yeah, what annoys me is the current Intel commercials on tv that promote all the ways you can use their laptop during a college class - games, playing music, watching movies on dvd, etc.
I did notice that someone must have jumped on them, because the latest versions do have a mention at the end - "oh, and you can even study on it." Those weren't in the first of those commercials, so they must have caught at least a little flack.
you said : "Yahoo search is ONLY for music you pay for. As far as I could tell (before I closed the browser in disgust) there is absolutely NO free (as in speech or beer) music there at all."
fwiw, I did a search "centralpc sermons" and found the MP3's of our church's sermons... or 46 of them anyway (far from all). They're free.
So, not everything there is pay-stuff, though I can't prove that for music.
Searching for data that is in the metadata of the MP3s gives odd results. If "Any" is selected some searches don't find anything whereas they do when "artist" is selected (same keywords). Seems odd. I'd think "Any" would be a superset of the "artist" match results.
Websites are *public* postings (unless they are password-protected). If you post something publicly, don't expect to be able to erase it completely from memory and existence later. If you don't want it out there, don't post it in the first place. Simple.
I really hope this doesn't damage the Internet Archive's rights to do what they do. They provide a valuable service and should be able to continue.
FWIW, the IA does provide a way for copyright owners to request that info be removed from the archive, and they offer ways like ROBOTS.txt file commands to tell their spiders not to index content in the first place.
I agree with most of what you wrote on the touch-typing issue. in fact I'd posted a note further down on that... (though there might still be uses for typing tutor s/w, particularly before they reach the point of touch typing. maybe, maybe not.
Even allowing for that, I still see some advantages for a design like this. The 3 main advantages I'd see would be:
* labeling the function keys for the current app's assignments. (particularly useful for engineering apps, where the function keys are heavily used, and you need templates to know what they are (no-one memorizes them all for each app, and hitting the wrong one can be painful)
- switching languages, etc. maybe not useful for a home PC there but think about a kiosk keyboard in an international airport... pick your language. (yeah, they can use a touch screen instead of a keybd but this offers another option)
- custom gaming and app layouts like they show
Perhaps a cheaper version that just has displays on the function keys and 'extra' keys would make more sense than having them all be displays.
that could be pretty funny in a way, have a picture 'run' around the keybd, key-to-key, and you have to try to hit that key... ok, not as spyware, but part of a game?
it might also help typing tutor apps, assign colors to the keys or flash the one you are supposed to type next.
And the function keys could show not must "F1" but the function assigned to it for the current application - kind of like the old WordPerfect function key templates did, but now it could switch when you switch apps.
read the legal complaint. sounds like there is quite a bit of damning stuff they have against Intel. If they can prove a quarter of it Intel should be in serious trouble (IMO)
for a legal document, that was *really* interesting reading... I don't take it all as gospel of course, but very interesting...
do you *really* want it to go drilling its way around your body? perhaps not just up and down within the digestive track but going astray elsewhere with that screw drive?
... cue visions of 'Alien' and a bugbot erupting from your chest...
I've had a colonoscopy (many years ago, and unfortunately without the la-la drugs that some report being given to make it better), and it was *really* uncomfortable... but this bug thing crawling through me from end-to-end sounds like a bad dream... or a bad horror/scifi movie...
...that said, either way is definitely better than colon cancer...
sounds a little like the molecular wire knives from Larry Niven's ringworld universe. You had a handle that could extend a wire that was made or single-molecule-wide wire - which is obviously *very* sharp.
The wire was held extended by a magnetic field, with a ball or something that marked the end. (very important safety feature since of course you couldn't see a wire that thin)
feel free to correct my memory... it's been a while since I read the book that had these...
Who really expects most shopping carts to still be there after 'a day or so' ???
If you want it to last that long, then you'll have to register and save it, or use a wishlist feature. Those are meant for longer shopping... shopping carts are generally meant for a single browser session - which may time out in 20 minutes, the default for ASP and other server languages...
silentbozo, do you leave your shopping cart in the grocery store there for a couple days then expect it to be there when you get back? I wouldn't eat the eggs or mayo if I were you...;-)
He's right, YOU are in control. Don't be wishy-washy.
Definitely cut people off when they are infected until they are cleaned up.
Hit them in areas they care about and they'll start being more careful. Figure out where those motivational places are (disconnections, fines, losing IM privileges, etc.)
Post a policy that has escalating punishments for each subsequent time they are infected, particularly if it's obvious it's their fault. This could be a rising fine, or that you don't reconnect them as fast... If they are disconnected 1 day for first offense, 2 for 2nd, etc, they might learn real fast.
You could also consider cutting off certainly protocols at the firewalls or for particular users, either for security or as punishment.
"Now the State is in a death spiral of taxes. They raise them, people cutback. Eventually the income will stop staying flat, and will actually fall."
That's always the problem with the so-called 'vice taxes.' It's usually politically expedient to tax things that are considered 'bad' for you (drinking, smoking, gas, sex, etc), but if people stop doing those things, then you have to look elsewhere for something to tax.
"A very large number of Christians, particularly southern baptists, would disagree with you on that."
Some would, particularly if you take that one line of mine out of the context of the rest of what I said. Many would not.
"Yet because science has yet to uncover all the mysteries of consciousness, life and death, people insist that their religious beliefs on those concepts are still true. Why do we have to wait until science picks off the very last mistake in a religion's teachings before we recognise that the whole package was just a less advanced worldview from a less advanced era of history."
Nicely written, but you make the assumption that this is something progressing only in one nice clean direction, that of science finding the 'truth' that refutes all of the 'truth' previously believed to be true by (pick-your) religion. And you assume that because it (supposedly) went in that direction in the past it will continue to in the future.
Neither of us knows the future, so perhaps that's the way it'll go someday, or perhaps not. Science already confirms some things that religions have believed and practiced for centuries... it's not all a refutation process... so perhaps it'll eventually reach the point of proving more difficult core religuous beliefs true and correct.
Have you even considered that possibility?
Or are you so firm in an anti-religion and 'I know better than all the rest of you poor ignorant souls' attitude that you won't?
Some of those 'myths' you list are very subject to how you read the Bible.
Without getting into a big creation vs evolution argument, personally I believe that creation as written could have certainly occurred over time, where evolution of species was a part of the means of creation, yet still guided and started by a creator.
Where does the Bible say that the Earth is the center of the universe?
Keep in mind that all religions have various types of beliefs.
They include some major, core things that, without which, the whole religion collapses. In Christianity, the resurrection of Christ is one of those. If that's not true, then the rest that is built on that falls down pretty fast.
There are also traditions (probably need a better word), which I'd define as general beliefs or practices that has been passed down through generations. Some of the old testament examples would include many of the dietary restrictions and other rules, which were given to the people of the time as necessary for health and survival in their circumstances. They may or may not always be appropriate in other circumstances. Better examples of what I mean here would probably include things that are 'outside' the Bible, that define ways we think about something or how we do something not explicitly defined in the Bible.
And derived beliefs, where we derive or expand upon a core belief, sometimes in a way that extends something a bit too far. Many faiths add a whole lot of *stuff* in this way that becomes very legalistic and gets far from the core.
The (Christian) Bible has a mix of writings, from history, to recorded rules, poetry & songs (psalms, etc), recorded guidance and inspiration, etc, all in a wide variety of literary styles from a wide variety of authors over several thousand years. While we can't casually just ignore what we feel like it's not valid to treat every word in it as some kind of direct command or God-spoken truth.
Anyway, what I'd postulate is that, at least in the case of Christianity, science hasn't disproven the core beliefs upon which the faith stands or falls. It may certainly have disproven some of the less-critical claims, but that doesn't mean you get to throw the whole faith out.
Ah, thanks for the further clarification. Some of the other posts in this thread, as well as some of your earlier wording definitely did give the strong impression of science-over-religion arrogance and lack of respect for the beliefs of a great many people.
It came across (IMO) as sort of saying (in exaggerated form for clarity): "some people so stubborn that they are going to hold on to those religious beliefs no matter WHAT proof you give them to the contrary" or perhaps, "we'll never manage to stamp out religious ignorance."
Or perhaps I was being too sensitive.... certainly possible..;-)
I do agree with you that it *should* be part of scifi, or any good scifi that is truly exploring human societal changes beyond just cool tech and ray-guns. Anything that is such a big part of humanity won't be dismissed easily by a few technological advancements.
Admittedly, doing good scifi is a huge undertaking, and an author can only explore so many aspects of a possible future society at once, so sometimes it's one of the things that gets dropped for story-line, time or effort reasons.
You write: "... if someone who is intelligent and knowledgeable about science believes in religion in these "advanced" times, you have to assume that religion is too relevant and robust to just disappear in the face of advanced technology."
I'd add "... or true... " to 'too relevant or robust.' That takes into account that religion isn't just something we need in our lives but that it tells truths about our world and particularly about ourselves that science and other things don't.
Anyway, thanks again for the reply post. It's good to have an intelligent discussion here instead of just flame-wars.;-)
Those humans that have been educated in what the science of life and physics has taught us have for the most part left religion behind. It is among the uneducated who have not been exposed to the knowledge revealed by science that religion is most prevalent. Science does trump religion, but only if you've been exposed to it.
Wow, you sure dismiss very lightly the intelligence and personal experiences of a majority of the human race,
... and of the *many* scientists who still believe in various religions despite being "exposed to the knowledge revealed by science."
I hate to disturb your 'science is the new god' dreamworld, but science does *not* in fact trump or disprove most of the major claims of the major religions. In fact, we often find more and more places where we learn things via the technique of science that confirms something from religion (particularly in archaelogy).
Science doesn't disprove religion... no matter how much you wish it does.
So, if you believe in something without definite proof or even when you see evidence to the contrary, isn't that how you are defining faith? Then isn't your belief in 'science above all' just a different religion?
FWIW, I responded a bit more in a grandchild post
here
Slashdot Mirror
or just let him beat up some other kid and take theirs... (kidding!!!)
I did notice that someone must have jumped on them, because the latest versions do have a mention at the end - "oh, and you can even study on it." Those weren't in the first of those commercials, so they must have caught at least a little flack.
fwiw, I did a search "centralpc sermons" and found the MP3's of our church's sermons... or 46 of them anyway (far from all). They're free.
So, not everything there is pay-stuff, though I can't prove that for music.
Searching for data that is in the metadata of the MP3s gives odd results. If "Any" is selected some searches don't find anything whereas they do when "artist" is selected (same keywords). Seems odd. I'd think "Any" would be a superset of the "artist" match results.
probably with barf all over them as well...
Websites are *public* postings (unless they are password-protected). If you post something publicly, don't expect to be able to erase it completely from memory and existence later. If you don't want it out there, don't post it in the first place. Simple.
I really hope this doesn't damage the Internet Archive's rights to do what they do. They provide a valuable service and should be able to continue.
FWIW, the IA does provide a way for copyright owners to request that info be removed from the archive, and they offer ways like ROBOTS.txt file commands to tell their spiders not to index content in the first place.
no, just think it might be funny. (albeit probably annoying after about 30 seconds)
fwiw, I do touch-type, so I understand the concepts and reasons behind *not* looking at the keybd.
Even allowing for that, I still see some advantages for a design like this. The 3 main advantages I'd see would be:
* labeling the function keys for the current app's assignments. (particularly useful for engineering apps, where the function keys are heavily used, and you need templates to know what they are (no-one memorizes them all for each app, and hitting the wrong one can be painful)
- switching languages, etc. maybe not useful for a home PC there but think about a kiosk keyboard in an international airport... pick your language. (yeah, they can use a touch screen instead of a keybd but this offers another option)
- custom gaming and app layouts like they show
Perhaps a cheaper version that just has displays on the function keys and 'extra' keys would make more sense than having them all be displays.
it might also help typing tutor apps, assign colors to the keys or flash the one you are supposed to type next.
And the function keys could show not must "F1" but the function assigned to it for the current application - kind of like the old WordPerfect function key templates did, but now it could switch when you switch apps.
wonder what the 'feel' is like? that matters.
have to admit, the displays are pretty cool looking, but I'd sure hate to think what happens to it when you spill your coffee into it... ;-)
for a legal document, that was *really* interesting reading... I don't take it all as gospel of course, but very interesting...
of course the battery will be dead just when you need it...
note to self: don't attend ANY parties hosted by aminad... ;-)
... cue visions of 'Alien' and a bugbot erupting from your chest...
I've had a colonoscopy (many years ago, and unfortunately without the la-la drugs that some report being given to make it better), and it was *really* uncomfortable... but this bug thing crawling through me from end-to-end sounds like a bad dream... or a bad horror/scifi movie...
...that said, either way is definitely better than colon cancer ...
hmm, hard to use your yellow saber to block the other guy's saber if they go through each other now, eh?
guess the winner of *that* duel is whoever hits flesh first/most-vitally, since there is no blocking or parrying...
well, the quickest way would be just to slice through your own legs at the calf, but I guess that would hinder further adventures a bit... ;-)
The wire was held extended by a magnetic field, with a ball or something that marked the end. (very important safety feature since of course you couldn't see a wire that thin)
feel free to correct my memory ... it's been a while since I read the book that had these...
Who really expects most shopping carts to still be there after 'a day or so' ???
If you want it to last that long, then you'll have to register and save it, or use a wishlist feature. Those are meant for longer shopping... shopping carts are generally meant for a single browser session - which may time out in 20 minutes, the default for ASP and other server languages...
silentbozo, do you leave your shopping cart in the grocery store there for a couple days then expect it to be there when you get back? I wouldn't eat the eggs or mayo if I were you... ;-)
Definitely cut people off when they are infected until they are cleaned up.
Hit them in areas they care about and they'll start being more careful. Figure out where those motivational places are (disconnections, fines, losing IM privileges, etc.)
Post a policy that has escalating punishments for each subsequent time they are infected, particularly if it's obvious it's their fault. This could be a rising fine, or that you don't reconnect them as fast... If they are disconnected 1 day for first offense, 2 for 2nd, etc, they might learn real fast.
You could also consider cutting off certainly protocols at the firewalls or for particular users, either for security or as punishment.
If we knew anything about productivity would we be spending our time reading /.? ;-)
do the opposite of whatever we're doing...
That's always the problem with the so-called 'vice taxes.' It's usually politically expedient to tax things that are considered 'bad' for you (drinking, smoking, gas, sex, etc), but if people stop doing those things, then you have to look elsewhere for something to tax.
Some would, particularly if you take that one line of mine out of the context of the rest of what I said. Many would not.
"Yet because science has yet to uncover all the mysteries of consciousness, life and death, people insist that their religious beliefs on those concepts are still true. Why do we have to wait until science picks off the very last mistake in a religion's teachings before we recognise that the whole package was just a less advanced worldview from a less advanced era of history."
Nicely written, but you make the assumption that this is something progressing only in one nice clean direction, that of science finding the 'truth' that refutes all of the 'truth' previously believed to be true by (pick-your) religion. And you assume that because it (supposedly) went in that direction in the past it will continue to in the future.
Neither of us knows the future, so perhaps that's the way it'll go someday, or perhaps not. Science already confirms some things that religions have believed and practiced for centuries... it's not all a refutation process... so perhaps it'll eventually reach the point of proving more difficult core religuous beliefs true and correct.
Have you even considered that possibility?
Or are you so firm in an anti-religion and 'I know better than all the rest of you poor ignorant souls' attitude that you won't?
Without getting into a big creation vs evolution argument, personally I believe that creation as written could have certainly occurred over time, where evolution of species was a part of the means of creation, yet still guided and started by a creator.
Where does the Bible say that the Earth is the center of the universe?
Keep in mind that all religions have various types of beliefs.
They include some major, core things that, without which, the whole religion collapses. In Christianity, the resurrection of Christ is one of those. If that's not true, then the rest that is built on that falls down pretty fast.
There are also traditions (probably need a better word), which I'd define as general beliefs or practices that has been passed down through generations. Some of the old testament examples would include many of the dietary restrictions and other rules, which were given to the people of the time as necessary for health and survival in their circumstances. They may or may not always be appropriate in other circumstances. Better examples of what I mean here would probably include things that are 'outside' the Bible, that define ways we think about something or how we do something not explicitly defined in the Bible.
And derived beliefs, where we derive or expand upon a core belief, sometimes in a way that extends something a bit too far. Many faiths add a whole lot of *stuff* in this way that becomes very legalistic and gets far from the core.
The (Christian) Bible has a mix of writings, from history, to recorded rules, poetry & songs (psalms, etc), recorded guidance and inspiration, etc, all in a wide variety of literary styles from a wide variety of authors over several thousand years. While we can't casually just ignore what we feel like it's not valid to treat every word in it as some kind of direct command or God-spoken truth.
Anyway, what I'd postulate is that, at least in the case of Christianity, science hasn't disproven the core beliefs upon which the faith stands or falls. It may certainly have disproven some of the less-critical claims, but that doesn't mean you get to throw the whole faith out.
It came across (IMO) as sort of saying (in exaggerated form for clarity): "some people so stubborn that they are going to hold on to those religious beliefs no matter WHAT proof you give them to the contrary" or perhaps, "we'll never manage to stamp out religious ignorance."
Or perhaps I was being too sensitive.... certainly possible.. ;-)
I do agree with you that it *should* be part of scifi, or any good scifi that is truly exploring human societal changes beyond just cool tech and ray-guns. Anything that is such a big part of humanity won't be dismissed easily by a few technological advancements.
Admittedly, doing good scifi is a huge undertaking, and an author can only explore so many aspects of a possible future society at once, so sometimes it's one of the things that gets dropped for story-line, time or effort reasons.
You write: "... if someone who is intelligent and knowledgeable about science believes in religion in these "advanced" times, you have to assume that religion is too relevant and robust to just disappear in the face of advanced technology."
I'd add "... or true... " to 'too relevant or robust.' That takes into account that religion isn't just something we need in our lives but that it tells truths about our world and particularly about ourselves that science and other things don't.
Anyway, thanks again for the reply post. It's good to have an intelligent discussion here instead of just flame-wars. ;-)
Wow, you sure dismiss very lightly the intelligence and personal experiences of a majority of the human race,
... and of the *many* scientists who still believe in various religions despite being "exposed to the knowledge revealed by science."
I hate to disturb your 'science is the new god' dreamworld, but science does *not* in fact trump or disprove most of the major claims of the major religions. In fact, we often find more and more places where we learn things via the technique of science that confirms something from religion (particularly in archaelogy).
Science doesn't disprove religion... no matter how much you wish it does.
So, if you believe in something without definite proof or even when you see evidence to the contrary, isn't that how you are defining faith? Then isn't your belief in 'science above all' just a different religion?
FWIW, I responded a bit more in a grandchild post here