It's funny -- at the bottom of your post it says "Parent," but I'd bet dollars to donuts you're not one.
Fundamental rule of parenthood: telling your kid not to take the loaded gun out of your closet will, in fact, guarantee your child will take the loaded gun out of your closet. That's not to say you shouldn't talk to your kids, but you can't just lay out the panoply of human vice in front of them and say "don't touch that."
Yes, people are dying to use a CLI for photo editing.
Now, it seems to me that you need to be aware that every item in your kitchen was designed by someone. Take a look around your office, what do you see? A: Lots of stuff that was designed by someone. Unless you work in a cave with sticks and dirt, design is *everywhere,* all around you all the time. What you fail to note is that there is good design and bad design. Good design is entirely about facilitating users (and indeed has very little to do with making things pretty, as many slashdotters seem to think). Good design is transparent, but it is *not* absent.
I disagree. There are plenty of good PHP programmers. There are lots of crummy ones, it's true, but it's not like it's hard to find a really good PHP coder when you need one. There are just more in general. Besides which, our codebase (Drupal) is already written, and that's half the point. We want to be able to hire people who can get their minds around the CMS, not write modules from scratch. We employ a lot of designer/developers, and while it's plenty easy to find a designer with enough PHP skills to code (or quickly learn to code) Drupal templates, finding a Python developer with excellent design skills is a tougher job.
The university I work for considered Plone for some large-scale CMS concerns. We finally decided in favor of Drupal instead because PHP developers are a dime a dozen. We have plenty of in-house expertise, but thinking about hiring down the road it seemed best to us not to narrow our options for at best a marginal software advantage.
Actually, this might be an opportunity for the business sector to lead. If someone could invent and electric butt, this could be used to automate brown-nosing.
"Question" implies an answer. The relationship between question and answer is temporal, in that one follows the other. Therefore, your statement is moot, insofar as "is" can be without "will be" or "was."
Microsoft was allegedly illegally leveraging a monopoly. If Apple had a monopoly on the cellphone market and still insisted on this lock-in, you'd have a point.
I used to take notes by hand, then the first thing I did when I got back to my apt was to type them into the computer. This process did wonders for me -- I barely had to study for tests at all.
Can you imagine the uproar if they started capping TV viewing? "Sorry folks -- no more than the equivalent of approximately 400 sitcoms or 90 baseball games a month!"
I, like many others on slashdot, believe that when you die, your body goes into the ground and you rot... I can think of no greater tragedy than to waste the limited time we have here together on earth by worshiping god.
Oh, I don't know... how about wasting the limited time we have here together on earth hounding other people for worshiping God? Why is it your unsubstantiated beliefs are any better than anyone else's?
You'd have a point if access in metropolitan areas was as good as Europe or Japan. But it's not. It's a choice of two crappy monopolies, as Krugman says -- if you're lucky. And if you live in the boon-docks, your menu is just slimmer.
Change - make or become different : [ trans. ] a proposal to change the law | [ intrans. ] a Virginia creeper just beginning to change from green to gold.
Upheaval - a violent or sudden change or disruption to something : major upheavals in the financial markets | times of political upheaval.
Thesaurus - a book that lists words in groups of synonyms and related concepts.
Dumbass - a guy who doesn't properly know how to use a thesaurus | someone who doesn't realize that thesauri alone aren't sufficient to distinguish shades of meaning.
smarmy: adjective ( smarmier , smarmiest ) informal - ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive : a smarmy, unctuous reply.
I'm not picking on you directly -- it just seemed like a convenient place to jump in.
There's a lot of talk going on in this thread about "universes" "popping" into "existence" from "nothing," but no one seems interested in defining the terms. "Existence" and "nothing" in particular are problematic: if existence came "from" nothing, well, clearly we're now talking about "nothing" as though it is "something," which is to say it "exists."
All this by way of saying that when you start talking about this sort of thing, you can no longer ignore how the structure of our thinking colors the subject we're talking about, and when you start talking about that, you've entered into dialog with the likes of Emanuel Kant. I don't know if Hawking acknowleges this or if he just prattles on like philosophy never existed (ha ha), but it does seem to me that it's going to get really difficult to march out "proof" when you don't yet know the physics of, say, "reason."
So my question is: do scientists ever question the axioms of reason itself? My reading of Hawking would seem to indicate that he's willing, at least in the popular press, to bump up against a lot of these topics without really addressing them. For example, every other sentence in A Brief History of Time ends with some variant of "...and then we will truly know the Mind of God." But he never really says what he means by that. Is it just an attempt to give his writing a sort of theological gravity, or does he ever wax philosophic in his technical work?
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny -- at the bottom of your post it says "Parent," but I'd bet dollars to donuts you're not one.
Fundamental rule of parenthood: telling your kid not to take the loaded gun out of your closet will, in fact, guarantee your child will take the loaded gun out of your closet. That's not to say you shouldn't talk to your kids, but you can't just lay out the panoply of human vice in front of them and say "don't touch that."
Yes, people are dying to use a CLI for photo editing.
Now, it seems to me that you need to be aware that every item in your kitchen was designed by someone. Take a look around your office, what do you see? A: Lots of stuff that was designed by someone. Unless you work in a cave with sticks and dirt, design is *everywhere,* all around you all the time. What you fail to note is that there is good design and bad design. Good design is entirely about facilitating users (and indeed has very little to do with making things pretty, as many slashdotters seem to think). Good design is transparent, but it is *not* absent.
I disagree. There are plenty of good PHP programmers. There are lots of crummy ones, it's true, but it's not like it's hard to find a really good PHP coder when you need one. There are just more in general. Besides which, our codebase (Drupal) is already written, and that's half the point. We want to be able to hire people who can get their minds around the CMS, not write modules from scratch. We employ a lot of designer/developers, and while it's plenty easy to find a designer with enough PHP skills to code (or quickly learn to code) Drupal templates, finding a Python developer with excellent design skills is a tougher job.
The university I work for considered Plone for some large-scale CMS concerns. We finally decided in favor of Drupal instead because PHP developers are a dime a dozen. We have plenty of in-house expertise, but thinking about hiring down the road it seemed best to us not to narrow our options for at best a marginal software advantage.
My 2 cents.
Actually, this might be an opportunity for the business sector to lead. If someone could invent and electric butt, this could be used to automate brown-nosing.
Well, if it's too expensive, the guvmint can always go to the competition, right?
"Question" implies an answer. The relationship between question and answer is temporal, in that one follows the other. Therefore, your statement is moot, insofar as "is" can be without "will be" or "was."
Microsoft was allegedly illegally leveraging a monopoly. If Apple had a monopoly on the cellphone market and still insisted on this lock-in, you'd have a point.
I used to take notes by hand, then the first thing I did when I got back to my apt was to type them into the computer. This process did wonders for me -- I barely had to study for tests at all.
Can you imagine the uproar if they started capping TV viewing? "Sorry folks -- no more than the equivalent of approximately 400 sitcoms or 90 baseball games a month!"
I, like many others on slashdot, believe that when you die, your body goes into the ground and you rot... I can think of no greater tragedy than to waste the limited time we have here together on earth by worshiping god.
Oh, I don't know... how about wasting the limited time we have here together on earth hounding other people for worshiping God? Why is it your unsubstantiated beliefs are any better than anyone else's?
Rupert Murdoch *has* to be involved in this somehow.
At first I thought this article must be something about Pringles.
And of course, if that doesn't work out, at least there will be a lot of Boeing execs with the cash to buy that fourth vacation home.
Krugman regularly pointed out his relationship with Enron in his columns at the time. What's your point?
You'd have a point if access in metropolitan areas was as good as Europe or Japan. But it's not. It's a choice of two crappy monopolies, as Krugman says -- if you're lucky. And if you live in the boon-docks, your menu is just slimmer.
No way can you consider 100 million of anything a failure.
How about: 100 million dead?
adam.dorsey: any location nowhere near "funny."
Dictionary.app:
Change - make or become different : [ trans. ] a proposal to change the law | [ intrans. ] a Virginia creeper just beginning to change from green to gold.
Upheaval - a violent or sudden change or disruption to something : major upheavals in the financial markets | times of political upheaval.
Thesaurus - a book that lists words in groups of synonyms and related concepts.
Dumbass - a guy who doesn't properly know how to use a thesaurus | someone who doesn't realize that thesauri alone aren't sufficient to distinguish shades of meaning.
Change is one thing. Upheaval is another.
If your world is really divvied into such neat boxes, I pity you.
Rendering - do any of the projects you list have multipass rendering even?
Multipass rendering is a technique, not a software feature.
smarmy: adjective ( smarmier , smarmiest ) informal - ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive : a smarmy, unctuous reply.
I'm not picking on you directly -- it just seemed like a convenient place to jump in.
There's a lot of talk going on in this thread about "universes" "popping" into "existence" from "nothing," but no one seems interested in defining the terms. "Existence" and "nothing" in particular are problematic: if existence came "from" nothing, well, clearly we're now talking about "nothing" as though it is "something," which is to say it "exists."
All this by way of saying that when you start talking about this sort of thing, you can no longer ignore how the structure of our thinking colors the subject we're talking about, and when you start talking about that, you've entered into dialog with the likes of Emanuel Kant. I don't know if Hawking acknowleges this or if he just prattles on like philosophy never existed (ha ha), but it does seem to me that it's going to get really difficult to march out "proof" when you don't yet know the physics of, say, "reason."
So my question is: do scientists ever question the axioms of reason itself? My reading of Hawking would seem to indicate that he's willing, at least in the popular press, to bump up against a lot of these topics without really addressing them. For example, every other sentence in A Brief History of Time ends with some variant of "...and then we will truly know the Mind of God." But he never really says what he means by that. Is it just an attempt to give his writing a sort of theological gravity, or does he ever wax philosophic in his technical work?
... film producers conspire to create illusions of reality! What's next, writers producing fictional accounts? Can it happen here?