I overlook nothing, evidence that has not been found is not evidence, it is an unproven idea, a concept, no more. If evidence continues to not be found it is deemed a faulty concept, aka an incorrect one, and another solution is found. That's why we know there was not a global flood and some guy in a boat, other evidence has been found that reveals it to be no more then a story relating to an event in antiquity which happened in the area around the dead sea. The evidence is real, demonstrable with scientific principles and supporting archaeological evidence.
So, there is no evidence at all for a global flood beyond the bible claims, none, how many times do you want me to repeat this? Well scratch that, I won't be saying it again, I have other things to do.
Preconceived facts are, I will agree, a bad idea. I am not guilty of that though. In fact last year I blew away one of my own hypothesis because I could not sufficiently prove it, even though it was thought to be a very important finding in my field. One single easily ignored result was the problem, but I believe in completeness, and removed my paper. It also lost me a very nice week abroad, but still, I believe in my work and will not sully it with poor results.
The Story of Noah was a re-write of the story of Gilgamesh, did you know that? That referred to a specific and known localized event, not worldwide, and most definatelly not with anyone called noah involved. It was of vital importance at the time it was written, people needed to know that such things could occur, so as to avoid them. However, the old testament incorporated it into a creation myth, losing the principle purpose of the tale.
I have no religious fervor. That feature is one fundamentalists ascribe to anyone they wish to vilify.
If someone came up with a provable hypothesis that disproved evolution and natural selection then yes, I would listen, I'm a scientist. I doubt that can happen, but do not discount it. That is the very essence of science, to be able to be proven incorrect or incomplete lies at the heart of science. Intelligent design, as with creationism before it, has failed to provide such a hypothesis, so it gets thrown out.
Religion does not easily admit change. It has a nasty habit of killing those who disagree. For this reason I avoid it.
There is not now, nor has there ever been *any* evidence to support the hypothesis of a worldwide flood, not a jot, you have been getting your 'facts' from some bible class or other. I use the term hypothesis because to be elevated to theory some proof verifiable by a third party without bias must be found.
The Cambrian explosion is a known event yes, it was not a flood though. It was called an explosion because it represents a rapid diversification of evolved life forms due to the availability of habitats and food. Very little is known as to the cause, other then the rapid advancement of natural selection(which does not require the existence of a god btw).
I tire of this though, I can't dissuade you from thinking there was a wooden boat containing all the worlds animals, because you've no doubt had years of this being drummed into you.
I could not agree more. I've tried and failed to debate the issue with religous people, because they live with a non provable certainty.
This annoys me. It strikes at the very heart of advancement of the species, let alone science. They seem to want a stupid god, one that was so dumb that it had to build a universe where everything needs to be constantly altered. Nature can be observed to find solutions that work together to solve problems. Take for example, the cleaner fish, it assists other animals in keeping clean of parasites. It does this because it ensures an easy food supply and greater freedom from predation, not because god ticked a box on a holy clipboard that assigned a job for eternity.
The primary issue is this, a predictable god ensures a world where personal power can be preserved, a chaotic one does not. You only have to see how many religious leaders are well off/stinking rich to see this in action.
I was willing to listen, right up to 'I reject evolution as origin of species'. That marks you as exactly the kind of person I blame for this kind of crap.
And while we're at it, apply 'because it was not observed, and cannot be repeated' to Noah's flood.....
sounds to me like a rail against the term 'theory'. It further seems that some Americans seem to want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore all scientific progress.
This is, it seems to me, a general backlash against science. The Muslims did this too, a long time ago, and look where it got them. From world leaders in mathematics, astronomy and literature, to a sector of earths population who have the lowest literacy rate and seem most prone to violent acts if their narrow world view is challenged. Ok not all of them, but a fair few, certainly enough to cause a lot of problems.
Is that what America wants? To hide behind religion and lose all its potential to others? It's happened before you know. You've got some smart people in science now, but people die eventually, and if not replaced, well, you do the math, while you still can....
and doesn't 'use the same interface as wikipedia' actually mean 'can't be bothered to write our own interface'.
This is so d00med, just a bunch of liberals trying to set the world right again 'ok everyone, lets hold hands and wish the world better'.
It's going to be hoaxed to bits. Anyone who gets fired, or has a grudge, or wants to discredit someone will love it. The fact that nothing can be proved on the site means it'll be just another place for tin hats to congregate.
my mothers HP machine has all sorts of crap on it they pre-installed. Removing it causes major system instability, so I had to leave it installed.
Oh yes, and the HP update thing just did an update that appears to have shagged the registry. The error occured after reboot when the HP update ran, and that's the only software to be installed for months.
I know the software isn't needed for windows, but not having a clean XP home to install over and use her serial, I'm screwed for a fix.
Probably it was a bit of research to establish how widely distributed a crop of coins gets. That's actually interesting/useful info.
Small change is replaced by working out the average loss rate, and setting replacement creation to match. I imagine that by tagging some coins they would add another dimension to their information regarding coin usage/attrition.
Sort of like radio tagging fish to see where they turn up, only without the fish, or the radio tags.
You are correct sir or madam. However, I WANT one...NOW
And I've never before owned a mobile phone, ever. I view them as universally sucking, year after year they add small features, move stuff around, and charge ever larger prices for them, trying to get people to replace them every few months. That's just put me off.
And yet, the iPhone appeals to me instantly. Quite why I'm not sure, but there we are. From not knowing something exists to instant desire to own it in one hour...
Do I need all that wizzyness? Probably not, but who cares, it looks great, and seems to have an sms interface I might actually want to use. That I can store my music and video content on it is a nice extra.
I believe the primary reason they lost that case is that Universal had in fact argued in a previous case that they did not own the rights to king kong. Not sure of the particulars of the case though.
since Apple and other media selling companies are likely to have it taken off the market for some made up DMCA violation or other frivolous reason, it may not be an issue that we don't know much yet
I've only once seen popped capacitors on a board once after a power surge, and I've been around computers for years. Ok, I'm not a 'take stuff to bits' guy, I'm a coder who's adverse to opening the box lest I break something, but if capacitors were that big a problem, surely they'd be a common source of failure?
Solid state HD of huge capacity and Sata2 equivalent speeds, now *that* I'd be interested in.
This is rather odd, if he gets funding he'll open the source, but if not he'll kill it? If code is 'dead' then that's the ideal time to give it away, since no more money can be made.
I guess he means 'if I can't make money by open sourcing it, no-one else will'.
It would be a real shame if he just destroyed the code. Even if it failed to get a new following as open source, I'm sure there must be something in there that other projects can use.
I do make heavy use of the Richard Stallman Auto Criticizer, aka splint. That's a very good tool for finding potential problems, although it is a tad strict
I code predominasntly in C, and I find very few problems with allocating my own string buffers and so on. Doing your own memory allocation/deallocation does not instantly mean you have a program full of buffer overflows and security holes, although many people seem to assume this is the case.
What does that is rushed code, poor design and inadequate testing. These feature heavily in the vast majority of commercially produced code I've seen. Frankly most of what I've seen is horrifically bad. With code of such low quality, C should be avoided, but that's not C's fault, it's crap house coding rules. C is elegent, minimal, and mindbendingly fast. This does not mark it as ideal for enterprise tools, but it does have a place there, for time intensive operations.
It is extremely easy to ensure buffers in C have a strictly limited inputs, and do not encounter overflows. It's also easy to not do this, and thus faster. That I suspect, is where most of the problems come from.
Open source code used in the enterprise seems nowadays to be starting to suffer from similer problems to the commercial code I've seen, although commenting schemes are better. The problem seems to me to be a feeling that things must be pushed forward to compete. That isn't a good plan. Slower development, more testing before actual deployment, and less feature creep are what is needed.
That reminds me. About 20 years ago I met this guy during my nurse training, another student, with whom I had this conversation.
him: 'Everyone who has not read the bible goes to hell' me: 'Does that include the people in the amazon jungle who've never been contacted?' him: 'Yes, they go to hell, because they don't follow Jesus' me: 'That hardly seems fair, how would you go about rectifying that?' him: 'That simple, drop bibles from helicopters onto their villages, then they'll be saved' me:'.........'
Seriously, word for word, that was what happened. Sadly, the guy was blatently gay, but spent his time obviously wracked with guilt, presumably because he thought jesus disaproved, and constantly pretended to be interested in girls, I imagine (but do not know) in fear that his church disown him. I did try to befriend him, even attending his 'church' of very odd people in order to perhaps introduce him to some other gay people I knew, and give him a measure of happiness (we lived in the same corridor, and his constant depression wasn't helping), but every time the subject of homosexuality appeared he became very stressed, and started quoting religious stuff, presumably to ward off thoughts he was having.
I thought it was really sad that he was blocked from his only route to a happy sexual relationship by his bizarre extremist religious views. However, that was his choice.
"And doesn't Christianity say something about loving one another? I wonder where all that was lost."
Just a guess, but probably a few centuries ago when Popes started handing out 'tickets for instant admission to heaven' if you killed an unbeleiver. Remember the Cathars? Nope, Hmm, wonder why that is, oh yes, the Pope order their culture destroyed....
Slashdot Mirror
The Lawyers
Man them...
I overlook nothing, evidence that has not been found is not evidence, it is an unproven idea, a concept, no more.
If evidence continues to not be found it is deemed a faulty concept, aka an incorrect one, and another solution is found. That's why we know there was not a global flood and some guy in a boat, other evidence has been found that reveals it to be no more then a story relating to an event in antiquity which happened in the area around the dead sea. The evidence is real, demonstrable with scientific principles and supporting archaeological evidence.
So, there is no evidence at all for a global flood beyond the bible claims, none, how many times do you want me to repeat this? Well scratch that, I won't be saying it again, I have other things to do.
Preconceived facts are, I will agree, a bad idea. I am not guilty of that though. In fact last year I blew away one of my own hypothesis because I could not sufficiently prove it, even though it was thought to be a very important finding in my field. One single easily ignored result was the problem, but I believe in completeness, and removed my paper. It also lost me a very nice week abroad, but still, I believe in my work and will not sully it with poor results.
The Story of Noah was a re-write of the story of Gilgamesh, did you know that? That referred to a specific and known localized event, not worldwide, and most definatelly not with anyone called noah involved. It was of vital importance at the time it was written, people needed to know that such things could occur, so as to avoid them. However, the old testament incorporated it into a creation myth, losing the principle purpose of the tale.
I have no religious fervor. That feature is one fundamentalists ascribe to anyone they wish to vilify.
If someone came up with a provable hypothesis that disproved evolution and natural selection then yes, I would listen, I'm a scientist. I doubt that can happen, but do not discount it. That is the very essence of science, to be able to be proven incorrect or incomplete lies at the heart of science. Intelligent design, as with creationism before it, has failed to provide such a hypothesis, so it gets thrown out.
Religion does not easily admit change. It has a nasty habit of killing those who disagree. For this reason I avoid it.
There is not now, nor has there ever been *any* evidence to support the hypothesis of a worldwide flood, not a jot, you have been getting your 'facts' from some bible class or other. I use the term hypothesis because to be elevated to theory some proof verifiable by a third party without bias must be found.
The Cambrian explosion is a known event yes, it was not a flood though. It was called an explosion because it represents a rapid diversification of evolved life forms due to the availability of habitats and food. Very little is known as to the cause, other then the rapid advancement of natural selection(which does not require the existence of a god btw).
I tire of this though, I can't dissuade you from thinking there was a wooden boat containing all the worlds animals, because you've no doubt had years of this being drummed into you.
I could not agree more. I've tried and failed to debate the issue with religous people, because they live with a non provable certainty.
This annoys me. It strikes at the very heart of advancement of the species, let alone science. They seem to want a stupid god, one that was so dumb that it had to build a universe where everything needs to be constantly altered. Nature can be observed to find solutions that work together to solve problems. Take for example, the cleaner fish, it assists other animals in keeping clean of parasites. It does this because it ensures an easy food supply and greater freedom from predation, not because god ticked a box on a holy clipboard that assigned a job for eternity.
The primary issue is this, a predictable god ensures a world where personal power can be preserved, a chaotic one does not. You only have to see how many religious leaders are well off/stinking rich to see this in action.
I was willing to listen, right up to 'I reject evolution as origin of species'. That marks you as exactly the kind of person I blame for this kind of crap.
And while we're at it, apply 'because it was not observed, and cannot be repeated' to Noah's flood.....
sounds to me like a rail against the term 'theory'. It further seems that some Americans seem to want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore all scientific progress.
This is, it seems to me, a general backlash against science. The Muslims did this too, a long time ago, and look where it got them. From world leaders in mathematics, astronomy and literature, to a sector of earths population who have the lowest literacy rate and seem most prone to violent acts if their narrow world view is challenged. Ok not all of them, but a fair few, certainly enough to cause a lot of problems.
Is that what America wants? To hide behind religion and lose all its potential to others? It's happened before you know. You've got some smart people in science now, but people die eventually, and if not replaced, well, you do the math, while you still can....
we should indeed want our porn released in HD. Then when it's ripped and stuck on torrent sites, the playback quality will be better.
and doesn't 'use the same interface as wikipedia' actually mean 'can't be bothered to write our own interface'.
This is so d00med, just a bunch of liberals trying to set the world right again 'ok everyone, lets hold hands and wish the world better'.
It's going to be hoaxed to bits. Anyone who gets fired, or has a grudge, or wants to discredit someone will love it. The fact that nothing can be proved on the site means it'll be just another place for tin hats to congregate.
nah, safe means don't get married in the first place...
well no, not sarcastic. A new wife, a hotel, I can see more to do then things on a computer.
Why were they so interested on solving such a problem during a honeymoon? Sounds like an avoidance strategy to me.
my mothers HP machine has all sorts of crap on it they pre-installed. Removing it causes major system instability, so I had to leave it installed.
Oh yes, and the HP update thing just did an update that appears to have shagged the registry. The error occured after reboot when the HP update ran, and that's the only software to be installed for months.
I know the software isn't needed for windows, but not having a clean XP home to install over and use her serial, I'm screwed for a fix.
On his honeymoon?
wow, that's a relationship with a good start.
Astronomer 1: How far away is it?
Astronomer 2: In light years? It's OVER 9000!!!!!
Probably it was a bit of research to establish how widely distributed a crop of coins gets. That's actually interesting/useful info.
Small change is replaced by working out the average loss rate, and setting replacement creation to match. I imagine that by tagging some coins they would add another dimension to their information regarding coin usage/attrition.
Sort of like radio tagging fish to see where they turn up, only without the fish, or the radio tags.
Bad example...
You are correct sir or madam. However, I WANT one...NOW
And I've never before owned a mobile phone, ever. I view them as universally sucking, year after year they add small features, move stuff around, and charge ever larger prices for them, trying to get people to replace them every few months. That's just put me off.
And yet, the iPhone appeals to me instantly. Quite why I'm not sure, but there we are. From not knowing something exists to instant desire to own it in one hour...
Do I need all that wizzyness? Probably not, but who cares, it looks great, and seems to have an sms interface I might actually want to use. That I can store my music and video content on it is a nice extra.
I believe the primary reason they lost that case is that Universal had in fact argued in a previous case that they did not own the rights to king kong. Not sure of the particulars of the case though.
since Apple and other media selling companies are likely to have it taken off the market for some made up DMCA violation or other frivolous reason, it may not be an issue that we don't know much yet
I've only once seen popped capacitors on a board once after a power surge, and I've been around computers for years. Ok, I'm not a 'take stuff to bits' guy, I'm a coder who's adverse to opening the box lest I break something, but if capacitors were that big a problem, surely they'd be a common source of failure?
Solid state HD of huge capacity and Sata2 equivalent speeds, now *that* I'd be interested in.
This is rather odd, if he gets funding he'll open the source, but if not he'll kill it? If code is 'dead' then that's the ideal time to give it away, since no more money can be made.
I guess he means 'if I can't make money by open sourcing it, no-one else will'.
It would be a real shame if he just destroyed the code. Even if it failed to get a new following as open source, I'm sure there must be something in there that other projects can use.
Perhaps your guess is correct, but the very fact that they aren't led by a guy with worrying religious inspired idea's is an improvement at least.
I do make heavy use of the Richard Stallman Auto Criticizer, aka splint. That's a very good tool for finding potential problems, although it is a tad strict
I code predominasntly in C, and I find very few problems with allocating my own string buffers and so on. Doing your own memory allocation/deallocation does not instantly mean you have a program full of buffer overflows and security holes, although many people seem to assume this is the case.
What does that is rushed code, poor design and inadequate testing. These feature heavily in the vast majority of commercially produced code I've seen. Frankly most of what I've seen is horrifically bad. With code of such low quality, C should be avoided, but that's not C's fault, it's crap house coding rules. C is elegent, minimal, and mindbendingly fast. This does not mark it as ideal for enterprise tools, but it does have a place there, for time intensive operations.
It is extremely easy to ensure buffers in C have a strictly limited inputs, and do not encounter overflows. It's also easy to not do this, and thus faster. That I suspect, is where most of the problems come from.
Open source code used in the enterprise seems nowadays to be starting to suffer from similer problems to the commercial code I've seen, although commenting schemes are better. The problem seems to me to be a feeling that things must be pushed forward to compete. That isn't a good plan. Slower development, more testing before actual deployment, and less feature creep are what is needed.
Hmm, well if you'd had to clean maggots out of a foreskin onnce as I did, you wouldn't think such an outcome was as likely.
That reminds me. About 20 years ago I met this guy during my nurse training, another student, with whom I had this conversation.
him: 'Everyone who has not read the bible goes to hell'
me: 'Does that include the people in the amazon jungle who've never been contacted?'
him: 'Yes, they go to hell, because they don't follow Jesus'
me: 'That hardly seems fair, how would you go about rectifying that?'
him: 'That simple, drop bibles from helicopters onto their villages, then they'll be saved'
me:'.........'
Seriously, word for word, that was what happened. Sadly, the guy was blatently gay, but spent his time obviously wracked with guilt, presumably because he thought jesus disaproved, and constantly pretended to be interested in girls, I imagine (but do not know) in fear that his church disown him. I did try to befriend him, even attending his 'church' of very odd people in order to perhaps introduce him to some other gay people I knew, and give him a measure of happiness (we lived in the same corridor, and his constant depression wasn't helping), but every time the subject of homosexuality appeared he became very stressed, and started quoting religious stuff, presumably to ward off thoughts he was having.
I thought it was really sad that he was blocked from his only route to a happy sexual relationship by his bizarre extremist religious views. However, that was his choice.
"And doesn't Christianity say something about loving one another? I wonder where all that was lost."
Just a guess, but probably a few centuries ago when Popes started handing out 'tickets for instant admission to heaven' if you killed an unbeleiver. Remember the Cathars? Nope, Hmm, wonder why that is, oh yes, the Pope order their culture destroyed....