Many integral parts of evolution have been observed, including heredity and mutations. Farmers, dog breeders, and developers of crop seed all depend on aspects of evolution. The long term effects of evolution cannot be observed by a single individual, but neither can the long term effects of gravity, like, for instance, the formation of a planetary system around a young star.
I'm so tired of hearing this one. In the context of the Windows UI, "Start" does not mean "Start your day" or "Power up your computer." It means "Start whatever task you want to do next." This may be launching an application, searching for a file, or turning off your computer. Seven year olds and grandmothers can comprehend this. There are plenty of real problems with Windows. Complain about them.
Words work because people use them enough for meaning to be established. And I would say that Windows becoming irrelevant would be a paradigm shift. I did not say it would be unprecedented.
Why not? Apple makes most of their money from hardware. Microsoft and Google make most of their money from software and services. Google and Microsoft have both committed vast resources to expanding mindshare on the internet. While Apple may have the best OS competition to Windows right now, Google may deal the ultimate death blow to Windows dominance. Of course I'm speaking of a paradigm shift to internet-based applications, making the underlying OS much less relevant. It's already happening with Google maps (who needs MS Streets & trips) Gmail (who needs outlook express), etc.
Not just business, but the entertainment industry, and then into the hip-hop and clubbing culture. #2 may be a bit high, but they are ubiquitous and cool at the same time here in LA, just like iPods, and cool and ubiquitous are tough to pull off simultaneously.
Truth as a word has a lot of baggage. Truth and meaning can be similar. But you can extract meaning from something without knowing the truth about it. Newton gave us meaningful ways to analyze the interaction of bodies via gravity. Einstein gave us a somewhat more accurate way to extract meaning from the ways that bodies interact. Yet we still don't know the whole truth about gravity -- what causes it, whether it can be altered, created or destroyed.
Were Newton's discoveries false? No, but neither were they the whole truth.
Before the scientific method, we had no alternative methods for explaning the things around us in the universe. Everyone belonged to some religion or other. The only athiests were tantrum throwers -- angry at god -- or using doubt as a rhetorical tool. Beginning with the Deists of the 18th century, we began to develop ways of viewing the universe that did not require a creator. Before then, there was no viable alternative to religion. Also, there was no Tarter Control(TM) toothpaste.
science seeks the truth and (most) religion claims to be the truth.
Well in that case, hopefully science will find religion.
Seriously, science doesn't seek anything. Science is a process by which people can examine data and possibly extract certain kinds of meaning. That is all. Religion is catagory of pre-scientific methods of examining data and extracting meaning. I personally prefer science to previous methods. But I don't think it should be described as seeking the truth. That is an unattainable goal.
Apparently you didn't get far enough in for the rollicking goode tyme with pirates on the high seas, maidens in distress, exploding luggage, and all of the other "vegging-out" action in the trilogy.
Apparently you haven't read Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, which is full of optimism and enthusiasm for knowledge, without being naive about the ugly side of what happens when culture and technology collide. The trilogy is perhaps the best stuff I've ever read. Stephenson has really hit his stride, and I can't wait to see what he writes next (not counting editorials in the NYT).
Unfortunately, the fully-equipped text editor you speak of doesn't actually exist, except as MS Word and its equivalents. A text-only program that could do mail merges, page and margin setup, etc., that program would be much more interesting to me than Pages, MS Publisher, or any other 'friendly' but not fully-equipped layout program. If I am doing layout, I will turn to Quark.
For most personal and business documents, Word is exactly what's needed -- a text editor with a certain amount of control over layout and design. It may be kludgy, but it's right on target functionally, I think, for letters, fax cover sheets, resumes, outlines, and most of the necessary but forgettable documents generated daily in every office. If I had to choose either Notepad or Quark any time I wanted to create a text document, I'd be an unhappy camper.
True for offices, but not for individual users. I think that Apple is a ways off from providing a true business suite. A personal suite is much closer.
Numbers is an OK name, but I think Cells, Digits, or SUM: would all be better names. Or how about "The Numbers." As in... I'll get back to you this afternoon, after I run The Numbers...
Slashdot Mirror
Many integral parts of evolution have been observed, including heredity and mutations. Farmers, dog breeders, and developers of crop seed all depend on aspects of evolution. The long term effects of evolution cannot be observed by a single individual, but neither can the long term effects of gravity, like, for instance, the formation of a planetary system around a young star.
I'm so tired of hearing this one. In the context of the Windows UI, "Start" does not mean "Start your day" or "Power up your computer." It means "Start whatever task you want to do next." This may be launching an application, searching for a file, or turning off your computer. Seven year olds and grandmothers can comprehend this. There are plenty of real problems with Windows. Complain about them.
You misspelled *Is*.
How does he remain a hero of fanboys and flamebaiters?
What about the worms? And sandtrout? You know -- the crux of the whole story?
Words work because people use them enough for meaning to be established. And I would say that Windows becoming irrelevant would be a paradigm shift. I did not say it would be unprecedented.
Why not? Apple makes most of their money from hardware. Microsoft and Google make most of their money from software and services. Google and Microsoft have both committed vast resources to expanding mindshare on the internet. While Apple may have the best OS competition to Windows right now, Google may deal the ultimate death blow to Windows dominance. Of course I'm speaking of a paradigm shift to internet-based applications, making the underlying OS much less relevant. It's already happening with Google maps (who needs MS Streets & trips) Gmail (who needs outlook express), etc.
Of course, I meant that Google is sometimes MS's biggest competitor. Not Apple's.
Some would say that Google is Apple's biggest competitor, but they did OK on the list as well.
Not just business, but the entertainment industry, and then into the hip-hop and clubbing culture. #2 may be a bit high, but they are ubiquitous and cool at the same time here in LA, just like iPods, and cool and ubiquitous are tough to pull off simultaneously.
You must be a dude. Some girls never pay for their beer.
They are different, but equally threatening to the people in charge.
Or scrolls from player pianos...
Truth as a word has a lot of baggage. Truth and meaning can be similar. But you can extract meaning from something without knowing the truth about it. Newton gave us meaningful ways to analyze the interaction of bodies via gravity. Einstein gave us a somewhat more accurate way to extract meaning from the ways that bodies interact. Yet we still don't know the whole truth about gravity -- what causes it, whether it can be altered, created or destroyed.
Were Newton's discoveries false? No, but neither were they the whole truth.
Before the scientific method, we had no alternative methods for explaning the things around us in the universe. Everyone belonged to some religion or other. The only athiests were tantrum throwers -- angry at god -- or using doubt as a rhetorical tool. Beginning with the Deists of the 18th century, we began to develop ways of viewing the universe that did not require a creator. Before then, there was no viable alternative to religion. Also, there was no Tarter Control(TM) toothpaste.
science seeks the truth and (most) religion claims to be the truth.
Well in that case, hopefully science will find religion.
Seriously, science doesn't seek anything. Science is a process by which people can examine data and possibly extract certain kinds of meaning. That is all. Religion is catagory of pre-scientific methods of examining data and extracting meaning. I personally prefer science to previous methods. But I don't think it should be described as seeking the truth. That is an unattainable goal.
Apparently you didn't get far enough in for the rollicking goode tyme with pirates on the high seas, maidens in distress, exploding luggage, and all of the other "vegging-out" action in the trilogy.
Apparently you haven't read Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, which is full of optimism and enthusiasm for knowledge, without being naive about the ugly side of what happens when culture and technology collide. The trilogy is perhaps the best stuff I've ever read. Stephenson has really hit his stride, and I can't wait to see what he writes next (not counting editorials in the NYT).
New Slashdot category -- things we can't imagine...
Unfortunately, the fully-equipped text editor you speak of doesn't actually exist, except as MS Word and its equivalents. A text-only program that could do mail merges, page and margin setup, etc., that program would be much more interesting to me than Pages, MS Publisher, or any other 'friendly' but not fully-equipped layout program. If I am doing layout, I will turn to Quark.
For most personal and business documents, Word is exactly what's needed -- a text editor with a certain amount of control over layout and design. It may be kludgy, but it's right on target functionally, I think, for letters, fax cover sheets, resumes, outlines, and most of the necessary but forgettable documents generated daily in every office. If I had to choose either Notepad or Quark any time I wanted to create a text document, I'd be an unhappy camper.
Sounds familiar. My car is meant for legal speeds only. Which is why the "55" is highlighted in a special color. On my 140mph speedometer.
That integration already exists between iCal, Mail and the Address Book.
Not really, at least not to the extent of providing the functionality and ease-of-use of Outlook 2003.
True for offices, but not for individual users. I think that Apple is a ways off from providing a true business suite. A personal suite is much closer.
Numbers is an OK name, but I think Cells, Digits, or SUM: would all be better names. Or how about "The Numbers." As in... I'll get back to you this afternoon, after I run The Numbers...