I am a Java developer primarily, but I have been given the ultra fun task of administering reports (w00t!).
Now, I really don't like Crystal Reports for several reasons, but when we last had an opportunity to change we found we were stuck with it due to external customers (yes, same problem as MS products, grr!). We then decided to upgrade to version 10 instead. I then had to battle through the web to find out if anyone out there had actually served out Crystal Reports using Java API's - there was VERY limited information out there, but plenty in "the COM basket".
I do have to say though, once I learned my way around the Crystal API it did turn out to be a very useful tool, and quite powerful at that. They just need to boost the online documentation up about 50 notches if they want more mainstream support from the Java crowd.
And yes, the Crystal Enterprise Edition is a complete rip off, after having setup the RAS (Report Application Server) I can heavily recomend heading down that path if you too are stuck with Crystal.
In fact, I would take this a bit further and say that games are generally designed as learning tools (fun being the main ingredient). Board games, kids school yard games, AND computer games. MHO anyway.
Okay, so I'll be first to admit I havn't read TFA - but I didn't want to either; I lost interest as soon as I read 'new program idea to use video games for educational use'.
I remmember playing educational games on the old Amiga's and such when I was a kid, in fact, if I recall correctly, a heck of a lot of the games back then had some sort of educational value to them. I don't know how much they taught me, but my interest in them could well have led me on the path to becomming a programmer.
So you are certain that you are right then? It sounds to me that you are contradicting my contradiction therefore prooving that you can't proove anything:P
your argument:
P1) if one has knowledge then that knowledge is correct(certain)
P2) you have knowledge of evolution
p3) evolution is knowledge
c1) your knowledge of evolution is correct
p5) I have knowledge of creationalism (I hate that term btw!)
p6) creationalism is knowledge
c2) my knowledge of creationalism is correct
I think this shows your contradiction, we cannot both be correct, or certain as the case may be - so I may be correct, or you may be, but not both of us. The problem of course is defining knowledge, which philosphers havn't really been able to do yet; at least to my knowledge I am pretty certain they havn't, but thanks for questioning me:)
That said, I don't want to come off sounding like a nut who thinks science is a bad idea - I have a BSc! In this case, I think there is enough reason to question evolution, enough reason to research alternatives anyway - it really can't do any harm, I would more than happy if evolution had enough.
We definately do need a way to "distinguish truth from fiction", and science is it. Of course it is only 'our' truth, you can always go back to the matrix type argument, this could all be a dream so then 'our' truth is not the ultimate truth.
This is what makes the evolution/creationist argument so interesting to me, evolutionists are finding 'our' truth, while creationists are more looking for the ultimate truth (talking about religious creationists now, but you don't have to be religous to think evolution didn't happen which is why I hate the term).
Of course you can never proove the creationist theory unless you have access to the higher truth, but disprooving evolution would make the argument stronger (in my mind at least) - of course I don't see this being done either. So basically I don't see how they are going to 'research' creationism, and I don't trust anything comming from Bush!.
Again thanks for questioning me, and I still think everything needs questioning! (the earth was 'known' to be flat until it was questioned!)
Put it this way (please bear with me!):
Science is in itself a type of religion (I said bear with me:)!), as nothing can ever be proven 100% correct - to prove something is a 100% you would effectively have to understand EVERYTHING in the universe (and beyond?).
Example, a chemical reaction - we cannot prove that combining two chemicals creates chemical X unless it's molcular structure is EXACTLY the same - then we must define 'the same', are the atoms are the same? the quarks? what about things we don't know about yet? maybe they are different, making it a slightly different substance? And so, my point is we cannot say with 100% certainty that the creeated chemical x is the same as 'natural' chemical X becuase we don't "understand EVERYTHING in the universe (and beyond?)"(c).
Okay, now back to evolution...
I am a christian, I in fact belief evolution is the most likely cause of us being here as we know it. We cannot prove evolution happened without some doubt, in fact I shoot down anyone who believes in evolution "because it was what they were taught in school", QUESTION EVERYTHING! There are so many arguments against evolution! There are also so many for it, it comes down to what you personnally think to be more likely correct, i.e, IT COMES DOWN TO BELIEF!
Ultimatetly there is one "correct" answer for sure, but to obtain this we would have to be all knowing. As humans we have to go with what is most likely, so I think researching both sides of the argument (in depth) is more than overdue (imho).
How about weapons of world destruction? Which is worse?
I simply cannot believe US gets away with this BS when rest of world is condemned if there is the slightest feeling they have nukes!
It has to connect to the internet either to download the adds or to send some sort of add updates, from the article:
"a client-server system that dynamically delivers advertising into video games within the Massive Network"
My question is, why not just block the add server?
"con" - at least not for anything MS based. I remember trying to log in as "con" on a friends computer after hearing about the bug - thinking nothing would happen, next minute the computer froze up and couldn't be rebooted.
Needless to say my friend wasn't impressed! YHBW!
I remember learning to program with Basic at the age of 10, which eventually lead me to a career as a Java developer.
Given the complexities of programming languages now, I wonder how many kids/future programmers have the know how to write even simple programs. I know Java would have been way to overwhelming for me at that age!
Slashdot Mirror
Have you played Civ? I am to busy hitting the any key to find the pause button... Just one more turn and I will look for it...
I am a Java developer primarily, but I have been given the ultra fun task of administering reports (w00t!).
Now, I really don't like Crystal Reports for several reasons, but when we last had an opportunity to change we found we were stuck with it due to external customers (yes, same problem as MS products, grr!). We then decided to upgrade to version 10 instead. I then had to battle through the web to find out if anyone out there had actually served out Crystal Reports using Java API's - there was VERY limited information out there, but plenty in "the COM basket".
I do have to say though, once I learned my way around the Crystal API it did turn out to be a very useful tool, and quite powerful at that. They just need to boost the online documentation up about 50 notches if they want more mainstream support from the Java crowd.
And yes, the Crystal Enterprise Edition is a complete rip off, after having setup the RAS (Report Application Server) I can heavily recomend heading down that path if you too are stuck with Crystal.
In fact, I would take this a bit further and say that games are generally designed as learning tools (fun being the main ingredient). Board games, kids school yard games, AND computer games. MHO anyway.
Okay, so I'll be first to admit I havn't read TFA - but I didn't want to either; I lost interest as soon as I read 'new program idea to use video games for educational use'.
I remmember playing educational games on the old Amiga's and such when I was a kid, in fact, if I recall correctly, a heck of a lot of the games back then had some sort of educational value to them. I don't know how much they taught me, but my interest in them could well have led me on the path to becomming a programmer.
So you are certain that you are right then? It sounds to me that you are contradicting my contradiction therefore prooving that you can't proove anything :P
your argument:
P1) if one has knowledge then that knowledge is correct(certain)
P2) you have knowledge of evolution
p3) evolution is knowledge
c1) your knowledge of evolution is correct
p5) I have knowledge of creationalism (I hate that term btw!)
p6) creationalism is knowledge
c2) my knowledge of creationalism is correct
I think this shows your contradiction, we cannot both be correct, or certain as the case may be - so I may be correct, or you may be, but not both of us. The problem of course is defining knowledge, which philosphers havn't really been able to do yet; at least to my knowledge I am pretty certain they havn't, but thanks for questioning me :)
That said, I don't want to come off sounding like a nut who thinks science is a bad idea - I have a BSc! In this case, I think there is enough reason to question evolution, enough reason to research alternatives anyway - it really can't do any harm, I would more than happy if evolution had enough.
We definately do need a way to "distinguish truth from fiction", and science is it. Of course it is only 'our' truth, you can always go back to the matrix type argument, this could all be a dream so then 'our' truth is not the ultimate truth.
This is what makes the evolution/creationist argument so interesting to me, evolutionists are finding 'our' truth, while creationists are more looking for the ultimate truth (talking about religious creationists now, but you don't have to be religous to think evolution didn't happen which is why I hate the term).
Of course you can never proove the creationist theory unless you have access to the higher truth, but disprooving evolution would make the argument stronger (in my mind at least) - of course I don't see this being done either. So basically I don't see how they are going to 'research' creationism, and I don't trust anything comming from Bush!.
Again thanks for questioning me, and I still think everything needs questioning! (the earth was 'known' to be flat until it was questioned!)
Simon.Put it this way (please bear with me!): :)!), as nothing can ever be proven 100% correct - to prove something is a 100% you would effectively have to understand EVERYTHING in the universe (and beyond?).
Science is in itself a type of religion (I said bear with me
Example, a chemical reaction - we cannot prove that combining two chemicals creates chemical X unless it's molcular structure is EXACTLY the same - then we must define 'the same', are the atoms are the same? the quarks? what about things we don't know about yet? maybe they are different, making it a slightly different substance? And so, my point is we cannot say with 100% certainty that the creeated chemical x is the same as 'natural' chemical X becuase we don't "understand EVERYTHING in the universe (and beyond?)"(c).
Okay, now back to evolution...
I am a christian, I in fact belief evolution is the most likely cause of us being here as we know it. We cannot prove evolution happened without some doubt, in fact I shoot down anyone who believes in evolution "because it was what they were taught in school", QUESTION EVERYTHING! There are so many arguments against evolution! There are also so many for it, it comes down to what you personnally think to be more likely correct, i.e, IT COMES DOWN TO BELIEF!
Ultimatetly there is one "correct" answer for sure, but to obtain this we would have to be all knowing. As humans we have to go with what is most likely, so I think researching both sides of the argument (in depth) is more than overdue (imho).
Simon.
Put the device under you tin foil hat - problem solved!
They get what they deserve simple as that! They efectively DOS attack email boxes, so why not DOS them back?
How about weapons of world destruction? Which is worse? I simply cannot believe US gets away with this BS when rest of world is condemned if there is the slightest feeling they have nukes!
It has to connect to the internet either to download the adds or to send some sort of add updates, from the article: "a client-server system that dynamically delivers advertising into video games within the Massive Network" My question is, why not just block the add server?
Ladder to heaven...
"con" - at least not for anything MS based. I remember trying to log in as "con" on a friends computer after hearing about the bug - thinking nothing would happen, next minute the computer froze up and couldn't be rebooted. Needless to say my friend wasn't impressed! YHBW!
I remember learning to program with Basic at the age of 10, which eventually lead me to a career as a Java developer. Given the complexities of programming languages now, I wonder how many kids/future programmers have the know how to write even simple programs. I know Java would have been way to overwhelming for me at that age!
"boost demand for faster processors and graphics chips" - Will it be that bad?