Oh, and Paul Allen did most of the work on Altair BASIC from what I could gather. He was the smart one, Gates was the wannabe entrepreneur.
I don't recall Paul Allen doing more work on Altair BASIC, however he may have. The wiki article says he wrote an Intel 8008 emulator first. I agree Gates was a wannabe business person, in an era of sharing programs he admonished people to not copy and share their software.
The government is superior in this regard to a charity
Citation needed.
Did you know that Mother Teresa tried to open a homeless shelter in New York City? She dropped the plan after NYC insisted an elevator be installed in the 2 buildings? A private group wanted to help people but then government came and stopped it.
Their values are ingrained deeply in about half our populace.
I doubt it. While I agree the Republican Party isn't about to die anytime soon I doubt their values are ingrained in half the population. Even if you say there are just about as many Republicans as there are Democrats there are still people of other persuasions, Greens, libertarians, and socialists among them. Then there are Independents as well as independents. "Independents" because there's an Independent Party as well as people who vote independent of any party. I am one of these, though in the state I live in it's called No Party Preference.
People screaming about how the republican party is dying because they lost a few rounds in the elections are the same people who claim the US is "declining" whenever there's a recession.
I don't recall for sure but I think there were similar shrill calls about the Democrats when the Republican took over congress in 1994 with the Contract with America.
In a couple election cycles they'll gain more representation and will resume pissing me off every day of the week : ) !
Agreed! But they both piss me off. Both Democrats and Republicans want big government, which I oppose, they just disagree about what parts of government should be big.
Is to make their voters dumber than them and aggressively push religious beliefs that teach unquestioning loyalty. The Republicans have cracked and are grasping at straws.
Except three Republicans "support teaching evolution without references to 'weaknesses.'"
the next time you look at that tree and wonder, "where did that come from?" and answer, "evolution", you should keep asking. "Where did that come from?" "the beginning of life" "and that?" "the big bang" "and that?" "we don't know".
First, I don't wonder about those things. And secondly I don't think religion is relevant except in how some religious people try to control others. To me religion is just a hierarchy sometimes hypocritical dictating to others. Spirituality on the other hand I don't know.
You are right - we don't get to choose how the world is, we do get to choose what we believe in.
No, we don't choose what to believe in, they choose us. And those beliefs may change. I know they did for me. I used to believe in a soul or spirit but more than 10 years ago I almost died in a accident, while I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. Well, I did live but my life has been a living hell since. Through no fault of my own I no longer believe what I used to believe.
the Bible defines one and only one way to eternal fellowship with the creator. It declares that Christ is the only way.
"Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed."
"The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994). "
But faith in God DEMANDS a verdict. If you earnestly seek out the truth and read and study the Bible.. the claims made by it and those that follow its teaching.. well - those claims DEMAND a verdict. You must choose whether or not you believe. You will either have eternal life with the Father (eternal joy) or with the condemned (weeping and gnashing of teeth galore). Christ was either who the Bible claims, a liar, or crazy. You must decide. Evolution presents nothing similar. That alone distinguishes faith in God.
No, that means that if "God" exists it is sadistic. If something will inflict an eternity of suffering on someone just because that person does not believe in the right "God" without proof then it is sadistic and not worth being worshiped.
I choose meaning and purpose and hope and joy and TRUTH over a theory filled with innumerable holes.
California is a much larger textbook market than Texas. A much stronger claim can be made that California is the market that publishers try to satisfy. And California is the most likely market to demand evolution and reject its minimization.
Some one up the thread said that though California has a bigger population than Texas whereas in Texas the state orders all the books in California different cities, counties, or districts order different books. California isn't one big orderer of books.
They only respect Popes that are anti-gay and against abortion. the last two have been very conservative so they are willing to ally with Catholics on those issues, but most hardcore evangelicals are actually anti-catholic at heart. My dad could tell you lots of stories about that, especially what members of his church said during the election of 1960.
Oh yea, there were a lot of Protestants and others who were afraid the Vatican would take over the US government if a Catholic, Kennedy, won the presidential election. These people were the same type of Know Nothings who feared Irish Catholics in the 1840s and '50s and tried to make it illegal for them to immigrate into the US.
I've often heard it put forth....if we came from apes....why are there still apes?
We didn't come from apes, we came from the same ancestors as apes. It's called speciation. One species can evolve into another species when a group of the parent species is isolated from the larger group. Two different groups, apes and humans can come from the same ancestors but evolve in different ways.
Science requires peer review and reproducible results. If a hypothesis is proven wrong then it is modified to account for the new data. Religion on the other hand can be proven, if it can be, by one method only. That being Socrates's method, drinking hemlock tea, or otherwise dieing.
So in the small scale, yeah, teach what we know. Here's the fossils we've found, here's the records we have, here's all the things we've observed. How did all this come about? We're not sure.
And I'd reply, "here is a scientific theory to explain how we got here."
I've never taken a science class that refers to evolution as anything more than the current scientific theory of how man came to be. In a science class, we deal with the observable.
Those who say evolution is a "theory" use the word improperly and as a wedge to drive an "intelligent designer" into it. To them it's just one of a number of theories, however in science there is no theory that carries the weight evolution does. At least with the Out of Africa hypothesis there's evidence to back it up, as there is to back up the multiregional hypothesis.
How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
That's fine with me. In school science should be taught in science classes but an "intelligent designer" and all other pseudo theories belongs in a religion or philosophy class. Those who oppose evolution want their beliefs taught in science when it has no scientific basis though.
From my perspective patents only serve to stifle progress
Except that without patents, if someone truly does invent something unique, they will have no chance at selling it, as a large company will just take the idea and out produce the small guy giving him no chance at success.
An inventor has the first mover advantage. Perhaps a compromise can be struck, say a patent term of 5 maybe 10 years. Now if an inventor comes up with something potentially valuable they may take it to a number of angel investors. These investors could then compeat with each other to offer the inventor the best deal. Or pool their resources together.
"which would strengthen their positions and make it more difficult for small companies to create, protect, and bring to market disruptive technology."
What? There is nothing like this in the article itself.
Actually there is something like it in the article: "An additional criticism was that the rules would favor large established companies with existing patent portfolios and hamper smaller firms that are often sources of disruptive technologies and business models."
From my perspective patents only serve to stifle progress in this age of accelerating change. I can understand why they helped back when things moved slower, but that's not the case anymore.
This I totally agree with. If patents are to be kept, issued, then the patent term should be shortened as well as narrowed. A patent application should be accompanied by a working example. And there should be no patents on business methods or software.
Think about it, actually I think it would be easy to decide how much to pay the janitor and I bet more than some would say. All the janitor would have to do is stop working. Pretty quickly other workers would have to start cleaning up after themselves, or work in a pig sty. It may not seem like a big deal but many people can work more effectively in a clean environment.
I'd say you didn't read "Altas Shrugged" but you already did say it. In it the subject John Galt travels the world to talk business owners to convince them to abandon their business because of socialist governments nationalizing businesses.
If Ayn Rand was right, engineers would make more money than CEOs.
It's easier if they start their own business and or work for themselves. Even Bill Gates started as a programmer when he started Microsoft. He was the first person to hack a basic interpreter, the Altair BASIC, for a homebrew or microcomputer. He dropped out of college to do so.
on the open market, person A makes eight times more money than person B in the same period of time.
Except you don't say how many sales A and B make. If X cost 7 tymes what Y does but they have the same capabilities it's likely more Ys will be sold. I doubt even you will pay 7 tymes what an item cost for the same functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
Query whether or not they would be okay with teaching the African or Islamic genesis myths as opposed to the Judeo-Christian model.
There are different African genesis myths but Islam shares with Judaism and Christianity their Genesis story.
Falcon
Oh, and Paul Allen did most of the work on Altair BASIC from what I could gather. He was the smart one, Gates was the wannabe entrepreneur.
I don't recall Paul Allen doing more work on Altair BASIC, however he may have. The wiki article says he wrote an Intel 8008 emulator first. I agree Gates was a wannabe business person, in an era of sharing programs he admonished people to not copy and share their software.
Falcon
The government is superior in this regard to a charity
Citation needed.
Did you know that Mother Teresa tried to open a homeless shelter in New York City? She dropped the plan after NYC insisted an elevator be installed in the 2 buildings? A private group wanted to help people but then government came and stopped it.
Falcon
Their values are ingrained deeply in about half our populace.
I doubt it. While I agree the Republican Party isn't about to die anytime soon I doubt their values are ingrained in half the population. Even if you say there are just about as many Republicans as there are Democrats there are still people of other persuasions, Greens, libertarians, and socialists among them. Then there are Independents as well as independents. "Independents" because there's an Independent Party as well as people who vote independent of any party. I am one of these, though in the state I live in it's called No Party Preference.
People screaming about how the republican party is dying because they lost a few rounds in the elections are the same people who claim the US is "declining" whenever there's a recession.
I don't recall for sure but I think there were similar shrill calls about the Democrats when the Republican took over congress in 1994 with the Contract with America.
In a couple election cycles they'll gain more representation and will resume pissing me off every day of the week : ) !
Agreed! But they both piss me off. Both Democrats and Republicans want big government, which I oppose, they just disagree about what parts of government should be big.
Falcon
Is to make their voters dumber than them and aggressively push religious beliefs that teach unquestioning loyalty. The Republicans have cracked and are grasping at straws.
Except three Republicans "support teaching evolution without references to 'weaknesses.'"
Falcon
the next time you look at that tree and wonder, "where did that come from?" and answer, "evolution", you should keep asking. "Where did that come from?" "the beginning of life" "and that?" "the big bang" "and that?" "we don't know".
First, I don't wonder about those things. And secondly I don't think religion is relevant except in how some religious people try to control others. To me religion is just a hierarchy sometimes hypocritical dictating to others. Spirituality on the other hand I don't know.
Falcon
If you put the top 10% most religious people in a state by themselves and gave them 0 support. They would wipe themselves out in a matter of decades.
Unfortunately some fundamentalist Mormon sects disprove that. There are sects that have lived isolated for decades.
I've got to say though I disagree with them, a lot of the people in these sects are hard working people.
Falcon
If you read the article, you will see that it is likely that the vote will be 8-7 against this proposal.
Actually TFA says "'Anything can happen,' Ms. Hardy said."
Falcon
You are right - we don't get to choose how the world is, we do get to choose what we believe in.
No, we don't choose what to believe in, they choose us. And those beliefs may change. I know they did for me. I used to believe in a soul or spirit but more than 10 years ago I almost died in a accident, while I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. Well, I did live but my life has been a living hell since. Through no fault of my own I no longer believe what I used to believe.
the Bible defines one and only one way to eternal fellowship with the creator. It declares that Christ is the only way.
Then the creator is sadistic!
Falcon
Citation NEEDED!!!
"Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed."
"The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994). "
But faith in God DEMANDS a verdict. If you earnestly seek out the truth and read and study the Bible.. the claims made by it and those that follow its teaching .. well - those claims DEMAND a verdict. You must choose whether or not you believe. You will either have eternal life with the Father (eternal joy) or with the condemned (weeping and gnashing of teeth galore). Christ was either who the Bible claims, a liar, or crazy. You must decide. Evolution presents nothing similar. That alone distinguishes faith in God.
No, that means that if "God" exists it is sadistic. If something will inflict an eternity of suffering on someone just because that person does not believe in the right "God" without proof then it is sadistic and not worth being worshiped.
I choose meaning and purpose and hope and joy and TRUTH over a theory filled with innumerable holes.
Where are these supposed holes?
Falcon
California is a much larger textbook market than Texas. A much stronger claim can be made that California is the market that publishers try to satisfy. And California is the most likely market to demand evolution and reject its minimization.
Some one up the thread said that though California has a bigger population than Texas whereas in Texas the state orders all the books in California different cities, counties, or districts order different books. California isn't one big orderer of books.
Falcon
They only respect Popes that are anti-gay and against abortion. the last two have been very conservative so they are willing to ally with Catholics on those issues, but most hardcore evangelicals are actually anti-catholic at heart. My dad could tell you lots of stories about that, especially what members of his church said during the election of 1960.
Oh yea, there were a lot of Protestants and others who were afraid the Vatican would take over the US government if a Catholic, Kennedy, won the presidential election. These people were the same type of Know Nothings who feared Irish Catholics in the 1840s and '50s and tried to make it illegal for them to immigrate into the US.
Falcon
I've often heard it put forth....if we came from apes....why are there still apes?
We didn't come from apes, we came from the same ancestors as apes. It's called speciation. One species can evolve into another species when a group of the parent species is isolated from the larger group. Two different groups, apes and humans can come from the same ancestors but evolve in different ways.
Falcon
Science requires peer review and reproducible results. If a hypothesis is proven wrong then it is modified to account for the new data. Religion on the other hand can be proven, if it can be, by one method only. That being Socrates's method, drinking hemlock tea, or otherwise dieing.
Falcon
So in the small scale, yeah, teach what we know. Here's the fossils we've found, here's the records we have, here's all the things we've observed. How did all this come about? We're not sure.
And I'd reply, "here is a scientific theory to explain how we got here."
Falcon
I've never taken a science class that refers to evolution as anything more than the current scientific theory of how man came to be. In a science class, we deal with the observable.
Those who say evolution is a "theory" use the word improperly and as a wedge to drive an "intelligent designer" into it. To them it's just one of a number of theories, however in science there is no theory that carries the weight evolution does. At least with the Out of Africa hypothesis there's evidence to back it up, as there is to back up the multiregional hypothesis.
How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
That's fine with me. In school science should be taught in science classes but an "intelligent designer" and all other pseudo theories belongs in a religion or philosophy class. Those who oppose evolution want their beliefs taught in science when it has no scientific basis though.
Falcon
So in the future, when referring to these people, please use "Rednecks" or "Hillbilly Yokels" or "Inbred Fucktards".
Unfortunately those adjectives don't describe all of them, religious fundamentalists
Falcon
From my perspective patents only serve to stifle progress
Except that without patents, if someone truly does invent something unique, they will have no chance at selling it, as a large company will just take the idea and out produce the small guy giving him no chance at success.
An inventor has the first mover advantage. Perhaps a compromise can be struck, say a patent term of 5 maybe 10 years. Now if an inventor comes up with something potentially valuable they may take it to a number of angel investors. These investors could then compeat with each other to offer the inventor the best deal. Or pool their resources together.
Falcon
"which would strengthen their positions and make it more difficult for small companies to create, protect, and bring to market disruptive technology."
What? There is nothing like this in the article itself.
Actually there is something like it in the article: "An additional criticism was that the rules would favor large established companies with existing patent portfolios and hamper smaller firms that are often sources of disruptive technologies and business models."
From my perspective patents only serve to stifle progress in this age of accelerating change. I can understand why they helped back when things moved slower, but that's not the case anymore.
This I totally agree with. If patents are to be kept, issued, then the patent term should be shortened as well as narrowed. A patent application should be accompanied by a working example. And there should be no patents on business methods or software.
Falcon
When I used Windows I liked Crimson Editor and TextEdit.
Falcon
Think about it, actually I think it would be easy to decide how much to pay the janitor and I bet more than some would say. All the janitor would have to do is stop working. Pretty quickly other workers would have to start cleaning up after themselves, or work in a pig sty. It may not seem like a big deal but many people can work more effectively in a clean environment.
Falcon
Actually in Mondragon in the Basque country they have worker-cooperatives working as a corporate structure
I heard about them years ago, I wonder how the worker coops in Euskadi are doing now.
Falcon
Ben & Jerry tried that, gave it up after a few years...
Was that before or after Ben & Jerry's was bought?
Falcon
I'd say you didn't read "Altas Shrugged" but you already did say it. In it the subject John Galt travels the world to talk business owners to convince them to abandon their business because of socialist governments nationalizing businesses.
If Ayn Rand was right, engineers would make more money than CEOs.
It's easier if they start their own business and or work for themselves. Even Bill Gates started as a programmer when he started Microsoft. He was the first person to hack a basic interpreter, the Altair BASIC, for a homebrew or microcomputer. He dropped out of college to do so.
Falcon
on the open market, person A makes eight times more money than person B in the same period of time.
Except you don't say how many sales A and B make. If X cost 7 tymes what Y does but they have the same capabilities it's likely more Ys will be sold. I doubt even you will pay 7 tymes what an item cost for the same functionality.
Falcon