You are right, if an omnipotent being existed, he could do anything he wanted, including messing with gravity and what not. But it's obvious that the omnipotent being also created scientific laws which the things which he created follow.
You mean that creation has remained steady and evolution is like a wobbling tower constantly on the brink of scientific disaster? I'd say that chalks up one for creation. Think of it this way: has the complexity of life become more explainable by chance since Darwin or less? ie has discoveries about proteins and genetic structure furthered evolution or given it one more headache that is has to try and explain?
So what makes those "more exotic" ideas any weirder than ID?
I did not say existance of complex software = intelligence, but you'd agree (I think) that the existance of any software != chance.
Quatum physics does not rely on chance to create itself.
What do you mean be "decent fossil record"? Well sure, there are creatures more complex in the fossil record and creatures less complex. But if I line computers in five year intervals you would see increased complexity, but that does not prove those computers evolved.
Gravity *does not* rely on chance.
I don't feel that open minded sceince threatens anything. The more we've dug into the workings of life over the past century, the more we discover complexity that would have blown Darwin's mind. Hence, I love scientific advances because they simply point more and more clearly toward creation.
There is a difference between faith in God and belief in creation. So try not to confuse the two. If you provide me with enough evidence to believe evolution I'll "switch" (see this post. Now what would you accept as acceptable evidence for creation? Or are you determined to have faith in evolution?
Think of it this way: if there was God who created thw world, that would have a lot more ramification on scientist's lives then if they "do their science" in a lab and go home. Would it make a difference in your life if you believed in ID? Face it: it's a lot simpler to believe that everythin "just happened" than that's there is a force bigger than any of us to be reckoned with.
Your post is pure flamebait, but I won't respond in kind. As to irreducible complexity, you claim its bunk, then provide no evidence that it is so.
Dwarfs and such are all still human, not different creatures.
Prayer is a moot point per creation. Decide what you want to debate.
Those who have a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" are under informed. That *does not* mean that creationists are ill-informed. On the contrary, many scientists have switched from evolution to creationism did so because their field of study led them to that conclusion. Their is plenty of evidence for creation outside of the Bible.
I agree everyone should play by the same rules. But the rules should also be fair. Saying you can't rely on intelligent design to carry out scientific work is not a fair rule: the winner is already clear.
Science is about going where the evidence leads us, not where we want to go. Science has been repeatedly misused over the course over the last century by those eager to provide evidence for evolution when, in fact, there was none.
I must disagree. What about cosmological scientists who rely on "dark energy" and "dark matter" to explain the way the universe is reacting and expanding?
Scientist's observations pointing to something we can't yet explain does not mean that that it is not science, it simply means science is leading us down a path where we haven't been before.
What do I observe? Remarkably complex creatures and phenomenen (many documented here on slashdot and other evolutionist magazines). An analogy: when I see software I don't assume some random bit generator over time created it. Nor do I assume that the hard drive spurted bits that created a program that happened to work. I (and you may differ) assume that it was created by something intelligent (i.e. a programmer).
Evolution is the only field of study where random chance over time is an acceptable method of creating complex structures.
Your next point was testing: evolution has soundly failed here. Provide me with *one* example of time creating increasing genetic complexity.
Evolution's chance + time formula is no more observable in and of itself that intelligent design is.
Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors? What is that supposed to mean? Please don't make slurs unless you understand what you are talking about. Creationism is a valid scientific view point and those who choose between creation and evolution are very well informed and educated. = Would they ignore animal research results, etc? I can't speak for others, but I would certainly use such results were I a doctor. I don't even understand what that has to do with creationism. Like I said, creationism is a valid scientific view point, not some weird cult or sect.
Man this is one heck of an idea. The reason I have such a hrad time spending $40 to get a top quality book is that I know once I've finished it I probably won't need it a whole lot again. I think it would be great to set up a "people's library". If anybody wants to team up with me to begin writing somnething like this (in Linux|Apache|MySQL|Perl of course) let me know.
Yes, you are correct. A friend of mine who worked for Intel on CSS said the encryption is so weak they had to hide the algorithm itself from decompilers and such.
I've created a site with a goal of bringing all 3rd party Sherlock Channels into one place. I put alot of effort into the UI. Check it out at http://sherlock.clan-mac.com/.
And JavaScript isn't that bad. Maybe not in some cases, but it's not a language one would choose to write a plug-in with. JS just doesn't work well for channels. More on this at the end of this post. By limiting things to JavaScript it really relieves a lot of headaches for Apple in terms of security and so forth. I guess I don't get your point. Other languages can run in "sandbox" mode. I understand what you are saying about the limited language choices, but it is supposed to be a semi-limited product. That all depends on what you mean by "limited". For a channel, you have to use http to retreive info via the internet (XML or HTML), and then you have nearly every Aqua widget to use. That's not what I would call limited, even if it is "just a plug-in". ...Why embed it is Sherlock at all? Because Sherlock is Apple's push for web services front-ends. Sure there are plenty of eBay apps availible for Mac OS X, but most people are going to use the Sherlock channel do their "Aquified" auction searching. ...however if you read the links, you'd see that Apple has provided numerous extensions to both JavaScript and XQuery I have read all the documentation. Just because extensions are availible for the languages, that doesn't mean these languages are right for the job. Further if you must use Perl, simply write a CGI script and call it with your JavaScript or XQuery. It can get data from any URL, after all. Now you're jumping to a totally different subject. We're talking about channel programming languages, not server side programming. From WatertonMan's previous post: If you are primarily dealing with XML data then XQuery is really the way to go. Maybe, maybe not. I'd prefer Perl, but if XQ is your cup o' tea, more power to you. But wait! There's a lot more to writing a channel than parsing XML. The whole "interface" thing. The whole purpose of channel is to provide an Aqua interface. "But that's where JS comes in," you might be thinking. True, but shouldn't that tell us something when we need 2 languages to write a channel? Perl has the data munging features and an OO interface that would be perfect for programming the UI!
Do they need to know how to install the OS first... Absolutely. What good does it do to teach them an OS that they're highly unlikely to encounter pre-installed soon? To follow up the first question: Should I give away Debian CDs no-questions-asked... You must (IMH-but-accurate-O) make sure they have a home or school computer to have linux on, be it an old Pentium or something else. No matter how bright the kids are I seriously doubt they'll be able to remeber much after a semester if they don't continuously use it. This would probably be a good opprtunity to go through the install process. What distributions of Linux and BSD should they be first introduced to? I don't see the point of teach BSD, as alot of stuff from linux will carry over and BSD just isn't going to get them anywhere. I think per distros use whatever you're comfortable with. I think Debian is the way to go 'cause it is hard and will make them think, pplus it has an awesome packaging system. I do think though that if you use one, it must be RH. It's the linux distro most windoze people will probably have heard of, and many companies think it the "standard" distro. Initially, do they need to be more adept at the GUI, or do they first need to know how to use the shell? Shell. It's really the only thing they're going to always have. If they run a server they can't count on a gui being there. The shell is where they will do most "in depth" stuff. Of course, the younger they are the more gui they need to see. That said (whew!) I think it's good to start out with a very brief history of Unix. Not too much depth, it won't mean a thing to those who don't know hat a shell even is. Midway I'd also go into some OS theory. Kernel, shell, gcc, X, etc, on how they all work together (at least they're suppose to;) and what they do, and perhaps even a little on how they work. Different audiences will drastically change how you teach though. Whereas with the 8 year olds you will probably give them Knoppix and a how-to-use-the-gui and gnutella client kind of lesson, you'll want to delve the dpeths with the 16 year olds. Maybe even get through the first chapter of "Understanding the Linux Kernel", or maybe that'd strech things a bit. Hope this helps!
I'd like to know how you get your jobs. I'm saving up for my next box and could use some extra $. Plus I think I'd have alot of fun. I've had expereinces similiar to yours (minus the church and the partition resizing, I reformatted win of the HD:).
This isn't a perl vs. xquery debate. For those who want to "do a perl hack", why can't apple provide a bridge? This is about letting a channel author choose the best tools for the task. Further having Java interfaces is also quite nice. WTF are you talking about? There's a huge difference between Java and JavaScript. What they need now is a good O'Reilly book to explain how it all works. .. Preach it brother!
As much as I love Apple, I really have to agree on this one. The documentation sucks, to say the least. There's not one basic example of a channel provided. And JS and XQuery? I honestly didn't even realize XQ existed before this. Perl wuld be the perfect language to develop a channel in. *sigh*, maybe version 3.1.
"But Kawachi said the Japanese government cannot decide on hearsay and wants "an objective study" on the options." Yeah, I bet the M$ guys on the panel want the exact same thing. This sounds like it's going to end up being more like a trial than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, if an omnipotent being existed, he could do anything he wanted, including messing with gravity and what not. But it's obvious that the omnipotent being also created scientific laws which the things which he created follow.
You mean that creation has remained steady and evolution is like a wobbling tower constantly on the brink of scientific disaster? I'd say that chalks up one for creation. Think of it this way: has the complexity of life become more explainable by chance since Darwin or less? ie has discoveries about proteins and genetic structure furthered evolution or given it one more headache that is has to try and explain?
So what makes those "more exotic" ideas any weirder than ID?
I did not say existance of complex software = intelligence, but you'd agree (I think) that the existance of any software != chance.
Quatum physics does not rely on chance to create itself.
What do you mean be "decent fossil record"? Well sure, there are creatures more complex in the fossil record and creatures less complex. But if I line computers in five year intervals you would see increased complexity, but that does not prove those computers evolved.
Gravity *does not* rely on chance.
I don't feel that open minded sceince threatens anything. The more we've dug into the workings of life over the past century, the more we discover complexity that would have blown Darwin's mind. Hence, I love scientific advances because they simply point more and more clearly toward creation.
There is a difference between faith in God and belief in creation. So try not to confuse the two. If you provide me with enough evidence to believe evolution I'll "switch" (see this post. Now what would you accept as acceptable evidence for creation? Or are you determined to have faith in evolution?
Think of it this way: if there was God who created thw world, that would have a lot more ramification on scientist's lives then if they "do their science" in a lab and go home. Would it make a difference in your life if you believed in ID? Face it: it's a lot simpler to believe that everythin "just happened" than that's there is a force bigger than any of us to be reckoned with.
Can you provide any evidence for your gods??
You are right in saying non-scientific beliefs have no place in society. You are wrong in saying creation is not a scientific belief.
I mean well educated ones like this. Not someone who wants attention.
I could probably think of more but I'm rather tired. Please reply if you need more and I'll answer later.
Your post is pure flamebait, but I won't respond in kind. As to irreducible complexity, you claim its bunk, then provide no evidence that it is so.
Dwarfs and such are all still human, not different creatures.
Prayer is a moot point per creation. Decide what you want to debate.
So now lobbying for equality constitutes shoving beliefs down someone's throat? The evolutionists are the ones shoving stuff down student's throuts.
Creationists *do not* believe that dinosaurs never existed.
Those who have a "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" are under informed. That *does not* mean that creationists are ill-informed. On the contrary, many scientists have switched from evolution to creationism did so because their field of study led them to that conclusion. Their is plenty of evidence for creation outside of the Bible.
I agree everyone should play by the same rules. But the rules should also be fair. Saying you can't rely on intelligent design to carry out scientific work is not a fair rule: the winner is already clear.
Science is about going where the evidence leads us, not where we want to go. Science has been repeatedly misused over the course over the last century by those eager to provide evidence for evolution when, in fact, there was none.
I must disagree. What about cosmological scientists who rely on "dark energy" and "dark matter" to explain the way the universe is reacting and expanding?
Scientist's observations pointing to something we can't yet explain does not mean that that it is not science, it simply means science is leading us down a path where we haven't been before.
What do I observe? Remarkably complex creatures and phenomenen (many documented here on slashdot and other evolutionist magazines). An analogy: when I see software I don't assume some random bit generator over time created it. Nor do I assume that the hard drive spurted bits that created a program that happened to work. I (and you may differ) assume that it was created by something intelligent (i.e. a programmer).
Evolution is the only field of study where random chance over time is an acceptable method of creating complex structures.
Your next point was testing: evolution has soundly failed here. Provide me with *one* example of time creating increasing genetic complexity.
Evolution's chance + time formula is no more observable in and of itself that intelligent design is.
Is it even safe to encourage strict Creationists (or others with strong anti-scientific beliefs) to become doctors?
What is that supposed to mean? Please don't make slurs unless you understand what you are talking about. Creationism is a valid scientific view point and those who choose between creation and evolution are very well informed and educated. =
Would they ignore animal research results, etc?
I can't speak for others, but I would certainly use such results were I a doctor. I don't even understand what that has to do with creationism. Like I said, creationism is a valid scientific view point, not some weird cult or sect.
Man this is one heck of an idea. The reason I have such a hrad time spending $40 to get a top quality book is that I know once I've finished it I probably won't need it a whole lot again. I think it would be great to set up a "people's library". If anybody wants to team up with me to begin writing somnething like this (in Linux|Apache|MySQL|Perl of course) let me know.
Yes, you are correct. A friend of mine who worked for Intel on CSS said the encryption is so weak they had to hide the algorithm itself from decompilers and such.
I've created a site with a goal of bringing all 3rd party Sherlock Channels into one place. I put alot of effort into the UI. Check it out at http://sherlock.clan-mac.com/.
And JavaScript isn't that bad.
...Why embed it is Sherlock at all?
...however if you read the links, you'd see that Apple has provided numerous extensions to both JavaScript and XQuery
Maybe not in some cases, but it's not a language one would choose to write a plug-in with. JS just doesn't work well for channels. More on this at the end of this post.
By limiting things to JavaScript it really relieves a lot of headaches for Apple in terms of security and so forth.
I guess I don't get your point. Other languages can run in "sandbox" mode.
I understand what you are saying about the limited language choices, but it is supposed to be a semi-limited product.
That all depends on what you mean by "limited". For a channel, you have to use http to retreive info via the internet (XML or HTML), and then you have nearly every Aqua widget to use. That's not what I would call limited, even if it is "just a plug-in".
Because Sherlock is Apple's push for web services front-ends. Sure there are plenty of eBay apps availible for Mac OS X, but most people are going to use the Sherlock channel do their "Aquified" auction searching.
I have read all the documentation. Just because extensions are availible for the languages, that doesn't mean these languages are right for the job.
Further if you must use Perl, simply write a CGI script and call it with your JavaScript or XQuery. It can get data from any URL, after all.
Now you're jumping to a totally different subject. We're talking about channel programming languages, not server side programming.
From WatertonMan's previous post:
If you are primarily dealing with XML data then XQuery is really the way to go.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd prefer Perl, but if XQ is your cup o' tea, more power to you. But wait! There's a lot more to writing a channel than parsing XML. The whole "interface" thing. The whole purpose of channel is to provide an Aqua interface. "But that's where JS comes in," you might be thinking. True, but shouldn't that tell us something when we need 2 languages to write a channel? Perl has the data munging features and an OO interface that would be perfect for programming the UI!
Do they need to know how to install the OS first... ;) and what they do, and perhaps even a little on how they work. Different audiences will drastically change how you teach though. Whereas with the 8 year olds you will probably give them Knoppix and a how-to-use-the-gui and gnutella client kind of lesson, you'll want to delve the dpeths with the 16 year olds. Maybe even get through the first chapter of "Understanding the Linux Kernel", or maybe that'd strech things a bit. Hope this helps!
Absolutely. What good does it do to teach them an OS that they're highly unlikely to encounter pre-installed soon?
To follow up the first question:
Should I give away Debian CDs no-questions-asked...
You must (IMH-but-accurate-O) make sure they have a home or school computer to have linux on, be it an old Pentium or something else. No matter how bright the kids are I seriously doubt they'll be able to remeber much after a semester if they don't continuously use it. This would probably be a good opprtunity to go through the install process.
What distributions of Linux and BSD should they be first introduced to?
I don't see the point of teach BSD, as alot of stuff from linux will carry over and BSD just isn't going to get them anywhere. I think per distros use whatever you're comfortable with. I think Debian is the way to go 'cause it is hard and will make them think, pplus it has an awesome packaging system. I do think though that if you use one, it must be RH. It's the linux distro most windoze people will probably have heard of, and many companies think it the "standard" distro.
Initially, do they need to be more adept at the GUI, or do they first need to know how to use the shell?
Shell. It's really the only thing they're going to always have. If they run a server they can't count on a gui being there. The shell is where they will do most "in depth" stuff. Of course, the younger they are the more gui they need to see.
That said (whew!) I think it's good to start out with a very brief history of Unix. Not too much depth, it won't mean a thing to those who don't know hat a shell even is. Midway I'd also go into some OS theory. Kernel, shell, gcc, X, etc, on how they all work together (at least they're suppose to
I'd like to know how you get your jobs. I'm saving up for my next box and could use some extra $. Plus I think I'd have alot of fun. I've had expereinces similiar to yours (minus the church and the partition resizing, I reformatted win of the HD :).
This isn't a perl vs. xquery debate. For those who want to "do a perl hack", why can't apple provide a bridge? This is about letting a channel author choose the best tools for the task. .
Further having Java interfaces is also quite nice.
WTF are you talking about? There's a huge difference between Java and JavaScript.
What they need now is a good O'Reilly book to explain how it all works. .
Preach it brother!
As much as I love Apple, I really have to agree on this one. The documentation sucks, to say the least. There's not one basic example of a channel provided. And JS and XQuery? I honestly didn't even realize XQ existed before this. Perl wuld be the perfect language to develop a channel in. *sigh*, maybe version 3.1.
I don't hear nearly as much talk from old-time Mac users about how wonderful it is to have a CLI or Perl.
Hear it from me!
"But Kawachi said the Japanese government cannot decide on hearsay and wants "an objective study" on the options."
Yeah, I bet the M$ guys on the panel want the exact same thing. This sounds like it's going to end up being more like a trial than anything else.