The fact that it had a reasonable justification at the time it was started does not mean that it continues to do so: it is quite probable that the flesh of vultures and jackals served on an airplane today is not poisonous.
The key thing about contexts is that they change. If you take any behaviour, not matter how smart it is, to a context in which it stops being sensible, well: it stops being sensible.
Well, you know, except for the whole flipping of the coin and the coin itself. LOL I guess the evolutionist believes the coin made itself or is descended from some lower monetary form. And then the coin flips itself to give you your probability. [...]
I was waiting to see what response you could have for his example. I have to say that you were very, very much below my expectations, and they were not exactly flattering to begin with.
It is quite sad that an adult cannot perceive the distinction between a pattern and the origin of a pattern. It is quite unreasonable to expect to be able to carry on any kind of epistemological discussion with anyone which has not reached that level of abstract reasoning. Do come back in a few years.
We all use the same science.
Nope. In fact, what you have in mind is not even science.
We all have the same facts, we interpret them differently according to our presuppositions. The presuppositions are unavoidable. How is believing the universe to be orderly and designed anti-science, exactly?
Actually, the critical analysis of the presuppositions is quite important. There are an abundant history of precisely that, and quite a bit of classical science was born precisely out of that.
One of the biggest problems with an "ordered and intelligently designed" universe is that no one really knows what "ordered" means, what "intelligent" means, what "designed" means nor what "intelligently designed" means. All those pseudo-concepts really carry huge dark areas. At the very LEAST, if you want to base any kind of reasonable (leave "scientific" for later...) discourse, you have to make sure those pseudo-concepts mean something. Well. I'm sorry to break this for you: they do not.
Anyone who believes that the US, apart from a couple of places, is in a position of leadership with respect to quality of life, just needs to get out more!
Few things make me as sad around here as the amazing fact that lots of people seem to think there is a correlation between the size of the user ID and $whatever.
Especially if the guy was just saying that the machine had to reboot after every driver, and it took 10 minutes to install each new driver. If that's all, it's not a big deal.
One of the key points for the success of Vista is going to be the very low level of the expectations people have on it. Sure people will be looking forward to cute graphics that Make Your Work Look Great (tm), but that is essentially trivial to provide. What's important is that rebooting periodically, even after ludicrously inane actions like changing the IP number on a NIC, and everything taking 10 minutes.
Well, that argument sort of works, I guess, provided you have lots and lots of VBA macros accumulated over the years. Maybe OpenOffice.org will work for your newly bred competition: when you see them, send my best wishes.
You may want to read up on what the contrapositive of an implication is (hint: it is always equivalent to the original implication). What you had in mind is the converse.
I'd point you to Wikipedia, but the Contrapositive entry is quite cryptic.:-(
And while Valerie Plame could be described as an active agent of the CIA, there is no law about divulging that info. There is a law against divulging it if she is a covert agent, but her appearance on the cover of Vanity Fair would seem to argue against that.
Are you really arguing that it was OK to divulge that info? Is that an argument even those charged to doing the divulging dare present?
Reading/. is sometimes quite an extreme experience: one needs a very, very strong optimism if one wants not to immediately conclude we humans are idiots...
Yum. It's amazing no one thought of it before you. The key to success is going to be a spell.ko! Then a browser.ko and we'll be almost there as integration goes.
Hmm. I have to confess you left me here waiting for an explanation on how modern graphics cards and their drivers work. One thing that intrigued me most was your explanation on how secrecy about technical specs and APIs is required. Too bad.
Assuming that something won't work because it's closed source is as stupid as the closed source camp claiming FOSS is more susceptible to security vulnerabilities. It's absolute BS. And won't get any help from the vendor?
In fact, lots of people have problems with closed drivers under Linux, much more problems than with the free ones. So there is this little thing called experience backing some of the arguments being made.
I'd say I'm as likely to not get help from a vendor as it is likely that the FOSS community will label my bug Won't-Fix.
That may be well correlated to the way you go about asking for your bugs to be fixed... In any case, I really find this staement of yours to be not true.
God forbid I happen to get some rare bit of critical hardware for which the FOSS "community" consists of one guy who's a complete idiot.
Well, in that case, that idiot would be you;-) Seriously, unless that rare bit of critical hardware is a very expensive thingie and/or you are paying those that make it to write/maintain drivers, then you are as screwed with a propietary driver as with a free-one-wriiten-by-a-complete-idiot.
This line of reasoning is quite well-known, in various variants in which "Functionality" is replaced by other kinds of bait. It does not cater, though, for the fact that in many, many contexts and situations the most pragmatic thing to do is to be very political and idealistic. Software is one of those contexts.
Re:VI is like a Stanley Kubrick movie
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
Quit OT, I guess, but anyways: SO:2001 or AI are very, very linear movies! You might want to widen your cinematic horizons a bit;-)
Yup. History tells us that. That is why there are 132 incompatible versions of Perl out there, and 62 versions of Python, and, of course, all those dozens of versions of C.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. So that is what your press 'informed' you, I guess. Nice.
The fact that it had a reasonable justification at the time it was started does not mean that it continues to do so: it is quite probable that the flesh of vultures and jackals served on an airplane today is not poisonous.
The key thing about contexts is that they change. If you take any behaviour, not matter how smart it is, to a context in which it stops being sensible, well: it stops being sensible.
Don't you mean slings and arrows?
I was waiting to see what response you could have for his example. I have to say that you were very, very much below my expectations, and they were not exactly flattering to begin with.
It is quite sad that an adult cannot perceive the distinction between a pattern and the origin of a pattern. It is quite unreasonable to expect to be able to carry on any kind of epistemological discussion with anyone which has not reached that level of abstract reasoning. Do come back in a few years.
Nope. In fact, what you have in mind is not even science.
Actually, the critical analysis of the presuppositions is quite important. There are an abundant history of precisely that, and quite a bit of classical science was born precisely out of that.
One of the biggest problems with an "ordered and intelligently designed" universe is that no one really knows what "ordered" means, what "intelligent" means, what "designed" means nor what "intelligently designed" means. All those pseudo-concepts really carry huge dark areas. At the very LEAST, if you want to base any kind of reasonable (leave "scientific" for later...) discourse, you have to make sure those pseudo-concepts mean something. Well. I'm sorry to break this for you: they do not.
Anyone who believes that the US, apart from a couple of places, is in a position of leadership with respect to quality of life, just needs to get out more!
huh?
The overflow you see in prisons is not because of the hordes of lying patent applicants.
Few things make me as sad around here as the amazing fact that lots of people seem to think there is a correlation between the size of the user ID and $whatever.
One of the key points for the success of Vista is going to be the very low level of the expectations people have on it. Sure people will be looking forward to cute graphics that Make Your Work Look Great (tm), but that is essentially trivial to provide. What's important is that rebooting periodically, even after ludicrously inane actions like changing the IP number on a NIC, and everything taking 10 minutes.
Low expectations are hard to let down.
Do you do something apart from those few things with the data? Something that would not be better done by, say, a 3 second script?
Urgh. How can anyone say `look great' that many times!
Well, that argument sort of works, I guess, provided you have lots and lots of VBA macros accumulated over the years. Maybe OpenOffice.org will work for your newly bred competition: when you see them, send my best wishes.
Sigh. Years and years of bad movies do have an effect.
You may want to read up on what the contrapositive of an implication is (hint: it is always equivalent to the original implication). What you had in mind is the converse.
I'd point you to Wikipedia, but the Contrapositive entry is quite cryptic. :-(
Are you really arguing that it was OK to divulge that info? Is that an argument even those charged to doing the divulging dare present?
Reading /. is sometimes quite an extreme experience: one needs a very, very strong optimism if one wants not to immediately conclude we humans are idiots...
And Fielding et al. made the HEAD method: and it was so.
Yum. It's amazing no one thought of it before you. The key to success is going to be a spell.ko! Then a browser.ko and we'll be almost there as integration goes.
Hmm. I have to confess you left me here waiting for an explanation on how modern graphics cards and their drivers work. One thing that intrigued me most was your explanation on how secrecy about technical specs and APIs is required. Too bad.
In other news, the GNOME project has decided to change its logo.
In fact, lots of people have problems with closed drivers under Linux, much more problems than with the free ones. So there is this little thing called experience backing some of the arguments being made.
That may be well correlated to the way you go about asking for your bugs to be fixed... In any case, I really find this staement of yours to be not true.
Well, in that case, that idiot would be you ;-) Seriously, unless that rare bit of critical hardware is a very expensive thingie and/or you are paying those that make it to write/maintain drivers, then you are as screwed with a propietary driver as with a free-one-wriiten-by-a-complete-idiot.
This line of reasoning is quite well-known, in various variants in which "Functionality" is replaced by other kinds of bait. It does not cater, though, for the fact that in many, many contexts and situations the most pragmatic thing to do is to be very political and idealistic. Software is one of those contexts.
Quit OT, I guess, but anyways: SO:2001 or AI are very, very linear movies! You might want to widen your cinematic horizons a bit ;-)
Yup. History tells us that. That is why there are 132 incompatible versions of Perl out there, and 62 versions of Python, and, of course, all those dozens of versions of C.
You make it sound as if other kind of people could easily agree on things. That is not the case...
Who knows, maybe among other things they send (encrypted, for your protection) your keys home...