Presume that you have invented the "ultimate" digital device. It does everything and does it well. It is convenient, never breaks, never needs consumables, and is owned (not licensed) by the user.
It's cheap, too.
The minute such a device appears, thousands of marketing drones at dozens of major corporations begin working on a campaign to convince us this one sucks and we need to buy theirs.
Actually, there is, and it's the funniest joke in the world. Unfortunately, I'm in the US. If I were to post it, I would run afoul of the Export Control Act of 1949.
Penises have higher bandwidth than cable modems. [The following found, of course, on the Internet.]
The human genome is about 3,120,000,000 base pairs long, so half of that is in each spermatozoa -- 1,560,000,000 base pairs . Each side of these base pairs can either be an adenine -thymine or a guanine -cytosine bond, and they can be aligned either direction, so there are four choices. Four possibilities for a value means it can be fully represented with two bits; 00 = guanine, 01 = cytosine, and so forth.
The figures that I've read state the number of sperm in a human ejaculation to be anywhere from 50 to 500 million. I'm going to go with the number 200,000,000 sperm cells , but if anyone knows differently, please tell me.
Putting these together, the average amount of information per ejaculation is 1.560*10^ 9* 2 bits * 2.00*10^ 8, which comes out to be 6.24*10 ^17 bits. That's about 78,000 terabytes of data! As a basis of comparison, were the entire text content of the Library of Congress to be scanned and stored, it would only take up about 20 terabytes. If you figure that a male orgasm lasts five seconds , you get a transmission rate of 15,600 tb/s . In comparison, an OC-96 line (like the ones that make up much of the backbone of the internet ) can move.005 tb/s. Cable modems generally transmit somewhere around 1/5000th of that.
If you consider signal to noise , though, the figures come out much differently. If only the single sperm cell that fertilizes the egg counts as signal , you get (1.560*10^ 9* 2 bits) / 5 s = 6.24*10^ 8bits/s, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 78 Mb/s . Still a great deal more bandwidth than your average cable modem.
Ooookay--you've got a lot of prejudices, here, I see.
It's always good to know who I'm speaking to. Well, your mindset is not the most conducive to critical thought, but let's give it a go, shall we?
"Genetic Programming"--not an argument unless we forego free will. Surely, there are extrinsic motivators in our decisions. But, to state that identifying one motivator fully identifies the cause of an action (can't really call it a decision in your example, can we) only works if we exclude "free will" as a motivator.
Perhaps you don't believe in free will. I happen to believe in it. Many wiser heads than I have debated this issue for many centuries. You may contribute to the discussion if you want; I simply choose to say that I believe free will exists, and I have some.
Hedonism--I'll stand for that. Not that I claim to be as one-dimensional as you'd have me be (straw men are always easier to knock over, aren't they?). But I gave up the puritan ethic "pleasure=evil" a long time ago. You may gain some enjoyment over self-flagellation; I don't know. Personally, I don't.
Self righteousness? No, I don't think so. I have a habit of admitting loudly when I'm wrong. You must have me confused with your straw man again. But that statement sets up your next one nicely--"No chance in hell you'd backpedal...you'd lose way too much face." So, I hear you saying "You're arrogant. And wrong. And your refusal to admit you're wrong just proves how arrogant you are!".
"Popped out some kids because you thought it would be cool.". Well, no. but thank you for the good wishes. The kids are not quite here yet. And, yes, that's one answer we'd be perfectly comfortable giving if someone asks "why children".
Why not? What better reason to do something than it's a good thing to do? Call it cool. Call it whatever you like; you're arguing semantics here.
"Regardless of commitment or ability to take care of..." Well, that one kinda surprised me. I'd think the validity of the decision to have children (that's what you're attacking right here, isn't it?) is quite dependant on commitment and ability to their care. Lack of Commitment and ability in this context would be a reason NOT to have children. Doesn't follow the other way 'round, though.
So, did you reread your own post? Have you found where your prejudices lie?
You seem to be a person who values intellect. Perhaps you would do well in the debating society. If you've made it to college, I suggest you try out the team (do they still have debate teams?); you might enjoy it. Or if that's not an option for you, you could talk to the Unitarians. They're really nice folks, and most of them love to argue just for the sake of it.
But your contempt prior to investigation will be your downfall. Set aside, for the moment, the social implications of prejudice. Prejudice is when you draw your conclusions before fully investigating the situation--it has nothing necessarily to do with race. It's just not conducive to learning.
Well, this has been fun. As a Christmas gift to you, I offer you the last word. You may rant on at will, offer the weakest (or most profound, if you choose) arguments. I promise I will read your post with eager anticipation, and let you have the last word.
Ahh...the old tree falls question. Depends on your definition of "love" doesn't it?
Well, that was probably a poor example, but you got the idea I'm trying to put forth.
As far as love goes, there are many, many ways of loving. Some of them have to do with sex or procreation. The Church defines love as "a gift of the holy spirit", and iterates these gifts as "Faith, Hope, and Love", or "Faith, Hope, and Charity".
For this discussion, you can take "love" to mean something nice you do to or for someone without expectation of getting anything in return. You might also call it secret altruism. Here's some examples. I'm sure you could poke holes in them, too; it's not the act that makes something have intrinsic value; it's the motive.
Donating some money anonymously, not putting it on your tax returns, and not telling anyone you did it. Donating this money to a cause that has lots of supporters already--and will get along just fine without your few dollars. Why?
Letting someone cut in front of you in a traffic jam. You'll never see them again, and they won't pay you anything for it. Why?
Getting the store clerk to smile when they seem completely ground down by the idiots that they deal with all day.
Not being one of those idiots--just having your stuff ready and making life easy on those around you.
Why would someone do those things?
Because they want to be the sort of person that does stuff like that.
What's the point of: Publicly Funded Art? Big Science? Pure Science? Exploration? Going to the Moon? Going to Mars? SETI? Falling in love? Climbing a Mountain? (last one's a clue)
You will find many "justifications" for such endeavors--many of which are to the scale that they must be publicly supported (funded) if they are to happen at all.
They are just that. Justifications. Rationalizations of a decision after the fact. All the justifications offered for these acts are BULLSHIT.
The reason we do these things is "because". Peroid. This is the concept of intrinsic value.
Think about this for a moment. If we do something--anything, we give a reason. I go to work to make money. I make money to buy things. I bought a car to go to work. But what do all these things get me? In the free time that I have when I'm done working, when I'm done driving, what do I do?
Love? Learn? Raise children? Why? What do these things get me?
Nothing except themselves. They have value because I say they do. Nothing more. There is no "purpose" for love. There is no purpose for "Going to Mars".
Sure, we got useful stuff--national pride (some think that has value), new technologies, etc. from our trip to the moon.
But that's not why we did it.
We did it because it was hard. And it would be cool to have done it.
That's what makes us what we are. The things we do "just because". Not because we have to or because they are a means to an end. Just because we think they would be cool to do.
Intrinsic value is by definition subjective. If there's no justification, then there's no logical argument I can provide that says the things I value are the things you value.
But, as a society, there are some "great things" we can do.
The challenge of doing a "great thing" is not the doing of the thing (solving the radiation problem). The challenge is getting enough committed people together--through social imperatives (taxes, congress) or consensus--to actually get up and do it
Why do you climb a mountain?
Becuase it's there.
Re:Stuck with Windows?
on
PC Annoyances
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'll stand up and be counted.
Windows works. For the most part, I can do what I want to do in Windows.
GLX mostly works. I just downloaded and installed kde-3.1.94 on my slackware box at home. One cool thing new to this version of kde: You can adjust your screen resolution in REAL TIME--no restarting of X required! (I know, this really a new "X" feature, and you could do it with the keyboard from kde...But I digress).
Wow--that was cool! Just like...that other OS. Except you can't change the color depth without editing XF86Config.
But I still use GLX. Why? Because it's FUN. I like farting around with my OS. I like installing new stuff, learning about how it works, and getting it running. I like dealing with the community of users and developers and learning new stuff from folks. And, ever so infrequently, teaching somebody how to do something I learned last week.
It feels more like it's "my" computer.
The GNU OS, on top of Linux and under X functions. I can do what I want with it. But that's not why I use it.
I use it because it's fun.
I can stumble around in Windows. I can hack the registry and get what I want. I have book marked ntfaq.com. I have set up exotic hardware in Windows. I have used weird proprietary software in Windows.
But in the end, Windows is not fun. Windows is frustrating. It's sneaky. It's secretive. Windows tells me what I can and can't do. It's truly easier to use. But it's not fun.
Reminds me of a story my Dad told me about a TV. The Doctors' lounge in the Women's Hospital in Baton Rouge, LA had just been graced with a new COLOR television.
The TV repairman (yes, this was a while ago) set the thing up and got a signal. Then he spent about two hours with a tweeker. He adjusted all the picture settings, and there were a lot of them.
Then he called the Doctors in for a meeting:
Do you like the picture on your TV?
Oh, yes, all the highly educated physicians in the room replied.
Do you want it to look good forever?
Of course, came a few replies.
OK, then. See all these little knobs?
Yes.... one of the more technically inclined Doctors replied.
At one time, the business model was "It costs you a lot of money to duplicate music. It costs us a lot of money, too. But we can do it cheaper per unit." RIAA provided a service that had value to those who paid for that service.
RIAA doesn't want to provide "value". They want to get paid for doing something which is essentially worthless--the act of copying the song to the media and distributing it to us. Hello, RIAA--we've got that one under control. You're fired; your job has been replaced by a computer.
As long as RIAA insists on getting something for nothing, there will be no foldouts, posters, 12" full-color art prints, etc.
I agree that RIAA needs to go back to their old business model. (maybe without the abusive artist contracts). Find something they can produce in quantity for a $3-5 a pop. Something that costs an individual user $20 to produce as a one-off. And charge $10.00 for it.
But in order to do that, they're going to have to let go of the idea that they can just sit back and let the money roll in.
Those days are over. Denial is the issue here. RIAA is going to start having to work for their bread. It's going to take a few bloody noses in the financial department for them to realize that.
Funny thing is--this is exactly the issue that RIAA raises when pointing fingers. "You're stealing. You want something for nothing." Point your finger, RIAA. Now, look at your hand. There's 3 fingers pointing right back at you.
Actual laptop computer to connect to your main box wirelessly: $800.00
HP Omnibook 6000 $700 from Infinity Micro. 15" screen, plus other stuff that makes it an actual computer. So, it's not a badass machine. What do you want for $700.00? And you'd have to buy a wireless ethernet setup. Linksys W11S4PC11--about a hundred bucks from newegg.com.
Just a monitor (but it has a touch screen): $900.00
Airpanel APV150P about $880 from thenerds.net 15" screen. Oh, yeah--you still need to buy a WAP for it to talk to. Fifty bucks.
Ummm...why would you buy an airpanel? Is a touch screen really that cool.
Provability is not a part of it, that would be mathematics. Positing a hypothesis, then performing experiments to see if it is consistent with the physical universe, that's science.
Disprovability is a requirement for a scientific theory. That is, were it not true, would we be able to tell?
Your last argument is a classic, though. "I posit a statement." "Here's a book by an authority (he's a Doctor, you know..)" *thump*. Now, you prove this book wrong.
"evolutionist dogma" I don't think I said that. Perhaps you're talking about yourself?
You have provided a perfect example of the lay person's misunderstanding of science and its application in society.
Say I tell you "This equipment was created by an intelligent being." Could you prove or disprove that statement?
Herein lies the fundamental difference between your proposal and science.
You tell me "This equipment was created by an intelligent being." Then you demand that I construct an experiment to prove or disprove it.
You have just demonstrated that your proposal is not based on science. Perhaps it's based on "everybody knows that this equipment was created by people". Perhaps you wish to lay the groundwork to present Aquinas' teleological argument.
What your proposal fails to demonstrate is that your idea is based on observation, experiment, and empirical testing.
Were this the case, you would not demand that I design the and perform expirement to prove or disprove your idea. Were you proposing an idea from a scientific basis, you would have already done this work.
Your next statement demonstrates this succinctly: They do fall within the realm of science, even if they are or can be disproven wrong..
An idea falls within the realm of science onlyif it can be [dis]proven wrong.
To say that something falls within the realm of science--whether or not it can be disproven--is a meaningless statement.
An idea must be testable in order for it to fall within the realm of science. That is, were such an idea to be wrong, it must be possible to detect this. The idea must be disprovable..
Finally, the idea that I and the Slashdot community "given up" on certain ideas because I say they are not scientific also misses the point of science.
There are many quite valid ideas which have nothing to do with science.
For example, I happen to believe that my wife loves me. She just does. That statement is truth, not fact. {Best distinction ever defined in a "Raiders" movie!}. Only a fool would tell his wife that her love is scientifically testable. And only a complete moron would design and perform an experiment to test this! Love simply is. Love does not need proving. Love is not science.
I happen to believe that God created the universe. But I'm not foolish enough to claim that this statement is based on any scientific investigation.
I happen to believe that there is no such thing as "free energy". But there is no scientific proof that such a thing does not exist. Science cannot prove that something doesn't exist somewhere. Science cannot prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Science cannot prove a negative. Free energy just seems silly to me. If you think you've found it, you can use science to prove that you have done so. But I don't pretend that my belief that it's bullshit is scientific.
I leave the nature of God, black helicopters, and entertaining trilogies by Shea and Wilson up to you.
Saying something isn't science is not the same as saying that it is or is not subjectively true.
You chose Augustine's teleological argument as your example of a scientific idea. You may also be interested in the writings of Aquinas. There are many medieval proofs of the existence of God. I've heard many that seem convincing. Some seem ridiculous. Some I've listened to are quite impassioned and emotional. But they aren't science.
I never before realized how much weight the statement "It's just a theory" carries in the public discourse until I understood the lay conception of "theory". Surprise to me--the statement "that's a theory" detracts, in most minds, from the validity of the concept about which the statement was made!
A scientist who proposes a "theory" has done a whole pile of work before even getting to this point.
It's called the scientific method. The scientific method is a tool.
If you are not familiar with the scientific method, google for it. It involves a whole lot of disinterested parties investigating an idea. And all of them getting consistent results. And all of them refining and trying to disprove that idea.
The scientific method is not a universally useful tool. I cannot explain, through scientific means, why my wife loves me. There's no question that she does. It's not the job of science to explain this. And claw hammers are not very good at installing #10 wood screws. That's not their job.
What it is is a universally objective tool. Science has to be testable. Science has to be disprovable. Science has to work for the same for everyone every time. Science can explain why a hammer moves rapidly towards the floor when I place it in the air above the floor. Science can explain why and how rapidly and how far such a hammer moves for everybody who performs the experiment. Science can predict what will happen when you repeat the experiment. That's its job. And if there's a dead guy on the floor with the hammer buried in his head, science can explain how he got that way. Well, not just for hammers and dead guys, but generally for objectively observable and measureble events.
These rigorous requirements earn statements made by scientists a certain amount of weight.
To many people, science is a religion. By this, I don't mean that those people are fanatically devoted to science. I mean that many people see statements made by the scientific establishment as dogma. They see such statements as beliefs --something which can be argued via debating techniques, and understood by merely reciting the correct words of power. They see such statements as accepted unquestioningly by the general public and by the legal system.
And they want the same respect for their own statements as the general public shows for statements made by the scientific establishment.
A fair expectation unless examined critically. After all, aren't we all guaranteed "equal protection under the law".
Critical examination, however, reveals that the statements made by scientists and those made by crackpots are fundamentally different in nature. Neither statement is more or less "valid" than any other.
"Valid" only has meaning in a given context. "My wife loves me" is not a scientifically valid statement. It's absolutely true for me. But it's not science. And it may not be a true statement for you. Such a statement is not objectively observable .
A scientific statement, however, is objective. Everyone can test it.
To the layperson, "theory" means "This is how I think the world is". Could have come from divine revalation. Maybe through psychotic rationalization. Maybe from many years of hard work at self-delusion. Maybe it's just a guess.
And if you don't believe such a statement, it's because you're a heretic. Or a blasphemer. Or unsaved. Or you're "the man". It's because your beliefs are wrong. For such statements, you don't get to say "Here is a method that would disprove the theory, were it not true." and then exercise that method (experiment) to get the same result as the person who proposed the theory.
That is a difference between science and not-science.
So, your ideas about creation, free energy, the illumaniti, black helicopters, and God's love for all men could be called "theories".
Here I was thinking the thing induced a perception of sound via magnetic fields in the user's head. Without the intermediate vibrating air molecules that regular loudspeakers use.
Didn't see anything about that.
"Communication Bubble"? Holy cats--they're selling you on the wonders of limited transmitter range, people!
The signal from transmitter to earpiece is still regular old EM radiation. This thing just utilizes the B field rather than the E field. Not often used, but certainly nothing new, either.
The long pointy stick with the bulbous end fitting neatly into the docking station's groove has some appeal, though. Just good functional design, I guess.
Advertisers are the only ones that Google has to answer to.
I disagree.
There are 2 parts to this business transaction you describe--that is, Google selling ads to folks for money.
The ads, per se, have no value. What the people who pay Google the money really want is for people to see those ads. The "product" if you will allow an overused term--is eyeballs.
Google needs to maintain its position as the place to go to find things on the web. That means making sure that the vast majority of surfers say "Google is your friend.", not "Google links to spam."
Slashdot Mirror
Presume that you have invented the "ultimate" digital device. It does everything and does it well. It is convenient, never breaks, never needs consumables, and is owned (not licensed) by the user.
It's cheap, too.
The minute such a device appears, thousands of marketing drones at dozens of major corporations begin working on a campaign to convince us this one sucks and we need to buy theirs.
Actually, there is, and it's the funniest joke in the world. Unfortunately, I'm in the US. If I were to post it, I would run afoul of the Export Control Act of 1949.
Just bring in the machine that goes PING! .
And the most expensive machine in the hospital.
Penises have higher bandwidth than cable modems. [The following found, of course, on the Internet.]
.005 tb/s. Cable modems generally transmit somewhere around 1/5000th of that .
The human genome is about 3,120,000,000 base pairs long, so half of that is in each spermatozoa -- 1,560,000,000 base pairs . Each side of these base pairs can either be an adenine -thymine or a guanine -cytosine bond, and they can be aligned either direction, so there are four choices. Four possibilities for a value means it can be fully represented with two bits; 00 = guanine, 01 = cytosine, and so forth.
The figures that I've read state the number of sperm in a human ejaculation to be anywhere from 50 to 500 million. I'm going to go with the number 200,000,000 sperm cells , but if anyone knows differently, please tell me.
Putting these together, the average amount of information per ejaculation is 1.560*10^ 9* 2 bits * 2.00*10^ 8, which comes out to be 6.24*10 ^17 bits. That's about 78,000 terabytes of data! As a basis of comparison, were the entire text content of the Library of Congress to be scanned and stored, it would only take up about 20 terabytes. If you figure that a male orgasm lasts five seconds , you get a transmission rate of 15,600 tb/s . In comparison, an OC-96 line (like the ones that make up much of the backbone of the internet ) can move
If you consider signal to noise , though, the figures come out much differently. If only the single sperm cell that fertilizes the egg counts as signal , you get (1.560*10^ 9* 2 bits) / 5 s = 6.24*10^ 8bits/s, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 78 Mb/s . Still a great deal more bandwidth than your average cable modem.
Why, yes...Yes I do.
O(US$10^4) would that be US$(10^4) or, would that be UUUUSSSS$$$$10000?
never mind
It's always good to know who I'm speaking to. Well, your mindset is not the most conducive to critical thought, but let's give it a go, shall we?
"Genetic Programming"--not an argument unless we forego free will. Surely, there are extrinsic motivators in our decisions. But, to state that identifying one motivator fully identifies the cause of an action (can't really call it a decision in your example, can we) only works if we exclude "free will" as a motivator.
Perhaps you don't believe in free will. I happen to believe in it. Many wiser heads than I have debated this issue for many centuries. You may contribute to the discussion if you want; I simply choose to say that I believe free will exists, and I have some.
Hedonism--I'll stand for that. Not that I claim to be as one-dimensional as you'd have me be (straw men are always easier to knock over, aren't they?). But I gave up the puritan ethic "pleasure=evil" a long time ago. You may gain some enjoyment over self-flagellation; I don't know. Personally, I don't.
Self righteousness? No, I don't think so. I have a habit of admitting loudly when I'm wrong. You must have me confused with your straw man again. But that statement sets up your next one nicely--"No chance in hell you'd backpedal...you'd lose way too much face." So, I hear you saying "You're arrogant. And wrong. And your refusal to admit you're wrong just proves how arrogant you are!".
"Popped out some kids because you thought it would be cool.". Well, no. but thank you for the good wishes. The kids are not quite here yet. And, yes, that's one answer we'd be perfectly comfortable giving if someone asks "why children".
Why not? What better reason to do something than it's a good thing to do? Call it cool. Call it whatever you like; you're arguing semantics here.
"Regardless of commitment or ability to take care of..." Well, that one kinda surprised me. I'd think the validity of the decision to have children (that's what you're attacking right here, isn't it?) is quite dependant on commitment and ability to their care. Lack of Commitment and ability in this context would be a reason NOT to have children. Doesn't follow the other way 'round, though.
So, did you reread your own post? Have you found where your prejudices lie?
You seem to be a person who values intellect. Perhaps you would do well in the debating society. If you've made it to college, I suggest you try out the team (do they still have debate teams?); you might enjoy it. Or if that's not an option for you, you could talk to the Unitarians. They're really nice folks, and most of them love to argue just for the sake of it.
But your contempt prior to investigation will be your downfall. Set aside, for the moment, the social implications of prejudice. Prejudice is when you draw your conclusions before fully investigating the situation--it has nothing necessarily to do with race. It's just not conducive to learning.
Well, this has been fun. As a Christmas gift to you, I offer you the last word. You may rant on at will, offer the weakest (or most profound, if you choose) arguments. I promise I will read your post with eager anticipation, and let you have the last word.
Have fun.
And try to learn something.
Well, that was probably a poor example, but you got the idea I'm trying to put forth.
As far as love goes, there are many, many ways of loving. Some of them have to do with sex or procreation. The Church defines love as "a gift of the holy spirit", and iterates these gifts as "Faith, Hope, and Love", or "Faith, Hope, and Charity".
For this discussion, you can take "love" to mean something nice you do to or for someone without expectation of getting anything in return. You might also call it secret altruism. Here's some examples. I'm sure you could poke holes in them, too; it's not the act that makes something have intrinsic value; it's the motive.
Donating some money anonymously, not putting it on your tax returns, and not telling anyone you did it. Donating this money to a cause that has lots of supporters already--and will get along just fine without your few dollars. Why?
Letting someone cut in front of you in a traffic jam. You'll never see them again, and they won't pay you anything for it. Why?
Getting the store clerk to smile when they seem completely ground down by the idiots that they deal with all day.
Not being one of those idiots--just having your stuff ready and making life easy on those around you.
Why would someone do those things?
Because they want to be the sort of person that does stuff like that.
Beat me to it.
What's the point of: Publicly Funded Art? Big Science? Pure Science? Exploration? Going to the Moon? Going to Mars? SETI? Falling in love? Climbing a Mountain? (last one's a clue)
You will find many "justifications" for such endeavors--many of which are to the scale that they must be publicly supported (funded) if they are to happen at all.
They are just that. Justifications. Rationalizations of a decision after the fact. All the justifications offered for these acts are BULLSHIT.
The reason we do these things is "because". Peroid. This is the concept of intrinsic value.
Think about this for a moment. If we do something--anything, we give a reason. I go to work to make money. I make money to buy things. I bought a car to go to work. But what do all these things get me? In the free time that I have when I'm done working, when I'm done driving, what do I do?
Love? Learn? Raise children? Why? What do these things get me?
Nothing except themselves. They have value because I say they do. Nothing more. There is no "purpose" for love. There is no purpose for "Going to Mars".
Sure, we got useful stuff--national pride (some think that has value), new technologies, etc. from our trip to the moon.
But that's not why we did it.
We did it because it was hard. And it would be cool to have done it.
That's what makes us what we are. The things we do "just because". Not because we have to or because they are a means to an end. Just because we think they would be cool to do.
Intrinsic value is by definition subjective. If there's no justification, then there's no logical argument I can provide that says the things I value are the things you value.
But, as a society, there are some "great things" we can do.
The challenge of doing a "great thing" is not the doing of the thing (solving the radiation problem). The challenge is getting enough committed people together--through social imperatives (taxes, congress) or consensus--to actually get up and do it
Why do you climb a mountain?
Becuase it's there.
Windows works. For the most part, I can do what I want to do in Windows.
GLX mostly works. I just downloaded and installed kde-3.1.94 on my slackware box at home. One cool thing new to this version of kde: You can adjust your screen resolution in REAL TIME--no restarting of X required! (I know, this really a new "X" feature, and you could do it with the keyboard from kde...But I digress).
Wow--that was cool! Just like...that other OS. Except you can't change the color depth without editing XF86Config.
But I still use GLX. Why? Because it's FUN. I like farting around with my OS. I like installing new stuff, learning about how it works, and getting it running. I like dealing with the community of users and developers and learning new stuff from folks. And, ever so infrequently, teaching somebody how to do something I learned last week.
It feels more like it's "my" computer.
The GNU OS, on top of Linux and under X functions. I can do what I want with it. But that's not why I use it.
I use it because it's fun.
I can stumble around in Windows. I can hack the registry and get what I want. I have book marked ntfaq.com. I have set up exotic hardware in Windows. I have used weird proprietary software in Windows.
But in the end, Windows is not fun. Windows is frustrating. It's sneaky. It's secretive. Windows tells me what I can and can't do. It's truly easier to use. But it's not fun.
Reminds me of a story my Dad told me about a TV. The Doctors' lounge in the Women's Hospital in Baton Rouge, LA had just been graced with a new COLOR television.
The TV repairman (yes, this was a while ago) set the thing up and got a signal. Then he spent about two hours with a tweeker. He adjusted all the picture settings, and there were a lot of them.
Then he called the Doctors in for a meeting:
Do you like the picture on your TV?
Oh, yes, all the highly educated physicians in the room replied.
Do you want it to look good forever?
Of course, came a few replies.
OK, then. See all these little knobs?
Yes.... one of the more technically inclined Doctors replied.
Don't fuck with 'em!
RIAA doesn't want to provide "value". They want to get paid for doing something which is essentially worthless--the act of copying the song to the media and distributing it to us. Hello, RIAA--we've got that one under control. You're fired; your job has been replaced by a computer.
As long as RIAA insists on getting something for nothing, there will be no foldouts, posters, 12" full-color art prints, etc.
I agree that RIAA needs to go back to their old business model. (maybe without the abusive artist contracts). Find something they can produce in quantity for a $3-5 a pop. Something that costs an individual user $20 to produce as a one-off. And charge $10.00 for it.
But in order to do that, they're going to have to let go of the idea that they can just sit back and let the money roll in.
Those days are over. Denial is the issue here. RIAA is going to start having to work for their bread. It's going to take a few bloody noses in the financial department for them to realize that.
Funny thing is--this is exactly the issue that RIAA raises when pointing fingers. "You're stealing. You want something for nothing." Point your finger, RIAA. Now, look at your hand. There's 3 fingers pointing right back at you.
You can program anything in RLL. Not that you'd want to--but your Client probably wants you to.
Actual laptop computer to connect to your main box wirelessly: $800.00
HP Omnibook 6000 $700 from Infinity Micro. 15" screen, plus other stuff that makes it an actual computer. So, it's not a badass machine. What do you want for $700.00? And you'd have to buy a wireless ethernet setup. Linksys W11S4PC11--about a hundred bucks from newegg.com.
Just a monitor (but it has a touch screen): $900.00
Airpanel APV150P about $880 from thenerds.net 15" screen. Oh, yeah--you still need to buy a WAP for it to talk to. Fifty bucks.
Ummm...why would you buy an airpanel? Is a touch screen really that cool.
Exodus.
Sorry about the last line--I thought you were the parent.
Provability is not a part of it, that would be mathematics. Positing a hypothesis, then performing experiments to see if it is consistent with the physical universe, that's science.
Disprovability is a requirement for a scientific theory. That is, were it not true, would we be able to tell?
Your last argument is a classic, though. "I posit a statement." "Here's a book by an authority (he's a Doctor, you know..)" *thump*. Now, you prove this book wrong.
"evolutionist dogma" I don't think I said that. Perhaps you're talking about yourself?
You have provided a perfect example of the lay person's misunderstanding of science and its application in society.
Say I tell you "This equipment was created by an intelligent being." Could you prove or disprove that statement?
Herein lies the fundamental difference between your proposal and science.
You tell me "This equipment was created by an intelligent being." Then you demand that I construct an experiment to prove or disprove it.
You have just demonstrated that your proposal is not based on science. Perhaps it's based on "everybody knows that this equipment was created by people". Perhaps you wish to lay the groundwork to present Aquinas' teleological argument.
What your proposal fails to demonstrate is that your idea is based on observation, experiment, and empirical testing.
Were this the case, you would not demand that I design the and perform expirement to prove or disprove your idea. Were you proposing an idea from a scientific basis, you would have already done this work.
Your next statement demonstrates this succinctly: They do fall within the realm of science, even if they are or can be disproven wrong..
An idea falls within the realm of science onlyif it can be [dis]proven wrong.
To say that something falls within the realm of science--whether or not it can be disproven--is a meaningless statement.
An idea must be testable in order for it to fall within the realm of science. That is, were such an idea to be wrong, it must be possible to detect this. The idea must be disprovable.
Finally, the idea that I and the Slashdot community "given up" on certain ideas because I say they are not scientific also misses the point of science.
There are many quite valid ideas which have nothing to do with science.
For example, I happen to believe that my wife loves me. She just does. That statement is truth, not fact. {Best distinction ever defined in a "Raiders" movie!}. Only a fool would tell his wife that her love is scientifically testable. And only a complete moron would design and perform an experiment to test this! Love simply is. Love does not need proving. Love is not science.
I happen to believe that God created the universe. But I'm not foolish enough to claim that this statement is based on any scientific investigation.
I happen to believe that there is no such thing as "free energy". But there is no scientific proof that such a thing does not exist. Science cannot prove that something doesn't exist somewhere. Science cannot prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Science cannot prove a negative. Free energy just seems silly to me. If you think you've found it, you can use science to prove that you have done so. But I don't pretend that my belief that it's bullshit is scientific.
I leave the nature of God, black helicopters, and entertaining trilogies by Shea and Wilson up to you.
Saying something isn't science is not the same as saying that it is or is not subjectively true.
You chose Augustine's teleological argument as your example of a scientific idea. You may also be interested in the writings of Aquinas. There are many medieval proofs of the existence of God. I've heard many that seem convincing. Some seem ridiculous. Some I've listened to are quite impassioned and emotional. But they aren't science.
A scientist who proposes a "theory" has done a whole pile of work before even getting to this point.
It's called the scientific method. The scientific method is a tool.
If you are not familiar with the scientific method, google for it. It involves a whole lot of disinterested parties investigating an idea. And all of them getting consistent results. And all of them refining and trying to disprove that idea.
The scientific method is not a universally useful tool. I cannot explain, through scientific means, why my wife loves me. There's no question that she does. It's not the job of science to explain this. And claw hammers are not very good at installing #10 wood screws. That's not their job.
What it is is a universally objective tool. Science has to be testable. Science has to be disprovable. Science has to work for the same for everyone every time. Science can explain why a hammer moves rapidly towards the floor when I place it in the air above the floor. Science can explain why and how rapidly and how far such a hammer moves for everybody who performs the experiment. Science can predict what will happen when you repeat the experiment. That's its job. And if there's a dead guy on the floor with the hammer buried in his head, science can explain how he got that way. Well, not just for hammers and dead guys, but generally for objectively observable and measureble events.
These rigorous requirements earn statements made by scientists a certain amount of weight.
To many people, science is a religion. By this, I don't mean that those people are fanatically devoted to science. I mean that many people see statements made by the scientific establishment as dogma. They see such statements as beliefs --something which can be argued via debating techniques, and understood by merely reciting the correct words of power. They see such statements as accepted unquestioningly by the general public and by the legal system.
And they want the same respect for their own statements as the general public shows for statements made by the scientific establishment.
A fair expectation unless examined critically. After all, aren't we all guaranteed "equal protection under the law".
Critical examination, however, reveals that the statements made by scientists and those made by crackpots are fundamentally different in nature. Neither statement is more or less "valid" than any other.
"Valid" only has meaning in a given context. "My wife loves me" is not a scientifically valid statement. It's absolutely true for me. But it's not science. And it may not be a true statement for you. Such a statement is not objectively observable .
A scientific statement, however, is objective. Everyone can test it.
To the layperson, "theory" means "This is how I think the world is". Could have come from divine revalation. Maybe through psychotic rationalization. Maybe from many years of hard work at self-delusion. Maybe it's just a guess.
And if you don't believe such a statement, it's because you're a heretic. Or a blasphemer. Or unsaved. Or you're "the man". It's because your beliefs are wrong. For such statements, you don't get to say "Here is a method that would disprove the theory, were it not true." and then exercise that method (experiment) to get the same result as the person who proposed the theory.
That is a difference between science and not-science.
So, your ideas about creation, free energy, the illumaniti, black helicopters, and God's love for all men could be called "theories".
Just not scientific ones.
That creature has stolen it!
Here I was thinking the thing induced a perception of sound via magnetic fields in the user's head. Without the intermediate vibrating air molecules that regular loudspeakers use.
Didn't see anything about that.
"Communication Bubble"? Holy cats--they're selling you on the wonders of limited transmitter range, people!
The signal from transmitter to earpiece is still regular old EM radiation. This thing just utilizes the B field rather than the E field. Not often used, but certainly nothing new, either.
The long pointy stick with the bulbous end fitting neatly into the docking station's groove has some appeal, though. Just good functional design, I guess.
Now...can anybody tell me the argument to specify aes keysize? -k doesn't seem to work anymore.
I disagree.
There are 2 parts to this business transaction you describe--that is, Google selling ads to folks for money.
The ads, per se, have no value. What the people who pay Google the money really want is for people to see those ads. The "product" if you will allow an overused term--is eyeballs.
Google needs to maintain its position as the place to go to find things on the web. That means making sure that the vast majority of surfers say "Google is your friend.", not "Google links to spam."