But on the same token, if Linux were good, they never would have gone back to Microsoft. So either way, spinning the story either way makes Linux look good. Even just "using" it implies it's better than giving up on it. I certainly wouldn't say it's anti-Linux, as using something implies niether a good thing or a bad thing.
The grandparent was asking why it was assumed that Telstra was USING linux to get MS discounts, as opposed to Telstra chosing MS because they liked it better. The "everyone...every possible way" was obvious sarcasm as the last word of the post is "/sarcasm"
I'm not saying about that, they are already rolling out PDAs w/ PocketPC that will have VGA res, that's awesome. But is all the RAM and HDD space necessary for a device that can't do that much due to size limitations (comfortably)
I like having a PDA and a laptop, I use them for completely separate purposes.
Combining a phone and a PDA sounds good, because both are items I keep in my pocket. My laptop, however, I use when I want most of the experiences of my desktop, away from my desktop. This includes the keyboard.
Small keyboards and small screens are OK for PIM, checking email, and what not, but any more than that and it get's ridiculously tedious. I know there is a market for this kind of thing, but I'm probably not very interested.
"does your press print fuck, cunt, shit, etc or is that something that is never done? I assume that you must, but that is only because it is like that over here, and I can't really think of a time when I've seen it."
Depends on the publication. A magazine like Rolling Stones will, a newspaper like The New York Times wont (at least I've never seen it there). Nothing stops them, but again their target audience would have a fit.
When did I say anything about that? I never said there WOULD be enough time I said
"give enough time". If that time is greater than the time of the entire universe, then there won't be given any time. But given ENOUGH time, it will occur.
Here's a solution:
Have the RSS readers grab data every hour or half hour starting from when they are started up, not on the hour. This would of course distribute the "attacks" on the server.
I used to have an RSS feed for google news that I loved and used all the time, but it was taken down due to this effect. It's a shame that these things can't be handled better. (the RSS feed may be back up, I haven't checked in months)
I agree. Yes, the press issue is more about our moral majority. The NY Times could print a headline right now with the words FUCK CUNT SHIT, but it would lose probably 75% of its subscriber base, and 90% of its advertisers, so they don't. Movies are the same way, there's no law inforcing the rating of movies, the movie industry rates and moderates itself for advertiser and moral majority purposes, but not government censorship.
As for flesh on TV, I agree with you there, that is another area you are a bit ahead of us, you can show a nipple and we can't, and I reckon you can say fuck on TV? Not sure, but I wouldn't doubt it. We can do and say those things too, but not on public airwaves.
And lastly as for "it can fly there under certain conditions" perhaps, though I just think the censorship of the press in the specific UK example was ridiculous.
Also, out of mere curiosity, since you do not have a freedom of speech, what does this boil down to. Are there any examples of restrictions of freedom of speech outside of the press? I'm curious is all.
I actually said homeostatis and I did mean homeostasis, 'twas a typo:)
I stick with complexity. Even those bacteria you mentioned are vastly complex. You can't compare complexity from life to life, rather, from life to non life. Compare those bacteria to a rock, or another non living thing. Just the process of DNA replication alone makes a bacteria complex.
I''m not even going to start on the huge problems with this way of thinking.
There's absolutely NO problem with this way of thinking. It's mathematical fact that if something can occur it will occur given enough time.
Proof:
If something can occur, then it has a probability of occuring. 1/X where X is the value of its probability inverse. For any given amount of time, the probability for something increases. If the time is increased to infinity, the probability of 1/X becomes 1, quite simply because there's an INFINITE amount of time for something that can occur to occur. In other words, even if something only has a 1 in a million chance of happening once in a billion years, given infinite time, you have infinite "billion year" periods, in those infinite periods 1/million of them will exist the event.
In fact, given infinite time, anything that can occur will occur an infinite number of times, assuming the probability of said event doesn't decrease over time, or after certain events.
I didn't say it would contradict the existence of a god, I think some people think it would though. Also, not that non microscopic life wouldn't be interesting, I just fail to see the obsession with it.
"Part of the fascination is that we don't know if it's possible. We think that it might be, and the odds seem to be in favor of it, but we won't know for sure until we find some evidence of it. That's how science works."
We do know it's possible, evidence is right in front of you. Earth. Earth isn't some magical existence according to science, it's just a planet. If it can occur then it will occur, and given enough time it must occur.
I don't think finding life would discredit religion either, but I was referring to what you said first that you know scientist that believe it to. There always seems to be on the two extremes people fighting for "proof" of their beliefs that can not be proven or disproven, where as most sane people (atheist and theist alike, such as your pastor friend) don't take their beliefs to extreme and understand that things like faith are hard to prove or disprove, if not impossible
But I don't really think any scientist thinks earth is so much a freak accident that it can't occur elsewhere, and hasn't and didn't already. The chances that we are the only planet with life are far far less than the chances that we aren't the only planet with life. Therefore, I still don't see the obsession (I see the interest, but not the obsession)
Yeah, there are gray areas on earth, such as viruses. Though there are certain things that scientist agree on.
For example, in order to be alive, scientist generally agree one must be complex, grow, reproduce, metabolize energy, evolve, homeostatis, and response to environment. That fact that viruses don't really cover all of these requirements per say, is where the gray area comes in. I'd say that if life is found elsewhere, regardless of it having DNA, if it fulfills those requirements it can be considered life.
When I said it's "doubtful it went past the microscopic range" I meant on Mars, not any other planet, as we can directly view Mars and take samples, etc.
I don't quite see the obession with finding life on Mars.
In terms of science, we know it's possible, it's not an issue of "can" it happen it's an issue of "where" did it happen again. We also know that if there was life it's doubtful it went beyond the microscopic range as not only is there no evidence of that, but life existed on this planet for eons w/o going past the microscopic range. It's arguable that the natural result of life is not always complexity and size.
It seems to me the only reason people are obessed with finding life on Mars, or anywhere else for that matter, is to fill some urge that if they do, to less scientific minded (read: religious) people will be proven wrong.
Depends on the school. Tuition prices range horribly in the US.
I'd say that range is probably between 1,500 and 3x,000 I go to a school that cost 30,000 and I know we cost pretty close to the top, with a few college higher up but not by much.
Slashdot Mirror
But on the same token, if Linux were good, they never would have gone back to Microsoft. So either way, spinning the story either way makes Linux look good. Even just "using" it implies it's better than giving up on it. I certainly wouldn't say it's anti-Linux, as using something implies niether a good thing or a bad thing.
You missed the point. Look at the headline
"Telstra Used Linux To Get Microsoft Discounts"
The grandparent was asking why it was assumed that Telstra was USING linux to get MS discounts, as opposed to Telstra chosing MS because they liked it better. The "everyone...every possible way" was obvious sarcasm as the last word of the post is "/sarcasm"
He means 70C
Or maybe because N(ational)BC is centered in the Nation of America (gasp)
Oh really, then lets see you order some of these Sony's without WinXP? This discussion is over.
Hey guess what... Linux works on PocketPCs, isn't that amazing?
I'm not saying about that, they are already rolling out PDAs w/ PocketPC that will have VGA res, that's awesome. But is all the RAM and HDD space necessary for a device that can't do that much due to size limitations (comfortably)
It's standard x86 hardware, BSD/linux already runs on it.
I like having a PDA and a laptop, I use them for completely separate purposes.
Combining a phone and a PDA sounds good, because both are items I keep in my pocket. My laptop, however, I use when I want most of the experiences of my desktop, away from my desktop. This includes the keyboard.
Small keyboards and small screens are OK for PIM, checking email, and what not, but any more than that and it get's ridiculously tedious. I know there is a market for this kind of thing, but I'm probably not very interested.
"does your press print fuck, cunt, shit, etc or is that something that is never done? I assume that you must, but that is only because it is like that over here, and I can't really think of a time when I've seen it."
Depends on the publication. A magazine like Rolling Stones will, a newspaper like The New York Times wont (at least I've never seen it there). Nothing stops them, but again their target audience would have a fit.
When did I say anything about that? I never said there WOULD be enough time I said
"give enough time". If that time is greater than the time of the entire universe, then there won't be given any time. But given ENOUGH time, it will occur.
Here's a solution: Have the RSS readers grab data every hour or half hour starting from when they are started up, not on the hour. This would of course distribute the "attacks" on the server.
I used to have an RSS feed for google news that I loved and used all the time, but it was taken down due to this effect. It's a shame that these things can't be handled better. (the RSS feed may be back up, I haven't checked in months)
I agree. Yes, the press issue is more about our moral majority. The NY Times could print a headline right now with the words FUCK CUNT SHIT, but it would lose probably 75% of its subscriber base, and 90% of its advertisers, so they don't. Movies are the same way, there's no law inforcing the rating of movies, the movie industry rates and moderates itself for advertiser and moral majority purposes, but not government censorship.
As for flesh on TV, I agree with you there, that is another area you are a bit ahead of us, you can show a nipple and we can't, and I reckon you can say fuck on TV? Not sure, but I wouldn't doubt it. We can do and say those things too, but not on public airwaves.
And lastly as for "it can fly there under certain conditions" perhaps, though I just think the censorship of the press in the specific UK example was ridiculous.
Also, out of mere curiosity, since you do not have a freedom of speech, what does this boil down to. Are there any examples of restrictions of freedom of speech outside of the press? I'm curious is all.
"change 'homestatis' to 'homeostasis"
:)
I actually said homeostatis and I did mean homeostasis, 'twas a typo
I stick with complexity. Even those bacteria you mentioned are vastly complex. You can't compare complexity from life to life, rather, from life to non life. Compare those bacteria to a rock, or another non living thing. Just the process of DNA replication alone makes a bacteria complex.
I''m not even going to start on the huge problems with this way of thinking.
There's absolutely NO problem with this way of thinking. It's mathematical fact that if something can occur it will occur given enough time.
Proof:
If something can occur, then it has a probability of occuring. 1/X where X is the value of its probability inverse. For any given amount of time, the probability for something increases. If the time is increased to infinity, the probability of 1/X becomes 1, quite simply because there's an INFINITE amount of time for something that can occur to occur. In other words, even if something only has a 1 in a million chance of happening once in a billion years, given infinite time, you have infinite "billion year" periods, in those infinite periods 1/million of them will exist the event.
In fact, given infinite time, anything that can occur will occur an infinite number of times, assuming the probability of said event doesn't decrease over time, or after certain events.
I didn't say it would contradict the existence of a god, I think some people think it would though. Also, not that non microscopic life wouldn't be interesting, I just fail to see the obsession with it.
"Part of the fascination is that we don't know if it's possible. We think that it might be, and the odds seem to be in favor of it, but we won't know for sure until we find some evidence of it. That's how science works."
We do know it's possible, evidence is right in front of you. Earth. Earth isn't some magical existence according to science, it's just a planet. If it can occur then it will occur, and given enough time it must occur.
I'm not talking about the scientific discovery or interest, I'm talking about the *obessesion*
I don't think finding life would discredit religion either, but I was referring to what you said first that you know scientist that believe it to. There always seems to be on the two extremes people fighting for "proof" of their beliefs that can not be proven or disproven, where as most sane people (atheist and theist alike, such as your pastor friend) don't take their beliefs to extreme and understand that things like faith are hard to prove or disprove, if not impossible
But I don't really think any scientist thinks earth is so much a freak accident that it can't occur elsewhere, and hasn't and didn't already. The chances that we are the only planet with life are far far less than the chances that we aren't the only planet with life. Therefore, I still don't see the obsession (I see the interest, but not the obsession)
Yeah, there are gray areas on earth, such as viruses. Though there are certain things that scientist agree on.
For example, in order to be alive, scientist generally agree one must be complex, grow, reproduce, metabolize energy, evolve, homeostatis, and response to environment. That fact that viruses don't really cover all of these requirements per say, is where the gray area comes in. I'd say that if life is found elsewhere, regardless of it having DNA, if it fulfills those requirements it can be considered life.
Clarification:
When I said it's "doubtful it went past the microscopic range" I meant on Mars, not any other planet, as we can directly view Mars and take samples, etc.
I don't quite see the obession with finding life on Mars.
In terms of science, we know it's possible, it's not an issue of "can" it happen it's an issue of "where" did it happen again. We also know that if there was life it's doubtful it went beyond the microscopic range as not only is there no evidence of that, but life existed on this planet for eons w/o going past the microscopic range. It's arguable that the natural result of life is not always complexity and size.
It seems to me the only reason people are obessed with finding life on Mars, or anywhere else for that matter, is to fill some urge that if they do, to less scientific minded (read: religious) people will be proven wrong.
Depends on the school. Tuition prices range horribly in the US.
I'd say that range is probably between 1,500 and 3x,000 I go to a school that cost 30,000 and I know we cost pretty close to the top, with a few college higher up but not by much.