The melody sounds like it came directly from the Gameboy version of Tetris, but I'm fairly certain the bass line was added. Which is fine; the Gameboy didn't have the capability of playing a melody and a bass line at the same time, and the catchy song could definitely use one.
Really, Schrodinger's Cat was about the fact that quantum theory only defines a definite outcome at the point of measurement. "Observation" is really an anthromorpization of the concept of "measurement"; no human or otherwise sentient "observer" is required to make the waveform collapse, and QM does not in any way imply that the thoughts and expectations of the (unnecessary) observer make a difference.
It's funny, Schrodinger's Cat has always been brought up to demonstrate the craziness that quantum mechanics brings to our understanding of the world -- but when I actually read the paper (still not understanding much of the physics) it became clear that the point of the cat experiment was to show the flaws and weaknesses in QM, not it's most stunning conclusions.
There just seems to be a trend of "let's figure out something to prosecute MS for".
"Hey, why not prosecute them for their illegal abuses of monopoly power?"
"Brilliant! Have a Guinness."
What's the conspiracy again? I could believe selective enforcement (provided other companies who appear to be getting away with similar acts), but Microsoft has been found to be abusing their monopoly in the U.S., Europe, and now Korea.
But in answer to your first question, it becomes state-sponsored extortion at the point where MS is no longer actually guilty of the things they are accused. Their reluctance to comply with even the wishy-washy U.S. judgement indicates that reform is a long way in coming.
I second that. People who say "you can reconcile science and religion" are either kidding themselves, or (in most cases) just haven't thought about it very deeply.
What arrogant hogwash. As someone who believes in God and believes in the scientific method (though not precisely the same kind of belief), I have thought about this deeply and for a long time. I find it hard to believe that in 23 years of being an atheist you've thought harder about it than "it's a fairy tale, no reconcilliaton is possible".
The fact is, and I only speak for the Christian religion here, is that it is extremely simple to reconcile religion and science. In fact, there is precious little that needs to be reconciled at all, as the vast majority is not in conflict with science in any way. In fact, the only reason any "reconciliation" needs to be done is because certain literalists have decided that there is in fact a schism where none exists. In fact this schism is only possible when taking a translation litteraly, thus hiding the fact that the word translated as "day" could just as easily mean "era". That this was thus not meant as a literal blow-by-blow account of the formation of the universe should be as obvious as that a description of a table as being "one cubits across, and three cubits around" was not meant to describe the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle with infinite precision.
So what exactly makes reconciling the two so hard? Where do they, in fact, collide? All you have to do is realize that science describes the physical and the empirical, while religion describes the spiritual and immeasurable.
I find it rather funny that the only groups who believe that religion and science are incompatible one another are the Atheists and the Fundamentalists. It's truly strange where common ground appears.
In the meantime, the fields of science are packed with religious people doing important scientific work with no apparent problems in spite of this being impossible. Lo, it's a miracle!
In reality managers want people who are generalists so they can be poured around easier and not become important enough at a specialty to rise above competition and demand more wages/be harder to replace.
He's not talking about "specialists", he's talking about people familiar with one aspect of the code base, namely the one they are responsible for. In any large software project there are going to be sections of the code you know nothing about, and the part that you work on you will know better than anyone else. This is fine, as long as the division of labor is chosen wisely, as complicated code requires someone who has intimate knowledge of it. The only way to stop this kind of "expertise" from forming would be to rotate programmers around on different parts of the codebase constantly, which no sane manager would even do as then nobody would understand the individual sections of code well enough to modify and maintain them.
Scrambling to fix problems? If they're saying their release date is sometime in 2007, I don't think they need to scramble.
Re-writing a substantial -- even 20%, forget 60% -- of a project of the size and complexity of Vista in less than two years? Are you insane? We're talking tens of millions of lines of code here that will need to be re-written, then re-validated. There is virtually no way this will be done in the time frame specified. Assuming the project was going well. This is on a project that has already been delayed and delayed and delayed while simultaneously being scaled back and back and back. Clearly the project is not going that well, and if it's indeed so bad that the only way to save it is to nuke half the code base then it is completely unreasonable to think that after the nuke things will start zipping along smoothly.
No, if there is any truth at all to this story, 2007 is a pipe dream that they're throwing out just to keep their investors from revolting.
Of course it's much more likely that the story is completely baseless. I personally don't buy it, just because the practical reality MS would be aware of is that this would mean delaying Vista for years beyond 2007. With MS' competitors getting ever more serious, this would not do them well. I think it is much more likely that they'll just do what they have been, which is removing features until they can just get the product out the door. At this point, Microsoft just needs "Vista" more than it needs any bullet-point list of features.
Too complicated, too risky. Just make sure your hitman and your lawyer are the same person! Not only do you not have to worry about the situation that lead to this guy getting caught, you can also get a feel for how carrying out the assassination would affect the case. Plus, being a lawyer and being a hitman are both hard, so if you can find someone who is good at both he must be really smart!
Not to mention the humurous one-liners he could spout about getting a victim's blood on his Armani suit, or how they have been "dismissed, with prejudice".
Well, if you just spin the disk backward, logically it should follow that the artificial gravity will turn into anti-gravity! I have made the greatest scientific discovery since Einstein!
Sorry man, neither you nor the hypothetical crackpot can take credit for that -- Superfriends is prior art. In fact, if there's one thing I learned about physics from Superfriends, it's that you can create anti-anything if you just spin fast enough.
I can say you are a lying curr. No slander occurs.
Right, in which case that speech is not restricted. If it is slander, it is.
When I said "slander" I meant "the kind of slander that is illegal and thus restricted". We were talking about restricting speech, and I took your response to mean that merely making something illegal is not restricting it, which I took issue with. If your response is to merely say that there are things one would colloquially call "slander" which are not illegal, then that's fine but irrelevent.
BTW, in most states manslaughter also has situational and motivational dependencies. Involuntary manslaughter that is not due to negligence may not be a crime at all, scaling up to 1st degree murder which usually requires premeditation with malice aforethought. This is why I picked manslaughter as my example.
I wouldn't have called it this before reading the article, but "Continuous Partial Attention" is exactly why talking on a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as being at 0.08 blood alcohol and driving, and why "hands free" headsets don't actually help much.
Driving requires a lot of attention (barring interstates in Nebraska), and someone talking to you on the phone is themselves expecting a lot of your attention and isn't aware of the driving situation to know why you aren't giving it to them. As soon as you stop paying attention to deal with something on the road, it's "Hello? Hello? You there?" as I know from the times I've done it, which is why I refuse to talk while driving. This is also why talking to a passenger isn't dangerous, because when the semi-truck swerves into your lane they see it too and know that you have more important things to focus on.
So it isn't just ironic that she'd be splitting her attention between driving and her electronic communication device -- it's just plain irresponsible, and from someone who has every reason to know better.
Or how we can blame Windows 98 and older versions of Mac OS for crashing just because an application crashed.
I like PalmOS and I like my Treo 180 a lot, but I am starting to get sick of PalmOS' ancient technology. No memory protection? What century is this again?
We don't restrict slander. We do have laws that make slander a crime if it fits certain traits. Note that the speech (slander) isn't restricted, just that there may be consequences.
That's the same thing. By that argument we don't restrict manslaughter, there just may be consequences if it fits certain traits. Making something illegal is the method -- the only method -- the government has to prohibit something. Until we are implanted with inhibitors that physically prevent us from saying certain things, there is no difference between "restricting" and "making a crime". Anyways, even if my choice of words didn't click with you, the 1st Ammendment specifically refers to the passage of laws.
Right. And could you point out where in the Constitution an exception is made for defamatory speech, speech in the furtherance of a crime, speech that will cause a imminent and serious public harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), speech that will provoke the reasonable man to violence (fighting words), or speech that divulges trade secrets or otherwise violates a contract?
Exactly. These exceptions do not exist in the Constitution, and thus anyone saying "the 1st Ammendment does not and has never protected [type of speech]" is wrong. Yet, we accept some restrictions on speech due to the possibility of that speech causing material harm, even though these exceptions do not exist in the Constitution, and this is fine with me.
I covered all that in my last post -- I even mentioned some of the exceptions you list. Yet all these things cause harm and can be restricted on that basis. I do not and never will see being offended as material harm. If you are offended by something, that is your own problem. I do not see the justification for restricting 1st Ammendment rights in this case.
For that matter, can you point out what in the Constitution prevents states from regulating speech as well as Congress?
That would be the 14th Ammendment.
Your absolutist pseudo-textualism does not work.
Using "pseudo-" to discredit my reasoning doesn't work to create the obscenity exception either. If I said I was offended by linguistic techniques like that, would that be evidence that such things should be bannable by law?
Exceptions to the 1st Ammendment are treated to the highest standards of scrutiny. We should not allow them lightly. The justification for restricting harmful speech like slander is nothing like restricting obscenity.
Obscenity is not now, and never has been, protected speech under the first amendment. In fact, there are no constitional restrictions on laws to restrict obscenity even to adults. The only question is about the standard for obscenity, and "who decides"?
Interesting. Could you point out where in the Constitution an exception is made for obsecne speech? The fact is the 1st Ammendment says "freedom of speech", and using the word "obscenity" to describe a particular kind of speech does not, by itself, create an exception.
That said, I'm well aware and approving of some limits on speech. Yet these are exceptions we accept, not inherent exceptions in the 1st Ammendment, as there are none. The cliche yelling fire in a theatre, or slander, for example. However these both have real negative impacts on people. Obscenity laws do nothing but protect people from being offended. I don't see why we should accept this exception to free speech.
Simple: The person with the computer viewing the image. That person is the only one who is both 1) in the jurisdiction in which the image is illegal and 2) aware of the image, not the mere passage of bits through a pipe.
Of course that's too logical so we have to have a bunch of court cases about it to establish the obvious with no guarantee that logic will prevail. Who actually is prosecuted will probably have little to do with concern over the law being broken, but what results in the most leverage (perhaps the ISPs).
I concur. The best part is using this second mission to help remedy problems with a previous one (namely the bad camera focus and obscuring dust cloud of Deep Impact).
The more time goes on, the more I tend to think that NASA (really JPL, I guess) does its best work with probes and should be given a much larger portion of its budget to starting more (not necessarily more expensive) projects of this nature. The track record has been great, and the low cost means the occasional snafu isn't devistating.
Therefore: Any apparent contradiction between faith and reason is a misunderstanding.
I've always thought this to be true, without organizing it formally. I find it particularly strange that this viewpoint is so rare in a religion that constantly talks about how difficult it is for us mortals to understand the will and nature of God.
I really rather like it. It's a good way for a religion to save face and maintain backward compatibility (to use an analogy) while still keeping up with the progress of science.
That's one way to look at it, certainly a way that the polito-religious would. The resistance to such an idea is that religion is ancient and never-changing Truth; to modify the religion to "keep with the times" is blasphemous. I disagree because I simply see it not as the religious Truth changing, but our human understanding of Truth changing (much as science's view of physical Truth is always changing). This view happens to make it difficult to retain religious dogma, which is probably also part of why it is unpopular.
Well, according to TFA it sounds like multiple missions aren't in the cards, since it only flew by earth to drop the sample. It apparently has enough fuel for this new mission, but probably not for others.
Well the whole point of the Stardust mission was to bring a sample back. All the other probes aren't designed to be able to return and this allows them to be lighter and simpler. So while it does seem like a waste to let those probes just drift off, it's still fairly practical. Also even though their primary mission is over, that doesn't mean they are completely wasted. VoyaGER was still sending us interesting data even as it left our solar system. Stardust, though, as a sample-retrieving probe, should hopefully be able to field multiple missions.
So because the purveyors of lies and the purveyors of truth both are flawed humans, you're not going to listen to either of them even though you can tell which is which? Lunacy.
Who is trying to gain more power -- the politician or the scientist? Surely the fact that being a politician is the business of wielding power implies the former? Who has the greater vested interest -- a scientist working for the government whose coming to the press could at best get him a book deal, or the politician representing the power of the U.S. government and the lobbyists of multi-billion dollar multinationals?
It's like the Bush administration who tried to discredit Clark by saying he had a conflict of interest in promoting his book. And the Bush administration had no vested interest... except for defending the "preemptive war" doctrine of the only superpower. Surely these interests are equal...
Or maybe, as the many who have come forward to describe the truth-fudging of the administration suggest, they aren't. Maybe one has a little more vested interest in muddying the truth. Naw, couldn't be... both are human!
Of course scientists are human. Of course they want things for themselves. Yet lying and fudging answers is not a good way to get what you want in the field of science. Look at Fleischmann and Pons, who went to the press with research that wouldn't as it stood withstand peer review. Their fame is limited to having their names be synonymous with disgraced scientists.
Is it thus plausible that every scientist who believes global warming and climate change are occuring, which is virtually every one not tied to a party with a vested interest in denying these are occuring, is themselves operating solely for their agendas and not science?
Scientists will always be human. If them being human is your reason for disregarding them (as well as every other human, I would presume) then that's just laziness. Engage your brain, use critical thinking, and try to see for yourself what the truth is through the noise caused by everyone's respective bias. And don't be afraid of the common-sense conclusion that one group may in fact be more biased than another.
So "Ubermensch" translated as "Overman" where "over" means "above, greater than, beyond, more gifted than" is LESS accurate than "Superman"?
Yes, because in English "super" is used more commonly to mean "greater than, beyond, more gifted" than "over".
Both literally mean "above", and both can therefore be used as a literal translation of "uber", but the connotation of "uber" in "ubermencsch" is not one who is merely at a higher altitude than other men, but one who is superior in a qualitative sense. Thus of the two choices "super" is more appropriate to represent the original meaning.
Others are only continuing to argue because you deny the obvious: Both are valid translations, super is better.
Being a dvorak user I would definitely recommend it to anyone seeking to optimize their work space around preventing RSI, but I would subjectively describe the contribution of the dvorak layout to preventing RSI as "minor". It does reduce the amount of finger movement you need to do which reduces the amount your tendons move through the carpal tunnel, which at the very least causes less fatigue... but in general I find overall body position to have a vastly greater impact. A few minutes worth of tying with a bent wrist is worth a day or more of typing with an inferior keyboard layout in terms of pain.
Which is just to say to anyone considering dvorak: don't expect it to be a panacea. It's better, but not "this is all I need to do to save my wrists" better.
P.S. I think the learning curve is less the more skilled you are at qwerty. If you are a good touch typist you have most of the pathways formed, you just need to create "alternate" connections. It took about a week before I didn't need my cheat-sheet anymore, and to this day it takes me just a few minutes to switch back and forth (even though i rarely use qwerty).
You could easily argue that the militia as defined in the code is not well-regulated.
This does not at all change the fact that the 2nd Ammendment gives the right to bear arms to the people.
If Congress and/or the States have not done a sufficient job of maintaining their militias, then that is their fault. It does not in any way rob the people of their rights.
Slashdot Mirror
The melody sounds like it came directly from the Gameboy version of Tetris, but I'm fairly certain the bass line was added. Which is fine; the Gameboy didn't have the capability of playing a melody and a bass line at the same time, and the catchy song could definitely use one.
Really, Schrodinger's Cat was about the fact that quantum theory only defines a definite outcome at the point of measurement. "Observation" is really an anthromorpization of the concept of "measurement"; no human or otherwise sentient "observer" is required to make the waveform collapse, and QM does not in any way imply that the thoughts and expectations of the (unnecessary) observer make a difference.
It's funny, Schrodinger's Cat has always been brought up to demonstrate the craziness that quantum mechanics brings to our understanding of the world -- but when I actually read the paper (still not understanding much of the physics) it became clear that the point of the cat experiment was to show the flaws and weaknesses in QM, not it's most stunning conclusions.
There just seems to be a trend of "let's figure out something to prosecute MS for".
"Hey, why not prosecute them for their illegal abuses of monopoly power?"
"Brilliant! Have a Guinness."
What's the conspiracy again? I could believe selective enforcement (provided other companies who appear to be getting away with similar acts), but Microsoft has been found to be abusing their monopoly in the U.S., Europe, and now Korea.
But in answer to your first question, it becomes state-sponsored extortion at the point where MS is no longer actually guilty of the things they are accused. Their reluctance to comply with even the wishy-washy U.S. judgement indicates that reform is a long way in coming.
I second that. People who say "you can reconcile science and religion" are either kidding themselves, or (in most cases) just haven't thought about it very deeply.
What arrogant hogwash. As someone who believes in God and believes in the scientific method (though not precisely the same kind of belief), I have thought about this deeply and for a long time. I find it hard to believe that in 23 years of being an atheist you've thought harder about it than "it's a fairy tale, no reconcilliaton is possible".
The fact is, and I only speak for the Christian religion here, is that it is extremely simple to reconcile religion and science. In fact, there is precious little that needs to be reconciled at all, as the vast majority is not in conflict with science in any way. In fact, the only reason any "reconciliation" needs to be done is because certain literalists have decided that there is in fact a schism where none exists. In fact this schism is only possible when taking a translation litteraly, thus hiding the fact that the word translated as "day" could just as easily mean "era". That this was thus not meant as a literal blow-by-blow account of the formation of the universe should be as obvious as that a description of a table as being "one cubits across, and three cubits around" was not meant to describe the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle with infinite precision.
So what exactly makes reconciling the two so hard? Where do they, in fact, collide? All you have to do is realize that science describes the physical and the empirical, while religion describes the spiritual and immeasurable.
I find it rather funny that the only groups who believe that religion and science are incompatible one another are the Atheists and the Fundamentalists. It's truly strange where common ground appears.
In the meantime, the fields of science are packed with religious people doing important scientific work with no apparent problems in spite of this being impossible. Lo, it's a miracle!
In reality managers want people who are generalists so they can be poured around easier and not become important enough at a specialty to rise above competition and demand more wages/be harder to replace.
He's not talking about "specialists", he's talking about people familiar with one aspect of the code base, namely the one they are responsible for. In any large software project there are going to be sections of the code you know nothing about, and the part that you work on you will know better than anyone else. This is fine, as long as the division of labor is chosen wisely, as complicated code requires someone who has intimate knowledge of it. The only way to stop this kind of "expertise" from forming would be to rotate programmers around on different parts of the codebase constantly, which no sane manager would even do as then nobody would understand the individual sections of code well enough to modify and maintain them.
Scrambling to fix problems? If they're saying their release date is sometime in 2007, I don't think they need to scramble.
Re-writing a substantial -- even 20%, forget 60% -- of a project of the size and complexity of Vista in less than two years? Are you insane? We're talking tens of millions of lines of code here that will need to be re-written, then re-validated. There is virtually no way this will be done in the time frame specified. Assuming the project was going well. This is on a project that has already been delayed and delayed and delayed while simultaneously being scaled back and back and back. Clearly the project is not going that well, and if it's indeed so bad that the only way to save it is to nuke half the code base then it is completely unreasonable to think that after the nuke things will start zipping along smoothly.
No, if there is any truth at all to this story, 2007 is a pipe dream that they're throwing out just to keep their investors from revolting.
Of course it's much more likely that the story is completely baseless. I personally don't buy it, just because the practical reality MS would be aware of is that this would mean delaying Vista for years beyond 2007. With MS' competitors getting ever more serious, this would not do them well. I think it is much more likely that they'll just do what they have been, which is removing features until they can just get the product out the door. At this point, Microsoft just needs "Vista" more than it needs any bullet-point list of features.
Too complicated, too risky. Just make sure your hitman and your lawyer are the same person! Not only do you not have to worry about the situation that lead to this guy getting caught, you can also get a feel for how carrying out the assassination would affect the case. Plus, being a lawyer and being a hitman are both hard, so if you can find someone who is good at both he must be really smart!
Not to mention the humurous one-liners he could spout about getting a victim's blood on his Armani suit, or how they have been "dismissed, with prejudice".
Well, if you just spin the disk backward, logically it should follow that the artificial gravity will turn into anti-gravity! I have made the greatest scientific discovery since Einstein!
Sorry man, neither you nor the hypothetical crackpot can take credit for that -- Superfriends is prior art. In fact, if there's one thing I learned about physics from Superfriends, it's that you can create anti-anything if you just spin fast enough.
I can say you are a lying curr. No slander occurs.
Right, in which case that speech is not restricted. If it is slander, it is.
When I said "slander" I meant "the kind of slander that is illegal and thus restricted". We were talking about restricting speech, and I took your response to mean that merely making something illegal is not restricting it, which I took issue with. If your response is to merely say that there are things one would colloquially call "slander" which are not illegal, then that's fine but irrelevent.
BTW, in most states manslaughter also has situational and motivational dependencies. Involuntary manslaughter that is not due to negligence may not be a crime at all, scaling up to 1st degree murder which usually requires premeditation with malice aforethought. This is why I picked manslaughter as my example.
I wouldn't have called it this before reading the article, but "Continuous Partial Attention" is exactly why talking on a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as being at 0.08 blood alcohol and driving, and why "hands free" headsets don't actually help much.
Driving requires a lot of attention (barring interstates in Nebraska), and someone talking to you on the phone is themselves expecting a lot of your attention and isn't aware of the driving situation to know why you aren't giving it to them. As soon as you stop paying attention to deal with something on the road, it's "Hello? Hello? You there?" as I know from the times I've done it, which is why I refuse to talk while driving. This is also why talking to a passenger isn't dangerous, because when the semi-truck swerves into your lane they see it too and know that you have more important things to focus on.
So it isn't just ironic that she'd be splitting her attention between driving and her electronic communication device -- it's just plain irresponsible, and from someone who has every reason to know better.
Or how we can blame Windows 98 and older versions of Mac OS for crashing just because an application crashed.
I like PalmOS and I like my Treo 180 a lot, but I am starting to get sick of PalmOS' ancient technology. No memory protection? What century is this again?
I guess you telling me to "shut the fuck up" isn't about bullying me into accepting your standard of expression then?
It's only bullying in the same sense if his admonission to "shut the fuck up" comes with the threat of prosecution should you fail to comply.
We don't restrict slander. We do have laws that make slander a crime if it fits certain traits. Note that the speech (slander) isn't restricted, just that there may be consequences.
That's the same thing. By that argument we don't restrict manslaughter, there just may be consequences if it fits certain traits. Making something illegal is the method -- the only method -- the government has to prohibit something. Until we are implanted with inhibitors that physically prevent us from saying certain things, there is no difference between "restricting" and "making a crime". Anyways, even if my choice of words didn't click with you, the 1st Ammendment specifically refers to the passage of laws.
Right. And could you point out where in the Constitution an exception is made for defamatory speech, speech in the furtherance of a crime, speech that will cause a imminent and serious public harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), speech that will provoke the reasonable man to violence (fighting words), or speech that divulges trade secrets or otherwise violates a contract?
Exactly. These exceptions do not exist in the Constitution, and thus anyone saying "the 1st Ammendment does not and has never protected [type of speech]" is wrong. Yet, we accept some restrictions on speech due to the possibility of that speech causing material harm, even though these exceptions do not exist in the Constitution, and this is fine with me.
I covered all that in my last post -- I even mentioned some of the exceptions you list. Yet all these things cause harm and can be restricted on that basis. I do not and never will see being offended as material harm. If you are offended by something, that is your own problem. I do not see the justification for restricting 1st Ammendment rights in this case.
For that matter, can you point out what in the Constitution prevents states from regulating speech as well as Congress?
That would be the 14th Ammendment.
Your absolutist pseudo-textualism does not work.
Using "pseudo-" to discredit my reasoning doesn't work to create the obscenity exception either. If I said I was offended by linguistic techniques like that, would that be evidence that such things should be bannable by law?
Exceptions to the 1st Ammendment are treated to the highest standards of scrutiny. We should not allow them lightly. The justification for restricting harmful speech like slander is nothing like restricting obscenity.
Obscenity is not now, and never has been, protected speech under the first amendment. In fact, there are no constitional restrictions on laws to restrict obscenity even to adults. The only question is about the standard for obscenity, and "who decides"?
Interesting. Could you point out where in the Constitution an exception is made for obsecne speech? The fact is the 1st Ammendment says "freedom of speech", and using the word "obscenity" to describe a particular kind of speech does not, by itself, create an exception.
That said, I'm well aware and approving of some limits on speech. Yet these are exceptions we accept, not inherent exceptions in the 1st Ammendment, as there are none. The cliche yelling fire in a theatre, or slander, for example. However these both have real negative impacts on people. Obscenity laws do nothing but protect people from being offended. I don't see why we should accept this exception to free speech.
Simple: The person with the computer viewing the image. That person is the only one who is both 1) in the jurisdiction in which the image is illegal and 2) aware of the image, not the mere passage of bits through a pipe.
Of course that's too logical so we have to have a bunch of court cases about it to establish the obvious with no guarantee that logic will prevail. Who actually is prosecuted will probably have little to do with concern over the law being broken, but what results in the most leverage (perhaps the ISPs).
I concur. The best part is using this second mission to help remedy problems with a previous one (namely the bad camera focus and obscuring dust cloud of Deep Impact).
The more time goes on, the more I tend to think that NASA (really JPL, I guess) does its best work with probes and should be given a much larger portion of its budget to starting more (not necessarily more expensive) projects of this nature. The track record has been great, and the low cost means the occasional snafu isn't devistating.
Therefore: Any apparent contradiction between faith and reason is a misunderstanding.
I've always thought this to be true, without organizing it formally. I find it particularly strange that this viewpoint is so rare in a religion that constantly talks about how difficult it is for us mortals to understand the will and nature of God.
I really rather like it. It's a good way for a religion to save face and maintain backward compatibility (to use an analogy) while still keeping up with the progress of science.
That's one way to look at it, certainly a way that the polito-religious would. The resistance to such an idea is that religion is ancient and never-changing Truth; to modify the religion to "keep with the times" is blasphemous. I disagree because I simply see it not as the religious Truth changing, but our human understanding of Truth changing (much as science's view of physical Truth is always changing). This view happens to make it difficult to retain religious dogma, which is probably also part of why it is unpopular.
Well, according to TFA it sounds like multiple missions aren't in the cards, since it only flew by earth to drop the sample. It apparently has enough fuel for this new mission, but probably not for others.
Well the whole point of the Stardust mission was to bring a sample back. All the other probes aren't designed to be able to return and this allows them to be lighter and simpler. So while it does seem like a waste to let those probes just drift off, it's still fairly practical. Also even though their primary mission is over, that doesn't mean they are completely wasted. VoyaGER was still sending us interesting data even as it left our solar system. Stardust, though, as a sample-retrieving probe, should hopefully be able to field multiple missions.
So because the purveyors of lies and the purveyors of truth both are flawed humans, you're not going to listen to either of them even though you can tell which is which? Lunacy.
Who is trying to gain more power -- the politician or the scientist? Surely the fact that being a politician is the business of wielding power implies the former? Who has the greater vested interest -- a scientist working for the government whose coming to the press could at best get him a book deal, or the politician representing the power of the U.S. government and the lobbyists of multi-billion dollar multinationals?
It's like the Bush administration who tried to discredit Clark by saying he had a conflict of interest in promoting his book. And the Bush administration had no vested interest... except for defending the "preemptive war" doctrine of the only superpower. Surely these interests are equal...
Or maybe, as the many who have come forward to describe the truth-fudging of the administration suggest, they aren't. Maybe one has a little more vested interest in muddying the truth. Naw, couldn't be... both are human!
Of course scientists are human. Of course they want things for themselves. Yet lying and fudging answers is not a good way to get what you want in the field of science. Look at Fleischmann and Pons, who went to the press with research that wouldn't as it stood withstand peer review. Their fame is limited to having their names be synonymous with disgraced scientists.
Is it thus plausible that every scientist who believes global warming and climate change are occuring, which is virtually every one not tied to a party with a vested interest in denying these are occuring, is themselves operating solely for their agendas and not science?
Scientists will always be human. If them being human is your reason for disregarding them (as well as every other human, I would presume) then that's just laziness. Engage your brain, use critical thinking, and try to see for yourself what the truth is through the noise caused by everyone's respective bias. And don't be afraid of the common-sense conclusion that one group may in fact be more biased than another.
So "Ubermensch" translated as "Overman" where "over" means "above, greater than, beyond, more gifted than" is LESS accurate than "Superman"?
Yes, because in English "super" is used more commonly to mean "greater than, beyond, more gifted" than "over".
Both literally mean "above", and both can therefore be used as a literal translation of "uber", but the connotation of "uber" in "ubermencsch" is not one who is merely at a higher altitude than other men, but one who is superior in a qualitative sense. Thus of the two choices "super" is more appropriate to represent the original meaning.
Others are only continuing to argue because you deny the obvious: Both are valid translations, super is better.
Being a dvorak user I would definitely recommend it to anyone seeking to optimize their work space around preventing RSI, but I would subjectively describe the contribution of the dvorak layout to preventing RSI as "minor". It does reduce the amount of finger movement you need to do which reduces the amount your tendons move through the carpal tunnel, which at the very least causes less fatigue... but in general I find overall body position to have a vastly greater impact. A few minutes worth of tying with a bent wrist is worth a day or more of typing with an inferior keyboard layout in terms of pain.
Which is just to say to anyone considering dvorak: don't expect it to be a panacea. It's better, but not "this is all I need to do to save my wrists" better.
P.S. I think the learning curve is less the more skilled you are at qwerty. If you are a good touch typist you have most of the pathways formed, you just need to create "alternate" connections. It took about a week before I didn't need my cheat-sheet anymore, and to this day it takes me just a few minutes to switch back and forth (even though i rarely use qwerty).
If there was no piracy, anti-piracy measures would serve no purpose.
If there were no computer viruses, anti-virus software would serve no purpose.
If there was no proprietary software, OSS would serve no purpose?
That's just silly.
You could easily argue that the militia as defined in the code is not well-regulated.
This does not at all change the fact that the 2nd Ammendment gives the right to bear arms to the people.
If Congress and/or the States have not done a sufficient job of maintaining their militias, then that is their fault. It does not in any way rob the people of their rights.