I was referring to the kind you encounter on the internet, not the kind that gets caught, but since the first comment only related to pedos who get caught, it doesn't really matter.
Successfully overthrowing the accepted theory gives a scientist an incredible amount of prestige. There is nothing that would feed a scientist's ego more than this. Sure, some scientists may have worked their entire lives on a theory, and would be distressed to see it overturned, but for every one of those, there are any number of others who could make it big by doing so.
Implying that scientists all fear change is completely non-sensical. The most exciting thing in science is change.
a process that can never fully come to fruition in an all-private, un-politicized research market, because there's no means to suppress the independents.
Seven lines of code is clearer than one line now? And if your "compiler doesn't understand", hwo on earth would doing TWO assignments instead of ONE be faster?
And I know there are many other tricks that block spam just as well, without harassing the users. If your script requires you to force people to register just to avoid spam, it's your script that sucks.
Admins who don't like getting users, you mean. Requiring registration to post is already far too big a step for me to bother in most cases, and in the few where I do, I'd never give out a real email address. Mailinator and the like are godsends for users who actually want to use forums run by paranoid, user-hating admins.
There's a reason WHY they call it DLL Hell- which still exists on Windows.
It hasn't existed in any significant form for the better part of a decade now.
The only real reason why you have any problems with Linux deliverables has little to do with the base ABI- which anyone with the right resources can target properly (All it takes is linkage against libraries of the version you want to base off of or use something like apbuild from the Autopackage project for that.).
No, the problem is not the ABI. The problem is the dynamic libraries. Trying to get any kind of non-trivial app working as a binary across multiple systems with differing installations of GTK or Qt is what is nearly impossible.
Being a Debian developer does not exactly give you a lot of experience with Windows or OS X, does it? And no, I don't "offer any hard data". I was unaware that anybody would even believe such data existed.
I was speaking mainly from extended experience of using Windows for quite a number of years, and by extension the experience of the many people I know who run Windows. None of them has ever mentioned having a DLL incompatibility problem ever since 2000. Probably earlier than that.
Since you're playing the "hard data" card, can you find some hard data to show me that this "very real issue" of DLL incompatibility actually exists on Windows?
Yes, the Christian Scriptures age and claims are relevant when compared against the FSM. The FSM is clearly invented and its credentials are clearly fabricated. Not so with Christianity. Even if you reject the Christian claims, you must admit that the manuscriptural and historical evidence beats the snot out of the FSM.
The manuscriptural evidence is words on a paper. Once again, no matter how many times you write a statement down, it doesn't make it any more true. You simply cannot argue validity from the age or number of copies of a text. And sure, there is historical evidence for a number of things in the Bible, but I doubt very much that you can point me to historical evidence for the exact parts you are arguing here.
Besides--It is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim that if you reject it you undermine knowledge, science, and human dignity. That is the Christian claim and it is proven by our very dialog.
The FSM claims anything that is convenient in a debate such as this. That is its purpose - to show that arguing from divinity is meaningless. The point of the FSM is that I can take any argument you make, and make the same argument but replacing the christian god with the FSM. As you really can't claim any kind of authority from the age of your words on a paper (no, really, you can't) both arguments are equally valid, or more specifically, invalid.
Your worldview is very relevant here--because you are arguing from it.
No, I am arguing from logic, about my worldview. The two are distinct. Any rational participant in a debate should be able to tell the two apart.
Thanks for being intellectually honest here. My question to you is this: Do you really believe this? Do you live your life this way? If you are even unsure of your own senses--why not jump out in front of the next bus you see to see what happens. After all, you could be deceived--what looks like a bus may actually be a fluffy down pillow.
Of course I believe this, and of course I don't - that is a particularly weak strawman argument. You seemed to have missed my point: I know I can not ever trust my senses, but the only useful choice is to take the world at face value: What I see and experience really is real. It might not be, but if it isn't, there is nothing I can do about it anyway, and I have no idea whatsoever the "real" world is. So the possibility does not need to be considered in any choice I make. I can dismiss it as remotely possible but irrelevant.
I'm not actually asking you to do this. I am trying to make a point: you say that a solid logical ground for knowledge is impossible to find. But you don't live your life that way. Rather, you presume upon the Christian Theistic worldview for a time, assuming things like laws of logic and the uniformity of nature, and then proceed forth denying that the Christian God exists.
I do not deny that he exists. I conclude that, having seen no evidence of his existence, he most likely does not exist. If somebody wants to convince he does, I require some quite extraordinary proof for such an extraordinary claim. But if such evidence was presented, I would change my opinion. On the other hand, I see evidence for uniformity in nature and logic every day.
My argument was never that I can prove my own position from absolute principles, because I know I can not. My point is that you can not, even though you claim to. Let's jump back to this question:
Whose worldview provides intelligibility to the human experience?
Not yours, and not mine. This is a useless measure of validity.
Your argument is nothing but circular reasoning - "if my worldview is correct, I can prove it is correct". You can create any number of exactly equivalent worldviews that make the same claim but call on different authorities, such as the earlier FSM. These are obviously not true, but the only difference between those and yours is words on a paper.
It is like the man who denies he is breathing oxygen--even though he took a breath to tell you.
I deny that I am breathing pixie dust. Yet I still take a breath to tell you.
So, what, four programs? I tried running Google Earth on my Ubuntu machine, and it didn't even work because of some or other external dependency failing. Same with most every other binary-only Linux app I've tried to get running.
Oh man, that's impressive. I've never seen so much blind zealotry packed into a single post in a long time.
Look, I'm a developer who's written and distributed software for Windows, Linux, OS X and even good old AmigaOS. I speak from some kind of experience here. Linux is utterly horrible for software distribution. Every single other platform I've used has been orders of magnitude easier.
"DLL hell" is something people talked about back in the early nineties. Nobody who actually uses Windows has worried about this problem in nearly a decade. The only people who talk about "DLL hell" these days is Linux users who haven't used any other OS in years, and just hang on to their old prejudices. Out of all the OSes on the market now, Linux is the one with the absolute worst "DLL hell"-like problem, with its huge array of incompatible and constantly changing external dependencies.
No other OS uses package management systems, because no other OS has the problem package management systems solve. The horrible kludge of using package management to handle the byzantine filesystem and external dependencies also very effectively locks out hobbyist programmers who do not have the time to convice every repository to include their software.
You know, for any other major OS, you don't need to get a "good solid handle on it", nor do you need any special build environment. You can just build a binary with any available tool and distribute it.
Obviously if several people are calling you stupid, it's because there's one single guy out there with a grudge and sockpuppets, and not because you actually said something utterly idiotic.
Tryin to pick the image from the download cache is going to be a little tricky for a single site, I think this gets exponentially harder if you try making a generic CAPTCHA breaking solution.
Slashdot Mirror
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210460 &cid=17152156
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210460 &cid=17152156
I was referring to the kind you encounter on the internet, not the kind that gets caught, but since the first comment only related to pedos who get caught, it doesn't really matter.
I like how they changed that, but didn't fix your "region" typo.
Way to go, Slashdot editors! Keep Slashdot "real"!
No, because pedos are, on the whole, very stupid.
You'll get even less spam if you delete your blog.
And this very post exemplifies the program by being moderated Offtopic when it is actually exactly on topic.
Successfully overthrowing the accepted theory gives a scientist an incredible amount of prestige. There is nothing that would feed a scientist's ego more than this. Sure, some scientists may have worked their entire lives on a theory, and would be distressed to see it overturned, but for every one of those, there are any number of others who could make it big by doing so.
Implying that scientists all fear change is completely non-sensical. The most exciting thing in science is change.
a process that can never fully come to fruition in an all-private, un-politicized research market, because there's no means to suppress the independents.
Funny!
Seven lines of code is clearer than one line now? And if your "compiler doesn't understand", hwo on earth would doing TWO assignments instead of ONE be faster?
Anybody who does 3D programming in C at that level will instantly recognize Newton-Raphson.
I do. I write forum software. And I don't even support registration, because I think it's a waste of time and lowers the value of a board.
And I know there are many other tricks that block spam just as well, without harassing the users. If your script requires you to force people to register just to avoid spam, it's your script that sucks.
Admins who don't like getting users, you mean. Requiring registration to post is already far too big a step for me to bother in most cases, and in the few where I do, I'd never give out a real email address. Mailinator and the like are godsends for users who actually want to use forums run by paranoid, user-hating admins.
It's easy to make a binary that works on SOME system. The trick is to get it to work on MANY systems. Google Earth apparently doesn't.
And still, four programs against tens of thousands on other systems is not very convincing.
There's a reason WHY they call it DLL Hell- which still exists on Windows.
It hasn't existed in any significant form for the better part of a decade now.
The only real reason why you have any problems with Linux deliverables has little to do with the base ABI- which anyone with the right resources can target properly (All it takes is linkage against libraries of the version you want to base off of or use something like apbuild from the Autopackage project for that.).
No, the problem is not the ABI. The problem is the dynamic libraries. Trying to get any kind of non-trivial app working as a binary across multiple systems with differing installations of GTK or Qt is what is nearly impossible.
Being a Debian developer does not exactly give you a lot of experience with Windows or OS X, does it? And no, I don't "offer any hard data". I was unaware that anybody would even believe such data existed.
I was speaking mainly from extended experience of using Windows for quite a number of years, and by extension the experience of the many people I know who run Windows. None of them has ever mentioned having a DLL incompatibility problem ever since 2000. Probably earlier than that.
Since you're playing the "hard data" card, can you find some hard data to show me that this "very real issue" of DLL incompatibility actually exists on Windows?
Yes, the Christian Scriptures age and claims are relevant when compared against the FSM. The FSM is clearly invented and its credentials are clearly fabricated. Not so with Christianity. Even if you reject the Christian claims, you must admit that the manuscriptural and historical evidence beats the snot out of the FSM.
The manuscriptural evidence is words on a paper. Once again, no matter how many times you write a statement down, it doesn't make it any more true. You simply cannot argue validity from the age or number of copies of a text. And sure, there is historical evidence for a number of things in the Bible, but I doubt very much that you can point me to historical evidence for the exact parts you are arguing here.
Besides--It is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim that if you reject it you undermine knowledge, science, and human dignity. That is the Christian claim and it is proven by our very dialog.
The FSM claims anything that is convenient in a debate such as this. That is its purpose - to show that arguing from divinity is meaningless. The point of the FSM is that I can take any argument you make, and make the same argument but replacing the christian god with the FSM. As you really can't claim any kind of authority from the age of your words on a paper (no, really, you can't) both arguments are equally valid, or more specifically, invalid.
Your worldview is very relevant here--because you are arguing from it.
No, I am arguing from logic, about my worldview. The two are distinct. Any rational participant in a debate should be able to tell the two apart.
Thanks for being intellectually honest here. My question to you is this: Do you really believe this? Do you live your life this way? If you are even unsure of your own senses--why not jump out in front of the next bus you see to see what happens. After all, you could be deceived--what looks like a bus may actually be a fluffy down pillow.
Of course I believe this, and of course I don't - that is a particularly weak strawman argument. You seemed to have missed my point: I know I can not ever trust my senses, but the only useful choice is to take the world at face value: What I see and experience really is real. It might not be, but if it isn't, there is nothing I can do about it anyway, and I have no idea whatsoever the "real" world is. So the possibility does not need to be considered in any choice I make. I can dismiss it as remotely possible but irrelevant.
I'm not actually asking you to do this. I am trying to make a point: you say that a solid logical ground for knowledge is impossible to find. But you don't live your life that way. Rather, you presume upon the Christian Theistic worldview for a time, assuming things like laws of logic and the uniformity of nature, and then proceed forth denying that the Christian God exists.
I do not deny that he exists. I conclude that, having seen no evidence of his existence, he most likely does not exist. If somebody wants to convince he does, I require some quite extraordinary proof for such an extraordinary claim. But if such evidence was presented, I would change my opinion. On the other hand, I see evidence for uniformity in nature and logic every day.
My argument was never that I can prove my own position from absolute principles, because I know I can not. My point is that you can not, even though you claim to. Let's jump back to this question:
Whose worldview provides intelligibility to the human experience?
Not yours, and not mine. This is a useless measure of validity.
Your argument is nothing but circular reasoning - "if my worldview is correct, I can prove it is correct". You can create any number of exactly equivalent worldviews that make the same claim but call on different authorities, such as the earlier FSM. These are obviously not true, but the only difference between those and yours is words on a paper.
It is like the man who denies he is breathing oxygen--even though he took a breath to tell you.
I deny that I am breathing pixie dust. Yet I still take a breath to tell you.
So, what, four programs? I tried running Google Earth on my Ubuntu machine, and it didn't even work because of some or other external dependency failing. Same with most every other binary-only Linux app I've tried to get running.
Oh man, that's impressive. I've never seen so much blind zealotry packed into a single post in a long time.
Look, I'm a developer who's written and distributed software for Windows, Linux, OS X and even good old AmigaOS. I speak from some kind of experience here. Linux is utterly horrible for software distribution. Every single other platform I've used has been orders of magnitude easier.
"DLL hell" is something people talked about back in the early nineties. Nobody who actually uses Windows has worried about this problem in nearly a decade. The only people who talk about "DLL hell" these days is Linux users who haven't used any other OS in years, and just hang on to their old prejudices. Out of all the OSes on the market now, Linux is the one with the absolute worst "DLL hell"-like problem, with its huge array of incompatible and constantly changing external dependencies.
No other OS uses package management systems, because no other OS has the problem package management systems solve. The horrible kludge of using package management to handle the byzantine filesystem and external dependencies also very effectively locks out hobbyist programmers who do not have the time to convice every repository to include their software.
You know, for any other major OS, you don't need to get a "good solid handle on it", nor do you need any special build environment. You can just build a binary with any available tool and distribute it.
That was kind of the point.
Actually, it probably has a lot more to do with how it is pretty much impossible to distribute binaries on Linux.
So basically, they should not offer Google Earth and Google Maps at all?
Obviously if several people are calling you stupid, it's because there's one single guy out there with a grudge and sockpuppets, and not because you actually said something utterly idiotic.
Where, exactly?
Tryin to pick the image from the download cache is going to be a little tricky for a single site, I think this gets exponentially harder if you try making a generic CAPTCHA breaking solution.
What the hell are you talking about?