apples CHEAPEST monitor option is still a $1000 cinema display-
Apple's displays are meant to be professional-level equipment. Yes, they're expensive, even for that size of LCD, but that's largely due to the fact that they have really good color-fidelity and such for graphic artists. In other words, don't go looking to Apple for cheap displays. But as others have noted, if you want a cheap LCD, you can still buy THAT from Dell and hook it up to your mini.
...then that patent assignment is a bit like giving the patent to the slave owner when the slave came up with the idea and his owner can't even explain the idea
Yeah, and if we had slavery, I'm sure that's how it would work. So the real question is only, if we ever manage to create sentient AI, should the AI be given civil rights? Soooo...... yeah, that's only been the subject of pretty much every story about AI since the origin of the idea.
And the answer everyone comes to is, if you don't, it might mean trouble.
I still don't even understand these desktop search tools. As a consumer, why use them? Don't I already have a search function in my OS? Speaking of which, why is MS releasing a desktop search tool? It's like, "We admit that the search capabilities included with the OS suck, so we put our MSN people on it"??
So I don't understand why the companies would particularly want to create these tools unless they were going to be adware. But then that brings me back to the question of, why would consumers want to download adware to search their hard drive when there's a search function in your OS?
OTOH, why would that be a dumb question? Sure, it won't become an issue until much later, but it most likely will be an issue someday. Should intelligent non-human creatures be granted human and civil rights? How will they react if we deny them? Sounds like trouble to me.
Ok, if the science-fiction of true AI ever becomes reality, then we might have to ask the question, given the AI's abilities and role in society, ought they be treated the same as people? And if we do choose to give AI civil rights equivalent to people, then the answer becomes obvious. However, that question would have to be evaluated when we had some knowledge of how AI actually works out to function in the reality of its time.
OTOH, the question of whether the patent goes to the owner of the robot or the designer might be a semi-interesting question, but is it an ethical one? Not really. It's a minor legal issue, probably to be worked out as part of the terms of sale.
Sorry, but the questions this guy is asking tell me he's an academic wanker in an ivory tower somewhere.
Sorry, but he seems more like a wannabe academic-wanker who wishes he were in an ivory tower. Believe me, I've known some academic wankers in ivory towers, and he's not qualified.
Considering "should robots eat?" as some sort of a deep or important ethical question is absurd. Why on earth *would* they eat? "Should they excrete?"?! Excrete what?! Why even speculate about the possible byproducts of 'robots' which don't exist yet?
How are these issues of ethics, rather than an engineering issue? And should 'robots' be given patents? WTF?!
It sounds like this guy is a little out of his element here. Ethics is a complicated subject. So is engineering. Predicting how the introduction of technology will impact the environment and political climate on a global scale is no easy matter, but apparently some CS professor from Brandeis thinks he's got a real handle on it.
The whole article sounds like a 10 year old talking about, "In the future, we might create giant robots who would fly and shoot people, but if we did this, we can only assume they would poop a previously-unknown and highly toxic material. So, we might want to be careful about making flying super-robots." Great. Glad he's on the case.
That occurred to me, too. I mean, not just cortisol, but stress in general tends to cause insomnia and over-eating, both of which (in our society) lead to more stress. Plus there's the whole biological issue of stress causing bad weight gain (fat in less-healthy places), which IIRC is what you're referring to with cortisol.
Oh, they'll find something. "Why doesn't the iPod shuffle have a screen? 1GB? That's not enough space!" or, "They don't ship Mac minis with keyboards by default?! What am I supposed to do without a keyboard?!"
Trolls don't need good reasons to carp. In fact, if you have a good reason to complain, it's kinda not a troll.
I've wondered if part of the strategy is to not make a complete competitor to MS Office. There's been a lot of talk about, if Apple releases iWork, MS will pull support for Office X, and suddenly Mac looks like a less-promising option for a lot of businesses. So maybe by not completing the suite, Apple's dodged that bullet? It's more common for non-business people to need a word processor anyhow.
Even if this is the case, it doesn't mean that there isn't an Excel clone in the works. Apple might be holding off, perfecting it, and working on Mail/AddressBook/iCal compatibility with Exchange Server, so that if they release the whole thing and MS pulls the plug on office, it'll be no great loss because they'll have a superior solution ready. Who knows?
Why do web pages need the ability to launch programs and install things? It's long been Microsoft's design philosophy to hook every one of their apps to the OS and to each other, and give each the ability to do as much as possible. The idea is that this makes productive computer use easier and more transparent.
And it does. Unfortunately, it also makes malicious computer use easier and more transparent. Microsoft has ignored that aspect to their design philosophy, and it's become the source of many highly-publicized security issues.
Except that copyright violation is not holding up a bank teller. It's a civil matter, not a criminal one.
It's like slander. I could say all sorts of nasty things about you. If you can demonstrate, in court, that the nasty things I've said are baseless lies with intent to do harm to your dealings or reputation, you might be able to sue me for damages. To say we should criminalize copyright violation is like saying, instead of allowing you to sue me for slander, maybe I should just be thrown in jail for saying something nasty about you.
I almost wish they'd go ahead and do it (if it weren't so horrible on principle). Juries in civil court only need a majority vote, but criminal courts need a unanimous vote. As soon as they start trying to throw 12 year-olds and grandmothers in jail for downloading a few music tracks, [I hope] you'll see some hung juries and jury-nullification.
yeah, steel is heavier, but it does have some advantages that aluminum lacks. it's easier to weld, it has magnetic properties, and it's more pliable than aluminum...
So maybe that's where the savings to Shuttle come from? Not materials, but production costs?
How would you be certain that someone else had proven it without seeing the proof? You could be certain that someone has "written a proof" of something without reading the whole document, but you wouldn't be certain that what they wrote actually proves anything.
But how certain can you be even when you have a proof? Consider this discussion began from the recognition that "logically coherent" cannot be taken to mean "true", since we cannot prove any given logical system.
Further, consider how much you must limit your "certainty" if you rule out anything which you have not proven yourself. Have you, yourself, proven the existence of DNA, or molecules for that matter? Have you ever "proven" that aspirin is an effective medication for headaches? Have you proven conclusively that your parents are your parents? Consider how rarely you've "proven" the things your certain about.
This is a tautological matter of definition of the word, such as knowing that all bachelors are unmarried men - that's just what the word means.
Yes, but if I define "bachelors" as "married women", and then use that to argue, "All bachelor's have husbands," might you argue, "That's not what the word 'bachelor' means"? Sure, you can define anything as anything, but your redefinition doesn't necessarily change what we actually mean when we say it.
Further, consider that "knowledge" is a special case, in that claiming to "know" what "knowledge" is becomes very circular, *by the claim itself*. It assumes what knowledge is, assumes what the act of knowing is, and then claims that your knowing is such a thing as to contain "knowing" of knowledge.
In this sense, but those who know what knowledge is and those who don't know what knowledge is can both claim, with full certainty, to know what knowledge is. Why "full certainty"? Because if one were to not-know what knowledge was, they could then be no more certain of knowledge than of non-knowledge. Or don't you see what I mean?
I wasn't aware of it's roots, though I did know what "eu" meant and questioned how "daemonia" (the meaning of which I guessed, apparently accurately) could combine with it to mean "wellbeing".
But it's interesting, no? This eudaemonia, by definition, cannot be achieved on ones own. It's required that the good demons possess you. It's equivalent, I guess, to being inspired by the muses, which is above mortal control.
Again, there is some confusion possible here because of what definitions we each are using. As stated above, if you can't rememer the proof and go through it again if need be, I'd say that you are not absolutely certain of your knowledge, but you may still have that knowledge with lesser certainty.
It seems I'm not sure I can agree with your idea of "certainty". Certainty, to me, is a feeling. I can feel certain and be wrong, but I can't, in the full sense, "know" and be wrong at the same time. Mistakes come from thinking you know something which you don't know, or does that seem wrong to you?
This seems to be a colloquial usage and incomplete English. What do you know about your mother? You probably mean either "I can recognize my mother" or "I know many things about my mother".
Do you find this greatly different from when someone claims to know any object of topic? "I know about organic chemistry," or "I know about philosophy," or "I know the ball you're talking about," or "I know karate." It's all claiming a certain familiarity and to know things about the topic. When you "know" that the sum of the angles of a triangle are two right angles, what is that? Are these objects and topics that you "know" the way you know your mother, so you know these things about triangles the way you know what college your mother went to? Are you claiming to recognize triangles and right angles and know some things about them?
Or is it a tautology, like you definition of knowledge? Is your idea of triangle a shape with angles equalling two right angl
Processor designers might spend more time (i know they already spend some) on innovating new ideas, rather than solving the problems with just ramping up clock speeds....Games writers might remember about gameplay, rather than better coloured lighting...
These both relate to a trend in the market that I believe we're seeing. Consumers are finding that their "old" computers from 2 years ago are still doing their jobs. When I have a 2Ghz Dell that I use for web surfing, word-processing, and e-mail, there's no benefit to upgrading to the newest 3.4 Ghz Dell. Though there's a hefty speed bump in there, most users will never know the difference.
Therefore, developers/manufacturers are being forced to focus on things like usability and features. They're making their products smaller and more efficient, easier to use, and making them fit transparently into the user's life better. They're focusing on the whole "convergence" idea.
Instead of people spending money on RAM upgrades, the money is going to smaller/lighter/better digital cameras, iPods, and home theater technology. In short, instead of seeing the same box being rolled out every year with better stats, we're seeing new boxes coming out every year with pretty much the same stats, but better designed boxes-- boxes that are actually more useful than last year's model, and not just faster.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this post. MS is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they release free spyware removal software, it's anticompetitive. If they charge for their spyware removal, it borders on racketeering. (What I mean by that is, businesses almost have to use Windows because of their monopoly, so MS sells them broken software and then sells them "fixes"? It's like an old "protection" scheme.)
However, if Microsoft doesn't release anti-spyware technology at all, they're reliant on others to do so, and they get hit by the accusation that that have crappy security.
This is the sort of reason why some have argued that MS should be broken up into a company that makes the OS and is prohibited from making any other software, and a company that makes all the other software. I used to think that it was a very extreme move, but given the conflicts of interest within the company, the idea isn't looking as bad as it once did.
If we accept inductive as well as deductive proof, then it becomes phenominally easy to prove that deductive logic works: because it always has. That's not a deductively valid argument, but it is inductively valid. Inductive logic doesn't need to be proven that it always works 100% of the time, because it deals not with absolute certainties but with likelihoods; and fortunately in this case, X out of every X times, deductive logic works, so there seems to be 100% likelihood, inductively, that deductive logic works.
Really? You don't think you're fudging that a bit? How large must X be before we're satisfied? Have you done many experiments? How often do you get 100%? Is 98% sufficient to say, "it's pretty much 100%"? Are you seriously telling me that, in your entire life, you've never struck a deductive argument that didn't seem to work out, but you couldn't tell why?
I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. I know it's magic because, the times that I've carried it, 100% of the time, I haven't seen tigers.
Ditto your triangles: every triangle ever measured (on a Euclidian flat surface) has had the sum of its angles equal two right angles, so inductively there is 100% likelihood that that is always true.
Then why is it, do you think, that Euclid went through a proof, instead of just *measuring*? How many triangles have you summed the angles of? What was your margin of error? Could it have been 179.99999999999999999 degrees? And what do you find more convincing, the measurement or the proof?
If it cannot be proven (inductively or deductively), it doesn't count as knowledge, for knowledge consists only of those ideas that can be proven. Thus I cannot know anything that I can't prove.
Now, do you know that, or do you believe that? If you *know* that knowledge is only those ideas which can be proven, then prove it.
Oh, and is it sufficient that it *could* be proven in order for it to be knowledge, or do you actually have to prove it? Is it sufficient to have gone through the proof yourself, or do you have to remember every step of the proof at the same time all the time in order to "know" it. Lastly, what if I know someone else proved it, but I've never seen the proof myself. But I was *certain* someone proved it?
I wasn't aware of that. I'm only familiar with the modern English definition:
Hell, you were the one talking about Greek. My Attick Greek's a little rusty (been some years), but i remember that "eu" in this context is roughly an adjective meaning good/benevolent and "daemonia" is the plural form of the word "daemon", which is where are word "demon" comes from.
In short, no, you cannot both know and not-know something.
What about when you remember something that you've proved before, but you can't remember the proof? If "knowing something" equals "proving it", do you know it? If you say no, then it seems to me your knowledge will always be very limited, being limited to only those things which you can hold the entire proof in your mind at all times. If you say yes, then I ask, what about those instances where your memory has failed you. Your sure you "know" it, because you remember proving it, but you haven't proved it.
What about when I say, "I know my mother." Does that mean I've proven her?
What about when you *knew* that the sum of the angles of a triangle equalled two right angles, and then encountered non-euclidean geometry? What was that knowledge?
You should read the Theatetus. I could go into the questions in there as well, but why rehash a whole book when you can read it yourself?
I meant "true" in the sense of I'm not misusing the word 'knowledge' where I should be using 'belief' or 'idea', but I mean actual, proven-true belief that I could really say I *know*.
But, you see, that was one of my earlier questions (that I don't feel got fully addressed). Is it possible to know something without it being "logically proven"? If you define knowledge as "that which is logically proven", then, well, no. That's just the sort of corner you dig yourself into when you run too quickly into tautologies. But then, the logical system can't be logically proven, so according to that definition, there is no possible knowledge. This leads me to suspect that "knowledge" needs a new definition, one that doesn't necessitate that something contain a full mathematical proof to call something knowledge.
But if that's not clear, let me put it another way. If you want to *know* the sum of the angles of a triangle, then according to knowledge as "that which is proven", then you'll need to recollect all of Euclid up to the point of proving the sum of the angles of a triangle equals two right angles. However, this presupposes *knowledge* of logic, spacial intuition, and that you *know* all of Euclid's postulates and definitions and common notions. However, none of these things can be *proven*. Therefore, there can be no hope of attaining any knowledge of triangles.
So, the only way to suppose that we *might* be able to attain knowledge is if we suppose that there is *some* form of knowledge that does not require proof. Which goes to the heart of the question at hand. What do you believe even if you can't prove it? How about "What do you *know* even though you can't prove it?"
I do have an all-encompassing concept of "happiness" separate from the emotions, what the Greeks called "eudamonia".
Do you know what "eudaemonia" means? When someone claims to have "eudaemonia", classically, they're claiming to be possessed by good/beneficial demons. It's not "demons" in the sense of Christian mythology, but the best analog for the Christian world be to claim you were "filled with the holy spirit".
So, by the dog, Socrates, can you tell me once and for all, is it possible to both know something and to not-know something?
...but primary as in foundational, which ones form the stronger base for true knowledge.
Are you really prepared to say that there is such a thing as "false knowledge"? That opens a whole new can of worms. How does one distinguish between 'true knowledge' and 'false knowledge'? How can an immediate emotional state be 'false'? What does it mean to be 'false' in the context of our earlier discussion about the possibility that we live in an extra-logical universe where something might very well be both true and false at the same time?
(BTW, I also wasn't talking about chronologically first)
I think I misused the phrase "source of knowledge" earlier, substitute "ideas" in it instead.
Still, that we gain knowledge or ideas from language is not entirely clear. As you say, the impression of language is elementally sensation, interpreted by intellect (perhaps you'd use other words). So it's not it's own source, it seems, but a composite effect of two of your other sources of ideas.
Further, would you truly claim that language "contains" knowledge, ideas, or concepts? A statement itself means nothing without those to understand. And argument in a language that no one has ever spoken and no one will ever speak, would that contain more ideas than a rock?
Rather, it seems to me to be more appropriate to speak of language as containing nothing, but indicating things which are utterly independent of language. No?
I can also get observational ideas ("I feel angry", "I feel love") internally to myself, in my emotions
But isn't the "I feel angry" just the observation of emotion? Just as "I don't see red" and "the argument doesn't work" are observations sense and logic, respectively. However, the observation isn't necessary for the emotion to take place or to exercise influence over thoughts and actions and other feelings. In other words, you don't need to recognize that you're angry in order for the fact of being angry to affect you.
Due to the tremendous influence of emotion, I'm saying I might say that emotional state is not a source of knowledge, but it's either a sort of knowledge itself, or a component of all other sources of ideas or knowledge. Whether your you're angry or calm or sad or happy or indifferent or detached, this influences all modes of thought.
To be honest, if i were constructing a venn diagram of "thought" or "knowledge", I'm not sure if I would put emotion in the center of it all, contained in everything, or as a super-set which encompasses everything, but it would probably hold one of those positions.
This is why I include emotion as a separate source of knowledge and don't just group it in as a function of the senses; it is fundamentally similar to the senses, however, which is why I say it is "effectively" (but not exactly, literally) "internal observation". I know I feel the emotion "love" the same way I know I see the color "red"
oh, I wasn't arguing with your separation of emotion into its own "source of knowledge", but more arguing about which of your modes of knowledge was more primary. You put reason and senses as primary, and emotion and language second.
Well, I might question language as a true form of knowledge. It seems more to me that language is a mode of expression, not knowledge. Language might allow you to pass along a rational form of knowledge through argument, or an emotional form of knowledge through poetry. But a kind of knowledge on it's own? I'm not so sure. Maybe if you explained.
However, I also question the placement of emotion as being a form of knowledge that requires "internal observation". Strangely, you feel things even when you don't notice. Have you ever not-realized you were angry until you noticed you were grinding your teeth or clenching your fists? Have you ever not-realized how stressed-out you were until you found you couldn't sleep?
Logical argumentation, on the other hand, requires a sort of removal from the situation around you. It requires attention to internal understanding of "what makes sense" and "what doesn't make sense". It requires that you cultivate an emotional state of detachment, since being too angry or upset or happy can throw your understanding and even perception way off the mark.
Therefore, I think I might place emotional input as more primary than logic. I might even place it above sensory input, given the way that perception, and perhaps even the senses themselves, can be affected by emotional state, and the way emotion seems to not need external input (at least not immediate input). At the very least, sensation seems to come from outside, and emotion seems to come from inside, which might be considered when deciding which is more fundamental to one's being.
The first two I consider "primary", in that the latter are founded upon them: emotion is effectively the internal observation of some nonlogical aspect of your mind, and language is in effect a sort of external logic being conveyed to you through your senses.
I think I might say that expression and knowledge of emotion comes from internal observation of some non-logical aspect of the mind, but what of the non-logical aspect of the mind itself? Wouldn't that aspect be the emotion itself?
In such a case, you might confirm you "love" your mother through logical interpretation of emotional state with reference to observations of behavior associated with the cultural idea of "love". You might express this confirmation outwardly by stating, in words, "I love my mother". However, there is an immediate and pre-linguistic sensation of there being a non-logical attachment to the entity you know as "your mother". Could this sensation be a sort of knowledge on-par-with or even preceding your ideas of sensory and logical sensation?
It's immediate, non-logical, and pre-linguistic, but it is none the less there, and we all "know what you mean" when you say you "love your mother". There doesn't even seem to be any requirement for rules or external stimuli. How, precisely, do you account for that?
Personally, I think Adaware and SpyBot had more to do with it than Firefox.
Unlikely. MS is not in any way threatened by AdAware or Spybot. AdAware and Spybot have helped MS by making it possible to clean spyware off of a Windows machine.
However, the fact that spyware is such a problem gives both IE and Windows a bad reputation for security. This has partially led to the rise of Firefox in the mainstream consciousness, and has also lead people to think about switching to Linux or OSX for their desktop OS. Therefore, MS is trying to build their security rep back up.
Web design used to be tough a long, long time ago. These days, saying that you're going to be a well-rounded web designer is like saying you're going to be a well-rounded word processor user or desktop publisher. Off-the-shelf tools like Dreamweaver can produce web code more than good enough to get by.
Well, that's true if you're making very simple pages. Even simple pages, it's worthwhile to know some HTML though (which, agreed, isn't hard). However, I've never gotten a complex page (even one without any dynamic content) working properly using Frontpage or Dreamweaver without a little tweaking of CSS and HTML. If you want to do and Javascript, Dreamweaver won't take you very far. If you want to make a custom PHP/MySQL app, forget it.
As for Flash I don't personally like it and haven't bothered to learn it yet simply because I don't have a NEED for it. That's what it comes down to. Flash isn't necessary for web design. If a customer needs it, subcontract it out.
I would agree that you *shouldn't* need Flash to build a web site (at all). I hate flash. It doesn't do anything functional that can't be done without it, and it requires a proprietary plug-in, and I hate needing to download plug-ins.
So much for my personal rant, because if you're looking for web-development jobs, a lot of people hiring are going to be looking for flash. Often people who don't know better, but sometimes people who just want something.... ehrm.... "flashy".
It's a sought-after skill, and if you're looking for a career in web-development (though I must echo the people who've been asking "why?") it's a good skill to have. However, I would agree that one ought to learn the practical stuff first, namely XHTML, CSS, PHP, SQL, learn that stuff first. Flash is fluff (regardless of what Macromedia says).
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's displays are meant to be professional-level equipment. Yes, they're expensive, even for that size of LCD, but that's largely due to the fact that they have really good color-fidelity and such for graphic artists. In other words, don't go looking to Apple for cheap displays. But as others have noted, if you want a cheap LCD, you can still buy THAT from Dell and hook it up to your mini.
Yeah, and if we had slavery, I'm sure that's how it would work. So the real question is only, if we ever manage to create sentient AI, should the AI be given civil rights? Soooo...... yeah, that's only been the subject of pretty much every story about AI since the origin of the idea.
And the answer everyone comes to is, if you don't, it might mean trouble.
So I don't understand why the companies would particularly want to create these tools unless they were going to be adware. But then that brings me back to the question of, why would consumers want to download adware to search their hard drive when there's a search function in your OS?
Ok, if the science-fiction of true AI ever becomes reality, then we might have to ask the question, given the AI's abilities and role in society, ought they be treated the same as people? And if we do choose to give AI civil rights equivalent to people, then the answer becomes obvious. However, that question would have to be evaluated when we had some knowledge of how AI actually works out to function in the reality of its time.
OTOH, the question of whether the patent goes to the owner of the robot or the designer might be a semi-interesting question, but is it an ethical one? Not really. It's a minor legal issue, probably to be worked out as part of the terms of sale.
I wasn't saying you were wrong. I was saying your condemnation of the article wasn't strong enough, or at least it was incomplete.
Sorry, but he seems more like a wannabe academic-wanker who wishes he were in an ivory tower. Believe me, I've known some academic wankers in ivory towers, and he's not qualified.
Considering "should robots eat?" as some sort of a deep or important ethical question is absurd. Why on earth *would* they eat? "Should they excrete?"?! Excrete what?! Why even speculate about the possible byproducts of 'robots' which don't exist yet?
How are these issues of ethics, rather than an engineering issue? And should 'robots' be given patents? WTF?!
It sounds like this guy is a little out of his element here. Ethics is a complicated subject. So is engineering. Predicting how the introduction of technology will impact the environment and political climate on a global scale is no easy matter, but apparently some CS professor from Brandeis thinks he's got a real handle on it.
The whole article sounds like a 10 year old talking about, "In the future, we might create giant robots who would fly and shoot people, but if we did this, we can only assume they would poop a previously-unknown and highly toxic material. So, we might want to be careful about making flying super-robots." Great. Glad he's on the case.
You sure about that? They used to include AppleWorks for free.
That occurred to me, too. I mean, not just cortisol, but stress in general tends to cause insomnia and over-eating, both of which (in our society) lead to more stress. Plus there's the whole biological issue of stress causing bad weight gain (fat in less-healthy places), which IIRC is what you're referring to with cortisol.
Oh, they'll find something. "Why doesn't the iPod shuffle have a screen? 1GB? That's not enough space!" or, "They don't ship Mac minis with keyboards by default?! What am I supposed to do without a keyboard?!"
Trolls don't need good reasons to carp. In fact, if you have a good reason to complain, it's kinda not a troll.
Even if this is the case, it doesn't mean that there isn't an Excel clone in the works. Apple might be holding off, perfecting it, and working on Mail/AddressBook/iCal compatibility with Exchange Server, so that if they release the whole thing and MS pulls the plug on office, it'll be no great loss because they'll have a superior solution ready. Who knows?
And it does. Unfortunately, it also makes malicious computer use easier and more transparent. Microsoft has ignored that aspect to their design philosophy, and it's become the source of many highly-publicized security issues.
um... and in that case, why does the display need to be on the RAM? Why not just put a display in the front of your case?
It's like slander. I could say all sorts of nasty things about you. If you can demonstrate, in court, that the nasty things I've said are baseless lies with intent to do harm to your dealings or reputation, you might be able to sue me for damages. To say we should criminalize copyright violation is like saying, instead of allowing you to sue me for slander, maybe I should just be thrown in jail for saying something nasty about you.
I almost wish they'd go ahead and do it (if it weren't so horrible on principle). Juries in civil court only need a majority vote, but criminal courts need a unanimous vote. As soon as they start trying to throw 12 year-olds and grandmothers in jail for downloading a few music tracks, [I hope] you'll see some hung juries and jury-nullification.
So maybe that's where the savings to Shuttle come from? Not materials, but production costs?
But how certain can you be even when you have a proof? Consider this discussion began from the recognition that "logically coherent" cannot be taken to mean "true", since we cannot prove any given logical system.
Further, consider how much you must limit your "certainty" if you rule out anything which you have not proven yourself. Have you, yourself, proven the existence of DNA, or molecules for that matter? Have you ever "proven" that aspirin is an effective medication for headaches? Have you proven conclusively that your parents are your parents? Consider how rarely you've "proven" the things your certain about.
This is a tautological matter of definition of the word, such as knowing that all bachelors are unmarried men - that's just what the word means.
Yes, but if I define "bachelors" as "married women", and then use that to argue, "All bachelor's have husbands," might you argue, "That's not what the word 'bachelor' means"? Sure, you can define anything as anything, but your redefinition doesn't necessarily change what we actually mean when we say it.
Further, consider that "knowledge" is a special case, in that claiming to "know" what "knowledge" is becomes very circular, *by the claim itself*. It assumes what knowledge is, assumes what the act of knowing is, and then claims that your knowing is such a thing as to contain "knowing" of knowledge.
In this sense, but those who know what knowledge is and those who don't know what knowledge is can both claim, with full certainty, to know what knowledge is. Why "full certainty"? Because if one were to not-know what knowledge was, they could then be no more certain of knowledge than of non-knowledge. Or don't you see what I mean?
I wasn't aware of it's roots, though I did know what "eu" meant and questioned how "daemonia" (the meaning of which I guessed, apparently accurately) could combine with it to mean "wellbeing".
But it's interesting, no? This eudaemonia, by definition, cannot be achieved on ones own. It's required that the good demons possess you. It's equivalent, I guess, to being inspired by the muses, which is above mortal control.
Again, there is some confusion possible here because of what definitions we each are using. As stated above, if you can't rememer the proof and go through it again if need be, I'd say that you are not absolutely certain of your knowledge, but you may still have that knowledge with lesser certainty.
It seems I'm not sure I can agree with your idea of "certainty". Certainty, to me, is a feeling. I can feel certain and be wrong, but I can't, in the full sense, "know" and be wrong at the same time. Mistakes come from thinking you know something which you don't know, or does that seem wrong to you?
This seems to be a colloquial usage and incomplete English. What do you know about your mother? You probably mean either "I can recognize my mother" or "I know many things about my mother".
Do you find this greatly different from when someone claims to know any object of topic? "I know about organic chemistry," or "I know about philosophy," or "I know the ball you're talking about," or "I know karate." It's all claiming a certain familiarity and to know things about the topic. When you "know" that the sum of the angles of a triangle are two right angles, what is that? Are these objects and topics that you "know" the way you know your mother, so you know these things about triangles the way you know what college your mother went to? Are you claiming to recognize triangles and right angles and know some things about them?
Or is it a tautology, like you definition of knowledge? Is your idea of triangle a shape with angles equalling two right angl
These both relate to a trend in the market that I believe we're seeing. Consumers are finding that their "old" computers from 2 years ago are still doing their jobs. When I have a 2Ghz Dell that I use for web surfing, word-processing, and e-mail, there's no benefit to upgrading to the newest 3.4 Ghz Dell. Though there's a hefty speed bump in there, most users will never know the difference.
Therefore, developers/manufacturers are being forced to focus on things like usability and features. They're making their products smaller and more efficient, easier to use, and making them fit transparently into the user's life better. They're focusing on the whole "convergence" idea.
Instead of people spending money on RAM upgrades, the money is going to smaller/lighter/better digital cameras, iPods, and home theater technology. In short, instead of seeing the same box being rolled out every year with better stats, we're seeing new boxes coming out every year with pretty much the same stats, but better designed boxes-- boxes that are actually more useful than last year's model, and not just faster.
I, for one, hope the trend continues.
However, if Microsoft doesn't release anti-spyware technology at all, they're reliant on others to do so, and they get hit by the accusation that that have crappy security.
This is the sort of reason why some have argued that MS should be broken up into a company that makes the OS and is prohibited from making any other software, and a company that makes all the other software. I used to think that it was a very extreme move, but given the conflicts of interest within the company, the idea isn't looking as bad as it once did.
Really? You don't think you're fudging that a bit? How large must X be before we're satisfied? Have you done many experiments? How often do you get 100%? Is 98% sufficient to say, "it's pretty much 100%"? Are you seriously telling me that, in your entire life, you've never struck a deductive argument that didn't seem to work out, but you couldn't tell why?
I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away. I know it's magic because, the times that I've carried it, 100% of the time, I haven't seen tigers.
Ditto your triangles: every triangle ever measured (on a Euclidian flat surface) has had the sum of its angles equal two right angles, so inductively there is 100% likelihood that that is always true.
Then why is it, do you think, that Euclid went through a proof, instead of just *measuring*? How many triangles have you summed the angles of? What was your margin of error? Could it have been 179.99999999999999999 degrees? And what do you find more convincing, the measurement or the proof?
If it cannot be proven (inductively or deductively), it doesn't count as knowledge, for knowledge consists only of those ideas that can be proven. Thus I cannot know anything that I can't prove.
Now, do you know that, or do you believe that? If you *know* that knowledge is only those ideas which can be proven, then prove it.
Oh, and is it sufficient that it *could* be proven in order for it to be knowledge, or do you actually have to prove it? Is it sufficient to have gone through the proof yourself, or do you have to remember every step of the proof at the same time all the time in order to "know" it. Lastly, what if I know someone else proved it, but I've never seen the proof myself. But I was *certain* someone proved it?
I wasn't aware of that. I'm only familiar with the modern English definition:
Hell, you were the one talking about Greek. My Attick Greek's a little rusty (been some years), but i remember that "eu" in this context is roughly an adjective meaning good/benevolent and "daemonia" is the plural form of the word "daemon", which is where are word "demon" comes from.
In short, no, you cannot both know and not-know something.
What about when you remember something that you've proved before, but you can't remember the proof? If "knowing something" equals "proving it", do you know it? If you say no, then it seems to me your knowledge will always be very limited, being limited to only those things which you can hold the entire proof in your mind at all times. If you say yes, then I ask, what about those instances where your memory has failed you. Your sure you "know" it, because you remember proving it, but you haven't proved it.
What about when I say, "I know my mother." Does that mean I've proven her?
What about when you *knew* that the sum of the angles of a triangle equalled two right angles, and then encountered non-euclidean geometry? What was that knowledge?
You should read the Theatetus. I could go into the questions in there as well, but why rehash a whole book when you can read it yourself?
But, you see, that was one of my earlier questions (that I don't feel got fully addressed). Is it possible to know something without it being "logically proven"? If you define knowledge as "that which is logically proven", then, well, no. That's just the sort of corner you dig yourself into when you run too quickly into tautologies. But then, the logical system can't be logically proven, so according to that definition, there is no possible knowledge. This leads me to suspect that "knowledge" needs a new definition, one that doesn't necessitate that something contain a full mathematical proof to call something knowledge.
But if that's not clear, let me put it another way. If you want to *know* the sum of the angles of a triangle, then according to knowledge as "that which is proven", then you'll need to recollect all of Euclid up to the point of proving the sum of the angles of a triangle equals two right angles. However, this presupposes *knowledge* of logic, spacial intuition, and that you *know* all of Euclid's postulates and definitions and common notions. However, none of these things can be *proven*. Therefore, there can be no hope of attaining any knowledge of triangles.
So, the only way to suppose that we *might* be able to attain knowledge is if we suppose that there is *some* form of knowledge that does not require proof. Which goes to the heart of the question at hand. What do you believe even if you can't prove it? How about "What do you *know* even though you can't prove it?"
I do have an all-encompassing concept of "happiness" separate from the emotions, what the Greeks called "eudamonia".
Do you know what "eudaemonia" means? When someone claims to have "eudaemonia", classically, they're claiming to be possessed by good/beneficial demons. It's not "demons" in the sense of Christian mythology, but the best analog for the Christian world be to claim you were "filled with the holy spirit".
So, by the dog, Socrates, can you tell me once and for all, is it possible to both know something and to not-know something?
Are you really prepared to say that there is such a thing as "false knowledge"? That opens a whole new can of worms. How does one distinguish between 'true knowledge' and 'false knowledge'? How can an immediate emotional state be 'false'? What does it mean to be 'false' in the context of our earlier discussion about the possibility that we live in an extra-logical universe where something might very well be both true and false at the same time?
(BTW, I also wasn't talking about chronologically first)
I think I misused the phrase "source of knowledge" earlier, substitute "ideas" in it instead.
Still, that we gain knowledge or ideas from language is not entirely clear. As you say, the impression of language is elementally sensation, interpreted by intellect (perhaps you'd use other words). So it's not it's own source, it seems, but a composite effect of two of your other sources of ideas.
Further, would you truly claim that language "contains" knowledge, ideas, or concepts? A statement itself means nothing without those to understand. And argument in a language that no one has ever spoken and no one will ever speak, would that contain more ideas than a rock?
Rather, it seems to me to be more appropriate to speak of language as containing nothing, but indicating things which are utterly independent of language. No?
I can also get observational ideas ("I feel angry", "I feel love") internally to myself, in my emotions
But isn't the "I feel angry" just the observation of emotion? Just as "I don't see red" and "the argument doesn't work" are observations sense and logic, respectively. However, the observation isn't necessary for the emotion to take place or to exercise influence over thoughts and actions and other feelings. In other words, you don't need to recognize that you're angry in order for the fact of being angry to affect you.
Due to the tremendous influence of emotion, I'm saying I might say that emotional state is not a source of knowledge, but it's either a sort of knowledge itself, or a component of all other sources of ideas or knowledge. Whether your you're angry or calm or sad or happy or indifferent or detached, this influences all modes of thought.
To be honest, if i were constructing a venn diagram of "thought" or "knowledge", I'm not sure if I would put emotion in the center of it all, contained in everything, or as a super-set which encompasses everything, but it would probably hold one of those positions.
oh, I wasn't arguing with your separation of emotion into its own "source of knowledge", but more arguing about which of your modes of knowledge was more primary. You put reason and senses as primary, and emotion and language second.
Well, I might question language as a true form of knowledge. It seems more to me that language is a mode of expression, not knowledge. Language might allow you to pass along a rational form of knowledge through argument, or an emotional form of knowledge through poetry. But a kind of knowledge on it's own? I'm not so sure. Maybe if you explained.
However, I also question the placement of emotion as being a form of knowledge that requires "internal observation". Strangely, you feel things even when you don't notice. Have you ever not-realized you were angry until you noticed you were grinding your teeth or clenching your fists? Have you ever not-realized how stressed-out you were until you found you couldn't sleep?
Logical argumentation, on the other hand, requires a sort of removal from the situation around you. It requires attention to internal understanding of "what makes sense" and "what doesn't make sense". It requires that you cultivate an emotional state of detachment, since being too angry or upset or happy can throw your understanding and even perception way off the mark.
Therefore, I think I might place emotional input as more primary than logic. I might even place it above sensory input, given the way that perception, and perhaps even the senses themselves, can be affected by emotional state, and the way emotion seems to not need external input (at least not immediate input). At the very least, sensation seems to come from outside, and emotion seems to come from inside, which might be considered when deciding which is more fundamental to one's being.
I think I might say that expression and knowledge of emotion comes from internal observation of some non-logical aspect of the mind, but what of the non-logical aspect of the mind itself? Wouldn't that aspect be the emotion itself?
In such a case, you might confirm you "love" your mother through logical interpretation of emotional state with reference to observations of behavior associated with the cultural idea of "love". You might express this confirmation outwardly by stating, in words, "I love my mother". However, there is an immediate and pre-linguistic sensation of there being a non-logical attachment to the entity you know as "your mother". Could this sensation be a sort of knowledge on-par-with or even preceding your ideas of sensory and logical sensation?
It's immediate, non-logical, and pre-linguistic, but it is none the less there, and we all "know what you mean" when you say you "love your mother". There doesn't even seem to be any requirement for rules or external stimuli. How, precisely, do you account for that?
Unlikely. MS is not in any way threatened by AdAware or Spybot. AdAware and Spybot have helped MS by making it possible to clean spyware off of a Windows machine.
However, the fact that spyware is such a problem gives both IE and Windows a bad reputation for security. This has partially led to the rise of Firefox in the mainstream consciousness, and has also lead people to think about switching to Linux or OSX for their desktop OS. Therefore, MS is trying to build their security rep back up.
Well, that's true if you're making very simple pages. Even simple pages, it's worthwhile to know some HTML though (which, agreed, isn't hard). However, I've never gotten a complex page (even one without any dynamic content) working properly using Frontpage or Dreamweaver without a little tweaking of CSS and HTML. If you want to do and Javascript, Dreamweaver won't take you very far. If you want to make a custom PHP/MySQL app, forget it.
I would agree that you *shouldn't* need Flash to build a web site (at all). I hate flash. It doesn't do anything functional that can't be done without it, and it requires a proprietary plug-in, and I hate needing to download plug-ins.
So much for my personal rant, because if you're looking for web-development jobs, a lot of people hiring are going to be looking for flash. Often people who don't know better, but sometimes people who just want something.... ehrm.... "flashy".
It's a sought-after skill, and if you're looking for a career in web-development (though I must echo the people who've been asking "why?") it's a good skill to have. However, I would agree that one ought to learn the practical stuff first, namely XHTML, CSS, PHP, SQL, learn that stuff first. Flash is fluff (regardless of what Macromedia says).