Well I think all ideologies can be done without. Anything with an -ism suffix is probably bad for you. Ideologies always seem to have:
1. a utopia of some sort (world-wide islam -for islamism, unfettered marketplace for corpratism, a workers paradise for communism, a secure leisure society where the messy machinery of government is automated for Nazism),
2. they are all intolerant of other ideologies (fundo christians hate all other points of view), corpratists call all those that violently oppose free trade as terrorists, atheism considers any religion as not only deluded, but dangerous.
3. and they always have a recipe, free markets for corpatism, kill off all the other races for Nazism, remove all religion for Communism et. etc.
I agree with this speaker. I am a long-time Mac user, and have used Windows through 3.11, 95, 98 2000, XP, but not Vista, and have used Ubuntu and the Fedora distros. I would say that, in my humble experience the user experience on OS X is slightly better than the others, while its performance (again from a user perspective) is comparable to most Linux distros that I have seen, while somewhat better/more responsive than Windows (on the whole).
I think it has a good future, especially as it migrates though Cocoa APIs, it's got setbacks, like its reliance on Objective C.
It's not magic, and to the average abacus user in the middle ages all OS's will be similarly bewildering, but it is nice.
Well, if you want a particular government in and they're 10% behind, your voter hacking might bring them within 5%, which is about the margin by which you could rig the voting process.
I mean, if you relied solely on hacking voting machines, then your election outcomes would be so different from the polls, so regularly, that people would suspect that the hacking is taking place.
This way, you get only slight irregularities, and surer outcomes.
Of course having a USA PATRIOT act that, effectively allows the electoral college to seize ballot boxes, without scrutiny or explanation, helps a real lot.
it's also very telling that they ignore any issue that doesn't involve big business. Which is complete bullshit, of course. They've spent a lot of resources on anti-whaling and the Australian contingent pretty much blocked the Gordon-franklin Dam from going ahead in Tasmania. Both environmental causes, where the enemies are governments, not businesses. But let's ignore facts and get on with the ranting!
If you can get a Nobel Peace Price for slickly packaging semi-truthy rhetoric I assume you are referring to Al Gore's film here. In which case, it would indeed be remarkable if a filmmaker won a Nobel prize for a film, rather than, say, an Oscar. However, that's not what happened is it. He actually won (jointly) for 20 years of effort in raising awareness of the issue of global warming.
So is it the message you dislike or the medium?
well actually, I think he got modded down for things like:
PJ did a terrible job with LoTR without gracing us with a single reason why it was terrible.
I think you underestimate the brutality of this regime.
most of the heroin that comes into Australia is Burmese origin. The Karen rebels try to interrupt the supply, so as to weaken the Juntas trade, but the Junta retalliate by kidnapping Karen children and have them walk in front of the soldiers as human minesweepers.
Your fantasy owuld be funny were it not just part the cause of so much mayhem and misery in this world I'm getting pretty tired of athiest sanctimoniousness.
Its as if when we all become athiests we'll have nothing to fight about, and we'll all live in a science-driven paradise where everyone will be rationalists
I believe Stalin was an athiest - he managed to kill 30 odd million without the need of religion, and another athiest, Pol Pot, cleaned out most of his country without religion as well.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but science is based on materialism far out, I thought it was based on observation.
If we can't see it or observe it, how can we empirically measure it? That's not materialism. Materialism is a paradigm that says that all phenomena, indeed all existence is founded on physical stuff. What do I mean by physical stuff, well, with some aspects of quantum mechanics, that's getting difficult to tell, but let's just say atoms and molecules. So materialism assumes that pretty much everything there is to explain about our daily lives is based on these things and indeed all measurable phenomena should be the same. Taking this all the way, consciousness is thus completely physical.
The opposite of this is the ideomatic paradigm, which says pretty much the opposite: that thought is the origin of all things (Wesley Crusher and the Traveller talk about this on one episode of STNG), that the universe is ultimately conscious. This is the belief of most of the world's religions and the sort of outlook that Newton and Descartes had. Despite these men having this outlook they were still able to conduct science, right?
So no, I don't believe you. Science can be predicated on any paradigm (possibly with the exception of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), and still operate, but I rather think that it should be predicated on none, which is what, I guess, I was trying to say before.
Yes, emotion is dependent on chemical stimuli. We feel good about something because of chemical stimulus Ummm...look this just isn't known. There are many out there that make this assumption, because they assume that mind and brain are the same thing, probably because they assume that the universe is based on materialism.
Now, if we want to be properly scientific, why not stop making all of these assumptions and leave it to the "observation leads theory" style of empirical science and not jump the gun, with hand waving explanations like the parent.
I would doubt that this is still under formation. The star is close to the end of its life, which means it's been around for at least a couple of billion years, whereas from most accretion theories I've heard of say that planet formation is pretty much done within 10 million years or so. So I think the system is a bit old, by a couple of orders of magnitude, to still be forming planets.
It says in TFA that it is star that is far more luminous than our own, that the planet is very close to the parent star, and that the star is much further along its evolutionary path.
The planet's proximity would obviously drive up temperatures, I'm sure Jupiter would swell a bit if it was within Mercury's orbit.
The star being more luminous would just add to surface heating of the planet.
But it is probably the age that will be the main determinant. An F-type star ages much more quickly than a G-type star like our own. While our sun has a main-sequence life of 10 billion years, the average F-type star has only about 4 billion. Since TFA says that the star has only about a billion years left. The planet is probably only 2 to 3 billion years old (about half the age of jupiter). This means that it has retained more of its formation temperature than jupiter has.
I think a combination of these factors will increase the size
Unfortunately not: its mass is too low. I think it has to be at least 13 jupiter masses before it could be considered even a brown dwarf (let alone a red one).
So be patient, my fellow humans, it may take a few million (or even billion) more years. After all, it's more than just a trip down the road to the chemist, and something that cool will probably be worth the wait. dunno how you can say that, since for hundreds of generations, it definitely won't be worth the wait: they'll be dead.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I think all ideologies can be done without. Anything with an -ism suffix is probably bad for you. Ideologies always seem to have:
1. a utopia of some sort (world-wide islam -for islamism, unfettered marketplace for corpratism, a workers paradise for communism, a secure leisure society where the messy machinery of government is automated for Nazism),
2. they are all intolerant of other ideologies (fundo christians hate all other points of view), corpratists call all those that violently oppose free trade as terrorists, atheism considers any religion as not only deluded, but dangerous.
3. and they always have a recipe, free markets for corpatism, kill off all the other races for Nazism, remove all religion for Communism et. etc.
Here's my ideology: lets get rid of ideologies.
I agree with this speaker. I am a long-time Mac user, and have used Windows through 3.11, 95, 98 2000, XP, but not Vista, and have used Ubuntu and the Fedora distros. I would say that, in my humble experience the user experience on OS X is slightly better than the others, while its performance (again from a user perspective) is comparable to most Linux distros that I have seen, while somewhat better/more responsive than Windows (on the whole).
I think it has a good future, especially as it migrates though Cocoa APIs, it's got setbacks, like its reliance on Objective C.
It's not magic, and to the average abacus user in the middle ages all OS's will be similarly bewildering, but it is nice.
Not a fanboy, but I do appreciate it.
Well, if you want a particular government in and they're 10% behind, your voter hacking might bring them within 5%, which is about the margin by which you could rig the voting process. I mean, if you relied solely on hacking voting machines, then your election outcomes would be so different from the polls, so regularly, that people would suspect that the hacking is taking place. This way, you get only slight irregularities, and surer outcomes. Of course having a USA PATRIOT act that, effectively allows the electoral college to seize ballot boxes, without scrutiny or explanation, helps a real lot.
ummm do you also communicate with the Andromedans?
So is it the message you dislike or the medium?
dude, that was excellent
PJ did a terrible job with LoTR without gracing us with a single reason why it was terrible.
I think you underestimate the brutality of this regime.
most of the heroin that comes into Australia is Burmese origin. The Karen rebels try to interrupt the supply, so as to weaken the Juntas trade, but the Junta retalliate by kidnapping Karen children and have them walk in front of the soldiers as human minesweepers.
Its as if when we all become athiests we'll have nothing to fight about, and we'll all live in a science-driven paradise where everyone will be rationalists
I believe Stalin was an athiest - he managed to kill 30 odd million without the need of religion, and another athiest, Pol Pot, cleaned out most of his country without religion as well.
the laws write YOU!
A large company puts profits before people? No!
The opposite of this is the ideomatic paradigm, which says pretty much the opposite: that thought is the origin of all things (Wesley Crusher and the Traveller talk about this on one episode of STNG), that the universe is ultimately conscious. This is the belief of most of the world's religions and the sort of outlook that Newton and Descartes had. Despite these men having this outlook they were still able to conduct science, right?
So no, I don't believe you. Science can be predicated on any paradigm (possibly with the exception of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), and still operate, but I rather think that it should be predicated on none, which is what, I guess, I was trying to say before.
Now, if we want to be properly scientific, why not stop making all of these assumptions and leave it to the "observation leads theory" style of empirical science and not jump the gun, with hand waving explanations like the parent.
Why don't we try to power our economies on something renewable?
Radical, I know.
I would doubt that this is still under formation. The star is close to the end of its life, which means it's been around for at least a couple of billion years, whereas from most accretion theories I've heard of say that planet formation is pretty much done within 10 million years or so. So I think the system is a bit old, by a couple of orders of magnitude, to still be forming planets.
The planet's proximity would obviously drive up temperatures, I'm sure Jupiter would swell a bit if it was within Mercury's orbit.
The star being more luminous would just add to surface heating of the planet.
But it is probably the age that will be the main determinant. An F-type star ages much more quickly than a G-type star like our own. While our sun has a main-sequence life of 10 billion years, the average F-type star has only about 4 billion. Since TFA says that the star has only about a billion years left. The planet is probably only 2 to 3 billion years old (about half the age of jupiter). This means that it has retained more of its formation temperature than jupiter has.
I think a combination of these factors will increase the size
Unfortunately not: its mass is too low. I think it has to be at least 13 jupiter masses before it could be considered even a brown dwarf (let alone a red one).
if this is a reference to Starship Troopers, then the mods were probably a little cruel
No way man, have you ever tasted alien? ewwwww!
Not quite: there was the Ediacaran Period.
probably, and Microsoft will claim that there are at least 150 of their patents in OS X...