I don't recall asking Jesus (or anyone else) to fulfill the Old Testament.
Okay, I can take the karma hit. The world does not revolve around you; theology deals with things/ideas that are bigger than us as individuals.
Of course, you could not have asked a man born 2000 years ago to do anything. What's your point? Oh, yeah, to slam religion and bigger ideals like the morality of how we should behave toward others (care for the poor, help the sick, etc).
Which, I believe, was first done (at least for TV) for the show "UFO," one of my childhood favorites and made by the same folks who brought us Space: 1999.
only let viweers block x number of adverts, and when they block more than that, start unblocking the least recently blocked ones.
Okay, so if they know how many you are allowed to block, what will stop them from just making enough really annoying ones (ie typical ones) to fill your block list and keep your watching the rest?
Or, just hire competent people to begin with. Quality people, those with the knowledge and flexibility to adapt to new environments/problems/challenges, cost money.
Forget the stupid hype; Linux is fine on the desktop. Besides myself (for all of my business computers), I know a bunch of people using it 'on the desktop.'
The best bet is to try it and decide for yourself. Check one of the live distros so you don't have to install anything. Give it a whirl. Or two.
My experience is that migration follows a distinct pattern.
(1) resistance: You will probably boot up Linux and complain about all the things that are different from Windows. The relative number of times you will boot Linux in this phase is small, as you prefer to stay in the comfort zone of Windows.
(2) interest: Linux is different. Some of those differences will capture your interest. You will begin to say, "hmmm, in Linux I'd do it this way" when using Windows. You will start to compare Windows more and more.
(3) frustration: with both; There will be things that begin to frustrate you (tremendously) about Windows, while your comfort level with Linux is not very high. But, the more you use it, you will likely find yourself leaning more toward Linux as a productive tool.
(4) Prefer Linux or Honest Dual Booter: Eventually, you will probably reach the point that you PREFER Linux. However, you may have certain things for which Windows remains more useful, so you dual boot. There is nothing wrong with that.
There will be periods of very high frustration while learning Linux. The learning curve of any OS can be steep (Windows is a convoluted mess to learn at any depth, imo). Just remember, that for many, many people, Linux is just more productive. Period. It gets out of your way and lets your computer be a tool, not just a toy.
I remember reading about thirteen years ago something similar about the Hiroshima radiation results on humans. The folks that were alive when irradiated had all sorts of the expected problems, and their kids too but to a lesser extent. The grandkids (and subsequent offspring) were showing no signs of the exposure.
Who cares if it is EOL'd 4 years from now? That just means you cannot get support directly from MS. Anyone willing to make the decision to not shell out the dough in vendor lock-in hell (yet still run Windows) is probably capable/willing to keep the OS going on their own.
And who's to say in 2010 Vista will be "current" anyway?
"Any scientist who cannot explain to an eight-year-old what he is doing is a charlatan"
--Kurt Vonnegut in Cat's Cradle
Would you not say there is quite a difference from explaining what you are doing to an 8 year old child and giving sufficient information to expect that child to contribute to the work?
For example, I study reaction dynamics and intramolecular energy flow during 'fast' reactions. It is pretty easy for me to explain to children that I study chemical reactions - how things are changed from one thing to another. I could even do some demo's and talk about them in some detail.
But that's a far cry from expecting those children from being able to help me solve Navier-Stokes equations, apply classical thermodynamics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics to arrive at quantitative models of deflagration explosions.
Does Concordat's jury theorem apply to highly specialized fields with rigorous rules like advanced mathematics?
I would think, and this is just a guess, that the qualified pool of people working on those problems is already nearly maxed out. Adding a bunch of folks that don't even 'speak the language,' as another poster mentioned, probably won't increase the odds of a solution very well.
Okay, first the dislaimer: I am in the 'dissenter' camp. At least as far as the bandwagon goes. I think the models are incomplete and the issue far too politicized for the science to be trusted at this point in time.
But, to address your question about the solar input, there HAS been some work done on that. I found these links by searching "global warming, anticorrelation" on Google Scholar a while back.
Which physical science do you study/work in, dsci?
Physical Chemistry, with recently a toe more in Chemical Physics.
While you philosophical analogy is interesting, I'm not sure that it applies to biology or evolutionary theory in the same way as it would apply to physics.
The Scientific Method is the Scientific Method, right? The point is simply that we have a set of data from which we seek to extract some meaningful insight about the world. Saying a fossil was found that has x, y or z characteristics is fair; arguing, with total certainty (one might be tempted to say arrogance) that it is a 'missing link' or transitional species and absolutely demonstrates evolution is a more of a leap of 'faith.'
To me, the issue is, and I think this was one of Einstein's constant battles with Quantum Mechanics as another example, is there, CAN THERE be, an alternate theory, inconsistent with our current view of evolution, that equally explains all the data. I fear that unless we remain open to that possibility, and view tests of evolution as attempts to falsify it (not verify it), it has reached the level of dogma that other posters have mentioned.
My 'problem' with evolution is not the theory itself, nor its success or current gaps. My issue is the process; have we placed this particular theory, so symbolic in the great Is There A God debate, on such a pedestal that we have lost/are losing objectivity?
Also, I'm not aware of einstein saying that. Surely deeper knowledge leads to better understanding
The point being made, as I understood it when I read it (I think in a biography), was that 'knowing' and 'understanding' are different. One tends to close one's mind when one 'knows.' Perhaps it is simply a semantic difference created to make the point, but I've observed it among many scientists (chemists, physicists and biologists, including myself).
If you don't believe me, look at an xray of a dolphin's fin, and compare it to an xray of a human hand - the bone structure is *very* similar.
While interesting, this in and of itself does not indicate causality in one species being related to another.
As an exercise, consider the notion commonly called Einstein's Watch. Suppose you had a watch that could not be opened. All you have is the observation of the hands' motion around the face.
You assume there is a mechanism inside the watch causing the motion, and set out to model (or mimic) it. After years of research (trial and error), you devise a mechanism that mimics the motion of the hands (to within experimental error) and could also fit inside the watch body.
Now comes the tricky part. Do you then loudly proclaim "I've solved it! I know how the watch operates!" How can you KNOW this? Einstein's Watch has led me to think that as scientists, we never 'know' anything - we can only mimic and interpret within the framework of our own perspective; this perspective may be individual, cultural or as a species. Certainly we have some limitations in the things we CAN imagine, visualize or comprehend.
As a physical scientist, thoughts like these both frighten and excite me. But what frightens me even more is that segment of the scientific community that takes that leap from "I think" to "I know."
Indeed, Einstein himself once said (paraphrasing) "when you know something, you cease all understanding."
If this is a natural occurence, then wouldn't we be doing even more harm to nature by fighting it?
Probably not. If you are in the camp that the planet is more resilient than we give credit for, than taking action against a phantom problem probably won't matter.
The place for potential damage, with AGW real or not, is to the economy. We've spend about 100 years building a petroleum based economic engine, and that cannot changed overnight.
A rack of 100,000 ordinary boxes does not equal 100,000 faster. The problem is always keeping the CPU's busy. There's also the problem of the granularity of the calculation being performed, which is certainly related.
I agree. In fact, I'd go one step further than this prof when I was teaching. Sure, there were things that wanted my students write down: solutions to sample exercises worked in class, etc. But often, I wanted to explain something - to communicate. So, I'd tell my students to put their pens down and look UP.
And, provide me feedback if they are getting "it" or not. As a teacher, you don't get that 'real time' if the students are blindly trying to transcribe every word or copy every mark on the board.
The problem with your comparison is that Windows is a mature product, whereas OS X is not.
That's got to be about the stupidest thing I've seen on/. in a long time, and I REALLY try to refrain from saying stuff like that.
By what standard is Windows a mature product compared to any other OS? They release updates and fixes every MONTH and there are like 15-umpty "versions" of Windows in the wild right now. The MSKB is FULL of "bug reports" and stupid workarounds for things that SHOULD have been fixed long ago.
By any rational measure, OS X is every bit as 'mature' as Windows; just ask the millions of people who use it everyday in demanding production environments (I'm not one of them).
Comparing commercial release schedules to OSS is largely nonsensical, because the latter has none of the pressures and/or responsibilities of the former.
Since when is OS X an OSS project? And even if you can somehow claim it is, Apple is a fairly large commercial enterprise with all those pressures and responsibilities you mention.
How about a true multi-user design built to be used on a hostile network. You know, something done in the Unix for a couple of decades before the FIRST MS Windows, and STILL not done right by MS after a good 1.5 decades of development on their flagship product.
Re:is it just me, or...
on
DNA Origami
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and there is a BIG leap from 2-d to 3-d design/modeling.
Slashdot Mirror
Time dilation figures in there somewhere, in some reference frame.
I don't recall asking Jesus (or anyone else) to fulfill the Old Testament.
Okay, I can take the karma hit. The world does not revolve around you; theology deals with things/ideas that are bigger than us as individuals.
Of course, you could not have asked a man born 2000 years ago to do anything. What's your point? Oh, yeah, to slam religion and bigger ideals like the morality of how we should behave toward others (care for the poor, help the sick, etc).
Which, I believe, was first done (at least for TV) for the show "UFO," one of my childhood favorites and made by the same folks who brought us Space: 1999.
only let viweers block x number of adverts, and when they block more than that, start unblocking the least recently blocked ones.
Okay, so if they know how many you are allowed to block, what will stop them from just making enough really annoying ones (ie typical ones) to fill your block list and keep your watching the rest?
It costs dollars to train those people.
Or, just hire competent people to begin with. Quality people, those with the knowledge and flexibility to adapt to new environments/problems/challenges, cost money.
Forget the stupid hype; Linux is fine on the desktop. Besides myself (for all of my business computers), I know a bunch of people using it 'on the desktop.'
The best bet is to try it and decide for yourself. Check one of the live distros so you don't have to install anything. Give it a whirl. Or two.
My experience is that migration follows a distinct pattern.
(1) resistance: You will probably boot up Linux and complain about all the things that are different from Windows. The relative number of times you will boot Linux in this phase is small, as you prefer to stay in the comfort zone of Windows.
(2) interest: Linux is different. Some of those differences will capture your interest. You will begin to say, "hmmm, in Linux I'd do it this way" when using Windows. You will start to compare Windows more and more.
(3) frustration: with both; There will be things that begin to frustrate you (tremendously) about Windows, while your comfort level with Linux is not very high. But, the more you use it, you will likely find yourself leaning more toward Linux as a productive tool.
(4) Prefer Linux or Honest Dual Booter: Eventually, you will probably reach the point that you PREFER Linux. However, you may have certain things for which Windows remains more useful, so you dual boot. There is nothing wrong with that.
There will be periods of very high frustration while learning Linux. The learning curve of any OS can be steep (Windows is a convoluted mess to learn at any depth, imo). Just remember, that for many, many people, Linux is just more productive. Period. It gets out of your way and lets your computer be a tool, not just a toy.
I remember reading about thirteen years ago something similar about the Hiroshima radiation results on humans. The folks that were alive when irradiated had all sorts of the expected problems, and their kids too but to a lesser extent. The grandkids (and subsequent offspring) were showing no signs of the exposure.
Who cares if it is EOL'd 4 years from now? That just means you cannot get support directly from MS. Anyone willing to make the decision to not shell out the dough in vendor lock-in hell (yet still run Windows) is probably capable/willing to keep the OS going on their own.
And who's to say in 2010 Vista will be "current" anyway?
Public money that is currently going to MS (and other commercial licenses) COULD go to:
as just a few examples. Really, do you actually PAY taxes?
"Any scientist who cannot explain to an eight-year-old what he is doing is a charlatan"
--Kurt Vonnegut in Cat's Cradle
Would you not say there is quite a difference from explaining what you are doing to an 8 year old child and giving sufficient information to expect that child to contribute to the work?
For example, I study reaction dynamics and intramolecular energy flow during 'fast' reactions. It is pretty easy for me to explain to children that I study chemical reactions - how things are changed from one thing to another. I could even do some demo's and talk about them in some detail.
But that's a far cry from expecting those children from being able to help me solve Navier-Stokes equations, apply classical thermodynamics, statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics to arrive at quantitative models of deflagration explosions.
Does Concordat's jury theorem apply to highly specialized fields with rigorous rules like advanced mathematics?
I would think, and this is just a guess, that the qualified pool of people working on those problems is already nearly maxed out. Adding a bunch of folks that don't even 'speak the language,' as another poster mentioned, probably won't increase the odds of a solution very well.
Looks a lot like a party here on earth.
Okay, first the dislaimer: I am in the 'dissenter' camp. At least as far as the bandwagon goes. I think the models are incomplete and the issue far too politicized for the science to be trusted at this point in time.
But, to address your question about the solar input, there HAS been some work done on that. I found these links by searching "global warming, anticorrelation" on Google Scholar a while back.
Cosmic Rays and Climate
and
influences of solar radiation on the global climate
Okay, feel free to take with a grain of salt if you wish; the analysis of proxy data is fundamentally flawed: http://www.climateaudit.org/
search engines are dong us all
Truer words were never spoken.
but the scientific process with which it is studied.
Or rather, discussed. Ooops again.
it is not a case of examining a single watch and then declaring this area of science 'known'.
We can consider the watch to be the entire body of scientific empirical data.
Saying that you have a problem with the process of evolution is a little disingenous.
Ooops. My bad. I did not mean the process of evolution, but the scientific process with which it is studied.
Which physical science do you study/work in, dsci?
Physical Chemistry, with recently a toe more in Chemical Physics.
While you philosophical analogy is interesting, I'm not sure that it applies to biology or evolutionary theory in the same way as it would apply to physics.
The Scientific Method is the Scientific Method, right? The point is simply that we have a set of data from which we seek to extract some meaningful insight about the world. Saying a fossil was found that has x, y or z characteristics is fair; arguing, with total certainty (one might be tempted to say arrogance) that it is a 'missing link' or transitional species and absolutely demonstrates evolution is a more of a leap of 'faith.'
To me, the issue is, and I think this was one of Einstein's constant battles with Quantum Mechanics as another example, is there, CAN THERE be, an alternate theory, inconsistent with our current view of evolution, that equally explains all the data. I fear that unless we remain open to that possibility, and view tests of evolution as attempts to falsify it (not verify it), it has reached the level of dogma that other posters have mentioned.
My 'problem' with evolution is not the theory itself, nor its success or current gaps. My issue is the process; have we placed this particular theory, so symbolic in the great Is There A God debate, on such a pedestal that we have lost/are losing objectivity?
Also, I'm not aware of einstein saying that. Surely deeper knowledge leads to better understanding
The point being made, as I understood it when I read it (I think in a biography), was that 'knowing' and 'understanding' are different. One tends to close one's mind when one 'knows.' Perhaps it is simply a semantic difference created to make the point, but I've observed it among many scientists (chemists, physicists and biologists, including myself).
If you don't believe me, look at an xray of a dolphin's fin, and compare it to an xray of a human hand - the bone structure is *very* similar.
While interesting, this in and of itself does not indicate causality in one species being related to another.
As an exercise, consider the notion commonly called Einstein's Watch. Suppose you had a watch that could not be opened. All you have is the observation of the hands' motion around the face.
You assume there is a mechanism inside the watch causing the motion, and set out to model (or mimic) it. After years of research (trial and error), you devise a mechanism that mimics the motion of the hands (to within experimental error) and could also fit inside the watch body.
Now comes the tricky part. Do you then loudly proclaim "I've solved it! I know how the watch operates!" How can you KNOW this? Einstein's Watch has led me to think that as scientists, we never 'know' anything - we can only mimic and interpret within the framework of our own perspective; this perspective may be individual, cultural or as a species. Certainly we have some limitations in the things we CAN imagine, visualize or comprehend.
As a physical scientist, thoughts like these both frighten and excite me. But what frightens me even more is that segment of the scientific community that takes that leap from "I think" to "I know."
Indeed, Einstein himself once said (paraphrasing) "when you know something, you cease all understanding."
If this is a natural occurence, then wouldn't we be doing even more harm to nature by fighting it?
Probably not. If you are in the camp that the planet is more resilient than we give credit for, than taking action against a phantom problem probably won't matter.
The place for potential damage, with AGW real or not, is to the economy. We've spend about 100 years building a petroleum based economic engine, and that cannot changed overnight.
It's a rack of 100,000 ordinary computers.
A rack of 100,000 ordinary boxes does not equal 100,000 faster. The problem is always keeping the CPU's busy. There's also the problem of the granularity of the calculation being performed, which is certainly related.
Do you see a comment by "heatdeath" responded to by "LiquidCoooled."
I agree. In fact, I'd go one step further than this prof when I was teaching. Sure, there were things that wanted my students write down: solutions to sample exercises worked in class, etc. But often, I wanted to explain something - to communicate. So, I'd tell my students to put their pens down and look UP.
And, provide me feedback if they are getting "it" or not. As a teacher, you don't get that 'real time' if the students are blindly trying to transcribe every word or copy every mark on the board.
The problem with your comparison is that Windows is a mature product, whereas OS X is not.
/. in a long time, and I REALLY try to refrain from saying stuff like that.
That's got to be about the stupidest thing I've seen on
By what standard is Windows a mature product compared to any other OS? They release updates and fixes every MONTH and there are like 15-umpty "versions" of Windows in the wild right now. The MSKB is FULL of "bug reports" and stupid workarounds for things that SHOULD have been fixed long ago.
By any rational measure, OS X is every bit as 'mature' as Windows; just ask the millions of people who use it everyday in demanding production environments (I'm not one of them).
Comparing commercial release schedules to OSS is largely nonsensical, because the latter has none of the pressures and/or responsibilities of the former.
Since when is OS X an OSS project? And even if you can somehow claim it is, Apple is a fairly large commercial enterprise with all those pressures and responsibilities you mention.
For example ?
How about a true multi-user design built to be used on a hostile network. You know, something done in the Unix for a couple of decades before the FIRST MS Windows, and STILL not done right by MS after a good 1.5 decades of development on their flagship product.
Yes, and there is a BIG leap from 2-d to 3-d design/modeling.