And gnome. Gnome does it too. I don't know who thought of it first, and it doesn't matter anyway, because here in the free software world, we encourage piggy-backing and innovation!
I should have seen this coming. He's always been so radical about the Free Software movement, I guess he viewed his name as one more marketing opportunity.
I've had bad experiences with MapQuest in the Chicago west suburbs (Fermilab area)... Directions to places that just simply weren't there when I reached the end (for instance a car repair place that MapQuest claimed was in the middle of what turned out to be a residential neighboorhood) or instructions to turn on streets that don't exist, that sort of thing. I haven't tried google maps here, since I've pretty well gotten used to the area by now, but MapQuest was horrible. And I've heard from other residents that they've had the same trouble.
OTOH, when I've used MapQuest back home in Texas, it has always worked excellently well.
If (and this is purely hypothetical, as the people I am talking about are dead, so we don't know). If we were to involve past as well as current people, I have a very strong suspicion that most historic Christians (which of course fails to account for a quite large segment of "religious people") would find no incompatibility either. The widespread belief that the Bible should be taken literally, and specifically that literally should be the particular interpretation proclaimed by modern fundamentalists, is, AFAIK, a relatively recent (as in the last couple hundred years) development (see chapter n (I can't remember) in Mark Noll's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind). From what little study of church history I have done (one and a half courses (one course dealt with it incidentally, but quite a bit), and some reading), it looks to me like most historical church figures took a different standpoint, one which would not find any incompatibility.
Wow... I think that post may be really incoherent... I'm really sleepy.
Basically, my view is this: Science is a search for truth. Religion (well, some religion) is also a search for truth. As long as you don't take some postmodernist view of "the only truth is there is no truth", the two should converge, or at the very least, not contradict. So, if they do contradict, then one or the other must be wrong. Furthermore, any interpretation of scripture which disagrees with correct science must be wrong. Similarly, any science which disagrees with correct interpretation of scripture must also be wrong.
I've examined both evolutionary science and the scriptural/theological/whathaveyou arguments against it, and come to the conclusion that, a) as best as I can see, it is not bad science, and b) the theological standpoint is a little sketchy on some important points. Thus, the interpretation of scripture yields.
As far as I can tell from church history, a very significant portion of church historical figures would agree with me in large part.
evolution is not random. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact.
So you're saying it is deterministic, and, depending on the definition of "opposite of random", easily predictable (ie non-chaotic)? I don't think this is correct. IANA biologist, but as I understand it, while evolution might exhibit emergent behaviors on a large scale which are not terribly difficult to predict, on a smaller scale, it is essentially chaotic (which is neither the same thing as nor the opposite of, random).
It would be rather naive to think that a scientific theory like evolution (substitute string theory, atomic theory, quantum theory, any scientific theory you like) would be perfect and free of holes. Read up about Goedel's theorem... we will never have a true "Theory of Everything".
As I understand it (which, admittedly, is rather naively), the biggest danger in using a WYSIWYG gui designer (which, unless I'm mistaken, describes dreamweaver? I've never used it, so tell me so, if I am mistaken) is cross-platform-ness. You might align several forms with each other and put a graphic above them, and suchlike things, but then if someone else looks at the page using a different browser, on a different system, with a different screen resolution, it could very well be all screwed up. Unless you do significant testing in many different environments, you run that very serious risk. Of course, this also applies to guis you handcode, but I would venture to suggest that a gui you have handcoded is a little bit easier to tweak, simply because you already know the code.
That said, IANA gui designer. I have done a minute amount of gui work on a program which ran solely on one system, and I did use a graphical tool, fluid (http://www.fltk.org/), to do it. However, one of the things that I liked about fluid was that it kept you a lot closer to the code than the only other gui designer I've played with, glade. You got the benefits of laying out the gui graphically, as well as the benefits of knowing the code (at least somewhat).
Or, if you're just a plain ole X user, try xmessage.
usage: xmessage [-options] [message...]
Options are the same for both programs:
where options include: -file filename file to read message from, "-" for stdin -buttons string comma-separated list of label:exitcode -default button button to activate if Return is pressed -print print the button label when selected -center pop up at center of screen -nearmouse pop up near the mouse cursor -timeout secs exit with status 0 after "secs" seconds
A very welcome change to the religious people's "God did it! now go pray".
Please, don't lump all "religious people" together under the umbrella of fundamentalists. I know that there are a very large number of people out there, including myself, who find no problem with saying "God did it! I'd like to find out how!" And discovering that evolution (which is really a fascinating process, and deserving of study) is our current best guess. I find no contradiction between the idea that God created the world and the idea that evolution happened and happens. And I know that there are a lot of people out there who agree with me. If I had to guess, I would say that the majority of "religious people" haven't really thought about it, but among those who have, the group who claims incompatibility between creation and evolution is a vocal minority.
You are correct that undisprovable statements are not science. However, this does not necessarily preclude them being true. I heartily agree that the fact they are undisprovable does not make them true, but neither does it prevent them from being true. Not that you claimed it did; I'm just throwing that out there in addition.
The people who don't get it right will simply change their clocks, and then however long later when their clocks change automatically, they'll scratch their heads, and change them again. Just like people handled daylight savings time before computers, only with more changes, and some of them more puzzling.
Of course, that only accounts for systems that have people sitting at them and who happen to glance at the clock. I predict that there will be some servers that are off by an hour for a while, but that it will not cause many problems. Except possibly with authentication that depends on time synchronization, like kerberos.
There is one more difference: The plane is moving farther into the earth's gravitational field, whereas the space station remains at the same potential energy (at least due to the earth's gravity).
I think the trouble is that the brain is so complex, and we know so little about either it's state at a given time or about the entire range of states it could possibly be in, that defining "normal" or "correct" functioning of the brain is impossible at this time.
It's as if ancient greek doctors had cut somebody open, and seen the heart. They would ask themselves "is it normal for it be beating like that? Ok, if it should beat, is that how it should beat?" but they would have no way of knowing (without experimentation, which would tend to kill a lot of people before they figured anything out) quite what constituted a "normal" state for the heart.
If I buy a house, it comes with a spigot in the backyard, and water pressure.
It's not at all unreasonable that I should have to spend 5$ (whatever the price is) on a hose to be able to use the spigot and water I bought to water my lawn. Oh no.
Hey, those keys could be very nice for desktop switching. Some WM's and desktop pagers will put a miniature view of each desktop on the pager... now we can move that off the screen and onto keyboard, saving even more valuable screen space! I think it's a great idea.
It seems like decentralized control works pretty well for most everything else on the internet, so why not the internet itself?
And yes, I know, I'm posting late, and top-level posting at that, so noone will ever read this comment (if you do, could you reply, just to give me a warm fuzzy feeling?), but I had to throw in my 2 cents worth anyway.
You know which distros are easy for newbies, yes? So tell your CS major friends. Tell your mom or grandma. Of course your grandma isn't going to know which distro to choose, or even know how to find out. However, if she hadn't been using windows, would she know whether she wanted Windows for Workgroups, Windows ME, Windows XP? Heck, does she even know which one of those she's got? This is one case where someone external (easiest choice is you) either makes the decision for her, or gives her enough information to make the decision herself. Also, most distros have an option to purchase the already burned CD, and I would recommend that highly, because what you are purchasing is a tech support phone number that your grandma can call when the cup holder breaks.
I'm not 100% sure of the state of things in such distros, but when I've used knoppix as a rescue cd, after clicking on the wine entry in the menu (I was curious), yes, windows programs did work by double-clicking on them. And it seems quite simple to eliminate that one step of clicking on the wine entry, so someone has probably done it (unless I had to do a bit of config... I don't recall).
My experience with downloading files under gnome/firefox is that most of the time, I'm not even asked where to put the file; it simply automatically goes in my home directory. You could then explain to your mom or grandma that the little icon that looks like a house (at least, in gnome) is where the files go when she downloads them.
The older a program is, typically the more likely it is to be supported by wine, so the Bicycle Card game most likely will work. Maybe not, but there's a good chance.
I'm saying that the answers to these questions is yes.
If there is any of the above that you were not aware of before, well then I've just exercised what I was pointing out in my first paragraph.
Sorry to have flamed you before, but as I said, I have read too many posts making exactly those same points, and I just got ticked off... Sorry you happened to be the target.
I'm not trying to say that switching your mom or grandma is necessary, or even a good idea. I'm just trying to point out that the reasons you have given for not switching them can easily be or already have been taken care of.
Slashdot Mirror
And gnome. Gnome does it too. I don't know who thought of it first, and it doesn't matter anyway, because here in the free software world, we encourage piggy-backing and innovation!
According to Richard Freeman, the paper's author,
I should have seen this coming. He's always been so radical about the Free Software movement, I guess he viewed his name as one more marketing opportunity.
I've had bad experiences with MapQuest in the Chicago west suburbs (Fermilab area)... Directions to places that just simply weren't there when I reached the end (for instance a car repair place that MapQuest claimed was in the middle of what turned out to be a residential neighboorhood) or instructions to turn on streets that don't exist, that sort of thing. I haven't tried google maps here, since I've pretty well gotten used to the area by now, but MapQuest was horrible. And I've heard from other residents that they've had the same trouble.
OTOH, when I've used MapQuest back home in Texas, it has always worked excellently well.
1. ???
2. Figure out what it costs Australia
3. ???
4. Thus, it costs the rest of the world 50 times as much.
5. Monopoly!!
If (and this is purely hypothetical, as the people I am talking about are dead, so we don't know). If we were to involve past as well as current people, I have a very strong suspicion that most historic Christians (which of course fails to account for a quite large segment of "religious people") would find no incompatibility either. The widespread belief that the Bible should be taken literally, and specifically that literally should be the particular interpretation proclaimed by modern fundamentalists, is, AFAIK, a relatively recent (as in the last couple hundred years) development (see chapter n (I can't remember) in Mark Noll's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind). From what little study of church history I have done (one and a half courses (one course dealt with it incidentally, but quite a bit), and some reading), it looks to me like most historical church figures took a different standpoint, one which would not find any incompatibility.
Wow... I think that post may be really incoherent... I'm really sleepy.
Basically, my view is this: Science is a search for truth. Religion (well, some religion) is also a search for truth. As long as you don't take some postmodernist view of "the only truth is there is no truth", the two should converge, or at the very least, not contradict. So, if they do contradict, then one or the other must be wrong. Furthermore, any interpretation of scripture which disagrees with correct science must be wrong. Similarly, any science which disagrees with correct interpretation of scripture must also be wrong.
I've examined both evolutionary science and the scriptural/theological/whathaveyou arguments against it, and come to the conclusion that, a) as best as I can see, it is not bad science, and b) the theological standpoint is a little sketchy on some important points. Thus, the interpretation of scripture yields.
As far as I can tell from church history, a very significant portion of church historical figures would agree with me in large part.
evolution is not random. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact.
So you're saying it is deterministic, and, depending on the definition of "opposite of random", easily predictable (ie non-chaotic)? I don't think this is correct. IANA biologist, but as I understand it, while evolution might exhibit emergent behaviors on a large scale which are not terribly difficult to predict, on a smaller scale, it is essentially chaotic (which is neither the same thing as nor the opposite of, random).
It would be rather naive to think that a scientific theory like evolution (substitute string theory, atomic theory, quantum theory, any scientific theory you like) would be perfect and free of holes. Read up about Goedel's theorem... we will never have a true "Theory of Everything".
Good call. It's not science. That's why asking for "proof" is ludicrous. From either side.
As I understand it (which, admittedly, is rather naively), the biggest danger in using a WYSIWYG gui designer (which, unless I'm mistaken, describes dreamweaver? I've never used it, so tell me so, if I am mistaken) is cross-platform-ness. You might align several forms with each other and put a graphic above them, and suchlike things, but then if someone else looks at the page using a different browser, on a different system, with a different screen resolution, it could very well be all screwed up. Unless you do significant testing in many different environments, you run that very serious risk. Of course, this also applies to guis you handcode, but I would venture to suggest that a gui you have handcoded is a little bit easier to tweak, simply because you already know the code.
That said, IANA gui designer. I have done a minute amount of gui work on a program which ran solely on one system, and I did use a graphical tool, fluid (http://www.fltk.org/), to do it. However, one of the things that I liked about fluid was that it kept you a lot closer to the code than the only other gui designer I've played with, glade. You got the benefits of laying out the gui graphically, as well as the benefits of knowing the code (at least somewhat).
A very welcome change to the religious people's "God did it! now go pray".
Please, don't lump all "religious people" together under the umbrella of fundamentalists. I know that there are a very large number of people out there, including myself, who find no problem with saying "God did it! I'd like to find out how!" And discovering that evolution (which is really a fascinating process, and deserving of study) is our current best guess. I find no contradiction between the idea that God created the world and the idea that evolution happened and happens. And I know that there are a lot of people out there who agree with me. If I had to guess, I would say that the majority of "religious people" haven't really thought about it, but among those who have, the group who claims incompatibility between creation and evolution is a vocal minority.
You are correct that undisprovable statements are not science. However, this does not necessarily preclude them being true. I heartily agree that the fact they are undisprovable does not make them true, but neither does it prevent them from being true. Not that you claimed it did; I'm just throwing that out there in addition.
Personally I'm fond of this one which
Perhaps it's better once you get used to it. At first glance, I find it waaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too noisy.
The people who don't get it right will simply change their clocks, and then however long later when their clocks change automatically, they'll scratch their heads, and change them again. Just like people handled daylight savings time before computers, only with more changes, and some of them more puzzling.
Of course, that only accounts for systems that have people sitting at them and who happen to glance at the clock. I predict that there will be some servers that are off by an hour for a while, but that it will not cause many problems. Except possibly with authentication that depends on time synchronization, like kerberos.
There is one more difference: The plane is moving farther into the earth's gravitational field, whereas the space station remains at the same potential energy (at least due to the earth's gravity).
Invented at CERN... which is where I'll hopefully be working in another few years :) http://www.hitmill.com/internet/web_history.html
That's 200 mByte
.2 Bytes...
And why, exactly, should you want to transfer at a rate of 200/1000 Bytes per hour? For that matter, how do you even get
haiku I like you please stay here do not ever part
the death of the Internet is imminent?
Yep.
Netcraft confirms it.
I think the trouble is that the brain is so complex, and we know so little about either it's state at a given time or about the entire range of states it could possibly be in, that defining "normal" or "correct" functioning of the brain is impossible at this time.
It's as if ancient greek doctors had cut somebody open, and seen the heart. They would ask themselves "is it normal for it be beating like that? Ok, if it should beat, is that how it should beat?" but they would have no way of knowing (without experimentation, which would tend to kill a lot of people before they figured anything out) quite what constituted a "normal" state for the heart.
What happened the last time you put tin foil in the microwave? Never done it? Go try it. But be ready to turn the thing off fast.
and its just a friendly contract.
I hate to break it to you, but STFC does not mean Sign The Friendly Contract...
It's actually more along the lines of Sign The FuNO CARRIER
If I buy a house, it comes with a spigot in the backyard, and water pressure.
It's not at all unreasonable that I should have to spend 5$ (whatever the price is) on a hose to be able to use the spigot and water I bought to water my lawn. Oh no.
Hey, those keys could be very nice for desktop switching. Some WM's and desktop pagers will put a miniature view of each desktop on the pager... now we can move that off the screen and onto keyboard, saving even more valuable screen space! I think it's a great idea.
It seems like decentralized control works pretty well for most everything else on the internet, so why not the internet itself?
And yes, I know, I'm posting late, and top-level posting at that, so noone will ever read this comment (if you do, could you reply, just to give me a warm fuzzy feeling?), but I had to throw in my 2 cents worth anyway.
You know which distros are easy for newbies, yes? So tell your CS major friends. Tell your mom or grandma. Of course your grandma isn't going to know which distro to choose, or even know how to find out. However, if she hadn't been using windows, would she know whether she wanted Windows for Workgroups, Windows ME, Windows XP? Heck, does she even know which one of those she's got? This is one case where someone external (easiest choice is you) either makes the decision for her, or gives her enough information to make the decision herself. Also, most distros have an option to purchase the already burned CD, and I would recommend that highly, because what you are purchasing is a tech support phone number that your grandma can call when the cup holder breaks.
I'm not 100% sure of the state of things in such distros, but when I've used knoppix as a rescue cd, after clicking on the wine entry in the menu (I was curious), yes, windows programs did work by double-clicking on them. And it seems quite simple to eliminate that one step of clicking on the wine entry, so someone has probably done it (unless I had to do a bit of config... I don't recall).
My experience with downloading files under gnome/firefox is that most of the time, I'm not even asked where to put the file; it simply automatically goes in my home directory. You could then explain to your mom or grandma that the little icon that looks like a house (at least, in gnome) is where the files go when she downloads them.
The older a program is, typically the more likely it is to be supported by wine, so the Bicycle Card game most likely will work. Maybe not, but there's a good chance.
I'm saying that the answers to these questions is yes.
If there is any of the above that you were not aware of before, well then I've just exercised what I was pointing out in my first paragraph.
Sorry to have flamed you before, but as I said, I have read too many posts making exactly those same points, and I just got ticked off... Sorry you happened to be the target.
I'm not trying to say that switching your mom or grandma is necessary, or even a good idea. I'm just trying to point out that the reasons you have given for not switching them can easily be or already have been taken care of.