Sorry folks, though, I just DON'T have much sympathy on this point. Here's why: the US has a NUMBER of mapping services, and extensive maps available at this time. Although very us-centric, Google knows their audience, and will probably put maps for other parts of the world on localized versions of the site (eg, maps.google.co.uk or mapas.google.pt). That would make much more sense than trying to give a map for the entire world on a single page.
Second, this is still only BETA. It is GOOD, but it is only BETA. Expect additional countries to surface as it approaches full utility.
Finally, Google IS a US-based country. It wouldn't make much sense for them to start with Ethopia, now would it? Should they have included Canada or Mexico? Perhaps, but what they have is pretty impressive as it is. Give them TIME.
And the same happens with Ubuntu, Vidalinux, and even Linspire. There is only a matter if someone has set the BIOS to boot only from the HDD, and NEVER from the CDROM, which happens on some companies' computers.
As an aside, I've never installed OSX, so I don't know exactly how it works. I was just saying that the other person was being more than a little short sighted.
It isn't that games, when programmed for linux have a hard time. Quite the contrary, they work great. The real issue is something much more difficult.
First there are the 3d video driver issues, once almost impossible to set up properly, it is now a matter that is only moderately difficult on some distributions. This is partly due to lack of free fully functional nvidia drivers (and I'm not entirely certain about ATI stuff--don't use ATI).
Second, and even more difficult, is the problem of GETTING COMPANIES TO PUBLISH FOR LINUX. Like the Mac, which does have games, just not always concurrently with PC, linux does not have as much market share. Thus, when it comes time to crunch numbers, the accountants realize that it doesn't make much sense to spend $300,000 to develop a linux version, when you only get $30,000 in sales. Granted, I made those numbers up, but you get the picture.
This problem is even more noticeable, when you realize that companies can't tell what OS you run under (unless we are talking about MMORPG's where you have to use their servers, but they would have to code that separately) unless you tell them. Based on the company, or the individual, having no clear idea of who is using the game for linux, and who is using it for windows (especially since no one wants to buy the linux-only version), there is little clear idea of how many people are actually running the game under linux. Less financial incentive all the time.
There is no clear solution to this, and there is a third problem. The perception by many folks that Linux is either a hobbyist OS OR for servers, many bean-counters don't see the market at all.
Want to fix this problem? Make sure that you write the company you like and ask, very politely, for them to publish a linux version of the game. If they get a thousand or so emails, they will, if they are smart, realize that for everyone that sent an email, there are probably five or ten more that feel the same way, but didn't email. That will get them thinking about linux as a gaming platfrom.
BTW, while we are at it, would everyone email Square and tell them to publish ALL the final fantasy games for the PC (windows and linux--maybe even Mac)? I REALLY want them all on the PC. While their at it, updating FFVII and FFVIII to be able to use a modern video card would be a wonderful thing as well!
Not to start an argument on statistical data, but in this context, likely means that although there is a statistically significant difference in driving ability (measured as time to onset of braking when the car in front of you brakes), there is the chance that a particular individual will not be impaired (small), or that a particular trial will show no impairment.
Looking at the article in Human Factors in 2003 by Strayer and Drews, the effect size is high enough to make me take this seriously.
There is the problem that you mention--that someone in the passenger seat might cause just as much trouble, but frankly, THERE ISN't MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT THAT!
I understand your skepticism--it's a good and healthy approach to new research, but unless you take the time to actually read the source article, then you are doing yourself a disservice. News sources such as ABC are always looking for a way to get people interested, and talking about children will get viewers and hits on their site. I doubt that this is the primary motivation for the research, however.
Although I am not at University of Utah, there is a driving simulator in the psych department here at Clemson, and I have played with it a bit. Most of the people that regularly use it for research have a single concern--saving lives by figuring out what makes people unsafe drivers.
The impairment level involved in using a cell phone is important. It was once thought that it was only due to using your hands, but now it's becoming evident that it is the continual conversation.
The interesting study would be to compare the effects of a passenger, but thinking about it, I would guess that a passenger wouldn't be as bad as a cell phone, because they can see the road and driving conditions, and shut up when necessary, or even tell the driver to pay attention to the road.
Last comment--an interesting component of the one study looked at the effect of traffic density, and found that traffic density alone did NOT impair driving ability, but when combined with cell phone usage, there was a different effect than without. (The study does not provide enough data to know exactly what that effect was). This means that driving with a cell phone is MORE dangerous than driving in high-density traffic.
Granted, but the argument remains--it is a matter of familiarity, NOT COMPLEXITY that keeps people on windows.
If you are a noob windows user, and set up windows from scratch (as most people would do with linux), there are as many tasks (and more reboots) to get the system fully functional as there are with most linux distros. Video drivers, office suites (installed by default on many linux distros), printers, odd device drivers (video capture anyone?), and more. Windows, like linux, has many of the drivers for more common and older hardware loaded on the disk.
Under windows you also need to go to the windows update site and get a lot of patches (and this will often get your other drivers, but not always the latest version).
I'm not arguing that either is really easier, but that they are comparable, and really, in many cases, NOT designed for non-geeks. Microsoft, if they had their way, would NEVER let end users install windows on a blank machine. They know that if they don't make this available, however, that many geeks will do worse things, such as installing linux or pirating windows.
As I see it, MS would prefer to only make pc's available preloaded with windows, and the only way to get a new version of windows is upgrade. They don't do this because there are too many other products--it doesn't make economic sense.
As for OSX, is that from a previous version, or from a clean box? Oh, wait--that's right, there is no 'clean box' for mac users. You HAVE to upgrade. Which is exactly what I said MS would like to be able to do. Apple can do it only because they have custom hardware. If MS has their way with things (DRM and controlled BIOS), they will have as much control over PC hardware as Apple does, and then you will have only two choices--MS or MAC.
Would it be possible to make a distro that works like this: insert linux cd into ANY computer that is already running or even a clean machine and BAM!--15 minutes later you have a working machine with a completely new OS--you would even get to keep your old OS if you wanted.
IIRC, the linspire install could start from within windows. It should be possible to do what I describe. There wouldn't need to be more than just a few options and the entire process could be done easily enough. What's more is you could set it up so that you choose ALL of your options BEFORE rebooting for installation, and it does the work once your done.
Is all this possible? Certainly. Is it worthwhile? Absolutely. Apparently, linux doesn't just need to be as good as windows, it has to be 3-5 times better IN EVERY REGARD. Hmm, maybe there is a usability improvement threshold that must be surpassed in order to convince people to make the change. This would be an interesting study.
As some one else pointed out, the winXP setup is not any more freindly than the Ubuntu Setup (which by the way, is MUCH better than the winXP setup, when you get right down to it--faster too).
I would be 100% confident in handing the Ubuntu disk to anyone and saying here, install this, and know that they could do it, provided they know two things: how to put the disk in, and how to reboot the computer. A few MIGHT have trouble getting their computer to boot from cd, but they would be the minority. Everyone else would end up with a fully functioning Ubuntu linux installation. Of course, they would also be sans windows, but that's not so bad, now is it.
I do have some other gripes with Ubuntu (it doesn't recognize my epson cx5200, which mandrake does), but they are minor. Personally, I think that their installer needs work, for ANYTHING other than the basic installation.
I promise that if you handed a winxp disc to most people, they would end up with a functioning system only after much confusion. I mean, NTFS or FAT32? What in the name of $person is that? Ubuntu gives even less control than windows, but it's not any worse.
Oh, and another thing, Ubuntu, like Linspire, installs in a flash (sub 15 minutes for a working system on a reasonably modern computer). Compare this to the 30+ minute install for ANY version of windows (well, maybe not 3.11, but I've never installed that).
I have yet to see a refutation of the Mismeasure of Man.
Hernstein & Murray were heavily criticized for their work, since many of the studies were not very solid, and have been shown as such.
Murray's mistake lies in factor analysis, and how he approached that particular field.
The problem with intelligence testing in general is that you are collapsing a wide and varied group of abilities into a set of numbers that are supposed to represent ability, sometimes even a single number. This number, although interesting, does not capture the complexities of human intelligence accurately. Murray knew this--he had to, but he, like many others, made the mistake of treating IQ as a simple object.
Your final statement shows that you know very little about IQ testing. IQ 124 is only about 1.4 standard deviations (SD=15) above the mean (100), for the ENTIRE POPULATION. That is, the standard deviation used on IQ tests is based on scores for a representative sample of the population, and adjusted for various errors. This means, quite simply, that an IQ of 124 is not only reachable for women, but for a sizeable portion of them. There are few gender differences in IQ (it is very small), and more differences within gender than between.
Sorry, but I have to conclude that you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.
This is true for both gender and racial differences. It is usually the fact that the variation between the two groups is LESS than the variation within the groups.
In plain English, this means that the standard deviation (look it up, this is news for nerds) of math ability in females is greater than the difference in means between males and females (loosely speaking), such that the mean of math ability in males falls within one standard deviation of the mean of math ability for females. This means that although there is a statistically significant difference between the means, that difference is so small that it makes little, if any, difference in the grand scheme of things, and could easily be explained by other factors.
As a note, there was some absolute *genius* that claimed that there was no way to tell if math ability was due to differences in gender or socialization. Geniusboy, you are so wrong. What about taking a cross-cultural sample (just a simple two second idea)? There are expiremental methods, and statistical methods to tease that type of information out. It is difficult, to be sure, and maybe no one has ever done it, but it is NOT impossible. (There is the possibility that it would be unethical, but that's a different ballgame).
Just another point--there is a REAL and statistically significant difference in performance on IQ tests between blacks and whites. This difference is close to 1/2 to 1 standard deviation, depending on the area and exact test. This difference is dissappearing, slowly, as certain things happen, but it is still there. But that difference is small enough that you cannot make the assumption that any individual member of the opposite race from you will be smarter or dumber, especially if you are an average intelligence white person. To do so would be STUPID!
The same is true of males v. females and math ability. Sure, there may be a difference, but I wouldn't say that I am better than any given female at math until I had seen evidence of that.
Better yet, don't read the Bell Curve. Hernstein and Murray were lambasted to hell and back in the scientific community for that particular peice of work, AND WITH GOOD REASON!
If you MUST read it, follow it with the ultimate criticism thereof--The Mismeasure of Man.
Until december I was running a GF2MX400 (just upgraded to a GFFX5700LE by Gigabyte)! And I got decent framerates at low res (800x600) on UT2004 (30 to 40 fps), both under windows and linux.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but nvidia's unified driver architecture is fairly straightforward--all geforce cards are run using one driver. This is true under both windows and linux, and I think that's a good thing.
There are some drawbacks, and I'm sure that if they had separate drivers for each line, the download would be smaller.
I thought my card was old (bought in 2000) until I started talking to some friends. One of them still had a nVidia TNT card. Yikes!
I understand the premise of science and falsifiability as well as the next person, and that's why I think the whole debate is silly. But I hear atheists and others saying that xyz scientific discovery proves there is no God, and I think about how foolish they are.
You are absolutely correct--I can't prove/disprove God, and as a devout believer, I have one perspective on why that is, and those who are not believers have another. I am okay with that. It makes me sad, at times, because of my belief of what will happen to those who refuse to believe, but generally I find that my belief makes me happier and gives my comfort. I think it makes me a better person.
Fortunately, I am not trying to prove the truth of my position to the world, but rather, I am trying to prove the worth of my beliefs by showing that they make me more tolerant, more free, more accepting and more interesting to be around.
By nature, I am not a very accepting person, but I find that my religion, and the God that I worship, wants me to be more accepting of others and their viewpoints, so I try.
But I'm rambling. I guess my whole point is that they reasons that you point out is what makes the whole religion vs. science debate rather silly. Hugh Nibley, who taught ancient (Middle Eastern and Egyptian) history at BYU for many years was once asked if religion and history conflict. His answer was in two parts: first, whose religion and whose history--if both were perfectly accurate, there would be no discrepancies; second, why does it matter? There is no need for the debate in many ways.
From a man who spent many hours researching historical proofs of the Book of Mormon, this is an interesting tidbit. The point is that the whole debate is academic, and when it comes down to it, the point of religion is to make people better.
Yes, but it doesn't necessitate the belief in Macro Evolution, or the development of humans from single-celled organisms or amino acids over billions of years.
There is no "logic" that requires that step in belief. Many people believe it, but it doesn't make it so, and I think that is the crux of the argument.
The stickers in question are both true (in the sense that evolution is a theory), and misleading (disclaimer: I am a devout Christian). Evolution, as described in the LMNO (and even P) scenario above, occurs as nearly as we can tell. There are many data points and data sets that seem to confirm this, and I believe that the preponderance of data is in favor of micro-evolution.
There is nothing, however, in that theory that *requires* macro-evolution to be the method by which sentient life arrived on this earth. Natural selection (as a concept of survival of the fittest) doesn't even require macro evolution.
The sticker, as worded, is technically true--evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. But that only sounds bad if you don't like theories, and don't like dealing with probability. Theories are systems or mechanisms that describe a process. Many theories are well known, and used to good effect (gravity, relativity, etc), and very few credible folks take umbrage over them being called theories (Theory of General Relativity).
Evolution, however, is a sticky thing, and I'm not sure why some scientists take umbrage over it being called a theory, when that's exactly what it is. If you don't like that, figure out a way to unequivocally prove it (and good luck). You'll quickly find that even the most carefully controlled experiment shows some slight variation, and someone will take issue with that.
Does evolution need to be a "fact" before it is taught in schools? No. But I think that young children should be taught more important things, such as logic, reasoning, math (calculus, algebra, statistics), and reading/writing long before the sciences are presented, so that when such things as the theory of evolution are presented, or relativity for that matter, they can actually evaluate them properly, and understand what the real relations between laws, data (facts), and theories are.
As for this sticker being unconstitutional, I disagree. It is perhaps unwise, but it encourages a skeptical approach to evolution. This is a good thing, since it is unwise to accept any theory, or assertion at face value. Even religion (remember, I am a devout Christian who believes that the earth was created (although organized is a better word) in 7 periods, including a single period for rest) should be evaluated carefully.
This whole debate about proof of macro-evolution is rather silly, however. It only matters if you think that proof of macro-evolution would disprove the existence of God, and that it is important to you to prove that. Since I don't think that proof of macro E would disprove God's existence (talking about my personal beliefs now, not what you may believe), then macro is a non-issue.
Having read some of the replies to your post, let me extend my sympathies--there are some true jerks in the woods, and you have real (and serious) condition.
I have gained a lot of weight since I had children, for the exact reason you mention--lack of sleep. When the kids wake me up 5 - 8 (or more) times in a night (sick, nightmares, etc), I don't feel rested, and then to keep myself going, I eat a LOT of snack foods (chocolate being my favorite). These provide the energy I need, but also are very fattening. Thus I have gained weight.
I find that regular exercise helps--for some reason I don't need as much sleep when I am physically fit, and I don't feel as dragged out.
Good luck, and hopefully you'll find your solution.
Re:Did you have to be under 15 to vote?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 1
I'll have to check out the Buckaroo Banzai dvd--it's hard to find the vhs version round here, though, let alone the dvd.
I find that relatively few folks in my age group are familiar with it though, and I find that very disturbing--its a classic (mayhap a cult classic, but that's okay).
Some others have pointed out flaws in your reasoning, let me make a more concerted argument.
Many people, and apparently yourself included, suppose that if God does something, then it must be through some "magical" process that we mere mortals can never hope to understand. Many religions state this outright--"God is unknowable, etc".
I personally believe that this concept is false. Personally my belief in God incorporates a being that knows everything, and has enough knowledge that what looks like a miracle to us is merely the workings of a sound scientific principle--even if we haven't fully discovered said principle. Thus, the concept of a God who can work miracles (from our viewpoint) is once again realistic. So the corrally of "Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it was God" is simply: "Just because science CAN explain something doesn't mean that it WASN'T God".
This is why the concept (if not the particulars) of ID appeals to me--it articulates the concept that a being with sufficient knowledge could have created not just this planet, but the entire universe as we understand it (thus existing outside of that work, and separate from it).
Look at our sci-fi for examples of this--in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a whole civilization that makes a habit of building custom designed planets. In Star Trek, terraforming is occasionally addressed. Finally, in Titan A.E., a ship is built that creates a planet from ice, energy and asteroids with the goal of recreating the earth.
Think about this--in the Bible Christ turns water into Wine. It says nothing on how, but I think that we can all easily imagine that this might be possible in the not too distant future. The mechanism might vary, but the point is that a miracle is simply an event that we do not fully yet understand. Does it make it any less miraculous that Christ, without medical tools, restored sight to a blind man, just because we are going to be able to do that ourselves before too long, using certain surguries, and whatnot? I don't think so.
So, yes, I believe in God. Do I have proof? Well, not the kind that most slashdotters are going to accept, but I accept it, and that's what matters.
You are essentially correct, but legally wrong. The framers may have only had individuals in mind, and I think that they did, but AFAIK, that was changed with an amendment somewhere back in the late 1800's/early 1900's.
I personally think it was a poor decision on the part of congress. Corporations should not have more than a limited set of rights, although the individuals running the corporations should NOT have their own rights abridged by virtue of running the corporation. Rather, they should be liable for the actions of the corporation when an illegal act is performed.
IANAL either, but I do know that their is good reason to give corporations SOME legal rights, but I think that the legal power of the corporations is far too broad, and could lead to serious problems one day.
You are wrong. Facts are simply datum. It is a fact that the surface temperature of the sun is x billion degrees. That is a fact. A mere data point that can give us insight into the universe. It is also a fact that a pure water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. These are facts.
What you probably meant was that there cannot be Laws, which are like theories in that they are based on research. Take the Laws of Thermodynamics. These are generally accepted as being inviolate. They don't necessarily dictate the means, but they do work. If what you say is true, then you would accept the possibility of getting more energy/mass out of a system than was put into it. Most physicists (if not all) would probably balk at such a conclusion.
I do agree, however, that the headline is misleading--nothing has been solved, we just found another data point (a "fact" if you will) in the grand scheme of things.
I personally subscribe to the line of thought that given INFINITE time, it is possible for humans to discover every detail of how every field of science works, and how all those fields are related. Essentially, given infinite time, we could then predict, with perfect accuracy, what will happen in the universe at any given point in the future, barring external intervention. I'm not sure if I extend this to perfectly predicting human behavior, since I do subscribe to the concept of agency (that is, I believe that humans have the ability to truly choose their own actions, and that they are not limited in those actions by genetic or biological factors). But given infinite time, I think even that is possible.
Neat thing about nVidia, they did one of the smartest things they could have a while back with their unified driver system. Get a new card? No problem if you have the latest driver just drop it in and away you go--no updates, no changes, nothing. Just install the hardware. It is one of the best systems I have EVER seen in terms of hardware that gets upgraded often.
Say what you will, but the folks at nVidia are SMART. They have a good sense of what customers want, and how that compares to what they say they want. This evidenced by the fact that they support so many operating systems. nVidia users wanted that support, so they got it. They are not perfect, but they do have a good system.
Now, a word on Linux gaming. I am a grad student, which means that I have fairly limited income, but I still pay for, and use, Cedega. Why? Because I believe in what they are doing. Is it perfect? Not remotely, since it requires that folks use another layer, but it enables folks to ditch windows in a major way without having to fear the loss of their games. When I have the cash, I plan to similarly donate/buy Crossover office for the same reason--its useful in a major way.
There are variety of reasons I don't like Windows, but having recently set up my mother with Ubuntu Linux (which is nice), I have to say that there are fewer and fewer reasons for me to keep windows. Those reasons include a few win-only games for my kids, a few programs my wife uses (including Pampered Partner from the Pampered Chef), and a few statistical packages that I use for school. Once I get rid of those needs, or a program to run them pops up, then I'll be happy.
Slashdot Mirror
*ahem* That is to say, Google is a US-based COMPANY.
My apologies to everyone for the SLIGHT mis-statement. I was typing fast, I am very sleep deprived, and yes, Google is HUGE.
Oh well.
don't forget about Israel.
Sorry folks, though, I just DON'T have much sympathy on this point. Here's why: the US has a NUMBER of mapping services, and extensive maps available at this time. Although very us-centric, Google knows their audience, and will probably put maps for other parts of the world on localized versions of the site (eg, maps.google.co.uk or mapas.google.pt). That would make much more sense than trying to give a map for the entire world on a single page.
Second, this is still only BETA. It is GOOD, but it is only BETA. Expect additional countries to surface as it approaches full utility.
Finally, Google IS a US-based country. It wouldn't make much sense for them to start with Ethopia, now would it? Should they have included Canada or Mexico? Perhaps, but what they have is pretty impressive as it is. Give them TIME.
And the same happens with Ubuntu, Vidalinux, and even Linspire. There is only a matter if someone has set the BIOS to boot only from the HDD, and NEVER from the CDROM, which happens on some companies' computers.
As an aside, I've never installed OSX, so I don't know exactly how it works. I was just saying that the other person was being more than a little short sighted.
It isn't that games, when programmed for linux have a hard time. Quite the contrary, they work great. The real issue is something much more difficult.
First there are the 3d video driver issues, once almost impossible to set up properly, it is now a matter that is only moderately difficult on some distributions. This is partly due to lack of free fully functional nvidia drivers (and I'm not entirely certain about ATI stuff--don't use ATI).
Second, and even more difficult, is the problem of GETTING COMPANIES TO PUBLISH FOR LINUX. Like the Mac, which does have games, just not always concurrently with PC, linux does not have as much market share. Thus, when it comes time to crunch numbers, the accountants realize that it doesn't make much sense to spend $300,000 to develop a linux version, when you only get $30,000 in sales. Granted, I made those numbers up, but you get the picture.
This problem is even more noticeable, when you realize that companies can't tell what OS you run under (unless we are talking about MMORPG's where you have to use their servers, but they would have to code that separately) unless you tell them. Based on the company, or the individual, having no clear idea of who is using the game for linux, and who is using it for windows (especially since no one wants to buy the linux-only version), there is little clear idea of how many people are actually running the game under linux. Less financial incentive all the time.
There is no clear solution to this, and there is a third problem. The perception by many folks that Linux is either a hobbyist OS OR for servers, many bean-counters don't see the market at all.
Want to fix this problem? Make sure that you write the company you like and ask, very politely, for them to publish a linux version of the game. If they get a thousand or so emails, they will, if they are smart, realize that for everyone that sent an email, there are probably five or ten more that feel the same way, but didn't email. That will get them thinking about linux as a gaming platfrom.
BTW, while we are at it, would everyone email Square and tell them to publish ALL the final fantasy games for the PC (windows and linux--maybe even Mac)? I REALLY want them all on the PC. While their at it, updating FFVII and FFVIII to be able to use a modern video card would be a wonderful thing as well!
Nice thing is that most of those errors are not going to be too tough to kill.. By this time tommorrow, it should be compliant.
Not to start an argument on statistical data, but in this context, likely means that although there is a statistically significant difference in driving ability (measured as time to onset of braking when the car in front of you brakes), there is the chance that a particular individual will not be impaired (small), or that a particular trial will show no impairment.
Looking at the article in Human Factors in 2003 by Strayer and Drews, the effect size is high enough to make me take this seriously.
There is the problem that you mention--that someone in the passenger seat might cause just as much trouble, but frankly, THERE ISN't MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT THAT!
I understand your skepticism--it's a good and healthy approach to new research, but unless you take the time to actually read the source article, then you are doing yourself a disservice. News sources such as ABC are always looking for a way to get people interested, and talking about children will get viewers and hits on their site. I doubt that this is the primary motivation for the research, however.
Although I am not at University of Utah, there is a driving simulator in the psych department here at Clemson, and I have played with it a bit. Most of the people that regularly use it for research have a single concern--saving lives by figuring out what makes people unsafe drivers.
The impairment level involved in using a cell phone is important. It was once thought that it was only due to using your hands, but now it's becoming evident that it is the continual conversation.
The interesting study would be to compare the effects of a passenger, but thinking about it, I would guess that a passenger wouldn't be as bad as a cell phone, because they can see the road and driving conditions, and shut up when necessary, or even tell the driver to pay attention to the road.
Last comment--an interesting component of the one study looked at the effect of traffic density, and found that traffic density alone did NOT impair driving ability, but when combined with cell phone usage, there was a different effect than without. (The study does not provide enough data to know exactly what that effect was). This means that driving with a cell phone is MORE dangerous than driving in high-density traffic.
HAND
Granted, but the argument remains--it is a matter of familiarity, NOT COMPLEXITY that keeps people on windows.
If you are a noob windows user, and set up windows from scratch (as most people would do with linux), there are as many tasks (and more reboots) to get the system fully functional as there are with most linux distros. Video drivers, office suites (installed by default on many linux distros), printers, odd device drivers (video capture anyone?), and more. Windows, like linux, has many of the drivers for more common and older hardware loaded on the disk.
Under windows you also need to go to the windows update site and get a lot of patches (and this will often get your other drivers, but not always the latest version).
I'm not arguing that either is really easier, but that they are comparable, and really, in many cases, NOT designed for non-geeks. Microsoft, if they had their way, would NEVER let end users install windows on a blank machine. They know that if they don't make this available, however, that many geeks will do worse things, such as installing linux or pirating windows.
As I see it, MS would prefer to only make pc's available preloaded with windows, and the only way to get a new version of windows is upgrade. They don't do this because there are too many other products--it doesn't make economic sense.
As for OSX, is that from a previous version, or from a clean box? Oh, wait--that's right, there is no 'clean box' for mac users. You HAVE to upgrade. Which is exactly what I said MS would like to be able to do. Apple can do it only because they have custom hardware. If MS has their way with things (DRM and controlled BIOS), they will have as much control over PC hardware as Apple does, and then you will have only two choices--MS or MAC.
Would it be possible to make a distro that works like this: insert linux cd into ANY computer that is already running or even a clean machine and BAM!--15 minutes later you have a working machine with a completely new OS--you would even get to keep your old OS if you wanted.
IIRC, the linspire install could start from within windows. It should be possible to do what I describe. There wouldn't need to be more than just a few options and the entire process could be done easily enough. What's more is you could set it up so that you choose ALL of your options BEFORE rebooting for installation, and it does the work once your done.
Is all this possible? Certainly. Is it worthwhile? Absolutely. Apparently, linux doesn't just need to be as good as windows, it has to be 3-5 times better IN EVERY REGARD. Hmm, maybe there is a usability improvement threshold that must be surpassed in order to convince people to make the change. This would be an interesting study.
As some one else pointed out, the winXP setup is not any more freindly than the Ubuntu Setup (which by the way, is MUCH better than the winXP setup, when you get right down to it--faster too).
I would be 100% confident in handing the Ubuntu disk to anyone and saying here, install this, and know that they could do it, provided they know two things: how to put the disk in, and how to reboot the computer. A few MIGHT have trouble getting their computer to boot from cd, but they would be the minority. Everyone else would end up with a fully functioning Ubuntu linux installation. Of course, they would also be sans windows, but that's not so bad, now is it.
I do have some other gripes with Ubuntu (it doesn't recognize my epson cx5200, which mandrake does), but they are minor. Personally, I think that their installer needs work, for ANYTHING other than the basic installation.
I promise that if you handed a winxp disc to most people, they would end up with a functioning system only after much confusion. I mean, NTFS or FAT32? What in the name of $person is that? Ubuntu gives even less control than windows, but it's not any worse.
Oh, and another thing, Ubuntu, like Linspire, installs in a flash (sub 15 minutes for a working system on a reasonably modern computer). Compare this to the 30+ minute install for ANY version of windows (well, maybe not 3.11, but I've never installed that).
Because even serial killers wouldn't touch that unsavory dish?
Troll on, my friend, troll on.
I have yet to see a refutation of the Mismeasure of Man.
Hernstein & Murray were heavily criticized for their work, since many of the studies were not very solid, and have been shown as such.
Murray's mistake lies in factor analysis, and how he approached that particular field.
The problem with intelligence testing in general is that you are collapsing a wide and varied group of abilities into a set of numbers that are supposed to represent ability, sometimes even a single number. This number, although interesting, does not capture the complexities of human intelligence accurately. Murray knew this--he had to, but he, like many others, made the mistake of treating IQ as a simple object.
Your final statement shows that you know very little about IQ testing. IQ 124 is only about 1.4 standard deviations (SD=15) above the mean (100), for the ENTIRE POPULATION. That is, the standard deviation used on IQ tests is based on scores for a representative sample of the population, and adjusted for various errors. This means, quite simply, that an IQ of 124 is not only reachable for women, but for a sizeable portion of them. There are few gender differences in IQ (it is very small), and more differences within gender than between.
Sorry, but I have to conclude that you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.
This is true for both gender and racial differences. It is usually the fact that the variation between the two groups is LESS than the variation within the groups.
In plain English, this means that the standard deviation (look it up, this is news for nerds) of math ability in females is greater than the difference in means between males and females (loosely speaking), such that the mean of math ability in males falls within one standard deviation of the mean of math ability for females. This means that although there is a statistically significant difference between the means, that difference is so small that it makes little, if any, difference in the grand scheme of things, and could easily be explained by other factors.
As a note, there was some absolute *genius* that claimed that there was no way to tell if math ability was due to differences in gender or socialization. Geniusboy, you are so wrong. What about taking a cross-cultural sample (just a simple two second idea)? There are expiremental methods, and statistical methods to tease that type of information out. It is difficult, to be sure, and maybe no one has ever done it, but it is NOT impossible. (There is the possibility that it would be unethical, but that's a different ballgame).
Just another point--there is a REAL and statistically significant difference in performance on IQ tests between blacks and whites. This difference is close to 1/2 to 1 standard deviation, depending on the area and exact test. This difference is dissappearing, slowly, as certain things happen, but it is still there. But that difference is small enough that you cannot make the assumption that any individual member of the opposite race from you will be smarter or dumber, especially if you are an average intelligence white person. To do so would be STUPID!
The same is true of males v. females and math ability. Sure, there may be a difference, but I wouldn't say that I am better than any given female at math until I had seen evidence of that.
Better yet, don't read the Bell Curve. Hernstein and Murray were lambasted to hell and back in the scientific community for that particular peice of work, AND WITH GOOD REASON!
If you MUST read it, follow it with the ultimate criticism thereof--The Mismeasure of Man.
I'd call troll, but I'm biting.
Until december I was running a GF2MX400 (just upgraded to a GFFX5700LE by Gigabyte)! And I got decent framerates at low res (800x600) on UT2004 (30 to 40 fps), both under windows and linux.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but nvidia's unified driver architecture is fairly straightforward--all geforce cards are run using one driver. This is true under both windows and linux, and I think that's a good thing.
There are some drawbacks, and I'm sure that if they had separate drivers for each line, the download would be smaller.
I thought my card was old (bought in 2000) until I started talking to some friends. One of them still had a nVidia TNT card. Yikes!
I understand the premise of science and falsifiability as well as the next person, and that's why I think the whole debate is silly. But I hear atheists and others saying that xyz scientific discovery proves there is no God, and I think about how foolish they are.
You are absolutely correct--I can't prove/disprove God, and as a devout believer, I have one perspective on why that is, and those who are not believers have another. I am okay with that. It makes me sad, at times, because of my belief of what will happen to those who refuse to believe, but generally I find that my belief makes me happier and gives my comfort. I think it makes me a better person.
Fortunately, I am not trying to prove the truth of my position to the world, but rather, I am trying to prove the worth of my beliefs by showing that they make me more tolerant, more free, more accepting and more interesting to be around.
By nature, I am not a very accepting person, but I find that my religion, and the God that I worship, wants me to be more accepting of others and their viewpoints, so I try.
But I'm rambling. I guess my whole point is that they reasons that you point out is what makes the whole religion vs. science debate rather silly. Hugh Nibley, who taught ancient (Middle Eastern and Egyptian) history at BYU for many years was once asked if religion and history conflict. His answer was in two parts: first, whose religion and whose history--if both were perfectly accurate, there would be no discrepancies; second, why does it matter? There is no need for the debate in many ways.
From a man who spent many hours researching historical proofs of the Book of Mormon, this is an interesting tidbit. The point is that the whole debate is academic, and when it comes down to it, the point of religion is to make people better.
Yes, but it doesn't necessitate the belief in Macro Evolution, or the development of humans from single-celled organisms or amino acids over billions of years.
There is no "logic" that requires that step in belief. Many people believe it, but it doesn't make it so, and I think that is the crux of the argument.
The stickers in question are both true (in the sense that evolution is a theory), and misleading (disclaimer: I am a devout Christian). Evolution, as described in the LMNO (and even P) scenario above, occurs as nearly as we can tell. There are many data points and data sets that seem to confirm this, and I believe that the preponderance of data is in favor of micro-evolution.
There is nothing, however, in that theory that *requires* macro-evolution to be the method by which sentient life arrived on this earth. Natural selection (as a concept of survival of the fittest) doesn't even require macro evolution.
The sticker, as worded, is technically true--evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. But that only sounds bad if you don't like theories, and don't like dealing with probability. Theories are systems or mechanisms that describe a process. Many theories are well known, and used to good effect (gravity, relativity, etc), and very few credible folks take umbrage over them being called theories (Theory of General Relativity).
Evolution, however, is a sticky thing, and I'm not sure why some scientists take umbrage over it being called a theory, when that's exactly what it is. If you don't like that, figure out a way to unequivocally prove it (and good luck). You'll quickly find that even the most carefully controlled experiment shows some slight variation, and someone will take issue with that.
Does evolution need to be a "fact" before it is taught in schools? No. But I think that young children should be taught more important things, such as logic, reasoning, math (calculus, algebra, statistics), and reading/writing long before the sciences are presented, so that when such things as the theory of evolution are presented, or relativity for that matter, they can actually evaluate them properly, and understand what the real relations between laws, data (facts), and theories are.
As for this sticker being unconstitutional, I disagree. It is perhaps unwise, but it encourages a skeptical approach to evolution. This is a good thing, since it is unwise to accept any theory, or assertion at face value. Even religion (remember, I am a devout Christian who believes that the earth was created (although organized is a better word) in 7 periods, including a single period for rest) should be evaluated carefully.
This whole debate about proof of macro-evolution is rather silly, however. It only matters if you think that proof of macro-evolution would disprove the existence of God, and that it is important to you to prove that. Since I don't think that proof of macro E would disprove God's existence (talking about my personal beliefs now, not what you may believe), then macro is a non-issue.
Having read some of the replies to your post, let me extend my sympathies--there are some true jerks in the woods, and you have real (and serious) condition.
I have gained a lot of weight since I had children, for the exact reason you mention--lack of sleep. When the kids wake me up 5 - 8 (or more) times in a night (sick, nightmares, etc), I don't feel rested, and then to keep myself going, I eat a LOT of snack foods (chocolate being my favorite). These provide the energy I need, but also are very fattening. Thus I have gained weight.
I find that regular exercise helps--for some reason I don't need as much sleep when I am physically fit, and I don't feel as dragged out.
Good luck, and hopefully you'll find your solution.
I'll have to check out the Buckaroo Banzai dvd--it's hard to find the vhs version round here, though, let alone the dvd.
I find that relatively few folks in my age group are familiar with it though, and I find that very disturbing--its a classic (mayhap a cult classic, but that's okay).
Yeah, that's what the stupid ones say. The smart pirate says:
"20 years--$insertALMOSTANYotherartistsname".
Of course, they got caught, so what the hey.
thank you for putting it so succinctly.
Some others have pointed out flaws in your reasoning, let me make a more concerted argument.
Many people, and apparently yourself included, suppose that if God does something, then it must be through some "magical" process that we mere mortals can never hope to understand. Many religions state this outright--"God is unknowable, etc".
I personally believe that this concept is false. Personally my belief in God incorporates a being that knows everything, and has enough knowledge that what looks like a miracle to us is merely the workings of a sound scientific principle--even if we haven't fully discovered said principle. Thus, the concept of a God who can work miracles (from our viewpoint) is once again realistic. So the corrally of "Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it was God" is simply: "Just because science CAN explain something doesn't mean that it WASN'T God".
This is why the concept (if not the particulars) of ID appeals to me--it articulates the concept that a being with sufficient knowledge could have created not just this planet, but the entire universe as we understand it (thus existing outside of that work, and separate from it).
Look at our sci-fi for examples of this--in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, there is a whole civilization that makes a habit of building custom designed planets. In Star Trek, terraforming is occasionally addressed. Finally, in Titan A.E., a ship is built that creates a planet from ice, energy and asteroids with the goal of recreating the earth.
Think about this--in the Bible Christ turns water into Wine. It says nothing on how, but I think that we can all easily imagine that this might be possible in the not too distant future. The mechanism might vary, but the point is that a miracle is simply an event that we do not fully yet understand. Does it make it any less miraculous that Christ, without medical tools, restored sight to a blind man, just because we are going to be able to do that ourselves before too long, using certain surguries, and whatnot? I don't think so.
So, yes, I believe in God. Do I have proof? Well, not the kind that most slashdotters are going to accept, but I accept it, and that's what matters.
You are essentially correct, but legally wrong. The framers may have only had individuals in mind, and I think that they did, but AFAIK, that was changed with an amendment somewhere back in the late 1800's/early 1900's.
I personally think it was a poor decision on the part of congress. Corporations should not have more than a limited set of rights, although the individuals running the corporations should NOT have their own rights abridged by virtue of running the corporation. Rather, they should be liable for the actions of the corporation when an illegal act is performed.
IANAL either, but I do know that their is good reason to give corporations SOME legal rights, but I think that the legal power of the corporations is far too broad, and could lead to serious problems one day.
One of the articles mentions 5000:1 constrast ratio. That rocks!
You are wrong. Facts are simply datum. It is a fact that the surface temperature of the sun is x billion degrees. That is a fact. A mere data point that can give us insight into the universe. It is also a fact that a pure water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. These are facts.
What you probably meant was that there cannot be Laws, which are like theories in that they are based on research. Take the Laws of Thermodynamics. These are generally accepted as being inviolate. They don't necessarily dictate the means, but they do work. If what you say is true, then you would accept the possibility of getting more energy/mass out of a system than was put into it. Most physicists (if not all) would probably balk at such a conclusion.
I do agree, however, that the headline is misleading--nothing has been solved, we just found another data point (a "fact" if you will) in the grand scheme of things.
I personally subscribe to the line of thought that given INFINITE time, it is possible for humans to discover every detail of how every field of science works, and how all those fields are related. Essentially, given infinite time, we could then predict, with perfect accuracy, what will happen in the universe at any given point in the future, barring external intervention. I'm not sure if I extend this to perfectly predicting human behavior, since I do subscribe to the concept of agency (that is, I believe that humans have the ability to truly choose their own actions, and that they are not limited in those actions by genetic or biological factors). But given infinite time, I think even that is possible.
Just a few thoughts.
Neat thing about nVidia, they did one of the smartest things they could have a while back with their unified driver system. Get a new card? No problem if you have the latest driver just drop it in and away you go--no updates, no changes, nothing. Just install the hardware. It is one of the best systems I have EVER seen in terms of hardware that gets upgraded often.
Say what you will, but the folks at nVidia are SMART. They have a good sense of what customers want, and how that compares to what they say they want. This evidenced by the fact that they support so many operating systems. nVidia users wanted that support, so they got it. They are not perfect, but they do have a good system.
Now, a word on Linux gaming. I am a grad student, which means that I have fairly limited income, but I still pay for, and use, Cedega. Why? Because I believe in what they are doing. Is it perfect? Not remotely, since it requires that folks use another layer, but it enables folks to ditch windows in a major way without having to fear the loss of their games. When I have the cash, I plan to similarly donate/buy Crossover office for the same reason--its useful in a major way.
There are variety of reasons I don't like Windows, but having recently set up my mother with Ubuntu Linux (which is nice), I have to say that there are fewer and fewer reasons for me to keep windows. Those reasons include a few win-only games for my kids, a few programs my wife uses (including Pampered Partner from the Pampered Chef), and a few statistical packages that I use for school. Once I get rid of those needs, or a program to run them pops up, then I'll be happy.
Here's to a great year for linux!
To find it, you would likely need access to the journal, Personnel Psychology. expensive is the word.