As a mystic you don't know what you're talking about: Both Theism (albeit Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) and Creationism are pseudo religions. They tend to have the opposite effects -- drive people away from God then bring them closer -- because they are in the business of selling Heaven Insurance. Furthermore I never said anything about New Age - it has its own set of problems.
The experience of the Source / Creator / God is available to _everyone_ IF they would first take the time to Know Thyself.
Likewise ALL things are consciousness but Science is too dumb to realize that (yet). Scientists worship the false gods of Materialism and Reductionism. As Peter Russell points in his excellent presentation The Primacy of Consciousness this myopic and archaic perspective is backwards.
Scientists don't even understand what Life is because they completely fail to understand what Death is.
Anyone who can't even understand that Religion and Science are two sides of the same coin is an total fool.
Science by definition is amoral. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Science can teach you how to build a nuke but it never stops to ask Is this wrong?
Science asks How. Religion asks Why.
They both value Truth.
As Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
You DO realize there is a difference between Darwinism and Evolution right???
Richard Dawkins is your typical fundamental atheist, aka idiot, who doesn't grok the meta-physical nature of reality. Namely, 1) Where the physical laws come from, 2) Why they exist, 3) let alone anything about consciousness. He doesn't understand life because he doesn't have a clue about death. He is the literal blind man saying there is no such thing as color. He doesn't understand the Source / God / Creator because he has completely failed the first lesson: Know Thyself.
Enough about his stupidity.
Science is a wonderful system inside its domain. Only an arrogant fool would pretend Science is valid outside its domain. Science by definition is amoral. Likewise, to understand life you need to go outside the limited perspective of Science.
Show me where Darwinism OR Evolution explains where consciousness comes from? How we can measure it? Why it even exists in the first place? Lastly show me where Darwinism OR Evolution explains where the natural laws come from?
Darwinism is nothing more then ignorance based on incorrect and incomplete assumptions.
By 2024 you'll have proof for why Darwinism is junk science.
> (say, construction road signs) it just never occurred to them that anyone would ever care to look it up for a prank
Gee, kids don't respect authority? This has being going on since the beginning of time...
"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers." -- misattributed to Socrates
City officials get butt hurt because somebody wanted a little humor with "Warning Zombies Ahead!"... they need to chill out. http://www.pressherald.com/201...
When I an open a textbook 3/4 of the way through I can use that fact as a mnemonic to help me remember "where" in the book the information is. With a digital "bookmark" I have no clue if I'm 25%, 50%, or 75% through. I am forced to rely on a working Search for the digital book.
I also like the fact that I can highlight my books. If students are unable to do that that is a hinderance to their learning.
Physical books are awesome for linear reading but suck for random searching. Digital Books are awesome for random searching, but suck for linear reading.
I like to curl on the couch and read a good paperback or hard cover. Reading by tablet is "meh". There is something visceral about being physically connected to the book you are reading by the simple act of turning a page that a tablet completely fails to satisfy.
Every medium has its pros and cons. There is no one size fits all.
As taxpayers we all should be demanding that the government provide open source textbooks. This nonsense of artificially limiting textbook access and pork barrel spending to line some greedy publishers pockets needs to end.
If wikipedia didn't suck @$$ and instead provided a Tutorial and Example sections we wouldn't need textbooks.
But as a society we would rather watch 2 men beat themselves up then pay attention to the greatest role in any society:
First, Darwinism is NOT the cause of consciousness. Consciousness uses evolution as a tool. Stop confusing evolution as the source when it is only a minorprocess.
Second, there is no such thing as junk DNA. 100% of DNA has a purpose. Note: Scientists were currently only able to decode part of it so they made an assumption that the rest is "junk".
Thirdly, no amount of "selective" breeding or mutations is going to get cats and dogs to be able to produce offspring.
Lastly, Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D., theoretical nuclear physicist, in his documentary The Quantum Activist lists his reasons for why Darwinism is also incomplete: Namely the separation of matter and consciousness is based on an incorrect framework: the primacy of matter. The actually reality is that there is only consciousness.
Until scientists learns to quantity consciousness, and include it is in the physics equations Science is doomed to ignorance.
So companies shuffle stocks back and forth millions of times a day and we wonder NOW what the actual productive value is?? The whole dam stock market is based upon "confidence" aka a house of cards. As I like to say "Main St. built America, Wall St. destroyed it."
There was a good reason that companies were initially prohibited from owning other companies. Greed knows no limit.
2. Birth How the corporation came to be. Originally, corporations were set up to serve the public good. Corporation lawyers gained rights through the US Supreme Court using the 14th
Amendment (set up to protect slaves) that gives them the rights of a person. In the last century, the corporation is given more and more rights while people are increasingly stripped of theirs.
3. A Legal "Person" Having acquired rights of immortal persons, what kind of person is the corporation? By law, the corporation can only consider the interests of their shareholders. It is legally bound to put its bottom line before everything else, even the public good
6. The Pathology of Commerce If we look at the corporation as a legal person, it exhibits all the characteristics of a psychopath using a personality diagnostic checklist by the World Health Organization.
That PDF was a great read on the design of Presto. Interesing they are using Python in a multi-threaded context binding with C++.
One thing to note about this situation is that if, in the main thread, the call was made from C++, then there would be no need to hold the GIL in the main thread, and everything would be fine. If, however, it is called from Python, we get the hang. Moreover, neither subsystem knows about the other, the locks are taken in client code. The client code could be smarter about the order in which the locks are acquired, but that's not always a viable solution. In this case, the client is calling out to a function in a library, and may be unaware about it taking the GIL to begin with.
One solution in this case is that, in the main thread, we no longer need to be holding the GIL once we make a computation request in C++. Ideally, you would structure your bindings to always release the GIL upon reÂentry to C++.
> My point was that arrogant and abusive assholes are the real problem.
Uhm no. Lack of communication, and lack of accountability is the problem. How the message gets delivered isn't going to "magically" change someone who doesn't grok it.
> If you find you actually have a bonafide MORON who is lacking in overall intelligence, then why were they hired to begin with?
You've never done any hiring have you? News flash! Not every resume is honest, sadly.
I've worked with people who while had excellent knowledge in an extremely narrow field but out complete idiots outside it. Mathematicians and Physicists tend to make shitty programmers -- they don't understand the importance of writing simple, clean code. They tend to over-engineer every solution, etc. You don't make them programmers, you use them best what they are good at.
There are people who are prima donna's who can't socialize and interface with the team, etc. Allowing them to keep trash talking isn't going to get them to change.
Then there is the crusty old person who has been at the company for years but hasn't kept up to date with newer technology and is unable to add anything constructive to the team because they are set in their ways. You provide ways for them to advance their career and stay up to date. If they aren't willing to have something of value to ADD then they won't be missed.
Sometimes you end up with a complete free-loader / slacker who has been completely overlooked.
The situation can come up in many different ways.
> So, a perfectly capable person who comes up short in any category is now an "idiot" and should be treated as trash.
No one is saying that ! Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. The problems comes about when none of the idiot's strengths are not able to utilized and their weaknesses are a detriment to the team and outweigh whatever positive contributions they could make. THEN it is time to cut the dead weight.
It is like the cheap customer who is never happy -- constantly complains. Sometime it is better to refuse to do business with him as they are costing you time and money for little or no gain. Let the competition waste their time dealing with them.
This isn't rocket science. First, you try to see if the team can utilize the "idiot's" strengths. Second, you try communicating with the person to get them to be a more productive member. They can't change their behavior if they are unaware of it. Third, you give them some time to change. Lastly, you get rid of them if nothing else works.
Clinging to some dogmatic stance is completely unpractical. People who enable other people bringing the team down simply because "We can't offend little Johnny's feelings" are part of the problem. They are the pussies. Usually the situation can be resolved diplomatically, if not, then you use "force" by removing them. Sticking your head in the sand, ignoring how a person is dragging down the rest of the team is unproductive and idiotic.
Not sure why you are merging Windows NT in that list.
You missed Win95B, and Win98SE, amongst others. A *complete* 16-bit list is:
* Windows 1.0 * Windows 2.0 * Windows 2.1 * Windows 3.0 * Windows 3.1 * Windows 3.11 * Windows for Workgroups 3.1 * Windows for Workgroups 3.11 * Windows 95 * Windows 95B * Windows 98 * Windows 98SE * Windows Me
But yeah, every second major release was usually good (or bad.)
I used to run WinNT 4.0and Win 2000 (Abit BP6 dual Celeron 266 MHz o/c 550 MHz) as my primary desktop.
Both were good. Us game developers would typically use Win2000 to develop Win95/Win98 games until we switched over to Windows XP. (Some would argue that WinXP sucked until SP3.)
> As soon as I read this paragraph, I stopped listening to anything she had to say...
Not to detract from your other point... so you toss the baby out with the bath water ?
Maybe the writer is an idiot, but just because they failed to understand one point doesn't make the rest of their conclusions automatically invalid.
(Note: She doesn't understand open source. Developers ARE perfectly willing to reject outside help. i.e. submitted code doesn't meat the code standards, is incomplete, doesn't account for all edge cases, etc.)
There is a time to enable -- that is, be patient -- with others, and there is a time to NOT put up with disruptive behavior. Sometimes tough love involves calling a spade a spade.
Often it is better to help nurture the person and help them grow to overcome their weaknesses. Sometimes the fundamental problem can be "resolved" with communication -- put them on probation and see if they are willing to improve.
Other times the problem comes down to productivity. When the "idiot's" lack of quality starts effecting other people's work then sometimes the best course of action is to jettison the idiot. That is not being "obnoxious"; it is instead about "focusing on getting the job done with the least possible amount of delays." You can have idiots in design, in management, in development, in ops, etc. You usually can't control people outside your group, but if you are a manager and there is someone who is dragging the rest of the team down by causing everyone else to redo their work, etc. sometimes the best wake call is to fire their ass.
People who lack critical thinking is not a training issue. As they say "You can't fix stupid."
There is no "silver bullet" because the situations aren't always "black-and-white."
/sarcasm Yeah, let's ignore the context for why they would think that! I mean they could never be right !
Sometimes the designers are idiots. Sometimes the architects are idiots. Sometimes the programmers are idiots. Sometimes the marketing people are idiots. Sometimes the managers are idiots.
You see, stupidity isn't limited to just one class./sarcasm How dare anyone hold everyone to a productive standard. I mean it is not like quality of code matters, shipping something on time, etc. Oh wait, sometimes business care about that.
But lets just make a mass blanket statement based out of ignorance instead of finding out what is really going on, what the problem is, and what possible solutions are.
Slashdot Mirror
As a mystic you don't know what you're talking about: Both Theism (albeit Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) and Creationism are pseudo religions. They tend to have the opposite effects -- drive people away from God then bring them closer -- because they are in the business of selling Heaven Insurance. Furthermore I never said anything about New Age - it has its own set of problems.
The experience of the Source / Creator / God is available to _everyone_ IF they would first take the time to Know Thyself.
Likewise ALL things are consciousness but Science is too dumb to realize that (yet). Scientists worship the false gods of Materialism and Reductionism. As Peter Russell points in his excellent presentation The Primacy of Consciousness this myopic and archaic perspective is backwards.
Scientists don't even understand what Life is because they completely fail to understand what Death is.
Show me biology without chemistry? Show me chemistry without physics?
Jerry Coyne claims that religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Anyone who can't even understand that Religion and Science are two sides of the same coin is an total fool.
Science by definition is amoral . Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Science can teach you how to build a nuke but it never stops to ask Is this wrong?
Science asks How.
Religion asks Why.
They both value Truth.
As Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
You DO realize there is a difference between Darwinism and Evolution right???
Richard Dawkins is your typical fundamental atheist, aka idiot, who doesn't grok the meta-physical nature of reality. Namely, 1) Where the physical laws come from, 2) Why they exist, 3) let alone anything about consciousness. He doesn't understand life because he doesn't have a clue about death. He is the literal blind man saying there is no such thing as color. He doesn't understand the Source / God / Creator because he has completely failed the first lesson: Know Thyself.
Enough about his stupidity.
Science is a wonderful system inside its domain. Only an arrogant fool would pretend Science is valid outside its domain. Science by definition is amoral. Likewise, to understand life you need to go outside the limited perspective of Science.
Show me where Darwinism OR Evolution explains where consciousness comes from?
How we can measure it?
Why it even exists in the first place?
Lastly show me where Darwinism OR Evolution explains where the natural laws come from?
Darwinism is nothing more then ignorance based on incorrect and incomplete assumptions.
By 2024 you'll have proof for why Darwinism is junk science.
Are you really that dense?? Gee, does Biology use Physics to explain the world, or does Physics use Biology??
Biology is built on top of Chemistry.
Chemistry is built on top of Physics.
Physics is built up on top of Physics.
Maybe you need to actually think about the Hierarchy of Knowledge for a change.
While Physics is of the King of Science, Math is the Queen of Science.
As xkcd lapooned ...
http://37.media.tumblr.com/tum...
> (say, construction road signs) it just never occurred to them that anyone would ever care to look it up for a prank
Gee, kids don't respect authority? This has being going on since the beginning of time ...
City officials get butt hurt because somebody wanted a little humor with "Warning Zombies Ahead!" ... they need to chill out.
http://www.pressherald.com/201...
Nah, they just taser people to death instead.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai...
Physical Textbooks have one advantage that will never be replicated with digital ones:
Spatial Memory
When I an open a textbook 3/4 of the way through I can use that fact as a mnemonic to help me remember "where" in the book the information is. With a digital "bookmark" I have no clue if I'm 25%, 50%, or 75% through. I am forced to rely on a working Search for the digital book.
I also like the fact that I can highlight my books. If students are unable to do that that is a hinderance to their learning.
Physical books are awesome for linear reading but suck for random searching.
Digital Books are awesome for random searching, but suck for linear reading.
I like to curl on the couch and read a good paperback or hard cover. Reading by tablet is "meh". There is something visceral about being physically connected to the book you are reading by the simple act of turning a page that a tablet completely fails to satisfy.
Every medium has its pros and cons. There is no one size fits all.
As taxpayers we all should be demanding that the government provide open source textbooks. This nonsense of artificially limiting textbook access and pork barrel spending to line some greedy publishers pockets needs to end.
If wikipedia didn't suck @$$ and instead provided a Tutorial and Example sections we wouldn't need textbooks.
But as a society we would rather watch 2 men beat themselves up then pay attention to the greatest role in any society:
The Teacher.
More like:
Only Cowards Censor. Fuck the Thai police and King for being cowards.
> Mims is wrong.
No he is not.
First, Darwinism is NOT the cause of consciousness. Consciousness uses evolution as a tool. Stop confusing evolution as the source when it is only a minor process.
Second, there is no such thing as junk DNA. 100% of DNA has a purpose. Note: Scientists were currently only able to decode part of it so they made an assumption that the rest is "junk".
Thirdly, no amount of "selective" breeding or mutations is going to get cats and dogs to be able to produce offspring.
Lastly, Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D., theoretical nuclear physicist, in his documentary The Quantum Activist lists his reasons for why Darwinism is also incomplete: Namely the separation of matter and consciousness is based on an incorrect framework: the primacy of matter. The actually reality is that there is only consciousness.
Until scientists learns to quantity consciousness, and include it is in the physics equations Science is doomed to ignorance.
So companies shuffle stocks back and forth millions of times a day and we wonder NOW what the actual productive value is?? The whole dam stock market is based upon "confidence" aka a house of cards. As I like to say "Main St. built America, Wall St. destroyed it."
There was a good reason that companies were initially prohibited from owning other companies. Greed knows no limit.
This topic has been covered before in the documentary "The Corporation"
http://hellocoolworld.com/file...
2. Birth
How the corporation came to be. Originally, corporations were set up to serve the public
good. Corporation lawyers gained rights through the US Supreme Court using the 14th
Amendment (set up to protect slaves) that gives them the rights of a person. In the last
century, the corporation is given more and more rights while people are increasingly
stripped of theirs.
3. A Legal "Person"
Having acquired rights of immortal persons, what kind of person is the corporation? By
law, the corporation can only consider the interests of their shareholders. It is legally
bound to put its bottom line before everything else, even the public good
6. The Pathology of Commerce
If we look at the corporation as a legal person, it exhibits all the characteristics of a
psychopath using a personality diagnostic checklist by the World Health Organization.
Just block all the ads from your hosts file on your router that way all your devices will have faster internet.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
What part of "it is a hybrid 16-bit/32-bit monolithic product with an MS-DOS based boot stage." do you not understand??
Mod parent up as informative
That PDF was a great read on the design of Presto. Interesing they are using Python in a multi-threaded context binding with C++.
Thanks for that link.
I didn't realize Rhythm & Hues filed for bankruptcy recently this year?!
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/econ...
> My point was that arrogant and abusive assholes are the real problem.
Uhm no. Lack of communication, and lack of accountability is the problem. How the message gets delivered isn't going to "magically" change someone who doesn't grok it.
> If you find you actually have a bonafide MORON who is lacking in overall intelligence, then why were they hired to begin with?
You've never done any hiring have you? News flash! Not every resume is honest, sadly.
I've worked with people who while had excellent knowledge in an extremely narrow field but out complete idiots outside it. Mathematicians and Physicists tend to make shitty programmers -- they don't understand the importance of writing simple, clean code. They tend to over-engineer every solution, etc. You don't make them programmers, you use them best what they are good at.
There are people who are prima donna's who can't socialize and interface with the team, etc. Allowing them to keep trash talking isn't going to get them to change.
Then there is the crusty old person who has been at the company for years but hasn't kept up to date with newer technology and is unable to add anything constructive to the team because they are set in their ways. You provide ways for them to advance their career and stay up to date. If they aren't willing to have something of value to ADD then they won't be missed.
Sometimes you end up with a complete free-loader / slacker who has been completely overlooked.
The situation can come up in many different ways.
> So, a perfectly capable person who comes up short in any category is now an "idiot" and should be treated as trash.
No one is saying that ! Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. The problems comes about when none of the idiot's strengths are not able to utilized and their weaknesses are a detriment to the team and outweigh whatever positive contributions they could make. THEN it is time to cut the dead weight.
It is like the cheap customer who is never happy -- constantly complains. Sometime it is better to refuse to do business with him as they are costing you time and money for little or no gain. Let the competition waste their time dealing with them.
This isn't rocket science. First, you try to see if the team can utilize the "idiot's" strengths. Second, you try communicating with the person to get them to be a more productive member. They can't change their behavior if they are unaware of it. Third, you give them some time to change. Lastly, you get rid of them if nothing else works.
Clinging to some dogmatic stance is completely unpractical. People who enable other people bringing the team down simply because "We can't offend little Johnny's feelings" are part of the problem. They are the pussies. Usually the situation can be resolved diplomatically, if not, then you use "force" by removing them. Sticking your head in the sand, ignoring how a person is dragging down the rest of the team is unproductive and idiotic.
Not sure why you are merging Windows NT in that list.
You missed Win95B, and Win98SE, amongst others. A *complete* 16-bit list is:
* Windows 1.0
* Windows 2.0
* Windows 2.1
* Windows 3.0
* Windows 3.1
* Windows 3.11
* Windows for Workgroups 3.1
* Windows for Workgroups 3.11
* Windows 95
* Windows 95B
* Windows 98
* Windows 98SE
* Windows Me
But yeah, every second major release was usually good (or bad.)
I used to run WinNT 4.0and Win 2000 (Abit BP6 dual Celeron 266 MHz o/c 550 MHz) as my primary desktop.
Both were good. Us game developers would typically use Win2000 to develop Win95/Win98 games until we switched over to Windows XP. (Some would argue that WinXP sucked until SP3.)
/Oblg. joke.
If "pro" means "for" and con means "against" ... then the opposite of "congress" is called what?
> As soon as I read this paragraph, I stopped listening to anything she had to say ...
Not to detract from your other point ... so you toss the baby out with the bath water ?
Maybe the writer is an idiot, but just because they failed to understand one point doesn't make the rest of their conclusions automatically invalid.
(Note: She doesn't understand open source. Developers ARE perfectly willing to reject outside help. i.e. submitted code doesn't meat the code standards, is incomplete, doesn't account for all edge cases, etc.)
It depends.
There is a time to enable -- that is, be patient -- with others, and there is a time to NOT put up with disruptive behavior. Sometimes tough love involves calling a spade a spade.
Often it is better to help nurture the person and help them grow to overcome their weaknesses. Sometimes the fundamental problem can be "resolved" with communication -- put them on probation and see if they are willing to improve.
Other times the problem comes down to productivity. When the "idiot's" lack of quality starts effecting other people's work then sometimes the best course of action is to jettison the idiot. That is not being "obnoxious"; it is instead about "focusing on getting the job done with the least possible amount of delays." You can have idiots in design, in management, in development, in ops, etc. You usually can't control people outside your group, but if you are a manager and there is someone who is dragging the rest of the team down by causing everyone else to redo their work, etc. sometimes the best wake call is to fire their ass.
People who lack critical thinking is not a training issue. As they say "You can't fix stupid."
There is no "silver bullet" because the situations aren't always "black-and-white."
/sarcasm Yeah, let's ignore the context for why they would think that! I mean they could never be right !
Sometimes the designers are idiots.
Sometimes the architects are idiots.
Sometimes the programmers are idiots.
Sometimes the marketing people are idiots.
Sometimes the managers are idiots.
You see, stupidity isn't limited to just one class. /sarcasm How dare anyone hold everyone to a productive standard. I mean it is not like quality of code matters, shipping something on time, etc. Oh wait, sometimes business care about that.
But lets just make a mass blanket statement based out of ignorance instead of finding out what is really going on, what the problem is, and what possible solutions are.
We need a good ol' flame war :-)
Tonight on the net: Theo de Raadt vs Linus Torvalds. Who can cuss out their developers more!
That's because it has always been easier to shoot the messenger, then to pay attention to the message.
Imaginary Property Rights, whatever retarded form they take are still neither Property nor Rights.