And other people forget how real world has practical limits (where is my flying car?), how we might approach another long period of relative technological stability (a rule for our civilization, with short bursts of progress). In such environment, those valuing harmony should again flourish.
BTW, I live in Eastern Europe / this place could learn a lot things...
And I suppose it has some hidden significance, how it's from a collapsed Quebec bridge, considering their sometimes slightly peculiar relationship with the rest of Canada...;)
A bit hard for engineers to immigrate and OTOH to outsource you, I imagine...;>
You're right, naturally. Perhaps I should be more clear how it was, after all, about the value of FB - the specific justification displaying a sort of circular thinking IMHO: FB essentially made the issue crucial (this doesn't attach any value to it, doesn't say it's bad; just sayin') by inducing reconnection in the first place.
As a side-note, in more general picture of FB & human connections - ultimately acting as another vehicle for illusions of social animal. The number of contacts many people have on FB easily touches on the limits of how many individuals we can really track with our minds at all. That's still basically nothing out of almost 7 billion people alive. Or another grande illusion - how we want to be remembered, convince ourselves how we indeed do it... but we not only loose track of our quite recent ancestors very soon, don't really care about them. Ultimately, hardly anybody is even aware of the number of dead homo sapiens sapiens, over 100 billion (if my back-of-the-napkin calculations are correct, that's on average ~1000 remains of modern humans per km^2 of land, when excluding oceans and Antarctic but including desolated areas) - more, we actually prefer to convince ourselves in the "myth of the living" / how supposedly more humans are alive than have ever lived.
Maybe they wanted to do it all along and now finally can?;) (Gtalk, Gmail Video; possibly the best options on non-stellar connections / I encountered some cases of Iranians wanting to use them... but no luck)
Keep in mind that thoroughness of points of interest in Google Maps is lacking for many places. Might be especially poor in a place which couldn't really use them for a long time.
I did the same search for a largish EU city nearby me, the results look much closer to Tehran than to Denver; and not due to lack of coffee shops.
(plus - yes, keep in mind that Iran is nothing like the United States / coffee is pretty much ignored in Iran / they are near the top of tea countries, it's basically sacrosanct there IIRC / who knows how Google Maps approaches this)
Windows mobile was the dominant smartphone platform for half a decade
In some fairly atypical (though highly visible & with a lot of vocal pundits) local markets, at best...
BTW WinPhone7 seems to sit on a hybrid of CE 6 & 7? And anyway, it is now totally about.Net runtime, can be quite transparently moved to NT kernel (what Ballmer seems to suggest, "real / core Windows everywhere" et al). Which of course makes TFA even somewhat more stupid.
Hm, cars even seem not that different from "marginal cost of producing new unit is minimal" of computer industry... especially in relative terms, between land barges and econoboxes.
(I'm quite certain the costs of factory line, tooling, raw materials, parts, design, etc. are pretty close between them / most likely why some manufacturers fall into a trap of selling econoboxes at a loss / isuppli for cars could be interesting...)
Or maybe that's almost the case with... almost anything?
I would wish them to not repeat some of our mistakes / power usage efficiency is a good thing (alas, a form of post-colonial mentality - valuing wastefulness enabled by prosperity, seeing it not as outcome but as one of the reasons - is too prevalent...)
Now imagine how a more "standard" machine would look... (and in case you don't know: high tech toys tend to have large premium when compared to our prices, in absolute numbers)
But no, really, they tend to be more dependable in this regard (just to be clear: when going up the price chain within their offer, the probability of encountering slightly less dependable models does increase / it's also not all roses; but even there it seems to be better)
Mountainous example was simply the only time I bothered to notice effects of marginal reception, it's quite rare at my place (curiosity to check it when a small nearby group, also with newfangled smartphone types, had some problems / how nowadays people seem to go to the mountains to call somebody and say "guess where I am?" is another, much more serious and disturbing issue)
Why do you believe in some deity / religion in a mostly similar way as the people who brought you up?(*)
Why do you fear reality without "something after"? Why do you allow yourself being hopeful about it? Why do you allow yourself to be convinced in lack of purpose, beauty, etc. without the deity of your caregivers?
Why do you think my life (and of all humans) is pointless, worthless without it? Why do you disregard us so much?
((*)I'm just guessing some merely probable information for the sake of argument, I'm sure you see that the possibility of this small part being incorrect in very few cases doesn't change much)
Science concerns the observable and (possibly eventually) explainable. These things are of no interest to religion.
I'm not sure if we can put it that way. Most importantly, on a basic level, religion is deeply rooted in how a lot people perceive observable reality, how they interact with it. Indeed it can be said that, as an isolated force, it strives to be all-encompassing.
That tends to "naturally" bring it on a collision course
You seem to write about it yourself:
In science, all phenomenon must have a natural explanation, and scientists just leave the open questions open so if data comes in to fill them, they can observe that data and not be blinded by the question being filled in by something supernatural.
...which was and probably still is quite widespread in general, "outside" science (inevitably we can see some particle physicists, neurosurgeons, astronomers, cosmologists, etc. in this discussion - but they are quite inconsequential in the whole picture; how they managed to integrate religion with what they do IMHO matters less than what they think, in grander picture) And further:
There is no observable phenomenon that exists beyond the realm of nature, and one would be required in order to prove God.
Last time I checked, a lot of faiths claim "acknowledged" miracles. Also:
The foundation of religion is Faith (note the capitalization). If you have to see verifiable proof in order to believe something, it's not religion. I'd argue that if you DO see proof, it's no longer religion, since "without Faith I am nothing"
I would be extremely surprised if all humans used the same standard of "proof" / that for most of them it is "scientific-grade" one.
As a sidenote:
If you can demonstrate it, observe it, prove it, disprove it, touch it, measure it, or destroy it, it's in the realm of science.
I'm pretty certain ultimately we, humans, have essentially destroyed a lot of religions and... gods;p (and, yes, observed them of course... heck, even "proved" and "disproved" (keeping in mind what I wrote about "proof" above...but not only, considering many curious, to say the least, Revealed Truths))
I'm sure God was relieved when Galileo was un-excommunicated for saying the Earth goes around the sun.;-P
I expect he/she/it wouldn't be... (more below)
I'm saying that a creator-god would be so vastly beyond our understanding, that trying to pigeon hole it into our limited understanding of the universe would be like an amoeba trying to conceptualize the solar system.
This might have some problems, some flaws - it can be suspected to work both ways; something which a lot of faithful probably would prefer not to face
Such being would be most likely as irrelevant to us as we are to it - it's what TFA might be easily also about!! No reason to care about us (again, what the Universe seems to display in abundance!), pretty much everything coming from preachers being a well-meaning fabrication at best except for the "fact" that there indeed is some creator (but quite at odds with what he/she/it "claimed")
Why such (what I agree is) generally honest and coherent approach to the concept of uberdeity doesn't really fly in practice, in folk mythologies. So does it really matter at all, even as a concept?
A somewhat large part might shrug and answer with a question "what is deeper than the center of the Earth?" or "what is to the north of north pole?" (well, seems to still fit in context here)
...science doesn't (and can't) speak to the "whys" and what is "good"... I'm saying it shouldn't try...
Evolutionary sociology, psychology, etc. seem to display some potential here, at answering part of the supposedly "unanswerable"... if one is really eager, there's always after that a jump to neuroscience, biology, chemistry, our present understanding of physics, taking a tour through offshoots of information age... and who knows where further.
You definitely abhor putting silly limits on gods, why so readily put limits on naturally attainable intelligence?;p (slightly broader term than "science" used in this discussion, a bit better IMHO)
You assume all cellular radio modules (and Nokia is heavily involved in making their own) are created equal? That all mobile phones are generally equal in reception?
(it's somewhat fun being in some valley in the mountains, where most nearby smartphones of new types have major issues (admittedly a small sample) / at best SMS goes through, while my inexpensive 1208 (a backup phone basically, also for such occasions) shows most bars and performs accordingly)
We are here for a blink of an eye, as far as past (and possibly future) timeline of the Universe is concerned. Not to mention sizes. Saying how we are in fact not here, in this Universe, is an awfully good approximation.
Heck, even fellow humans don't give much thought to us, on average (when considering almost 7 billion of them that are living, and how much we really care about 100+ billion that are dead)
You probably have to throw in somewhere Zoroastrianism, Aristotelian philosophy, Mithraism, countless local paganisms (one notable group being those brought into and blended in Rome)... heck, it's hopeless.
And even how Bahá'í Faith (not Islam) is probably closest to next full update doesn't have to mean anything. Curiously, it's somewhat persecuted; particularly in its cradle (among few other places). Seems reasonably decent (so far), but that doesn't determine the outcomes in what is essentially an evolutionary process / selection / the fittest traits go on. Too bad it happens too slow for "we'll see where it goes" to have any meaning vs. the length of our lifetimes (and is the main reason for conviction in "Unchanging Truths")
Slashdot Mirror
And other people forget how real world has practical limits (where is my flying car?), how we might approach another long period of relative technological stability (a rule for our civilization, with short bursts of progress). In such environment, those valuing harmony should again flourish.
BTW, I live in Eastern Europe / this place could learn a lot things...
And I suppose it has some hidden significance, how it's from a collapsed Quebec bridge, considering their sometimes slightly peculiar relationship with the rest of Canada... ;)
A bit hard for engineers to immigrate and OTOH to outsource you, I imagine... ;>
You're right, naturally. Perhaps I should be more clear how it was, after all, about the value of FB - the specific justification displaying a sort of circular thinking IMHO: FB essentially made the issue crucial (this doesn't attach any value to it, doesn't say it's bad; just sayin') by inducing reconnection in the first place.
As a side-note, in more general picture of FB & human connections - ultimately acting as another vehicle for illusions of social animal. The number of contacts many people have on FB easily touches on the limits of how many individuals we can really track with our minds at all. That's still basically nothing out of almost 7 billion people alive. ... but we not only loose track of our quite recent ancestors very soon, don't really care about them. Ultimately, hardly anybody is even aware of the number of dead homo sapiens sapiens, over 100 billion (if my back-of-the-napkin calculations are correct, that's on average ~1000 remains of modern humans per km^2 of land, when excluding oceans and Antarctic but including desolated areas) - more, we actually prefer to convince ourselves in the "myth of the living" / how supposedly more humans are alive than have ever lived.
Or another grande illusion - how we want to be remembered, convince ourselves how we indeed do it
Maybe they wanted to do it all along and now finally can? ;) (Gtalk, Gmail Video; possibly the best options on non-stellar connections / I encountered some cases of Iranians wanting to use them ... but no luck)
Keep in mind that thoroughness of points of interest in Google Maps is lacking for many places. Might be especially poor in a place which couldn't really use them for a long time.
I did the same search for a largish EU city nearby me, the results look much closer to Tehran than to Denver; and not due to lack of coffee shops.
(plus - yes, keep in mind that Iran is nothing like the United States / coffee is pretty much ignored in Iran / they are near the top of tea countries, it's basically sacrosanct there IIRC / who knows how Google Maps approaches this)
Windows mobile was the dominant smartphone platform for half a decade
In some fairly atypical (though highly visible & with a lot of vocal pundits) local markets, at best...
BTW WinPhone7 seems to sit on a hybrid of CE 6 & 7? And anyway, it is now totally about .Net runtime, can be quite transparently moved to NT kernel (what Ballmer seems to suggest, "real / core Windows everywhere" et al). Which of course makes TFA even somewhat more stupid.
Hm, cars even seem not that different from "marginal cost of producing new unit is minimal" of computer industry... especially in relative terms, between land barges and econoboxes.
(I'm quite certain the costs of factory line, tooling, raw materials, parts, design, etc. are pretty close between them / most likely why some manufacturers fall into a trap of selling econoboxes at a loss / isuppli for cars could be interesting...)
Or maybe that's almost the case with... almost anything?
Certainly faster than such P3, also than Atoms (which seem to show up in some servers...)
Did you care to look at any benchmark numbers at all? Here's one not too bad comparison. With ARM chips which are already faster than Atom.
I would wish them to not repeat some of our mistakes / power usage efficiency is a good thing (alas, a form of post-colonial mentality - valuing wastefulness enabled by prosperity, seeing it not as outcome but as one of the reasons - is too prevalent...)
On the bright side, general consumers seem to catch onto the concept of "good enough" lately, even if not some slashdotters...
("unfortunately" / it's not like it's overheating, isn't it?)
Now imagine how a more "standard" machine would look... (and in case you don't know: high tech toys tend to have large premium when compared to our prices, in absolute numbers)
OLPC is largely an inexpensive Toughbook, with communities around it to boot. What you linked to...you might be lucky if it's not DOA.
They don't take credit "for the netbook market", they rightly take credit for initiating this category.
If only that was about one anecdotal example...
But no, really, they tend to be more dependable in this regard (just to be clear: when going up the price chain within their offer, the probability of encountering slightly less dependable models does increase / it's also not all roses; but even there it seems to be better)
Mountainous example was simply the only time I bothered to notice effects of marginal reception, it's quite rare at my place (curiosity to check it when a small nearby group, also with newfangled smartphone types, had some problems / how nowadays people seem to go to the mountains to call somebody and say "guess where I am?" is another, much more serious and disturbing issue)
Why do you believe in some deity / religion in a mostly similar way as the people who brought you up?(*)
Why do you fear reality without "something after"? Why do you allow yourself being hopeful about it? Why do you allow yourself to be convinced in lack of purpose, beauty, etc. without the deity of your caregivers?
Why do you think my life (and of all humans) is pointless, worthless without it? Why do you disregard us so much?
Why do you hope for supernatural liar and damager, the worst of cruel sinners?
((*)I'm just guessing some merely probable information for the sake of argument, I'm sure you see that the possibility of this small part being incorrect in very few cases doesn't change much)
Science concerns the observable and (possibly eventually) explainable. These things are of no interest to religion.
I'm not sure if we can put it that way. Most importantly, on a basic level, religion is deeply rooted in how a lot people perceive observable reality, how they interact with it. Indeed it can be said that, as an isolated force, it strives to be all-encompassing.
That tends to "naturally" bring it on a collision course
You seem to write about it yourself:
In science, all phenomenon must have a natural explanation, and scientists just leave the open questions open so if data comes in to fill them, they can observe that data and not be blinded by the question being filled in by something supernatural.
...which was and probably still is quite widespread in general, "outside" science (inevitably we can see some particle physicists, neurosurgeons, astronomers, cosmologists, etc. in this discussion - but they are quite inconsequential in the whole picture; how they managed to integrate religion with what they do IMHO matters less than what they think, in grander picture) And further:
There is no observable phenomenon that exists beyond the realm of nature, and one would be required in order to prove God.
Last time I checked, a lot of faiths claim "acknowledged" miracles. Also:
The foundation of religion is Faith (note the capitalization). If you have to see verifiable proof in order to believe something, it's not religion. I'd argue that if you DO see proof, it's no longer religion, since "without Faith I am nothing"
I would be extremely surprised if all humans used the same standard of "proof" / that for most of them it is "scientific-grade" one.
As a sidenote:
If you can demonstrate it, observe it, prove it, disprove it, touch it, measure it, or destroy it, it's in the realm of science.
I'm pretty certain ultimately we, humans, have essentially destroyed a lot of religions and ... gods ;p (and, yes, observed them of course... heck, even "proved" and "disproved" (keeping in mind what I wrote about "proof" above...but not only, considering many curious, to say the least, Revealed Truths))
I'm sure God was relieved when Galileo was un-excommunicated for saying the Earth goes around the sun. ;-P
I expect he/she/it wouldn't be... (more below)
I'm saying that a creator-god would be so vastly beyond our understanding, that trying to pigeon hole it into our limited understanding of the universe would be like an amoeba trying to conceptualize the solar system.
This might have some problems, some flaws - it can be suspected to work both ways; something which a lot of faithful probably would prefer not to face
Such being would be most likely as irrelevant to us as we are to it - it's what TFA might be easily also about!! No reason to care about us (again, what the Universe seems to display in abundance!), pretty much everything coming from preachers being a well-meaning fabrication at best except for the "fact" that there indeed is some creator (but quite at odds with what he/she/it "claimed")
Why such (what I agree is) generally honest and coherent approach to the concept of uberdeity doesn't really fly in practice, in folk mythologies. So does it really matter at all, even as a concept?
A somewhat large part might shrug and answer with a question "what is deeper than the center of the Earth?" or "what is to the north of north pole?" (well, seems to still fit in context here)
...science doesn't (and can't) speak to the "whys" and what is "good" ... I'm saying it shouldn't try...
Evolutionary sociology, psychology, etc. seem to display some potential here, at answering part of the supposedly "unanswerable"... if one is really eager, there's always after that a jump to neuroscience, biology, chemistry, our present understanding of physics, taking a tour through offshoots of information age ... and who knows where further.
You definitely abhor putting silly limits on gods, why so readily put limits on naturally attainable intelligence? ;p (slightly broader term than "science" used in this discussion, a bit better IMHO)
...or a bit like abandoning the proposition of existence of Russell's teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.
Surely she doesn't actually know what comes from Rome, is convinced in strong agreement / communion / unity of the Church?...
You assume all cellular radio modules (and Nokia is heavily involved in making their own) are created equal? That all mobile phones are generally equal in reception?
(it's somewhat fun being in some valley in the mountains, where most nearby smartphones of new types have major issues (admittedly a small sample) / at best SMS goes through, while my inexpensive 1208 (a backup phone basically, also for such occasions) shows most bars and performs accordingly)
Not an unexpected defense of Demiurge, liar and damager of maltheism, the worst of cruel sinners...
We are here for a blink of an eye, as far as past (and possibly future) timeline of the Universe is concerned. Not to mention sizes. Saying how we are in fact not here, in this Universe, is an awfully good approximation.
Heck, even fellow humans don't give much thought to us, on average (when considering almost 7 billion of them that are living, and how much we really care about 100+ billion that are dead)
You probably have to throw in somewhere Zoroastrianism, Aristotelian philosophy, Mithraism, countless local paganisms (one notable group being those brought into and blended in Rome) ... heck, it's hopeless.
And even how Bahá'í Faith (not Islam) is probably closest to next full update doesn't have to mean anything. Curiously, it's somewhat persecuted; particularly in its cradle (among few other places). Seems reasonably decent (so far), but that doesn't determine the outcomes in what is essentially an evolutionary process / selection / the fittest traits go on. Too bad it happens too slow for "we'll see where it goes" to have any meaning vs. the length of our lifetimes (and is the main reason for conviction in "Unchanging Truths")