The last time I flew on an airplane I took out my Android phone and turned on an app that uses GPS to track your elevation, speed, direction, pitch etc. It was a blast to watch how fast the plane accelerated down the runway, pitch as we would turn, and what the take-off, cruising, landing speeds. I then switched to google maps and watched as I zipped across states. It was a ton of fun.
If you copy media you didn't purchase, you're cheap.
If you copy media you didn't purchase AND you make a profit off of it, you're a thief.
We do have to be careful that this doesn't turn into a slippery slope but, c'mon, making a profit off of other artists material which you don't have the rights to is just good old fashioned stealing no matter how you slice it.
I learned this lesson the hard way with the Motorola Cliq XT. I bought it a while back (2 yrs?) despite it only having 1.6 on it because I was told they were already working on a 2.0 upgrade that would be coming. I waited, and waited, and waited. Eventually they canceled the upgrade and sent an email out recommending a new phone (quite the slap in the face).
Once I saw that no upgrade was coming, I rooted my phone and installed cyanogen mod. I have 2.1 on my phone and it works great (only minor bugs). Plus my phone doesn't have that CarrierIQ spyware on it. I figure that they broke their contract when they canceled the upgrade and left me hanging.
This experience taught me: 1) Cell phone makers simply don't care about software. They have almost zero incentive to put effort into it and often have incentive NOT to invest in software. 2) Never run the stock install from the phone maker. Root it and install a custom mod that is much closer to vanilla Android as possible.
My wife owns her own photography business (just her and an employee) and she had been toying around with the idea of using Groupon and LivingSocial. As much as she hates spreadsheets, I made here sit down and model what the deal looked like and what her break-even points were. Talk to your Groupon/LivingSocial rep. to get stats about similar deals (as much as they can give you)--quantity, conversion rate, customer conversion, etc and be conservative since the rep will definitely paint a rosy picture. After doing that, she made some very important changes to the structure of the deal she made with LivingSocial that protected her against some run-away scenarios that would have cost her money like this person ran into and the LivingSocial deal has been a great success.
The other thing, hinted at by the owner of the bakery is your brand. If all you're concerned about is pushing product and volume, then a low-end price for the Groupon/LivingSocial deal is the way to go. But be aware that the lower the barrier to entry the less the customer values you or your services. For service-based businesses (like my wife's photography company), a higher price for the deal is more likely to bring customers who value service and quality. You can still offer good discounts while having a higher price point by carefully choosing what you discount and what they are purchasing up front.
Bottom line: know who your optimal customer is and do the math or you're likely to get burned.
The reason SOPA isn't defined is it actually stands for Satanic Overlords and Pedophilia Association. No wonder they have a hard time getting people to listen to them.
I left college with $5000 in student loans (2006). I also worked full-time every summer as well as all of my junior and senior year (part, to 3/4 time freshman and sophomore year). My social life consisted of dorm-LAN parties, on-campus complimentary student body activities, and splurging once in a while to go to the dollar theater to see campy movies or movies that were already out on DVD.
What surprised me when I went in to get a loan for my last two quarters is that I could borrow as much as I wanted (way more than anyone would need just for school) and the restrictions and accountability about how the money was spent seemed way too lax. I'd be curious to see studies about how much students spent in total on school vs. how large their loans are.
Not saying the way I did it was best, but I wouldn't trade the work ethic and freedom I've got from how I did it.
Yes, but imagine a fart for every man, woman, and child, all at the same time in the same hurricane. Not because it counters your statement--just because it is funny to imagine.
Someone enlighten me if I'm clueless here, but here's my thought:
Why not have a section when people do their taxes to donate to specific programs directly. I know you can donate to the IRS in general, but I never heard of them making high-level programs available for specific citizen-targeted donations. Another possibility is to have a portion of individual citizen's taxes be customized by them so they can control somewhat where their tax money goes (this could only work as a small percentage).
This would provide a way for the public to voice their priorities/opinions by donating to programs which they find most beneficial. In this instance, it would allow the public to make up for the inane budgeting cuts as politicians think they are qualified to judge the scientific merits of different programs within NASA.
Politicians could also find out real quick what programs are most popular with the public.
Seems to me like they are just writing off their DVD business model (at least in the long-term)--which seems to be a good idea. With media, the money is in streaming more than it is keeping inventory and managing the logistics of physical goods.
For my family, my wife and I turned off cable 3 years ago and have been Netflix/Hulu(+)/Redbox ever since. We have 3 little kids, so we hardly ever go to the theater except for once or twice a year. Now, we'll just get new releases from Redbox and cancel our DVD service with Netflix. I went through our DVD history and found that for DVDs that aren't available via Redbox or streaming from Hulu/Netflix (ie: foreign films & documentaries), nearly all are available through my local library system (Seattle public library). I already pay for the library (taxes), I might as well use it.
As for the U.S., I think the chasm between science and religion is most prominent due to the "protestant" origins of much of the Christian faiths within it. By "protestant" I mean Christian sects that fractured away from a previously existing sect over a matter of doctrinal interpretation. When that occurs, usually the authority of the new protesting faith is derived solely from the new "correct" doctrinal interpretation.
This, however, is ultimately an unsustainable position. Most major "protestant" sects fractured during the enlightenment. Since the enlightenment, we have greatly increased our knowledge of the universe. When faced with seemingly conflicting evidence, sadly, the initial "protestant" reaction is to discredit or attack the evidence or idea since it is a direct threat to the source of their authority (ie: that strict doctrinal interpretation).
What is needed in any religious faith is the idea of an open cannon that allows for on-going doctrinal revisions based on new situations and evidences. Some "protestant" religions are more open than others and there are some Christian faiths which have an open cannon as a core principle. Eastern religions tend to have more of an open cannon.
Bottom line, when new truth or evidences come along (which itself can be a big matter of debate), we need to align ourselves with it.
Quite often certain people attempt to conflate trust and faith as if they are the same thing.
Trust is earned and subject to revision. Faith is not. Faith is expected without justification and is expected to endure regardless of what facts may come to challenge it.
I like your trust != faith comment. The two are similar and interrelated but not the same.
However, when you say "Faith is expected without justification and is expected to endure regardless of what facts may come to challenge it", I have to disagree. What you are describing there is blind faith.
Faith, as my comment tag line also says, is a willingness to accept something w/o total regular proof and act on it. From that perspective, every self-motivated action starts with faith. Getting out of bed to start the day, go to work, express love, turn on a car/computer, get on a plane, etc.), we make decisions and take action based in incomplete or uncertain information all of the time. However, science seeks to move away from faith and provides a systematic way to do so through the scientific method. Theories start from faith w/o proof--but then experimentation leads to the reformation or abandonment of that theory until repeatable experiments validate or falsify the theory.
Religion differs in that it never seeks to fully eliminate faith. Different religions (and to a higher degree, people) will rely on faith to different degrees than others, but ultimately each has at its core a non-falsifiable lemma. This kind of underpinning of faith is usually what some people find unattractive about religion. Some find comfort or wisdom in this kind of foundation based in faith. Note that science also has somewhat of a foundation of faith since it too uses lemmas, but it has a much higher restriction on what a reasonable lemma is.
IMHO, science and religion both have (or at least should have) the same end goal: the discovery of truth. However, both have different (and sometimes conflicting) methodologies to get there. But it's very important to separate the people claiming to be scientific or religious from science or religion in general since different people are better or worse at representing either than others.
To answer the original question: No, science isn't just a matter of faith. In fact, it is a systematic methodology to move away from faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Just think of the possibilities when the eye is given the ability to see beyond the optical wavelengths.
The last time I flew on an airplane I took out my Android phone and turned on an app that uses GPS to track your elevation, speed, direction, pitch etc. It was a blast to watch how fast the plane accelerated down the runway, pitch as we would turn, and what the take-off, cruising, landing speeds. I then switched to google maps and watched as I zipped across states. It was a ton of fun.
And guess what? No ill effects on the airplane.
It would have been funnier if it counted towards Dec. 21, 2012 rather than just midnight.
I think it is safe to say that this data could be considered Facebook porn.
neither of which will be effected by us giving them food aide.
+1 for proper use of *e*ffected in that sentence.
What's missing in this debate is the fact that Node.js Is Bad Ass Rock Star Tech.
If you copy media you purchased, you're smart.
If you copy media you didn't purchase, you're cheap.
If you copy media you didn't purchase AND you make a profit off of it, you're a thief.
We do have to be careful that this doesn't turn into a slippery slope but, c'mon, making a profit off of other artists material which you don't have the rights to is just good old fashioned stealing no matter how you slice it.
A flying humvee with retractable rotor blades which can seed an area with a network of smaller robots all while staying in the air for 5+ years?!
God help us all!
DontJumpVille
Yeah, sheeple. I see the way some of you react strongly to that term, like you can't stand it.
No, I can't stand that term because it has lost all meaning and is generally used in a very hypocritical manner.
Here ya go:
http://xkcd.com/610/
I learned this lesson the hard way with the Motorola Cliq XT. I bought it a while back (2 yrs?) despite it only having 1.6 on it because I was told they were already working on a 2.0 upgrade that would be coming. I waited, and waited, and waited. Eventually they canceled the upgrade and sent an email out recommending a new phone (quite the slap in the face).
Once I saw that no upgrade was coming, I rooted my phone and installed cyanogen mod. I have 2.1 on my phone and it works great (only minor bugs). Plus my phone doesn't have that CarrierIQ spyware on it. I figure that they broke their contract when they canceled the upgrade and left me hanging.
This experience taught me:
1) Cell phone makers simply don't care about software. They have almost zero incentive to put effort into it and often have incentive NOT to invest in software.
2) Never run the stock install from the phone maker. Root it and install a custom mod that is much closer to vanilla Android as possible.
Dunder Mifflin is gonna be pissed...
My wife owns her own photography business (just her and an employee) and she had been toying around with the idea of using Groupon and LivingSocial. As much as she hates spreadsheets, I made here sit down and model what the deal looked like and what her break-even points were. Talk to your Groupon/LivingSocial rep. to get stats about similar deals (as much as they can give you)--quantity, conversion rate, customer conversion, etc and be conservative since the rep will definitely paint a rosy picture. After doing that, she made some very important changes to the structure of the deal she made with LivingSocial that protected her against some run-away scenarios that would have cost her money like this person ran into and the LivingSocial deal has been a great success.
The other thing, hinted at by the owner of the bakery is your brand. If all you're concerned about is pushing product and volume, then a low-end price for the Groupon/LivingSocial deal is the way to go. But be aware that the lower the barrier to entry the less the customer values you or your services. For service-based businesses (like my wife's photography company), a higher price for the deal is more likely to bring customers who value service and quality. You can still offer good discounts while having a higher price point by carefully choosing what you discount and what they are purchasing up front.
Bottom line: know who your optimal customer is and do the math or you're likely to get burned.
The reason SOPA isn't defined is it actually stands for Satanic Overlords and Pedophilia Association. No wonder they have a hard time getting people to listen to them.
I left college with $5000 in student loans (2006). I also worked full-time every summer as well as all of my junior and senior year (part, to 3/4 time freshman and sophomore year). My social life consisted of dorm-LAN parties, on-campus complimentary student body activities, and splurging once in a while to go to the dollar theater to see campy movies or movies that were already out on DVD.
What surprised me when I went in to get a loan for my last two quarters is that I could borrow as much as I wanted (way more than anyone would need just for school) and the restrictions and accountability about how the money was spent seemed way too lax. I'd be curious to see studies about how much students spent in total on school vs. how large their loans are.
Not saying the way I did it was best, but I wouldn't trade the work ethic and freedom I've got from how I did it.
about as much change as a fart in a hurricane
Yes, but imagine a fart for every man, woman, and child, all at the same time in the same hurricane. Not because it counters your statement--just because it is funny to imagine.
Answer (2 words): You don't.
Alternative (2 words): Khan Academy.
Someone enlighten me if I'm clueless here, but here's my thought:
Why not have a section when people do their taxes to donate to specific programs directly. I know you can donate to the IRS in general, but I never heard of them making high-level programs available for specific citizen-targeted donations. Another possibility is to have a portion of individual citizen's taxes be customized by them so they can control somewhat where their tax money goes (this could only work as a small percentage).
This would provide a way for the public to voice their priorities/opinions by donating to programs which they find most beneficial. In this instance, it would allow the public to make up for the inane budgeting cuts as politicians think they are qualified to judge the scientific merits of different programs within NASA.
Politicians could also find out real quick what programs are most popular with the public.
Thoughts?
How about we start with sustainable database connections?
Seems to me like they are just writing off their DVD business model (at least in the long-term)--which seems to be a good idea. With media, the money is in streaming more than it is keeping inventory and managing the logistics of physical goods.
For my family, my wife and I turned off cable 3 years ago and have been Netflix/Hulu(+)/Redbox ever since. We have 3 little kids, so we hardly ever go to the theater except for once or twice a year. Now, we'll just get new releases from Redbox and cancel our DVD service with Netflix. I went through our DVD history and found that for DVDs that aren't available via Redbox or streaming from Hulu/Netflix (ie: foreign films & documentaries), nearly all are available through my local library system (Seattle public library). I already pay for the library (taxes), I might as well use it.
Apple's patent is for that *On a Computer*
Ya, but BOTH get equally as hot.
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.theonion.com/video/new-google-phone-service-whispers-targeted-ads-dir,17470/
So how many terrorists have these cameras caught?
That information is classified.
Very well put.
As for the U.S., I think the chasm between science and religion is most prominent due to the "protestant" origins of much of the Christian faiths within it. By "protestant" I mean Christian sects that fractured away from a previously existing sect over a matter of doctrinal interpretation. When that occurs, usually the authority of the new protesting faith is derived solely from the new "correct" doctrinal interpretation.
This, however, is ultimately an unsustainable position. Most major "protestant" sects fractured during the enlightenment. Since the enlightenment, we have greatly increased our knowledge of the universe. When faced with seemingly conflicting evidence, sadly, the initial "protestant" reaction is to discredit or attack the evidence or idea since it is a direct threat to the source of their authority (ie: that strict doctrinal interpretation).
What is needed in any religious faith is the idea of an open cannon that allows for on-going doctrinal revisions based on new situations and evidences. Some "protestant" religions are more open than others and there are some Christian faiths which have an open cannon as a core principle. Eastern religions tend to have more of an open cannon.
Bottom line, when new truth or evidences come along (which itself can be a big matter of debate), we need to align ourselves with it.
Quite often certain people attempt to conflate trust and faith as if they are the same thing.
Trust is earned and subject to revision. Faith is not. Faith is expected without justification and is expected to endure regardless of what facts may come to challenge it.
I like your trust != faith comment. The two are similar and interrelated but not the same.
However, when you say "Faith is expected without justification and is expected to endure regardless of what facts may come to challenge it", I have to disagree. What you are describing there is blind faith.
Faith, as my comment tag line also says, is a willingness to accept something w/o total regular proof and act on it. From that perspective, every self-motivated action starts with faith. Getting out of bed to start the day, go to work, express love, turn on a car/computer, get on a plane, etc.), we make decisions and take action based in incomplete or uncertain information all of the time. However, science seeks to move away from faith and provides a systematic way to do so through the scientific method. Theories start from faith w/o proof--but then experimentation leads to the reformation or abandonment of that theory until repeatable experiments validate or falsify the theory.
Religion differs in that it never seeks to fully eliminate faith. Different religions (and to a higher degree, people) will rely on faith to different degrees than others, but ultimately each has at its core a non-falsifiable lemma. This kind of underpinning of faith is usually what some people find unattractive about religion. Some find comfort or wisdom in this kind of foundation based in faith. Note that science also has somewhat of a foundation of faith since it too uses lemmas, but it has a much higher restriction on what a reasonable lemma is.
IMHO, science and religion both have (or at least should have) the same end goal: the discovery of truth. However, both have different (and sometimes conflicting) methodologies to get there. But it's very important to separate the people claiming to be scientific or religious from science or religion in general since different people are better or worse at representing either than others.
To answer the original question: No, science isn't just a matter of faith. In fact, it is a systematic methodology to move away from faith.