...you claim that you have the right to ignore any and all democratically passed laws that you find difficult to live by?
First of all, China is not a democracy. Did this fact escape you? If not, then what makes you so sure that the USA or whatever country you are from is democratic. I certainly do not feel that the bipartisan, religious, and corporate controlled government of the USA is effectively democratic. The political situation in the USA is essentially "the lesser of two evils" and there is no way in hell that such an establishmentarian political system could accurately reflect anyones views (unless you are some sort of liquidy yolk with absolutely no opinions of your own).
Also, I think you are overly cynical about the majority of people being too stupid, lazy or immoral to make their own moral judgements. While I can't speak for the USA as I am from Canada, I have found that people usually seem a lot less stupid when you understand their motiviations for doing/thinking something. Although I do agree to an extent; there are definately a lot of idiots out there. If you don't feel comfortable relinquishing control over your own moral judgements, then I would suggest that this is not an option.
Re:At least people notice terrorism.
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
...when the only pollution was dinosaur flatulence
Thank you for that. As silly as it was, that comment caused the first genuine laugh I have had in a long time:)
Well, your interpretation could be correct, however I would imagine that by oncoming truck, he meant something like looking out a side window and seeing a truck barreling down at you at a perpendicular angle and you would have to speed up to get out of the way.
Nasty words = BAD
Sex = BAD
Explicit violence = GOOD"
First off, that must mean that loud sex is REALLY BAD:)
From this information, we can determine that the powers that be/the government do not want us to reproduce, or be noisy, but would rather have us kill/severely injure each other quietly.
I would like to propose the following hypothesis which these simple facts help validate:
The "powers that be" are trying to brainwash us to kill ourselves off so that they can usurp control of the planet for their own purposes. I would also like to propose that it is most likely an alien species from "the 5th dimension"... Did anybody see Stargate last week?
The truth is out there. The paranoia is what keeps me sane.
Computer scientists and programmers (which is what most cs grads are) are generally reknowned for being excellent problem solvers. Either you are surrounded by idiots, or you live inside your own little world. I would make a comment about how many graduates of the computer science students that I graduated with are generally excellent independant thinkers, however since I hate and despise all of them for being inferior to me, I will refrain from doing so. (That was sarcasm for the humour impaired)
I wasn't talking about the difference between science and philosophy, but on how to recognize what is science and what isn't (which is, as far as I know, the main issue in the philosophy of science). I'm glad you brought up Newton, though. In your original post, you stated that people generally regard science as a source of infalliable information, however Newton's own theories have been proven to be not correct. Albeit his theories are adequate for many useful purposes (predicting the orbit of the Earth, for example), it is impossible to determine what inherent truth there is to his claims. In one of your other posts, you mentioned something about truth not being important, but rather the pursuit of truth (is important). I agree in principle with this, however in the real world, you simply cannot rely on people's unbiased pursuit of the truth. As in the past, there are always a myriad of reasons why science cannot be unbiased. In the past, religion was the cause of much bias in scientific discovery, even into the 19th century. In todays economy, where science is for the most part big business, research grants and empolyment opportunities are just two factors that have the potential to skewer the pursuit of truth.
If the scientific method applies, it can be considered a scientific experiment."
So would you consider things like Creation Science science? If not, then I don't see how you can stand by this statement.
This whole post is pretty off topic with the general discussion in this thread, so with regards to the general theme of the thread... I can't really think of too many scenarios where what a computer scientist does is scientific at all. Pure computer science is as abstract and theoretical as mathematics. Computer Science to me is a branch of mathematics dealing with computation. Perhaps a more appropriate term for those theoretical computer scientists would be computician.
Shouldn't the definition of a "science" be pretty rigid?
Hehe, by doing a bit of investigation in the field of philosophy of science, I think you'll soon discover that there has historically been a very blurry line between science and non-science and we still don't really have a concrete definition of science nor any sort of critereon for determining what is science and what is not. In fact, many of the important scientific discoveries of the past (what we would term science) were not arrived at in a fashion that we would consider scientific today. Philosophers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn would be some good philosophers to read as an introduction.
Agreed. In a collision between 2 cars, both cars would crumple, causing each individual car to sustain less damage, whereas in hitting an immobile object such as a sturdy brick wall, your car will absorb nearly all of impact.
Source code compatibility? What the hell are YOU talking about? I ask out of genuine curiosity; do you have a point, or are you just talking out of your ass.
And regarding binary compatibility, see the other posts on why that works.
Do not comment on something you know nothing about.
oh man, that is awesome. I had those exact same problems (except the tekram scsi drivers, I had a problem with an adaptec one that caused 5-10 second freezes whenever a dialog box popped up).
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you eliminated one of the wine choices because it tasted like juice, then yes, it would be important to compute the sugar content.
And as for everybody that responded (myself included), you have been trolled, I'm sure.
That's odd, because an assembler is a program that assembles assembly code into machine code.
...you claim that you have the right to ignore any and all democratically passed laws that you find difficult to live by?
First of all, China is not a democracy. Did this fact escape you? If not, then what makes you so sure that the USA or whatever country you are from is democratic. I certainly do not feel that the bipartisan, religious, and corporate controlled government of the USA is effectively democratic. The political situation in the USA is essentially "the lesser of two evils" and there is no way in hell that such an establishmentarian political system could accurately reflect anyones views (unless you are some sort of liquidy yolk with absolutely no opinions of your own).
Also, I think you are overly cynical about the majority of people being too stupid, lazy or immoral to make their own moral judgements. While I can't speak for the USA as I am from Canada, I have found that people usually seem a lot less stupid when you understand their motiviations for doing/thinking something. Although I do agree to an extent; there are definately a lot of idiots out there. If you don't feel comfortable relinquishing control over your own moral judgements, then I would suggest that this is not an option.
...when the only pollution was dinosaur flatulence
:)
Thank you for that. As silly as it was, that comment caused the first genuine laugh I have had in a long time
Well, your interpretation could be correct, however I would imagine that by oncoming truck, he meant something like looking out a side window and seeing a truck barreling down at you at a perpendicular angle and you would have to speed up to get out of the way.
Nothing like a poorly timed 5 year old joke to lighten the mood, eh?
It has nothing to do with money, it has to do with freedom. I can't believe people are still having problems with this concept.
Why is this funny?
After all, it is called the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE". There is a "GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" as well. Is that also funny?
AC writes:
:)
"On American TV:
Nasty words = BAD
Sex = BAD
Explicit violence = GOOD"
First off, that must mean that loud sex is REALLY BAD
From this information, we can determine that the powers that be/the government do not want us to reproduce, or be noisy, but would rather have us kill/severely injure each other quietly.
I would like to propose the following hypothesis which these simple facts help validate:
The "powers that be" are trying to brainwash us to kill ourselves off so that they can usurp control of the planet for their own purposes. I would also like to propose that it is most likely an alien species from "the 5th dimension"... Did anybody see Stargate last week?
The truth is out there. The paranoia is what keeps me sane.
AOL used to have EFNet servers. There used to be tonnes of AOLers around back then. Until AOL's servers were banned...
haha. Man, that sucks. Not to make light of your situation or anything, but that sounds like it came right out of a Dilbert comic.
The point is that how can we know what will happen? Some of us may be a little paranoid, but it's better than being ignorant.
Computer scientists and programmers (which is what most cs grads are) are generally reknowned for being excellent problem solvers. Either you are surrounded by idiots, or you live inside your own little world. I would make a comment about how many graduates of the computer science students that I graduated with are generally excellent independant thinkers, however since I hate and despise all of them for being inferior to me, I will refrain from doing so. (That was sarcasm for the humour impaired)
I wasn't talking about the difference between science and philosophy, but on how to recognize what is science and what isn't (which is, as far as I know, the main issue in the philosophy of science). I'm glad you brought up Newton, though. In your original post, you stated that people generally regard science as a source of infalliable information, however Newton's own theories have been proven to be not correct. Albeit his theories are adequate for many useful purposes (predicting the orbit of the Earth, for example), it is impossible to determine what inherent truth there is to his claims. In one of your other posts, you mentioned something about truth not being important, but rather the pursuit of truth (is important). I agree in principle with this, however in the real world, you simply cannot rely on people's unbiased pursuit of the truth. As in the past, there are always a myriad of reasons why science cannot be unbiased. In the past, religion was the cause of much bias in scientific discovery, even into the 19th century. In todays economy, where science is for the most part big business, research grants and empolyment opportunities are just two factors that have the potential to skewer the pursuit of truth.
If the scientific method applies, it can be considered a scientific experiment."
So would you consider things like Creation Science science? If not, then I don't see how you can stand by this statement.
This whole post is pretty off topic with the general discussion in this thread, so with regards to the general theme of the thread... I can't really think of too many scenarios where what a computer scientist does is scientific at all. Pure computer science is as abstract and theoretical as mathematics. Computer Science to me is a branch of mathematics dealing with computation. Perhaps a more appropriate term for those theoretical computer scientists would be computician.
Shouldn't the definition of a "science" be pretty rigid?
Hehe, by doing a bit of investigation in the field of philosophy of science, I think you'll soon discover that there has historically been a very blurry line between science and non-science and we still don't really have a concrete definition of science nor any sort of critereon for determining what is science and what is not. In fact, many of the important scientific discoveries of the past (what we would term science) were not arrived at in a fashion that we would consider scientific today. Philosophers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn would be some good philosophers to read as an introduction.
Agreed. In a collision between 2 cars, both cars would crumple, causing each individual car to sustain less damage, whereas in hitting an immobile object such as a sturdy brick wall, your car will absorb nearly all of impact.
And it was one of the few (if not only?) games that I played over ftp :) e-mail be damned.
It looks like some dinosaurs managed to survive...
Source code compatibility? What the hell are YOU talking about? I ask out of genuine curiosity; do you have a point, or are you just talking out of your ass.
And regarding binary compatibility, see the other posts on why that works.
Do not comment on something you know nothing about.
heh, was Chris Walpole around in those days?
What was so funny?
ahh, thanks all. Heh, had me puzzled.
I'm sure he didn't mean he goes up to everyone he meets and asks them that question. Well, I'm not positive, but I hope he didn't mean that.
what does your sig mean?
oh man, that is awesome. I had those exact same problems (except the tekram scsi drivers, I had a problem with an adaptec one that caused 5-10 second freezes whenever a dialog box popped up).