the BBC has such a good rep abroad that people want to listen to its music, go to its website and watch its TV.
Putting in place some protection would cost more money and we wouldn't get any benefit from it. Since that money comes from a limited pot, it means we would get less stuff just so other people could... get less stuff.
I beleive the phrase is "cutting your nose off to spite your face".
When it will really make the slash is when people like your father can install it themselves, or buy it preinstalled.
There are loads of posts like yours, geek installs Linux distro for family members who then are happy using it. You can't rely on geeks installing it as a way to spread beyond a certain point though.
Well the good looking people who can't always act seems to apply to most American TV show (and in plenty of other countries too, although British soaps and dramas often have more ugly people).
As for romance, well people have them. Any long term story of people is likely to involve it. Plus of course it is good fodder for drama and something people can relate to, particularly important in a sci-fi setting. If one of the characters is a main character, its pretty hard for them to have a romance with someone who isn't, or doesn't then become a main cast member.
Oh and the people I know who have seen the new Battlestar series really like it, but possibly not quite that much.
How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days?
You know you can be a bad guy without being terroist right? Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he wasn't a terrorist. Just like Hitler wasn't a terrorist, but was evil.
Terrorist has a pretty specific meaning, it doesn't just mean anyone you don't like. Even if you rule through terror, you aren't a terrorist.
Science pretty much stopped using the term "Law" quite a while back, but the names of old ones stuck. Some of the so called "Laws" like Newtons Laws we know aren't actually true now, but we keep the name.
The biggest difference between is theory and a law is there really is no such thing as a "law", just some things have that name as a legacy.
As for a Hypothesis, it has to be refutable to be a valid scientific hypothesis, otherwise it is just a conjecture, and of no real scientific value.
Adblock blocks elements of a page, pop-up blocker block pop-ups are are built into firefox. Hence Google leaves out the pop-up blocker in the Google bar for Firefox.
And before a bunch of non-lawyers start demanding "loser pays", remember that "loser pays" just introduces other unfairnesses when the poor can't sue the rich.
The British system seem to work quite well where cost can be awarded as part of the settlement, but don't have to be. If a single person loses against a company you aren't likely to pay there million dollar lawyers fee.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the human brain didn't do the calculations though. Rather for things like catching it learns from experience how to react to catch the object. There isn't any maths going on behind the scenes or anything.
That isn't to say it isn't powerful, but that it approaches such things very differently from how we usually make machines and computers to do them.
I write web/db stuff all the time for and intranet and extranet, and it used to be easier than a stand alone app with ASP vs writing a VB app. The end result would be a bit clunkier but it was fast.
With .Net its probably about the same, you use web controls rather than windows controls, but the same ADO.Net underneath.
Now so far the Ajax stuff is fiddly, but as good libraries come along (MS is doing one called Atlas for .Net 2.0, there will be others) putting Ajax using controls in will be as easy as any other.
Given some time to mature, it looks very promising.
Scientists should be examining things that aren't science and claming it is.
Scientist can't teach that "There is evidence in favor of the theory of the existence of an Intelligent Creator" because there is no such theory.
There isn't even a hypothesis of an intelligent creator, all you can say is there is a conjecture.
Science has rules about what is science, including a falsifiable hypothesis. Things in a science class need to follow those rules to be science.
You do know lots of science looks at stuff in the past right? From the near past with things like forensic science to the begining of the universe with astrophysics.
Its quite possible to have a scientific hypothesis that says "if event X occured we should see evidence of it in the form of Y".
You also seem to be discounting current and recent experiments in evolution that observe it happening right now.
As for "Theology however has authoritative divine revelation" theology is the study of the nature religion, relgious truth and God. It certainly does not have authoritative divine revelation. Some people may beleive their religion has such a thing, but that is different.
We have cures for some kinds of cancer. To able to cure astronauts on a trip though the cure would need to be small, light, have no major side effects and work for all kinds of cancer.
If you can come up with that, frankly its a much bigger thing than going to Mars (at least initally) would be.
Probably take longer and cost more too.
Remember by the time Major came into power they had had to dump Maggie because she had become so unpopular after stuff like the Poll Tax.
Not that Major was any good, but he inherited a lot of that dislike. To be honest I don't think the Tory party have ever lost it.
Capitalisation doesn't make your argument more convincing you know.
Also just becuase someone doesn't share your personal ethics doesn't mean they don't have any.
Lots of people use FireFox becuase it is a better browser than IE an is free as in beer.
So they are going to be more than happy to install a Yahoo! bar or a Google bar if they want the functionality.
Free as in speech just really doesn't matter to most users, they will use software that happens to be that way if they like the software and the price.
I didn't say its OK to attack something because it is a security hole. I'm saying the person who supplies it can turn something off because it is a security hole. It isn't a malicious third party trying to cause harm.
So you seem to have misunderstood my line of thinking.
It would be nice if FireFox updates had some sort of info about what the update did. I've upgrade extensions in the past and had some odd things, but really its entirely my responsibility to check on what I'm downloading when I click OK.
I think perhaps some things could be learnt from this situation and it could be handled better, I won't argue with that. However when the user has agreed to the download you have their consent. Continuing to assert it is illegal when you appear on shaky ground doesn't help you other (IMO more reasonable) points that there ought to be a better way of doing this.
I still haven't had an answer on the "crippling" either, is GreaseMonkey rendered useless (seems unlikely) or just looses some functionality?
Intentionally causing damage is illegal, turning something off becuase it is a big security hole? I don't think that fits cleanly under "intentionally causing damage".
You can make an argument for it being "damage", but it doesn't seem nearly as cut and dried as you make it out when you say "this is illegal".
Even if you give an extention a new major version number it is still an "update" as far as Firefox is concerened. There isn't any way of calling it anything else.
As for trust, if they didn't plug a sersious vulnerability I think they would lose more.
Does 3.5 "totally cripple" GM? The article and this thread haven't been very clear.
Perceived value is real value.
But it isn't the same as cost, which was what you were talking about.
But the motive is always to maximise value and minimise cost.
And if a lot of value is perception, rather than cost of production, people make 'bad' decisions from a point of view of "one day we are going to run out of resources" perspective.
Sure, when we do the extra cost will kick in, but the free market isn't a magic panacea, and planing for future scarcity now can result in less impact and unpleasantness for people when it does happen. Sure things would eventually sort themselves out, but why not make it eaiser for people?
Most users don't particularly enjoy computers for their own sake and certainly don't want to tinker with them in their spare time. They don't want to spend any more time learning how to use them than the minimum.
Learning information is a waste of time if it is stuff you are uninterested in and don't need. A good OS and applications should minimise what you need to learn, so that people who don't want to spend time on it don't need to.
It may enable them to make better choices in regards to computers, but if they don't really care it still isn't a worth while investment of time. Particularly as you can buy a PC that will run windows + IE pretty cheaply.
So what do you call the equal and opposite force that every force has?
Er, there is no law saying every force has an equal an opposite force.
You're getting confused with "every action has an equal an opposite reaction". Action doesn't mean force, and not type of force.
Go back to school.
Maybe you should go to a better one?
Your link is about Centripetal force.
There really isn't any such thing as centrifugal force, but it is a useful concept so people, and scientist, still use the term.
Try this link about it which explains that it is a fictional force but a useful concept and shorthand.
So centrifuges really apply centripetal force.
You pay a liscence fee if you have a TV, so you can opt not to have a TV and then not pay the liscence.
The BBC Orchestra is certainly paid partially out of the liscence fee (although the BBC has other income), but how much of the fee this recording would come to would be tiny.
The car anlaogy is pretty poor, becuase once the BBC has recorded the music, it costs them almost nothing to distribute it to many people. Having made the recordings why not distribute? You may as well complain that the radio (including digital radio) broadcasts they do are unfair competion.
Well I'm a Brit and I'm pretty proud that the BBC has such a good rep abroad that people want to listen to its music, go to its website and watch its TV.
Putting in place some protection would cost more money and we wouldn't get any benefit from it. Since that money comes from a limited pot, it means we would get less stuff just so other people could... get less stuff.
I beleive the phrase is "cutting your nose off to spite your face".
Completely wrong.
The BBC is funded by a liscene fee payed by people who own TVs. Companies don't pay anything to the running of the BBC.
When it will really make the slash is when people like your father can install it themselves, or buy it preinstalled.
There are loads of posts like yours, geek installs Linux distro for family members who then are happy using it. You can't rely on geeks installing it as a way to spread beyond a certain point though.
Well the good looking people who can't always act seems to apply to most American TV show (and in plenty of other countries too, although British soaps and dramas often have more ugly people).
As for romance, well people have them. Any long term story of people is likely to involve it. Plus of course it is good fodder for drama and something people can relate to, particularly important in a sci-fi setting. If one of the characters is a main character, its pretty hard for them to have a romance with someone who isn't, or doesn't then become a main cast member.
Oh and the people I know who have seen the new Battlestar series really like it, but possibly not quite that much.
Why do people not count Hussein as a terrorist?
Becuase he wasn't one.
How many hundreds of thousands of murders do you have to commit before people think you're a bad guy these days?
You know you can be a bad guy without being terroist right? Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he wasn't a terrorist. Just like Hitler wasn't a terrorist, but was evil.
Terrorist has a pretty specific meaning, it doesn't just mean anyone you don't like. Even if you rule through terror, you aren't a terrorist.
Not really.
Science pretty much stopped using the term "Law" quite a while back, but the names of old ones stuck. Some of the so called "Laws" like Newtons Laws we know aren't actually true now, but we keep the name.
The biggest difference between is theory and a law is there really is no such thing as a "law", just some things have that name as a legacy.
As for a Hypothesis, it has to be refutable to be a valid scientific hypothesis, otherwise it is just a conjecture, and of no real scientific value.
Adblock blocks elements of a page, pop-up blocker block pop-ups are are built into firefox. Hence Google leaves out the pop-up blocker in the Google bar for Firefox.
Googlebar never did what adblock does.
Yes, Google and Yahoo have opened up offical APIs, with terms of service people can use, rather than the existing hacks of their services.
And before a bunch of non-lawyers start demanding "loser pays", remember that "loser pays" just introduces other unfairnesses when the poor can't sue the rich.
The British system seem to work quite well where cost can be awarded as part of the settlement, but don't have to be. If a single person loses against a company you aren't likely to pay there million dollar lawyers fee.