Actually, that show got cancelled. The new one is called "Trading Kidneys" where a US doctor and an Indian doctor need to transplant each others kidneys into themselves.
I hear you can get one of those new-fangled telephones which allow you to call a person by dialing only the number, bypassing the old operator-assisted phone calling where you needed to know the party's name as well as routing number.
Re: GoC does take privacy seriously
on
Canadian Privacy Act
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It just means that it goes into the burn bag rather than into the trash can. When I was in the military, *everything* went into the burn bag. Did an exercise with bogus data? Burn baby, burn! Not sure if everywhere is like that, but they took that attitude that it's better to be safe.
In my "dictionary", the term Creationist implies one who believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that Noah's Ark is a 100% literal account, the universe was created in the span of seven 24 hour days, languages didn't evolve throughout time but were created at once at the Tower of Babel, evolution is an elaborate scientific hoax, etc. So to me, you're not a Creationist.
Using your version, even an atheist is a Creationist because the current universe is the result of a big bang explosion or something similar, and was "created" as a result of that event (as opposed to being created by the will of an omnipotent mystical being).
You're correct -- I should have said Creationists (a subset of Christianity), not Christians in general. With this correction, my argument still stands.
I think that you have a faulty view of faith. You seem to be depicting faith as a rube like acceptance of any assertion that someone makes to you. That isn't even close to the meaning of faith. (Pardon me for the following broad assumption...) When you were a child, and your mother said that she was going to the store to buy some milk and would be back shortly, did you worry that something else was going to happen? Did you worry that she might sneak off and leave you? That she wouldn't come back ever? If you and your mother are like most people, the answer is no. You might not have wanted to be parted from her, but you "knew" she would come back.
You point out the flaw in your own argument. The first time you were parted from your mother, I bet you cried and cried... because you *didn't* know she would come back. However, after many times of your mother going away and then coming back again, you learned that going away doesn't mean forever -- it just means a temporary thing. Thus, while you could still call it a certain amount of faith, it's still simply extrapolating based upon past evidence. Your mother has "left" you hundreds or thousands of times, but she always came back. So it's reasonable to assume that the next time she goes away, she'll come back again. This isn't faith, it's basic deduction.
Faith in your mother is much like faith in God. You know God, and know that God loves you. You believe God will do what He says, even when you can't see Him doing it right before your eyes.
No, it's not. You've seen your mother. You can touch, hear, smell, feel, or taste her (yuck... just wanted to include all five senses). Your mother is real. Your God, on the other hand, has never been seen (John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time"), has never been touched, you can't smell, you can't hear (got a tape recording?), nor can you taste (again, yuck). You have no personal evidence of ever seeing God, nor do you have evidence of God doing anything at all for that matter. Sure, you have writings (see below) of people who claim they have evidence. But you also have writings supporting Buddhism, Hindu, Muslim, and countless other religions which I'm sure you don't believe despite *their* claims to also have evidence.
First, there is actually a considerable amount of evidence to support the historicity of the Bible. In terms of the documents themselves, they are tied much closer in time to the events they record than virtually any other ancient book.
I have little doubt of the many historical facts presented in the bible. For example, I don't dispute that there was a King Herod, and that there was the Egyptian Pharoah, and that some Jews were held in captivity by the Egyptians, etc. Many scholars use the bible to research locations for archaeological digs because there are many facts which match up. Based upon this found evidence, I don't dispute that there are some biblical facts. However, this doesn't imply that the stories surrounding those facts aren't embellished.
Let me use an example. Let's say that I write a book about World War II. I can claim that the President of the USA at the time was a God and that he had incredible powers. Using his strength, he enabled troops to conquer their enemies in Europe. Because of the wicked ways of the people, he allowed the enemies to bomb Pearl Harbour. He meditated and fashioned a holy device which he gave to the Air Force, and they dropped this holy device on Hiroshima. Because of His incredible divine powers, it released an energy blast and smote all the enemies there. You get the picture. All of those "facts" can be demonstrated. Yes, you can go to Hiroshima today and examine the evidence. Was there a mighty energy explosion? Yes! Did the troops conquer their enemies in Europe? Yes! Was Pearl Harbour bombed? Yes! So then the story must be true? No! But if my book was the only one that survived and 10,000 years from now people have only my book (for whatever reason), they migh
There already a couple projects working toward cross-distro compatibily, for instance Emerde [freshmeat.net].
At first I thought that was a typo... that's it's called Emerge or something. But no, it really is named Eshit ("merde" is French for "shit"). Weird Gentoo people.;-)
What I don't see is how random changes in DNA can eventually create more quality information for new processes. I mean it's like taking a software package (eg MS Office) and randomly modifying / deleting / and inserting code segments and expecting the code to actually work, let alone work better. Just think about it, could a random process produce a better 2.6 kernel? would you trust it in a production environment?
Yes, a random process could produce a better 2.6 kernel. You're not going to get it with just a single copy mind you. Evolution works on the order of billions or trillions of copies (eg: insects) changing over millions or billions of years. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with genetic algorithms and genetic programming.
Genetic programming is just what you suggest, actually. Take a population of programs, see how well it performs a task, then randomly change those programs and see which ones perform better. Keep on going through the generations until a good solution emerges. For something like a kernel, that would take an inordinately long amount of time to evolve, but it could be done.
You're confusing theories and facts. Evolution is a fact -- since you believe in speciation, you believe in evolution. Without flogging this dead horse too much, evolution is a change in species over time. What you don't believe in is the current proposed Theory of Evolution which is what attempts to explain evolution. Similarly, you can believe in gravity (a fact) while at the same time disbelieving in the Theory of Gravity.
Actually, its not a fact that can be demonstrated. We can see changes happening within species occurring and we can see speciation occurring, however we cannot 'demonstrate' something that may have happened once, some time in the past. [emphasis mine]
But you just admitted that it happens. Change in a species occurs. This is the definition of evolution. Based on the rest of your post, you don't appear to understand this. Some theories claim that it all came from single-celled organisms bazillions of years ago. This may turn out to be wrong. But it doesn't mean that evolution isn't wrong, nor does it mean that evolution can't be demonstrated.
The underlying problem with this mindset is that (for the most part) religion relies upon faith - so there's no need to rely upon physical evidence.
Faith, at least according to the bible, is belief in something without seeing any evidence. How wise is that? Do Christian parents teach their kids to believe anything a stranger says? "Hey kid, your mother sent me in this van to come pick you up after school. I don't have any evidence to support this, but you have faith, right?"
Christians are actually proud of the fact that there is no evidence supporting their religion, then they go and get mad with scientists because there isn't enough of an abundance of evidence for them to accept evolution. Why are people willing to accept the existence of a supernatural being, despite a lack of any evidence, but they're unable to accept something like evolution because there might be some flaws in the massive amounts of evidence already supporting it?
Just remember what Pascal said: If you believe and you are wrong, you've at least led a good life; if you believe and you're right, heaven is on your way. If you don't believe and you're right, you've lived your life the way you wanted to; but if you're wrong....which outcomes pan out the best?
Sure, you can keep on believing in the God of the bible, but at your own peril! I am here to tell you about the Great Banana and I have my own wager to propose. If you believe in the Great Banana and He doesn't exist, you've at least led a good life. If you believe and you're right, you get a great reward of bananas. If you don't believe and you're right, then nothing lost. But if you don't believe and you're wrong, not only will you be continually ground up into banana tree fertilizer, but also all of humanity will too.
See, there's a much greater downside to not believing in the Great Banana than there is in not believing in the God of the bible. Therefore, since you're reducing everything to simple comparisons, it makes much more sense for you to believe in the Great Banana. Trust me. It's a very appealing religion, just make sure you don't slip in your faith.
Evolution is simply a change in species over time. That's it, really. I'm not aware of a means of demonstrating this without resorting to things from the present compared to things from the past. In that sense, you're absolutely right -- it's not like mathematics where you can take a sheet of paper and develop a proof from fundamental principles which is time-independent.
Actually, it's a bit of a "duh" kind of thing. Can a species change? Consider the opposite question: Is it impossible for a species to change at all? I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that's true. It's easy to find concrete evidence of a species which changed in some way. So if it's false that it's impossible for a species to change, then it must be true that a species can change. (Again, the "duh" factor.) So evolution, by definition, exists.
I think what you're alluding to is the evolution from one distinct species to another, as in the common ancestor theory. Well, that's a bit more challenging.:)
Yes, exactly. That evolution occurs is a fact which can be demonstrated. On the other hand, the theory, which tries to explain how evolution works, could be inaccurate/wrong. The theory itself may change many times and might be completely overhauled for some new radical explanation. However, regardless of whether or not we understand the mechanisms behind it, nothing can change the fact that evolution exists.
You feel free to ask them to make those changes to your agreement. You also feel free to start sending out your resumes to other companies... It is highly unlikely that they are going to allow you to make these changes and keep your job.
Bad advice. If you are the type of person who will just sign any old contract because "well, that's just the way it's gotta be", then what kind of message does that send to the company? Are they going to want to put you in a position of greater responsibility if you simply let suppliers, partners, etc. dictate the terms of any company agreements without running it through legal advice first?
Having a lawyer review the contract sends the message that you're serious about the job, that you're willing to make sure the agreement stands up to scrutiny. The company should surely understand this. The way it's currently setup, based on the description, means that if you wrote a novel on your own time and published it, the novel would become the company's property. This is clearly unacceptable. Do not pass go, but spend your $200 to protect your own brain.
Where is the demo? I go to Macsoft's Halo page and see a nice collection of screenshots, but is there a downloadable demo? Perhaps that link to "Preview" is it. Nope, that just goes to a review article on Apple's site. Well, maybe they're just really trying to sell it. Maybe it's really under the Game Demos & Updates page. Sorry, not there either.
The real reason why people are downloading the pirate version is because that's all that's available for them to download if they want to try it out on their system. And let's face it -- this isn't the early 1990's anymore where you have to trust some biased Mac magazine who gives a favorable review because Macsoft spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a multi-page ad campaign. Everyone checks the review sites to see how it fares instead of just rushing out to buy it. And guess what... they're finding out it's junk.
Macsoft, some of your products are great (Neverwinter!!) but you're not going to sell a whole lot of games with your "Trust Us" approach. Put out a demo and let people give it a spin. If it's good, there's a good chance they'll buy it. If they don't buy it after trying it out, then it's your own damned fault for putting out such a lousy product. But don't blame the p2p networks for spoiling sales of the stinker called Halo.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's what you're gonna get, lad...
What? The curtains?
Somebody, please, monitor this bug (or teach me how to monitor it)
1. Read Slashdot
2. Wait for announcement of fix
3. Attain Enlightenment
You can read all the details on Monkey Lives here.
I hear Mozart is decomposing his next masterpiece as we speak!
Actually, that show got cancelled. The new one is called "Trading Kidneys" where a US doctor and an Indian doctor need to transplant each others kidneys into themselves.
I hear you can get one of those new-fangled telephones which allow you to call a person by dialing only the number, bypassing the old operator-assisted phone calling where you needed to know the party's name as well as routing number.
It just means that it goes into the burn bag rather than into the trash can. When I was in the military, *everything* went into the burn bag. Did an exercise with bogus data? Burn baby, burn! Not sure if everywhere is like that, but they took that attitude that it's better to be safe.
In my "dictionary", the term Creationist implies one who believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that Noah's Ark is a 100% literal account, the universe was created in the span of seven 24 hour days, languages didn't evolve throughout time but were created at once at the Tower of Babel, evolution is an elaborate scientific hoax, etc. So to me, you're not a Creationist.
Using your version, even an atheist is a Creationist because the current universe is the result of a big bang explosion or something similar, and was "created" as a result of that event (as opposed to being created by the will of an omnipotent mystical being).
oops, you're right... mea culpa. I should have read it a bit closer. :)
For this to actually be useful we would need a platform that can execute ternary code natively.
All you really need is a simulator. This is easily done with any sort of Virtual Machine which is able to run a ternary instruction set.
I almost shot coffee out of my nose when I heard MacBand.com's #2 rated song, "Bounce". Definitely needs more cowbell!
You're correct -- I should have said Creationists (a subset of Christianity), not Christians in general. With this correction, my argument still stands.
I think that you have a faulty view of faith. You seem to be depicting faith as a rube like acceptance of any assertion that someone makes to you. That isn't even close to the meaning of faith. (Pardon me for the following broad assumption...) When you were a child, and your mother said that she was going to the store to buy some milk and would be back shortly, did you worry that something else was going to happen? Did you worry that she might sneak off and leave you? That she wouldn't come back ever? If you and your mother are like most people, the answer is no. You might not have wanted to be parted from her, but you "knew" she would come back.
You point out the flaw in your own argument. The first time you were parted from your mother, I bet you cried and cried... because you *didn't* know she would come back. However, after many times of your mother going away and then coming back again, you learned that going away doesn't mean forever -- it just means a temporary thing. Thus, while you could still call it a certain amount of faith, it's still simply extrapolating based upon past evidence. Your mother has "left" you hundreds or thousands of times, but she always came back. So it's reasonable to assume that the next time she goes away, she'll come back again. This isn't faith, it's basic deduction.
Faith in your mother is much like faith in God. You know God, and know that God loves you. You believe God will do what He says, even when you can't see Him doing it right before your eyes.
No, it's not. You've seen your mother. You can touch, hear, smell, feel, or taste her (yuck... just wanted to include all five senses). Your mother is real. Your God, on the other hand, has never been seen (John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time"), has never been touched, you can't smell, you can't hear (got a tape recording?), nor can you taste (again, yuck). You have no personal evidence of ever seeing God, nor do you have evidence of God doing anything at all for that matter. Sure, you have writings (see below) of people who claim they have evidence. But you also have writings supporting Buddhism, Hindu, Muslim, and countless other religions which I'm sure you don't believe despite *their* claims to also have evidence.
First, there is actually a considerable amount of evidence to support the historicity of the Bible. In terms of the documents themselves, they are tied much closer in time to the events they record than virtually any other ancient book.
I have little doubt of the many historical facts presented in the bible. For example, I don't dispute that there was a King Herod, and that there was the Egyptian Pharoah, and that some Jews were held in captivity by the Egyptians, etc. Many scholars use the bible to research locations for archaeological digs because there are many facts which match up. Based upon this found evidence, I don't dispute that there are some biblical facts. However, this doesn't imply that the stories surrounding those facts aren't embellished.
Let me use an example. Let's say that I write a book about World War II. I can claim that the President of the USA at the time was a God and that he had incredible powers. Using his strength, he enabled troops to conquer their enemies in Europe. Because of the wicked ways of the people, he allowed the enemies to bomb Pearl Harbour. He meditated and fashioned a holy device which he gave to the Air Force, and they dropped this holy device on Hiroshima. Because of His incredible divine powers, it released an energy blast and smote all the enemies there. You get the picture. All of those "facts" can be demonstrated. Yes, you can go to Hiroshima today and examine the evidence. Was there a mighty energy explosion? Yes! Did the troops conquer their enemies in Europe? Yes! Was Pearl Harbour bombed? Yes! So then the story must be true? No! But if my book was the only one that survived and 10,000 years from now people have only my book (for whatever reason), they migh
There already a couple projects working toward cross-distro compatibily, for instance Emerde [freshmeat.net].
;-)
At first I thought that was a typo... that's it's called Emerge or something. But no, it really is named Eshit ("merde" is French for "shit"). Weird Gentoo people.
What I don't see is how random changes in DNA can eventually create more quality information for new processes.
I mean it's like taking a software package (eg MS Office) and randomly modifying / deleting / and inserting code segments and expecting the code to actually work, let alone work better. Just think about it, could a random process produce a better 2.6 kernel? would you trust it in a production environment?
Yes, a random process could produce a better 2.6 kernel. You're not going to get it with just a single copy mind you. Evolution works on the order of billions or trillions of copies (eg: insects) changing over millions or billions of years. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with genetic algorithms and genetic programming.
Genetic programming is just what you suggest, actually. Take a population of programs, see how well it performs a task, then randomly change those programs and see which ones perform better. Keep on going through the generations until a good solution emerges. For something like a kernel, that would take an inordinately long amount of time to evolve, but it could be done.
You're confusing theories and facts. Evolution is a fact -- since you believe in speciation, you believe in evolution. Without flogging this dead horse too much, evolution is a change in species over time. What you don't believe in is the current proposed Theory of Evolution which is what attempts to explain evolution. Similarly, you can believe in gravity (a fact) while at the same time disbelieving in the Theory of Gravity.
Actually, its not a fact that can be demonstrated. We can see changes happening within species occurring and we can see speciation occurring, however we cannot 'demonstrate' something that may have happened once, some time in the past. [emphasis mine]
But you just admitted that it happens. Change in a species occurs. This is the definition of evolution. Based on the rest of your post, you don't appear to understand this. Some theories claim that it all came from single-celled organisms bazillions of years ago. This may turn out to be wrong. But it doesn't mean that evolution isn't wrong, nor does it mean that evolution can't be demonstrated.
The underlying problem with this mindset is that (for the most part) religion relies upon faith - so there's no need to rely upon physical evidence.
Faith, at least according to the bible, is belief in something without seeing any evidence. How wise is that? Do Christian parents teach their kids to believe anything a stranger says? "Hey kid, your mother sent me in this van to come pick you up after school. I don't have any evidence to support this, but you have faith, right?"
Christians are actually proud of the fact that there is no evidence supporting their religion, then they go and get mad with scientists because there isn't enough of an abundance of evidence for them to accept evolution. Why are people willing to accept the existence of a supernatural being, despite a lack of any evidence, but they're unable to accept something like evolution because there might be some flaws in the massive amounts of evidence already supporting it?
Just remember what Pascal said: If you believe and you are wrong, you've at least led a good life; if you believe and you're right, heaven is on your way. If you don't believe and you're right, you've lived your life the way you wanted to; but if you're wrong....which outcomes pan out the best?
Sure, you can keep on believing in the God of the bible, but at your own peril! I am here to tell you about the Great Banana and I have my own wager to propose. If you believe in the Great Banana and He doesn't exist, you've at least led a good life. If you believe and you're right, you get a great reward of bananas. If you don't believe and you're right, then nothing lost. But if you don't believe and you're wrong, not only will you be continually ground up into banana tree fertilizer, but also all of humanity will too.
See, there's a much greater downside to not believing in the Great Banana than there is in not believing in the God of the bible. Therefore, since you're reducing everything to simple comparisons, it makes much more sense for you to believe in the Great Banana. Trust me. It's a very appealing religion, just make sure you don't slip in your faith.
Evolution is simply a change in species over time. That's it, really. I'm not aware of a means of demonstrating this without resorting to things from the present compared to things from the past. In that sense, you're absolutely right -- it's not like mathematics where you can take a sheet of paper and develop a proof from fundamental principles which is time-independent.
:)
Actually, it's a bit of a "duh" kind of thing. Can a species change? Consider the opposite question: Is it impossible for a species to change at all? I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that's true. It's easy to find concrete evidence of a species which changed in some way. So if it's false that it's impossible for a species to change, then it must be true that a species can change. (Again, the "duh" factor.) So evolution, by definition, exists.
I think what you're alluding to is the evolution from one distinct species to another, as in the common ancestor theory. Well, that's a bit more challenging.
Just like the Theory of Evolution.
Yes, exactly. That evolution occurs is a fact which can be demonstrated. On the other hand, the theory, which tries to explain how evolution works, could be inaccurate/wrong. The theory itself may change many times and might be completely overhauled for some new radical explanation. However, regardless of whether or not we understand the mechanisms behind it, nothing can change the fact that evolution exists.
See: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
You feel free to ask them to make those changes to your agreement. You also feel free to start sending out your resumes to other companies... It is highly unlikely that they are going to allow you to make these changes and keep your job.
Bad advice. If you are the type of person who will just sign any old contract because "well, that's just the way it's gotta be", then what kind of message does that send to the company? Are they going to want to put you in a position of greater responsibility if you simply let suppliers, partners, etc. dictate the terms of any company agreements without running it through legal advice first?
Having a lawyer review the contract sends the message that you're serious about the job, that you're willing to make sure the agreement stands up to scrutiny. The company should surely understand this. The way it's currently setup, based on the description, means that if you wrote a novel on your own time and published it, the novel would become the company's property. This is clearly unacceptable. Do not pass go, but spend your $200 to protect your own brain.
Is that even considered a browser these days? :)
Where is the demo? I go to Macsoft's Halo page and see a nice collection of screenshots, but is there a downloadable demo? Perhaps that link to "Preview" is it. Nope, that just goes to a review article on Apple's site. Well, maybe they're just really trying to sell it. Maybe it's really under the Game Demos & Updates page. Sorry, not there either.
The real reason why people are downloading the pirate version is because that's all that's available for them to download if they want to try it out on their system. And let's face it -- this isn't the early 1990's anymore where you have to trust some biased Mac magazine who gives a favorable review because Macsoft spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a multi-page ad campaign. Everyone checks the review sites to see how it fares instead of just rushing out to buy it. And guess what... they're finding out it's junk.
Macsoft, some of your products are great (Neverwinter!!) but you're not going to sell a whole lot of games with your "Trust Us" approach. Put out a demo and let people give it a spin. If it's good, there's a good chance they'll buy it. If they don't buy it after trying it out, then it's your own damned fault for putting out such a lousy product. But don't blame the p2p networks for spoiling sales of the stinker called Halo.
We did it with hamsters, if I remember the control hamster got fatter than astro-hamster, but since there were just the two hamsters, well ...
You misspelled flatter.
... and if you really want to play with his mind, "404 not found"