You're absolutely correct on my choice of words, trust would be far better with no religious implications or justifications of a priori beliefs. I also only mention Newtons usage of the phrase as it's the most well known, the most appropriate and I think the most elegant version. All omissions are of course mine:-)
Interesting thread. One of the suppositions about genetic homosexuality is that it does lead to better survival of the gene that contains it. This may sound impossible but here's an example. A family group has 10 children, one of whom is gay. While the other children would reproduce, one does not. Where this is useful would be group situations (family/clan/tribe/society) where the offspring of these children have their parents and also uncle to look after them. If you look at the genetic weighting of the children, the uncle would share a quarter of these childrens genes and so he has a genetic "stake" in their survival. This would result in increased success of the family group, including this genetic trait of homosexuality.
This would appear to be supported by the presence of homosexuality in species that have strong social groups and by the genetic basis not being a simple dominant or resessive model but a more complex one that would allow this trait to be passed on without expression.
I agree with you to a certain extent in that people take knowledge for granted but that is understandable. Knowledge at a certain level does become, for want of a better word, "magic".
I have a PhD in Neuroscience and while I could tell you a load of info on biological sciences and basic science in general, I am no more able to tell you of quantum physics than anyone else. This means that I must take this information on trust from people who I know more than I do: teachers or scientists. On the surface this trust is based on faith, and is the same as listening to the Clergy, but there is a major difference.
Newtons's phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" was reference to the fact that all science can trace it's roots back to basic experiments that we can all do at home. This is where science differs from religion. The ability to go back to founding principles and show your proof rather than telling people that the answer is "because God said so".
Treating subjects such as evolution as a fact is more a reflection of certainty than being closed minded. As our body of knowledge increases, patterns of data become more and more certain and we start to regard these patterns as absolute facts. It's then only natural to spend our time questioning other areas of knowledge, but in the knowledge that we can go back and re-examine our data and assumptions. This differs hugely from the average creationist where facts are given with no proof (other than "the Bible says so") and to try to question them is heresy.
And as for the media being focused on the youth, will they are the focus of the media, the hands that hold the reins are definitely not youths.
Not really random but a subset of the whole group, namely they chose science articles. Science articles are easier to mark true or false so you can understand why the researchers choose them, but also these are the easiest articles to write as you can base your article on a series of established facts.
I can't believe this book made it on here. Java Cookbook is also by O'Reilly and is many times better for real world examples. In fact the whole Cookbook series more useful than the api docs in many cases.
Just as a matter of integrity, if I thought that someone was so bad at their job that I would never work with them again, I would say how I felt. It's not a matter of bitterness just honesty. I know of enough situations were freelancers have turned down apparently interesting and lucrative positions because they worked with one particular (and extremely incompetent) staffer and said "never again". It's one of the few times that you can give honest feedback without having an axe to grind and one where the company in question has to take notice.
Not just a major stockholder but Chairman of SCO. So he's the man that said "I agree we should sue...EVERYBODY!"
Altered Carbon - Richard Morgan
on
Top 20 Geek Novels
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Probably the best book, sci-fi or not, I've read over the last couple of years. It's probably too new to get into many peoples top lists and as the author is British he hasn't had the exposure that he could have across the states.
Smart, funny, sexy, violent and with one of the greatest heros around, this book deserves to be on that list.
He's since written 2 more Kovac novels (and another non-Kovac book that I think was an adaptation of an old short story). They are excellent but Altered Carbon stands out as a truely excellent story
What is it with marketing suits that they think that unless everyone is told what to buy, they won't buy anything. This concept is the biggest excercise in self-justification for why marketing/advertising departments exist and is frankly a load of crap. This would be yet another reason to decide against buying a companies product due to bad business practise. It might not be on the same scale as sweatshop factories or DRM rootkits but my priviacy is something I value and it's for me to decide as and when I give it up in return for payment.
Sorry but I disagree. He did redefine science. You can see this from the discrepancy between his definition and the standard one provided by the US National Academy of Sciences. He had no point to make in this, the point was that the ID conjecture is no more valid a theory than astrology when viewed from the scientific viewpoint.
As for your comment as "using the term science as scientists use it", that is also patently wrong. As someone in the final process of completing a PhD, neither I or any of my collegues have ever used Behe's definition of science. This is not because of a secular agenda, but rather that Behe's definition is wrong. Science would not be science if you were allowed to invoke mysterious supernatural forces for explanations. If you want to invoke supernatural forces as the cause for a particular subject feel free to do so, but that is religion and faith not science
You accuse those against the ID conjecture of not thinking, but your own comments have shown that you have made the common mistake of believing what you are told and then trying to find evidence to support your world view rather than independently seeking out knowledge and then creating your opinions on the basis of these facts.
Have a look at alexa
and you'll see that the bbc site deals with 20 to 30 BILLION hits a day. Slashdots 1 billion is not going to make much difference to their servers.
Fair point. With client side programming you are always going to be at the mercy of the setup and configuration, but you make the point that it's the programmer who's responsible for the dependancy on a specific environment not Java. Well crafted code will run 99% (WAG stat) of the time on varied systems. But then you're supposing that the developer has the time/skills/support to be able to write well crafted code rather than krufty stuff that only just works but does the job which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
<sarcasm>
You mean apart from the chance to join everyone in the flaming echolalia that is slashdot when the subject is a programming language?
</sarcasm>
I disagree on the supposed non-portability of Java. For the last few years, all my Java work has been developed on win32 and and then hosted on *nix systems, mostly Solaris and some RedHat and it's all been fine.
The only issue comes from companies leveraging the spec to suit them. JNDI lookups in application servers being a classic example, why the hell do I need to have a proprietry Initial Context Factory string in my code?
I'm with you on the annoying acronyms though. I always imagine it's some geek sniggering into his Star Trek coffee mug thinking "Now that's FUNNY, hur hur hur"
And, of course, the best way to raise the profile of any technology is to say that it's better then the current number one (I await the flames from everyone else about what actually IS the best technology for creating webapps... )
I agree with your that Java is better served for higher-end solutions but I'd like to see a comparison between PHP, Ruby-on-Rails and other scripting language frameworks, including such things as ease of use, maintainability, performance and scalability. Basically the real concerns for a developer.
and the heavy elements were made by....erm.....MORE ELECTRICITY!!!
Seriously though, this reads like it was written by someone who failed science at school. Okay, it's not my area (I was a brain guy...wetware basically but I'm not sure I've seen the phrase "revving beyond the redline" in any scientific theories before!
I thought that they were complaining about "pre-recorded messages" more than auto-dialers. The issues with auto-dialers is that it is illegal to use them to ring cell phones not normal ones. Using these two technologies together means that you can simultaneously call thousands at the same time with no worker involvement, obvously a huge boon to SPIT companies but a pain in the arse for everyone else. This could have a greater impact than spam as spam doesn't disturb me when my computer is off or intrude when I am at home.
I don't know how it works elsewhere but in the UK, auto-dialers are allowed but with the restriction that if the person being dialed picks up and no one from the call centre makes the call live within 2 seconds then the call is dropped. This means that if you answer the phone and get a strange dead line, you know it's a telemarketer and you can happily put the phone down without having to convince them that you don't need double glazing/conservatory/new power supplier.
And for the record, I once worked as a telemarketer for a business to business travel provider that only ever called during working hours and to people whose job it was to speak to me (and I dialed my own numbers - the company didn't like auto-dialers). Even then I didn't stick it long, as it was low paid and it did suck.
It's not the explosion that detects the presence of organic compounds but the observations you can make about the generated blast debris. Either mid or infra-red spectroscopy or radio emissions reveal what compounds are present by their signatures.
Yep, this is the best sort of science. Serious and far-reaching but with a plot that Hollywood would pinch and incredibly good fun too!
Can you imagine being the person responsible for the weight smashing into the comet, it would wipe the floor with DOOM 3, (although maybe the soundtrack would not be quite so "atmospheric")!
If the internal makeup of this comet does represent the compounds present at the start of the solar system, there could be some serious head scratching and changing of theories going on if amino acids are found, let alone any more complex organic compounds like RNA/DNA, however unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely correct on my choice of words, trust would be far better with no religious implications or justifications of a priori beliefs. I also only mention Newtons usage of the phrase as it's the most well known, the most appropriate and I think the most elegant version. All omissions are of course mine :-)
Interesting thread. One of the suppositions about genetic homosexuality is that it does lead to better survival of the gene that contains it. This may sound impossible but here's an example. A family group has 10 children, one of whom is gay. While the other children would reproduce, one does not. Where this is useful would be group situations (family/clan/tribe/society) where the offspring of these children have their parents and also uncle to look after them. If you look at the genetic weighting of the children, the uncle would share a quarter of these childrens genes and so he has a genetic "stake" in their survival. This would result in increased success of the family group, including this genetic trait of homosexuality.
This would appear to be supported by the presence of homosexuality in species that have strong social groups and by the genetic basis not being a simple dominant or resessive model but a more complex one that would allow this trait to be passed on without expression.
I agree with you to a certain extent in that people take knowledge for granted but that is understandable. Knowledge at a certain level does become, for want of a better word, "magic".
I have a PhD in Neuroscience and while I could tell you a load of info on biological sciences and basic science in general, I am no more able to tell you of quantum physics than anyone else. This means that I must take this information on trust from people who I know more than I do: teachers or scientists. On the surface this trust is based on faith, and is the same as listening to the Clergy, but there is a major difference.
Newtons's phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" was reference to the fact that all science can trace it's roots back to basic experiments that we can all do at home. This is where science differs from religion. The ability to go back to founding principles and show your proof rather than telling people that the answer is "because God said so".
Treating subjects such as evolution as a fact is more a reflection of certainty than being closed minded. As our body of knowledge increases, patterns of data become more and more certain and we start to regard these patterns as absolute facts. It's then only natural to spend our time questioning other areas of knowledge, but in the knowledge that we can go back and re-examine our data and assumptions. This differs hugely from the average creationist where facts are given with no proof (other than "the Bible says so") and to try to question them is heresy.
And as for the media being focused on the youth, will they are the focus of the media, the hands that hold the reins are definitely not youths.
Not really random but a subset of the whole group, namely they chose science articles. Science articles are easier to mark true or false so you can understand why the researchers choose them, but also these are the easiest articles to write as you can base your article on a series of established facts.
I can't believe this book made it on here. Java Cookbook is also by O'Reilly and is many times better for real world examples. In fact the whole Cookbook series more useful than the api docs in many cases.
Absolutely agree
Just as a matter of integrity, if I thought that someone was so bad at their job that I would never work with them again, I would say how I felt. It's not a matter of bitterness just honesty. I know of enough situations were freelancers have turned down apparently interesting and lucrative positions because they worked with one particular (and extremely incompetent) staffer and said "never again". It's one of the few times that you can give honest feedback without having an axe to grind and one where the company in question has to take notice.
Not just a major stockholder but Chairman of SCO. So he's the man that said "I agree we should sue...EVERYBODY!"
Smart, funny, sexy, violent and with one of the greatest heros around, this book deserves to be on that list.
He's since written 2 more Kovac novels (and another non-Kovac book that I think was an adaptation of an old short story). They are excellent but Altered Carbon stands out as a truely excellent story
What is it with marketing suits that they think that unless everyone is told what to buy, they won't buy anything. This concept is the biggest excercise in self-justification for why marketing/advertising departments exist and is frankly a load of crap.
This would be yet another reason to decide against buying a companies product due to bad business practise. It might not be on the same scale as sweatshop factories or DRM rootkits but my priviacy is something I value and it's for me to decide as and when I give it up in return for payment.
As for your comment as "using the term science as scientists use it", that is also patently wrong. As someone in the final process of completing a PhD, neither I or any of my collegues have ever used Behe's definition of science. This is not because of a secular agenda, but rather that Behe's definition is wrong. Science would not be science if you were allowed to invoke mysterious supernatural forces for explanations. If you want to invoke supernatural forces as the cause for a particular subject feel free to do so, but that is religion and faith not science
You accuse those against the ID conjecture of not thinking, but your own comments have shown that you have made the common mistake of believing what you are told and then trying to find evidence to support your world view rather than independently seeking out knowledge and then creating your opinions on the basis of these facts.
Utter rubbish!
Have a look at alexa and you'll see that the bbc site deals with 20 to 30 BILLION hits a day. Slashdots 1 billion is not going to make much difference to their servers.
Fair point. With client side programming you are always going to be at the mercy of the setup and configuration, but you make the point that it's the programmer who's responsible for the dependancy on a specific environment not Java. Well crafted code will run 99% (WAG stat) of the time on varied systems. But then you're supposing that the developer has the time/skills/support to be able to write well crafted code rather than krufty stuff that only just works but does the job which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
<sarcasm>
You mean apart from the chance to join everyone in the flaming echolalia that is slashdot when the subject is a programming language?
</sarcasm>
I think it's a matter of experience frankly.
I disagree on the supposed non-portability of Java. For the last few years, all my Java work has been developed on win32 and and then hosted on *nix systems, mostly Solaris and some RedHat and it's all been fine.
The only issue comes from companies leveraging the spec to suit them. JNDI lookups in application servers being a classic example, why the hell do I need to have a proprietry Initial Context Factory string in my code?
I'm with you on the annoying acronyms though. I always imagine it's some geek sniggering into his Star Trek coffee mug thinking "Now that's FUNNY, hur hur hur"
And, of course, the best way to raise the profile of any technology is to say that it's better then the current number one (I await the flames from everyone else about what actually IS the best technology for creating webapps... )
I agree with your that Java is better served for higher-end solutions but I'd like to see a comparison between PHP, Ruby-on-Rails and other scripting language frameworks, including such things as ease of use, maintainability, performance and scalability. Basically the real concerns for a developer.
Is this the first AJAX vulnerability? Something like this would be expected in any new-ish tech that is increasing in popularity.
but at least they're paying with a telephone number(2-600-000-000)!
"Shortbread and Whisky" mod. Many tartan travel rugs upset.
and the heavy elements were made by....erm.....MORE ELECTRICITY!!!
Seriously though, this reads like it was written by someone who failed science at school. Okay, it's not my area (I was a brain guy...wetware basically but I'm not sure I've seen the phrase "revving beyond the redline" in any scientific theories before!
Guns don't kill people, ethnic minorities do.
I thought that everyone knew what Goldie Lookin' Chain told us:
"Guns Don't Kill People, Rappers Do"I thought that they were complaining about "pre-recorded messages" more than auto-dialers. The issues with auto-dialers is that it is illegal to use them to ring cell phones not normal ones. Using these two technologies together means that you can simultaneously call thousands at the same time with no worker involvement, obvously a huge boon to SPIT companies but a pain in the arse for everyone else. This could have a greater impact than spam as spam doesn't disturb me when my computer is off or intrude when I am at home.
I don't know how it works elsewhere but in the UK, auto-dialers are allowed but with the restriction that if the person being dialed picks up and no one from the call centre makes the call live within 2 seconds then the call is dropped. This means that if you answer the phone and get a strange dead line, you know it's a telemarketer and you can happily put the phone down without having to convince them that you don't need double glazing/conservatory/new power supplier.
And for the record, I once worked as a telemarketer for a business to business travel provider that only ever called during working hours and to people whose job it was to speak to me (and I dialed my own numbers - the company didn't like auto-dialers). Even then I didn't stick it long, as it was low paid and it did suck.
It's not the explosion that detects the presence of organic compounds but the observations you can make about the generated blast debris. Either mid or infra-red spectroscopy or radio emissions reveal what compounds are present by their signatures.
Think CSI in space :-)
Yep, this is the best sort of science. Serious and far-reaching but with a plot that Hollywood would pinch and incredibly good fun too!
Can you imagine being the person responsible for the weight smashing into the comet, it would wipe the floor with DOOM 3, (although maybe the soundtrack would not be quite so "atmospheric")!
If the internal makeup of this comet does represent the compounds present at the start of the solar system, there could be some serious head scratching and changing of theories going on if amino acids are found, let alone any more complex organic compounds like RNA/DNA, however unlikely.
If you think that 700,000 hits a month isn't very much, you must work for slashdot! God knows how many websites would kill to get that many hits.
You're right about the BBC learning from the past though as I believe that they are now pretty strict about archiving.