"Google Desktop 12.0 now includes tigter Gmail tie-ins, as well as tie-ins to Google Maps, Blogger, RSS 3.0, and a new replacement kernel for Windows."
I love how Google doesn't take over by force or monopoly - it just releases products that intice people, and quietly, those products replace the need for other applications which might be considered... you know... competition.
not to worry - once a government mandated stipend of $20/computer is given to MS to cover the possibility of it running a pirated version of MS (Macs too, what with BOCHS, VPC, etc.) they will reopen downloads to pirated versions. right? after all, burning downloaded MP3s is legal now. right?
Here here. Let's please not focus on ID just because it is the latest thing to come out of this government. Rather, let's focus on the torrent of unsound and unresearched scientific claims made by the administration and the stifiling of scientists who strongly oppose such intrusion.
Agreed. And shows like Futurama are awesome for this purpose as well, considering the brain mass theyhad.
I personally can't see anything but benefits from taking mainstream media and making it mathematically and scientifically sound. You don't lose any wow factor, but you also don't present preposterous information. Real science can be spectacularly amazing, especially some of the newer physics theories dealing with dimensions (string theory, etc.) and space-time as the fourth dimension.
I'm a software developer by trade, but am I the only one who owns a Mac and runs virtual PC with Windows XP, 2000, and Linux (Ubuntu, in my case)??
Or perhaps runs Windows XP and uses QEMU for Windows 2000 and Linux or runs Linux, and uses VMWare for Windows XP and PearPC for Mac OSX?
My point is that all of these OS wars, and I use - actively - all three major flavors. And I know I can't be alone. Why use only a hammer to build a house when you have so many different tools in your toolbox?
If that is your beef than perhpas it comes about because of a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories.
I certainly have no missunderstanding of the differences, having degrees in both biology and computer science, and a minor in physics. Schools do not teach the fundamentals of your argument, which is that there are no solid facts in science that apply to all cases. "Scientific law" is an antiquated idea, which is proving itself more and more to be as we get into quantum theory and quantum mechanics. Scientific law is - at best - applicable to a specific set of parameters, but as we learn more about the universe we find that the universe is not governed by these parameters in all instances.
However, students are still taught the difference between theory and law almost from their introduction to science as a subject and are expected to accept anything presented as scientific law as a guarenteed truth. They are not encouraged to question or taught to understand that these laws exist within specific parameters. And so when something like evolution is presented as rock-solid science (which it is in textbooks and science classrooms around the world) students accept these theories as fact and do not proport to question or investigate that which they are taught.
Whatever they decide to do, I hope they hurry up and get it done, so that when they come back unscathed everyone can breathe easier.
People love a tragedy, don't they? And when something tragic happens, they look so intently for someone to blame, that those who have any ability to do anything to prevent a reoccurance are put on super-high-intensity alert. Can putting so much crazy media pressure on NASA be good for these folks? And why don't we care two licks about the incredible scientific and diplomatic achievments of the space program, but are so rediculously latched on to a falling piece of foam that has happened thousands of times before?
People love a tragedy. Morbid curiosity makes us stick around not to witness a safe recovery, but to see if tragedy strikes again, so we can Monday-morning-QB the entire situation as if we have a clue what we're talking about.
Even posting this information on Slashdot shows the incredible amount of unwarranted press this is getting. But alas, I am still posting, because I am still reading. Damned my human nature.
At the point where a person advocates teaching religion in science classes, or campaign against scientific theories on the basis of religious orthodoxy, they are an extremist in my book.
Evolution is an established scientific theory, in the most generally accepted scientific use of the word. If it is a science class, then evolution belongs there.
I agree with you whole heartedly. My desire would be, however, that evolution be taught as just that - a scientific theory that represents itself as the best explaination we have now, but not rock-solid fact. That's the major beef I have.
I also don't believe that orthodox believers of religions to be extremists by definition. Classifying them as such - in today's society and jargo - places them in the same category as Heaven's-Gate-suicide-comet-alien believers and violent Islamic extremists.
As a christian, my interpretation is that Jesus basically told us, forget about the old testament, it's obsolete now, and here's what's important: Love God, and Love your neighbor. If you follow those two rules, the 10 commandments basically become moot, because they all fall under those two. If you do your best to follow those two, you're going to be a good person, you can plug yourself into pretty much any marginally accepting culture/society, and no one really has a right to complain.
I know this is offtopic, so mod me as such, but I would venture to say that Jesus didn't say the entire Old Testament was obsolete. Almost any Christian religion would tell you that's dangerous. The 10 commandments are still extremely important (although I understand quite clearly how if you "Love your neighbor, Love God" you wouldn't defy any of the commandments to begin with - and agree with you on that.)
I do agree that loving your neighbor doesn't mean converting them. I see it as more of the first ammendment to the constitution. Free speech doesn't mean freedom to say what you want to hear, it's freedom for others to say what you don't want to hear. In the same vein, loving your neighbor is accepting them as a brother or sister, no matter who they are, religiously or otherwise. Although, this also requires loving and forgiving people like the 9/11 terrorists, which I could never do, but then again these are ideals to strive towards, and I'm definitely not perfect...
I find my faith to be comforting and relaxing. I can't imagine it any other way. I can't imagine fretting over the beliefs of people I've never even met. Like I don't already have enough to worry about.
Amen. Religion is between God and me. He and I will sort it all out at the end. Who cares if my next door neighbor worships a golden calf?
The problem is that the people who are making the most noise out there advocating Creationism and trying to teach ID in science classes ARE extremists.
I don't necessarily agree with this whole-heartedly, but in fact it's true - in so MANY places - religion, politics, PC in schools, etc. - where the minority extremist voice is the loudest. That said, there are plenty of Christians - educated ones I might add - who are Creationists and take offense to schools teaching evolution as scientific fact.
As a side note, once again I said one thing in favor of - or defending - Creationists, and was modded down to -1. The modders at Slashdot do just about everything they can to stife intelligent, appropriate debate.
Also, I never stated I WAS a Creationist, I just said I took offense to the classification of all Creationists/IDists as extremists, as that paints most of my family and friends as extremists. That was my point...
The problem is that there's still a sizable contingent of extremist christians out there
I take serious amounts of offense to a person believing in Creationism or ID being called an extremist. A belief that you do not share does not automatically put someone into a fringe extremist group which is to be feared or summarily dismissed.
No no no - you've got it all wrong. All you have to do is find the hidden alien base, put your hand on the sphere with the 4 finger hand imprint, and suddenly Mars will have the atmosphere - and more importantly the protection - they so desperately need.
This may be cause for a tiny bit of concern, considering what has been happening over at devianART, with the ousting of jark (one of the two original founders) by the corporate entity.
The lesson of deviantART is that once the corporation starts pursuing profits, and this becomes more important than the community, the origins of the foundation and the original purpose and driving force of the community may become lost.
We forget that if the Bush administration has taught us anything, it's that secret is better. The FBI will investigate any leaking of information, because information is not to be shared with the masses. God forbid. I am TOTALLY reporting your ass to the thought police.
How would you like it if your employer decided not to pay you...
I don't find this to be a very plausable argument. The contract between worker and employer should be only allowed to govern the time of actual employ. I get paid for 37.5 hours a week, and in that time I should have dictated to me the work that my boss wishes me to accomplish. The work done in that time should be considered secret and the ownership of the comany for which I work.
However, allowing any sort of governance outside of the actual time for which I am paid is absurdity at its worst. A company should not be able to tell me where I can work outside of that time any more than they should be able to tell me what restaurants I am allowed to eat at, what sports I am allowed to watch on TV, etc. in the 130.5 hours I am NOT paid by said company.
This can be extended to intellectual property rights on side projects - it's rediculous that a company should be able to own any code that I write in my 130.5 hours of unpaid time.
I believe that if this person is unallowed to take the job at Google, it should be Microsoft's responsibility to pay him for the 40 hours a week that they are taking away from him, at the same rate - otherwise they should not be allowed to dictate jack shit in a person's life for time they are not paying.
I know I'll get modded down for this, but this is like patenting employees, protection wise. I know the argument "YOU signed it, YOU wanted the job" but in my field (software development) I haven't come across a single contract that is void of a non-compete. Fact is, that contract basically says that not only are you going to work for company X, but company X now officially and legally has jurisdiction over what you do for a living in the future - which is freikin robbery, stealing my potential to earn as much as I can in what was supposed to be a capitalistic society, supporting the American Dream of earning the maxiumum of my potential.
I hate turning over my rights to the government. I hate it worse when I turn them over to a corporation.
Slashdot Mirror
"Google Desktop 12.0 now includes tigter Gmail tie-ins, as well as tie-ins to Google Maps, Blogger, RSS 3.0, and a new replacement kernel for Windows."
I love how Google doesn't take over by force or monopoly - it just releases products that intice people, and quietly, those products replace the need for other applications which might be considered... you know... competition.
not to worry - once a government mandated stipend of $20/computer is given to MS to cover the possibility of it running a pirated version of MS (Macs too, what with BOCHS, VPC, etc.) they will reopen downloads to pirated versions. right? after all, burning downloaded MP3s is legal now. right?
Actually the government is going to GIVE NASA to Google, the 4 billion is just to keep it running for 6 months.
hmm... not sure this shouldn't get an insightful mod too...
Here's a great place to start:
Sorry, just start with those...
Here here. Let's please not focus on ID just because it is the latest thing to come out of this government. Rather, let's focus on the torrent of unsound and unresearched scientific claims made by the administration and the stifiling of scientists who strongly oppose such intrusion.
Here's a great place to start:
In a word, YES.
Agreed. And shows like Futurama are awesome for this purpose as well, considering the brain mass they had.
I personally can't see anything but benefits from taking mainstream media and making it mathematically and scientifically sound. You don't lose any wow factor, but you also don't present preposterous information. Real science can be spectacularly amazing, especially some of the newer physics theories dealing with dimensions (string theory, etc.) and space-time as the fourth dimension.
I love science.
I'm a software developer by trade, but am I the only one who owns a Mac and runs virtual PC with Windows XP, 2000, and Linux (Ubuntu, in my case)??
Or perhaps runs Windows XP and uses QEMU for Windows 2000 and Linux or runs Linux, and uses VMWare for Windows XP and PearPC for Mac OSX?
My point is that all of these OS wars, and I use - actively - all three major flavors. And I know I can't be alone. Why use only a hammer to build a house when you have so many different tools in your toolbox?
If that is your beef than perhpas it comes about because of a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories.
I certainly have no missunderstanding of the differences, having degrees in both biology and computer science, and a minor in physics. Schools do not teach the fundamentals of your argument, which is that there are no solid facts in science that apply to all cases. "Scientific law" is an antiquated idea, which is proving itself more and more to be as we get into quantum theory and quantum mechanics. Scientific law is - at best - applicable to a specific set of parameters, but as we learn more about the universe we find that the universe is not governed by these parameters in all instances.
However, students are still taught the difference between theory and law almost from their introduction to science as a subject and are expected to accept anything presented as scientific law as a guarenteed truth. They are not encouraged to question or taught to understand that these laws exist within specific parameters. And so when something like evolution is presented as rock-solid science (which it is in textbooks and science classrooms around the world) students accept these theories as fact and do not proport to question or investigate that which they are taught.
Hence my beef.
Whatever they decide to do, I hope they hurry up and get it done, so that when they come back unscathed everyone can breathe easier.
People love a tragedy, don't they? And when something tragic happens, they look so intently for someone to blame, that those who have any ability to do anything to prevent a reoccurance are put on super-high-intensity alert. Can putting so much crazy media pressure on NASA be good for these folks? And why don't we care two licks about the incredible scientific and diplomatic achievments of the space program, but are so rediculously latched on to a falling piece of foam that has happened thousands of times before?
People love a tragedy. Morbid curiosity makes us stick around not to witness a safe recovery, but to see if tragedy strikes again, so we can Monday-morning-QB the entire situation as if we have a clue what we're talking about.
Even posting this information on Slashdot shows the incredible amount of unwarranted press this is getting. But alas, I am still posting, because I am still reading. Damned my human nature.
At the point where a person advocates teaching religion in science classes, or campaign against scientific theories on the basis of religious orthodoxy, they are an extremist in my book.
Evolution is an established scientific theory, in the most generally accepted scientific use of the word. If it is a science class, then evolution belongs there.
I agree with you whole heartedly. My desire would be, however, that evolution be taught as just that - a scientific theory that represents itself as the best explaination we have now, but not rock-solid fact. That's the major beef I have.
I also don't believe that orthodox believers of religions to be extremists by definition. Classifying them as such - in today's society and jargo - places them in the same category as Heaven's-Gate-suicide-comet-alien believers and violent Islamic extremists.
But I respect your argument, geeber.
As a christian, my interpretation is that Jesus basically told us, forget about the old testament, it's obsolete now, and here's what's important: Love God, and Love your neighbor. If you follow those two rules, the 10 commandments basically become moot, because they all fall under those two. If you do your best to follow those two, you're going to be a good person, you can plug yourself into pretty much any marginally accepting culture/society, and no one really has a right to complain.
I know this is offtopic, so mod me as such, but I would venture to say that Jesus didn't say the entire Old Testament was obsolete. Almost any Christian religion would tell you that's dangerous. The 10 commandments are still extremely important (although I understand quite clearly how if you "Love your neighbor, Love God" you wouldn't defy any of the commandments to begin with - and agree with you on that.)
I do agree that loving your neighbor doesn't mean converting them. I see it as more of the first ammendment to the constitution. Free speech doesn't mean freedom to say what you want to hear, it's freedom for others to say what you don't want to hear. In the same vein, loving your neighbor is accepting them as a brother or sister, no matter who they are, religiously or otherwise. Although, this also requires loving and forgiving people like the 9/11 terrorists, which I could never do, but then again these are ideals to strive towards, and I'm definitely not perfect...
I find my faith to be comforting and relaxing. I can't imagine it any other way. I can't imagine fretting over the beliefs of people I've never even met. Like I don't already have enough to worry about.
Amen. Religion is between God and me. He and I will sort it all out at the end. Who cares if my next door neighbor worships a golden calf?
The problem is that the people who are making the most noise out there advocating Creationism and trying to teach ID in science classes ARE extremists.
I don't necessarily agree with this whole-heartedly, but in fact it's true - in so MANY places - religion, politics, PC in schools, etc. - where the minority extremist voice is the loudest. That said, there are plenty of Christians - educated ones I might add - who are Creationists and take offense to schools teaching evolution as scientific fact.
As a side note, once again I said one thing in favor of - or defending - Creationists, and was modded down to -1. The modders at Slashdot do just about everything they can to stife intelligent, appropriate debate.
Also, I never stated I WAS a Creationist, I just said I took offense to the classification of all Creationists/IDists as extremists, as that paints most of my family and friends as extremists. That was my point...
Agreed, NewEgg has always done right by me. I read the reviews but I usually go there with an understanding of the product I want beforehand.
You've gotta love this though:
changed the monitoring responsibilities to its marketing team
Because marketing isn't responsible for putting a positive face on a companies products or anything.
Never trust any opinion coming from an institution which stands to gain financially from one side of the opinion or the other.
The problem is that there's still a sizable contingent of extremist christians out there
I take serious amounts of offense to a person believing in Creationism or ID being called an extremist. A belief that you do not share does not automatically put someone into a fringe extremist group which is to be feared or summarily dismissed.
Creationists and IDists - careful what you say. You could be blocked from posting for over a month.
No no no - you've got it all wrong. All you have to do is find the hidden alien base, put your hand on the sphere with the 4 finger hand imprint, and suddenly Mars will have the atmosphere - and more importantly the protection - they so desperately need.
Does no one have mod points anymore? This is funny!
This may be cause for a tiny bit of concern, considering what has been happening over at devianART, with the ousting of jark (one of the two original founders) by the corporate entity.
The lesson of deviantART is that once the corporation starts pursuing profits, and this becomes more important than the community, the origins of the foundation and the original purpose and driving force of the community may become lost.
Not to mention it's stealing.
(It's sarcasm, in case anyone is confused.)
We forget that if the Bush administration has taught us anything, it's that secret is better. The FBI will investigate any leaking of information, because information is not to be shared with the masses. God forbid. I am TOTALLY reporting your ass to the thought police.
Why did you think you would get modded down for that? Dumbass.
For comparing this situation to patent rights. Dumbass.
How would you like it if your employer decided not to pay you...
I don't find this to be a very plausable argument. The contract between worker and employer should be only allowed to govern the time of actual employ. I get paid for 37.5 hours a week, and in that time I should have dictated to me the work that my boss wishes me to accomplish. The work done in that time should be considered secret and the ownership of the comany for which I work.
However, allowing any sort of governance outside of the actual time for which I am paid is absurdity at its worst. A company should not be able to tell me where I can work outside of that time any more than they should be able to tell me what restaurants I am allowed to eat at, what sports I am allowed to watch on TV, etc. in the 130.5 hours I am NOT paid by said company.
This can be extended to intellectual property rights on side projects - it's rediculous that a company should be able to own any code that I write in my 130.5 hours of unpaid time.
I believe that if this person is unallowed to take the job at Google, it should be Microsoft's responsibility to pay him for the 40 hours a week that they are taking away from him, at the same rate - otherwise they should not be allowed to dictate jack shit in a person's life for time they are not paying.
I know I'll get modded down for this, but this is like patenting employees, protection wise. I know the argument "YOU signed it, YOU wanted the job" but in my field (software development) I haven't come across a single contract that is void of a non-compete. Fact is, that contract basically says that not only are you going to work for company X, but company X now officially and legally has jurisdiction over what you do for a living in the future - which is freikin robbery, stealing my potential to earn as much as I can in what was supposed to be a capitalistic society, supporting the American Dream of earning the maxiumum of my potential.
I hate turning over my rights to the government. I hate it worse when I turn them over to a corporation.
66% goes to songwriters/composers/publishers
Correct me if I'm wrong please, but aren't "publishers" the record companies (for the larger artists, at least?)
They can't penalize you twice (once with the levy, twice with a lawsuit).
<usa> Lucky Canadian bastards...</usa>