Well, actually, the general ID claim is that the universe, as-is, is so complex it must have been created by an intelligent designer. It doesn't make the claim that that intelligent designer must have been intelligently designed.
Consider - you are unlikely to be able to design a system more complex then yourself. However, a group of your clones is probably able to put in place a system with so many interacting parts that the totality of the created system is greater then that of any one of these clones.
Hence, intelligent design can work in a system where the designer is less complex then the designed.
As for the case where the designer is more complex - I am unable to come up with an argument to make that fit without an infite recursion of designers without resorting to pure sophistry.
Of course, a claim that intelligent design only works if the designer is less complex then the designed can also be taken as a claim that if the intelligent designer was god, god is therefore less complex then the universe (this is not a claim that god is less complex then us).
I wonder how this line of reasoning would fit with most of the people who want it in science class?
Just because Einstein believed something isn't proof of anything - unless you are referring to his beliefs as they relate to physics. Pointing out that an expert in physics has a certain belief in a religion isn't in any way relevant, and is a very well-known logical fallacy - an Appeal to Authority.
This isn't to say anything about the validity of your point, but just be aware that it definitely doesn't qualify as "Not bad for an example of a relevant opposing view".
7. Can a group of spammers game the Credence algorithm by voting thumbs-up for each others' spam ?
No. The trustworthiness computation is designed to preclude such attacks.
8. What happens when a large number of spammers vote each others' spam up ? Can they fool the reputation system ?
No. Credence's reputation computation is similar to Google's PageRank, but is more general - every node computes a different rank based on its own votes. Reputation flows from a given good node along trust edges towards other nodes. Spammers can create tight cliques in which everyone votes on each others' spam, but the entire clique will be deemed untrustworthy. And if anyone in the spammer clique does a search, they will see each others' spam ranked high.
So a 'good' rank is dependent on the whims of people who usually vote the same way that you do. So spammers will see high rated spam and non-spammer will see high rated non-spam. Simple.
Except that the phrase used was "the next generation of consoles is going to burn holes in gamers' wallets", which only resembles the common phrase.
The actual phrase used would tend to imply that the next generation of consoles will quickly (things burn fast, y'see) cause a hole in a gamer's wallet - i.e. rapidly deplete their cash.
The phrase to which you refer implies that the $20 may as well be on fire for the speed at which the guy got rid of it.
No matter which industry you're in, no matter what you do/make/whatever - hiring good employees matters.
If you're a car dealership - hiring good salesmen matters. If you're a home builder - hiring good architects matters. Things are not somehow 'different' just because we're talking about IT.
We need to quit laughing at the Lumbergh attitude. As long as we laugh at it, we aren't taking it seriously, and it'll never go away.
You're assuming it's a problem. Some people just have to learn when to say 'no'.
Consider the cost to your employer to fire you and rehire someone who will come in on a Saturday. Consider how many people would simply not apply for a job that was upfront about '6 days a week'. Consider the cost to them if they have to fire you, hire someone else, and then have that person say no to working on Saturday.
If that cost outweighs the cash they'd bring in if you worked an extra 8 hours per week, then in a very real sense, they can't afford to force you to comply.
"Review of the review review" was a reasonable review of the Linspire review review. However, the reviewer of the review's review was more then a little brief, and skimmed right over a few of his most important points. He claims to have "especially enjoyed the comments" about length and screenshots, however he neglected to back them up with any quotes or specific points from the original review of the review; leaving the audience to wonder exactly what it was he was agreeing with (many of us prefer to read the review's review before reading the review of the review).
However, the author, jlapier, did raise some interesting points about the conclusion of the initial review's review. He claimed that it was "anti-climatic", and backed up his claims with a witty reference to the review's review's final point.
A well written, snappy review. Even though it suffered a little without reference to his primary material.
I work for a web hosting company. We run Windows 2003. We have almost 100 servers dotted all over the US and almost as many workstations in Australia. We have one domain serving all of this (3 domain controllers IIRC).
Adding a machine is trivial and total replication takes maybe five minutes.
Now, if we're running the same software, and it works that quickly for me, what does that say about the people who set up the software?
I suspect that for a lot of software, all the developer will need to do is a recompile. Apple will probably keep the MacOS API more-or-less identical to the way it used to work. As such, it will only be the software that contains an amount of G4/G5 specific calls that will need any real work.
I don't think this change will even compare to the trouble caused by the move to MacOS X (which, as mentioned, worked out almost completely seamlessly from the user perspective).
It has nothing to do with the registry, which can be read from and written to whenever you feel like it. It has everything to do with lazy programmers.
Your software would probably work perfectly without a reboot. Chances are, if the same installer installs the software on windows 98 as installs it on 2000 or XP, the message is just because the developers of the software were too lazy to check your OS version.
Windows doesn't need to be rebooted as often as it asks to be - developers tend to be lazy. As an example, I've seen apps that install a start-up item ask for a reboot, when they could simply launch the item as the final step of the installer.
Really, the only things that require a reboot are some driver changes and some OS updates. Of course, now that software is coming with increasingly intrusive copyright protection, some is actually installing new hardware drivers to ensure you're using the original media. I predict that in a few years, windows will only actually need a reboot as often as Linux (i.e. kernel changes and such), but as software adds more hardware drivers, people will end up rebooting just as often as they always have.
The problem with most open source software are that they are designed to elevate pain from working with closed source software.
While this is sometimes true, it often is not. If it were true, every open source package would simply be a clone of some closed source package. Open Source Software is not a reaction to closed source software - OSS is a movement all of its own.
Describing it as simply a reaction to closed source software really just makes it sound like a bunch of cheap and uppity developers one day got sick of pirating their software, so built their own. Does that make it sound like these are competant developers? No, it makes them sound arrogant and juvenile. It makes it sound like they can't deal with the way things work in the 'real world'.
Ask them how they would feel if it suddenly cost $300.00 to purchase each sheet of paper simply because the biggest vendor decided that that was what they wanted to charge.
The easiest way I've found to completely undercut all arguments to open source is to describe it how you just did - as a reaction to paying for software. It makes it sound like a juvenile reaction to the 'real world'; it makes it sound like no serious developer would touch it; and it makes it sound like the whole thing is driven by people too cheap to buy commercial software.
The best results I've had selling the idea of OSS is to start out with the idea that software began as a free commodity, and it's really only big business (like Microsoft) that want you to believe that things should be different now.
Then move onto open standards, point out that if someone came up with a paper size designed as a common format (to replace A4 or foolscap, ignoring anyone who would actually need the extra space - flawed analogy I know) that was too big for regular filing cabinets, and required you to buy your cabinets from one company and one company only (lets assume the size is patentable and patented) - noone would want to use it. Point out that that's exactly what you've got with closed standards, and that you are literally trusting your data to the whims of a company (bonus points if you can say foreign company).
My point is that you really shouldn't compare OSS to non-OSS. You should compare the OSS philosophy to that of non-OSS. Point out that if noone will necessarily profit, noone has a larger stake then anyone else - i.e. if there's noone who has a vested interest in forcing you to upgrade, there's noone who will be able to dictate your pace of IT development to you.
They were closing down - apparently too many posts were getting stuck at the lameness filter. Slashdotters everywhere have cut back on their use and the whole industry is collapsing. Won't someone please think of the poor asterisk manufacturers? Such strict filtering is taking from them their livelihood, children are starving. And all because of you and your support of such a fascist dictatorship.
You're in luck. In this new, updated Voltron, there is no fighting. All of the issues are worked out through peaceful diplomatic negotiations. Intelligence is perfect. Politicians seek the best for all people, the media is educated, fully informed, interested in presenting the truth, and restrains from oversentationalizing everything. Wealthy corporations pay workers to stay home and protect the environment and everyone recycles, writes Open Source Software, and whistles while they work.
And then Volton comes along and FORMS FLAMING DEATH all over your communist utopia. Damned commies.
I believe the actual wording require it to be a piece of hardware that is essential to the running of a machine. My local shop was selling OEM copies with case screws and apparently got called on it - now they sell OEM copies with power cables, IDE cables and occasionally, fans.
Did anyone else notice that it works just like installing more then one operating system on any machine? And arent' the only people with access to these machines supposed to be developers? Wouldn't you sort of expect them to be able to figure this out?
Wow. You can 'partition' a hard drive, and install multiple 'operating systems'. This would only really have been news if you couldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, actually, the general ID claim is that the universe, as-is, is so complex it must have been created by an intelligent designer. It doesn't make the claim that that intelligent designer must have been intelligently designed.
Consider - you are unlikely to be able to design a system more complex then yourself. However, a group of your clones is probably able to put in place a system with so many interacting parts that the totality of the created system is greater then that of any one of these clones.
Hence, intelligent design can work in a system where the designer is less complex then the designed.
As for the case where the designer is more complex - I am unable to come up with an argument to make that fit without an infite recursion of designers without resorting to pure sophistry.
Of course, a claim that intelligent design only works if the designer is less complex then the designed can also be taken as a claim that if the intelligent designer was god, god is therefore less complex then the universe (this is not a claim that god is less complex then us).
I wonder how this line of reasoning would fit with most of the people who want it in science class?
Just because Einstein believed something isn't proof of anything - unless you are referring to his beliefs as they relate to physics. Pointing out that an expert in physics has a certain belief in a religion isn't in any way relevant, and is a very well-known logical fallacy - an Appeal to Authority .
This isn't to say anything about the validity of your point, but just be aware that it definitely doesn't qualify as "Not bad for an example of a relevant opposing view".
So a 'good' rank is dependent on the whims of people who usually vote the same way that you do. So spammers will see high rated spam and non-spammer will see high rated non-spam. Simple.
Except that the phrase used was "the next generation of consoles is going to burn holes in gamers' wallets", which only resembles the common phrase.
The actual phrase used would tend to imply that the next generation of consoles will quickly (things burn fast, y'see) cause a hole in a gamer's wallet - i.e. rapidly deplete their cash.
The phrase to which you refer implies that the $20 may as well be on fire for the speed at which the guy got rid of it.
But I digress and get further off point...
You're grammering pretty good but.
No matter which industry you're in, no matter what you do/make/whatever - hiring good employees matters.
If you're a car dealership - hiring good salesmen matters. If you're a home builder - hiring good architects matters. Things are not somehow 'different' just because we're talking about IT.
We need to quit laughing at the Lumbergh attitude. As long as we laugh at it, we aren't taking it seriously, and it'll never go away.
You're assuming it's a problem. Some people just have to learn when to say 'no'.
Consider the cost to your employer to fire you and rehire someone who will come in on a Saturday. Consider how many people would simply not apply for a job that was upfront about '6 days a week'. Consider the cost to them if they have to fire you, hire someone else, and then have that person say no to working on Saturday.
If that cost outweighs the cash they'd bring in if you worked an extra 8 hours per week, then in a very real sense, they can't afford to force you to comply.
It's like all my fonts snapped out of focus. Maybe we should tack on an appropriate disclaimer: not for LCDs, your eyes will bleed .
However, the author, jlapier, did raise some interesting points about the conclusion of the initial review's review. He claimed that it was "anti-climatic", and backed up his claims with a witty reference to the review's review's final point.
A well written, snappy review. Even though it suffered a little without reference to his primary material.
3.5 / 5
I'm sorry, you said "skillz". Clearly, a violation of section 4.
You can turn in your punchcards on the way out.
Just to nitpick - freeness (look right at the bottom of the first 'free' entry) is a word. (Also here and here.)
You can just make a scheduled task to run Task Manager as SYSTEM - works just the same without some obscure bit of software.
It's fast, and it has a hojillion useful features and a great UI. That's not bloat.
Actually, it only has a bajillion useful features. That's why we're holding out for amarok 1.3 and KDE 3.5 to compliment the new KDevelop 3.2.1.
I work for a web hosting company. We run Windows 2003. We have almost 100 servers dotted all over the US and almost as many workstations in Australia. We have one domain serving all of this (3 domain controllers IIRC).
Adding a machine is trivial and total replication takes maybe five minutes.
Now, if we're running the same software, and it works that quickly for me, what does that say about the people who set up the software?
I suspect that for a lot of software, all the developer will need to do is a recompile. Apple will probably keep the MacOS API more-or-less identical to the way it used to work. As such, it will only be the software that contains an amount of G4/G5 specific calls that will need any real work.
I don't think this change will even compare to the trouble caused by the move to MacOS X (which, as mentioned, worked out almost completely seamlessly from the user perspective).
If you'd like, I can buld you a set of servers with any other operating system that will take just as long to replicate.
You can't just lay the blame at Microsoft's feet just because you have an administrator who doesn't know what he's doing.
It has nothing to do with the registry, which can be read from and written to whenever you feel like it. It has everything to do with lazy programmers.
Your software would probably work perfectly without a reboot. Chances are, if the same installer installs the software on windows 98 as installs it on 2000 or XP, the message is just because the developers of the software were too lazy to check your OS version.
Windows doesn't need to be rebooted as often as it asks to be - developers tend to be lazy. As an example, I've seen apps that install a start-up item ask for a reboot, when they could simply launch the item as the final step of the installer.
Really, the only things that require a reboot are some driver changes and some OS updates. Of course, now that software is coming with increasingly intrusive copyright protection, some is actually installing new hardware drivers to ensure you're using the original media. I predict that in a few years, windows will only actually need a reboot as often as Linux (i.e. kernel changes and such), but as software adds more hardware drivers, people will end up rebooting just as often as they always have.
The problem with most open source software are that they are designed to elevate pain from working with closed source software.
While this is sometimes true, it often is not. If it were true, every open source package would simply be a clone of some closed source package. Open Source Software is not a reaction to closed source software - OSS is a movement all of its own.
Describing it as simply a reaction to closed source software really just makes it sound like a bunch of cheap and uppity developers one day got sick of pirating their software, so built their own. Does that make it sound like these are competant developers? No, it makes them sound arrogant and juvenile. It makes it sound like they can't deal with the way things work in the 'real world'.
Ask them how they would feel if it suddenly cost $300.00 to purchase each sheet of paper simply because the biggest vendor decided that that was what they wanted to charge.
The easiest way I've found to completely undercut all arguments to open source is to describe it how you just did - as a reaction to paying for software. It makes it sound like a juvenile reaction to the 'real world'; it makes it sound like no serious developer would touch it; and it makes it sound like the whole thing is driven by people too cheap to buy commercial software.
The best results I've had selling the idea of OSS is to start out with the idea that software began as a free commodity, and it's really only big business (like Microsoft) that want you to believe that things should be different now.
Then move onto open standards, point out that if someone came up with a paper size designed as a common format (to replace A4 or foolscap, ignoring anyone who would actually need the extra space - flawed analogy I know) that was too big for regular filing cabinets, and required you to buy your cabinets from one company and one company only (lets assume the size is patentable and patented) - noone would want to use it. Point out that that's exactly what you've got with closed standards, and that you are literally trusting your data to the whims of a company (bonus points if you can say foreign company).
My point is that you really shouldn't compare OSS to non-OSS. You should compare the OSS philosophy to that of non-OSS. Point out that if noone will necessarily profit, noone has a larger stake then anyone else - i.e. if there's noone who has a vested interest in forcing you to upgrade, there's noone who will be able to dictate your pace of IT development to you.
They were closing down - apparently too many posts were getting stuck at the lameness filter. Slashdotters everywhere have cut back on their use and the whole industry is collapsing. Won't someone please think of the poor asterisk manufacturers? Such strict filtering is taking from them their livelihood, children are starving. And all because of you and your support of such a fascist dictatorship.
Taco! You should be ashamed!
You're in luck. In this new, updated Voltron, there is no fighting. All of the issues are worked out through peaceful diplomatic negotiations. Intelligence is perfect. Politicians seek the best for all people, the media is educated, fully informed, interested in presenting the truth, and restrains from oversentationalizing everything. Wealthy corporations pay workers to stay home and protect the environment and everyone recycles, writes Open Source Software, and whistles while they work.
And then Volton comes along and FORMS FLAMING DEATH all over your communist utopia. Damned commies.
Dammit. For those of us who don't have a windows media player plugin in our browser/OS of choice - http://x102.putfile.com/videos/d5-9000183365.wmv is the direct link to the movie.
I believe the actual wording require it to be a piece of hardware that is essential to the running of a machine. My local shop was selling OEM copies with case screws and apparently got called on it - now they sell OEM copies with power cables, IDE cables and occasionally, fans.
Did anyone else notice that it works just like installing more then one operating system on any machine? And arent' the only people with access to these machines supposed to be developers? Wouldn't you sort of expect them to be able to figure this out?
Wow. You can 'partition' a hard drive, and install multiple 'operating systems'. This would only really have been news if you couldn't.