I didn't say that science and religion don't play together. I said that one paradigm or worldview is no more or less scientific than another and it's unfair to characterise one as church and one as science. Atheistic, pantheistic (last time I checked Buddhism is pantheistic) monotheistic paradigms all lead to different interpretations of scientific data. The resultant theories from those interpretations lead back to the paradigms that originated them to reinforce them. What I believe the parents who requested those stickers in the first place wanted was that their children not be presented with a false choice between the atheistic paradigm mis-labeled 'science' and the christian paradigm taught at home.
It really isn't the church versus science, here. It's one valid paradigm, atheism, that obviously and unfairly has legal-political backing, versus another valid paradigm, theism, that is being championed at this time by the church. Neither is a matter of science, rather personal experience, faith and philosophy.
Those who believe in God should not be called unscientific, as your headline did, because they interpret the universe that way. Those believe in 'no God' should not be called scientific because they have chosen that paradigm. 'All we are saying is...' students, especially children, should not have their paradigm predetermined for them by school textbooks. The theory of evolution as taught in schools proceeds from and leads back to an atheistic paradigm. (Loud cries of protest! Yes I hear you, and disagree.) This is why there is a necessity to emphasise that it is merely an option. If a creationist theory was taught it would need the same disclaimer. Origins science has huge implications for your worldview. It's too important an issue to let one paradigm override another mistakenly using the word 'science' as a club.
Assuming a successful landing, is it unreasonable that a wingsuit could be supplied with forward thrust, and take off? There used to be a song titled "it's the eighties, so where are our rocket packs?" Maybe they're still in the works... (if a little late)
Speaking as a former installer of IBM servers, Debian is definitely the way to go. We forced ourselves (once and once only) to use an IBM approved distro (turbolinux) and found you could do nothing with it compared with what's available with Debian. RPM's can be aliened (with a bit of work - especially the setup scripts and init.d locations) . Hey we had pervasive.sql and ACCPAC running on one of them. and ease of update! nothing compares with Debian. Never used IBM support for software. (never needed to)
Without a doubt, 'TERMS OF ENDEARMENT' was the worst movie I've ever seen. It left an enduringly bad taste in my mouth. It was a complete waste of admittedly great talent. Why did they even bother..? Yuck.
The only reason I ever recommended novell to customers back in the mists of time was that they had a smaller dos memory footprint. The beauty and glory of NDS was lost on me and my small business customers. It only shines at the enterprise level. nt was easier to use and when 95/98/xp became the desktop, the memory footprint was less and less of an issue. Now their fancy dancy client is huge and terrifically unlovely. What they should have done was jump on the 'smb' bandwagon and undercut nt server pricewise. But now samba is here and novell is out of luck. Simple is easier to manage for most people, ultimately.
Probably webmin is one I would use if I would use any. It's more satisfactory to know what you actually did and edit the config file yourself. And most of the time you run into some wierdness and have to change a setting, the documentationn points you to the file, not webmin or linuxconf (which I really hate) so you have to actually understand and fix the problem.
Just a big AMEN. all that stuff in office that hides menus, just because they're not being used as often is irritating to the max. Especially when you are assisting a user who asks you how to do some function he/she thought was there but has never seen it in the menus -- because it was hidden! Methods like that presuppose both a smart user who can dig deeper to find what they need, and a dumb user who doesn't really use all that's in the program. Adding machine learning to software that is based on a person going where he wants on the net, would only be a notch on the belt, ("Whoopie! I put machine learning in Firefox!") I can only see it being a thing to get around when you want something unusual. I hate programs that are cloyingly helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that science and religion don't play together. I said that one paradigm or worldview is no more or less scientific than another and it's unfair to characterise one as church and one as science. Atheistic, pantheistic (last time I checked Buddhism is pantheistic) monotheistic paradigms all lead to different interpretations of scientific data. The resultant theories from those interpretations lead back to the paradigms that originated them to reinforce them. What I believe the parents who requested those stickers in the first place wanted was that their children not be presented with a false choice between the atheistic paradigm mis-labeled 'science' and the christian paradigm taught at home.
I also vote against that 'dept' headline.
It really isn't the church versus science, here. It's one valid paradigm, atheism, that obviously and unfairly has legal-political backing, versus another valid paradigm, theism, that is being championed at this time by the church. Neither is a matter of science, rather personal experience, faith and philosophy.
Those who believe in God should not be called unscientific, as your headline did, because they interpret the universe that way. Those believe in 'no God' should not be called scientific because they have chosen that paradigm. 'All we are saying is...' students, especially children, should not have their paradigm predetermined for them by school textbooks. The theory of evolution as taught in schools proceeds from and leads back to an atheistic paradigm. (Loud cries of protest! Yes I hear you, and disagree.) This is why there is a necessity to emphasise that it is merely an option. If a creationist theory was taught it would need the same disclaimer. Origins science has huge implications for your worldview. It's too important an issue to let one paradigm override another mistakenly using the word 'science' as a club.
Assuming a successful landing, is it unreasonable that a wingsuit could be supplied with forward thrust, and take off? There used to be a song titled "it's the eighties, so where are our rocket packs?" Maybe they're still in the works... (if a little late)
When technological advances end up in RFC's and not patents...
Speaking as a former installer of IBM servers, Debian is definitely the way to go. We forced ourselves (once and once only) to use an IBM approved distro (turbolinux) and found you could do nothing with it compared with what's available with Debian. RPM's can be aliened (with a bit of work - especially the setup scripts and init.d locations) . Hey we had pervasive.sql and ACCPAC running on one of them. and ease of update! nothing compares with Debian. Never used IBM support for software. (never needed to)
Without a doubt, 'TERMS OF ENDEARMENT' was the worst movie I've ever seen. It left an enduringly bad taste in my mouth. It was a complete waste of admittedly great talent. Why did they even bother..? Yuck.
The only reason I ever recommended novell to customers back in the mists of time was that they had a smaller dos memory footprint. The beauty and glory of NDS was lost on me and my small business customers. It only shines at the enterprise level. nt was easier to use and when 95/98/xp became the desktop, the memory footprint was less and less of an issue. Now their fancy dancy client is huge and terrifically unlovely. What they should have done was jump on the 'smb' bandwagon and undercut nt server pricewise. But now samba is here and novell is out of luck. Simple is easier to manage for most people, ultimately.
Probably webmin is one I would use if I would use any. It's more satisfactory to know what you actually did and edit the config file yourself. And most of the time you run into some wierdness and have to change a setting, the documentationn points you to the file, not webmin or linuxconf (which I really hate) so you have to actually understand and fix the problem.
Just a big AMEN. all that stuff in office that hides menus, just because they're not being used as often is irritating to the max. Especially when you are assisting a user who asks you how to do some function he/she thought was there but has never seen it in the menus -- because it was hidden! Methods like that presuppose both a smart user who can dig deeper to find what they need, and a dumb user who doesn't really use all that's in the program. Adding machine learning to software that is based on a person going where he wants on the net, would only be a notch on the belt, ("Whoopie! I put machine learning in Firefox!") I can only see it being a thing to get around when you want something unusual. I hate programs that are cloyingly helpful.
I think it's a great way to demonstrate how irresponible it is to run MS Windows at all!!