Yes, I know. All that is perfectly in accordance with my post. It's just that if there exists an omnipotent being, then Ceteris Paribus can never be guaranteed. To use your analogy, if I drop something it should fall to the floor. But if God chooses to interpose himself between it and the floor, it won't. There's nothing wrong with the law, God has just violated its base assumption - the law of gravity only applies ceteris paribus. As do all scientific laws and principles.
Um, looking through those two passages (and your link) there are no contradictions. Genesis 1 is the general overview of creation, and Genesis 2 is the specific details of mankind's creation. Half of the "contradictions" that site raises are of their own intepretation (The pre-creation situation is watery chaos because Babylon sat between the Tigris and Euphrates.)
The only point that site makes that could seem to be a contradiction is the order of creation regarding man and plantlife. But if you read Genesis 2 carefully, it doesn't say that there weren't any plants, but that there were no cultured plants (no plants or shrubs of the field/em) because man hadn't been created to start tilling the soil.
That aside, do you think even ancient people were stupid enough to put contradictory stories side-by-side and not realise it?
For instance, a common one is that God listens to prayer and will heal the sick if we pray for them.
Actually, that's usually "God listens to prayer and may heal the sick if we pray for them". Most churches don't generally follow the God-is-a-prayer-vending-machine branch of theology.
No, it gives precise family lines from the creation of Man. If you take creation's "7 days" to be literal, that's generally the same thing, but if you consider them as "7 spans of time" (as there is some argument for - particularly as the sun, the measure of day, wasn't created until "day" 4), then it's only precise to the creation of Man.
No. Every scientific test has the unwritten assumption of Ceteris paribus - "all else being equal". It means that the test is assuming an otherwise neutral environment. Part of that assumption is that the universe is based on rational laws. If there actually exists a force that can transcend rational laws (a deity) then science goes out the window whenever that force choses to get involved, as it's basic assumption (a rational universe) is invalid.
No, it's not. Pascal's Wager essentially says you should be a Christian, because if Christianity turns out to be right, you're safe, and if it's wrong, you're safe. It's bunk for a large number of reasons.
That verse is saying that if there is no life after death, then Christianity is a waste of time. It's sort of the reverse of Pascal's Wager.
That sounds like a change in materials, rather than a change in styles. I'd be happy to agree that we continue to invent new fabrics and fastening methods based on old ones.
Styles, not so much, unless you count the whole "old becomes new again" phenomenon.
How long has it been since any of those have been under copyright/patent, etc? Probably the only item that might have been is velcro. In any case, those are practical fastening techniques that have applications beyond just the look of the clothes - they're hardly artifacts of "fashion".
How old's the TCP/IP stack running most computers? How old's the Linux/OSX/Windows kernel? What about the MP3 file format?
The difference between fashion and software (well, one of the many) is that software can be improved on iteratively. Even if your software is old, if it's solid and mature, people will want to built new shinies on top of its old reliable, and therefore, it was value to them.
It's not exactly rocket science for either of them. For the target, you need to look at logs. For the zombies, you need to look for the bot software. Hell, if they've cracked the control software for the bot network (which it sounds like they have), it's a hell of a lot easier to gather evidence for the zombies.
So the one count they're charged with is for invading a corporate computer. And the thousands of individual citizens' PCs they compromised are ignored. Somehow, I'm not surprised.
How so? If they don't charge for it, it's free software, whether Microsoft makes it or not. It's not FOSS - there's a reason people use that term, and it's to avoid the confusion the term "free" engenders.
This article was about how to make money, while giving software away. Google has done it through advertisement, and collecting personal data. Red Hat has done it through selling support. Microsoft has done it by using free software to ensure lock-in to non-free software (the "first hit's free, kid" business plan).
Just because they're Microsoft doesn't mean they can't make free software - hell, MS has released source code to some of their software too.
TFS said free, not FOSS. It's all about making money. It has nothing to do with proprietary/open source. And Google makes plenty of free software, even if it all tends to be webapps.
Why do people see free, and read open source? Google has provided heaps of free software - google maps, office, calendar, etc. Just because they're webapps and proprietary does not exclude them from the free as in beer moniker. And the article is obviously about the beer-free, not the speech-free - all it talks about is money, and the making thereof. Leave the OS/Proprietary baggage at the door.
The value of gold is that it is relatively rare, cannot be manufactured, and is finite. A gold standard isn't about gold being inherently valuable - it's about governments being able to issue more wealth than they have available to back it.
I think I have a worthy submission for Ask Slashdot.
Actually, I think it's more a case of "ask your girlfriend". She might be more annoyed that your decision-making process involved consulting thousands of anonymous geeks on a website than the actual decision made.
None now. If they buy ARM, they will have a monopoly. If they then use their mobile chip monopoly to give themselves a competitive edge over the rest of the mobile device market, they will be in breach of antitrust.
Hey, it's not his fault, he's used to Telco contracts.
Re:Buying ARM for a leg?
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yeah, but if Apple uses it's existing monopoly (ARM - assuming the deal goes through) to put the squeeze on other smartphone providers in an attempt to dominate the smartphone market, they're going to get smacked down. I guess it depends if the regulators think that's what Apple's planning to do with its purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know. All that is perfectly in accordance with my post. It's just that if there exists an omnipotent being, then Ceteris Paribus can never be guaranteed. To use your analogy, if I drop something it should fall to the floor. But if God chooses to interpose himself between it and the floor, it won't. There's nothing wrong with the law, God has just violated its base assumption - the law of gravity only applies ceteris paribus. As do all scientific laws and principles.
Um, looking through those two passages (and your link) there are no contradictions. Genesis 1 is the general overview of creation, and Genesis 2 is the specific details of mankind's creation. Half of the "contradictions" that site raises are of their own intepretation (The pre-creation situation is watery chaos because Babylon sat between the Tigris and Euphrates.)
The only point that site makes that could seem to be a contradiction is the order of creation regarding man and plantlife. But if you read Genesis 2 carefully, it doesn't say that there weren't any plants, but that there were no cultured plants (no plants or shrubs of the field/em) because man hadn't been created to start tilling the soil.
That aside, do you think even ancient people were stupid enough to put contradictory stories side-by-side and not realise it?
For instance, a common one is that God listens to prayer and will heal the sick if we pray for them.
Actually, that's usually "God listens to prayer and may heal the sick if we pray for them". Most churches don't generally follow the God-is-a-prayer-vending-machine branch of theology.
No, it gives precise family lines from the creation of Man. If you take creation's "7 days" to be literal, that's generally the same thing, but if you consider them as "7 spans of time" (as there is some argument for - particularly as the sun, the measure of day, wasn't created until "day" 4), then it's only precise to the creation of Man.
No. Every scientific test has the unwritten assumption of Ceteris paribus - "all else being equal". It means that the test is assuming an otherwise neutral environment. Part of that assumption is that the universe is based on rational laws. If there actually exists a force that can transcend rational laws (a deity) then science goes out the window whenever that force choses to get involved, as it's basic assumption (a rational universe) is invalid.
No, it's not. Pascal's Wager essentially says you should be a Christian, because if Christianity turns out to be right, you're safe, and if it's wrong, you're safe. It's bunk for a large number of reasons.
That verse is saying that if there is no life after death, then Christianity is a waste of time. It's sort of the reverse of Pascal's Wager.
That sounds like a change in materials, rather than a change in styles. I'd be happy to agree that we continue to invent new fabrics and fastening methods based on old ones.
Styles, not so much, unless you count the whole "old becomes new again" phenomenon.
The TCP/IP stack is protected by copyright, but is open to all under the BSD license. It still has value, as people continue to use it.
Windows 7 is built out of Windows XP, which was based on Windows 2000, which used the Windows NT kernel, which was a fork of Windows 95.
The last actual, full re-write of the windows kernel was the 95 -> NT transition, and even then NT still uses a whole lot of common code.
How long has it been since any of those have been under copyright/patent, etc? Probably the only item that might have been is velcro. In any case, those are practical fastening techniques that have applications beyond just the look of the clothes - they're hardly artifacts of "fashion".
How old's the TCP/IP stack running most computers? How old's the Linux/OSX/Windows kernel? What about the MP3 file format?
The difference between fashion and software (well, one of the many) is that software can be improved on iteratively. Even if your software is old, if it's solid and mature, people will want to built new shinies on top of its old reliable, and therefore, it was value to them.
RTFH: This claims to be the world first heart surgery performed remotely. Your link is for a gall bladder removal.
It's not exactly rocket science for either of them. For the target, you need to look at logs. For the zombies, you need to look for the bot software. Hell, if they've cracked the control software for the bot network (which it sounds like they have), it's a hell of a lot easier to gather evidence for the zombies.
So the one count they're charged with is for invading a corporate computer. And the thousands of individual citizens' PCs they compromised are ignored. Somehow, I'm not surprised.
I hope they get charged with 1 count per infected PC - and screw concurrent sentencing.
How so? If they don't charge for it, it's free software, whether Microsoft makes it or not. It's not FOSS - there's a reason people use that term, and it's to avoid the confusion the term "free" engenders.
This article was about how to make money, while giving software away. Google has done it through advertisement, and collecting personal data. Red Hat has done it through selling support. Microsoft has done it by using free software to ensure lock-in to non-free software (the "first hit's free, kid" business plan).
Just because they're Microsoft doesn't mean they can't make free software - hell, MS has released source code to some of their software too.
Yeah, but it mentions him in the context of selling something for $150.
TFS said free, not FOSS. It's all about making money. It has nothing to do with proprietary/open source. And Google makes plenty of free software, even if it all tends to be webapps.
Why do people see free, and read open source? Google has provided heaps of free software - google maps, office, calendar, etc. Just because they're webapps and proprietary does not exclude them from the free as in beer moniker. And the article is obviously about the beer-free, not the speech-free - all it talks about is money, and the making thereof. Leave the OS/Proprietary baggage at the door.
The value of gold is that it is relatively rare, cannot be manufactured, and is finite. A gold standard isn't about gold being inherently valuable - it's about governments being able to issue more wealth than they have available to back it.
The motivations were the usual scientific motives of desire for truth, prestige, and grant money.
desire for grant money = politics
I think I have a worthy submission for Ask Slashdot.
Actually, I think it's more a case of "ask your girlfriend". She might be more annoyed that your decision-making process involved consulting thousands of anonymous geeks on a website than the actual decision made.
That's why regulators may forbid the purchase now - to pre-emptively prevent antitrust.
None now. If they buy ARM, they will have a monopoly. If they then use their mobile chip monopoly to give themselves a competitive edge over the rest of the mobile device market, they will be in breach of antitrust.
Hey, it's not his fault, he's used to Telco contracts.
Yeah, but if Apple uses it's existing monopoly (ARM - assuming the deal goes through) to put the squeeze on other smartphone providers in an attempt to dominate the smartphone market, they're going to get smacked down. I guess it depends if the regulators think that's what Apple's planning to do with its purchase.