Software makers in North America (especially Apple) have never shown an interest or an understanding of "how people learn". As a result the "Usability" of the software, more often than not - simply sucks - sucks badly! By "Usability" - I am not referring to which fonts are being used (one being more readible than another and so on) - or whether someone with a seeing issue can use the software - I am referring to - was anyone who is a "proven scientific expert in how people learn" - an integral part of the design team from the getgo!
For examples, Apples FinalCut Pro comes with 8 manuals with several thousand pages - which suck as badly as the actual software when it comes to ease of use
"Apple has launched legal action in an attempt to have patents for video and audio delivery software held by Burst.com declared invalid. The company sued Burst in the US District Court in San Francisco requesting declaratory relief to determine the patents invalid.Burst warns that it will respond to Apple's action and file a counterclaim for patent infringement "shortly". The suit follows a break-down in protracted negotiations to issue a licence for Burst's patents to cover Apple's iPod and iTunes products. Burst first approached Apple in late 2004 in an attempt to agree licences for the use of the technology. Burst's legal team told Apple that the company believed Apple was infringing its patents, and that it would launch action. Apple denies the claims."
"Burst remains committed to the enforcement of its intellectual property and looks forward to successfully resolving this litigation through a licence covering Apple's Quicktime, iPod and iTunes products, including Apple's iTunes Music Store," the company said. Last year, Burst settled its patent and antitrust suit against Microsoft with Microsoft taking a licence to Burst's patents and paying a lump sum of $60 million."
Apple left off list of - more or less one guy
Apple censors by omission and "handcuffs" - in an attempt to monopolize- example Quicktime's H.264 implementation doesn't meet H.264 standards.
This story points out, once again, how the media and other Mauraders - (definition from Mark Cuban) - mis-use the word "scientific".
More often than not - pronouncements in the staus quo media as well as the so-called alternative media - write stories about one thing or another - so that it appears to be "scientific" - but in fact is simply a - "notion"!
Scientific is simple - means proven by the "scienific method" -and the proof replicated by others using the "scientific method". More often than not - the so-called science (or medical) research doesn't even follow the scientific method. And even worse - the results are never replicated to see if the original research was accurate.
The list of the failures is endless - the most glaring example is that HIV is the sole cause of auto immune dis-eases.
By the way - here's the five key criteria for the "scientific method":
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,
the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a
mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by originator
of the hypothesis with properly performed experiments.
5.Replication of the experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
that I want Intelligent Design taught in the classroom (I don't)
Here's what you clearly state in a previous post, in this thread:
"Consider Evolutionary Origin vs. Intelligent Design. Ultimately, neither are scientific. Yet it's still profitable to discuss them in a science class because they both make assumptions about the nature of the universe in non-observable ways and have impacted the approach to science in academia. But no serious discussion will ever take place on this because so much emotional baggage is attached."
ha ha ha - looks like you did go to a Jesuit university or high school - but you didn't learn well - you have to do better with omissions!
Creationism or whatever term/name you want to pull out of hat - is a fairy tale: consequently belongs in fairy tale class or propaganda class - where it can be compared to Little Red Riding Hood.
Again - the battle isn't about Evolution - it's all about forcing religious beliefs into the classroom - and science happens to illustrate/reinforce the fact that god doesn't exist. Its about nasty religious folks trying to tell others how to live. Which is really funny - because the people who carry the biggest bibles tend to be the most immoral - the most evil.
Didn't the Senate did vote on whether or not to impeach Clinton?
"The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.
Wikipedia has it wrong again. It says to use "Rescue Breathing" for drowning persons:
"Rescue Breathing is a First Aid protocol which refers to the delivery of air from a person into a patient who has stopped breathing but continues to have a pulse. In some countries it is called Expired Air Resuscitation or EAR.
I added:
Do not use "Rescue Breathing" on a "drowned person". So-called "Rescue Breathing" will kill the drowning victim. Almost 100% of the time - a drowning person's lungs are full of water. Trying to force air into lungs that are full of water is ludicrous! Just use the "Heimlich Maneuver" to remove the water from the lungs - and almost always the "drowned person" will begin to breathe on their own!
Did "your" text book say - that the Senate voted on the impeachment or for the impeachment? Big difference. The name of the text book? Publisher? Year of publication?
Ha ha ha The Pedia is correct 90% of the time!? Can I see your data on that statement? Best example of the kind of mis-information found all over The Pedia!
I find it humerous that some pundits are stating that Google's low cost computer sales pitch is all about the Boys playing Santa Claus - and has got to be the joke of 2006.
Power corrupts - as demonstrated over and over again by Gates, and Jobs - as examples of CEOs with constant manipulation of the marketplace by monopolistic tendacies
Any bets that the Google Boys low cost computer will come with monopolistic "Handcuffs Included"?
Slashdot loves to censor anyone would doesn't regurgitate back anything that a geek looking guy in a $10 white lab coat says - whether its about so-called HIV, or Global Warming, or Apple Monopolists.
And if one does challenge what the guys in the $10 white lab coats says - then one is deemed a Troll or given Zero scores - or both.
Both Wikipedia and Slashdot Mauraders think that "Bullshit Will Always Baffle Brains" - it just aint so.
Now Slashdot and Wikipedia are not unique when it comes to "Bullshit Will Always Baffle Brains" attempts. 50% of all masters theses in the USA and Canada are cooked - not factual and once one starts to lie - it seems they can't stop.
In part that's why:
- most urban planners know nothing about the design of cities,
- most teachers don't know how to teach
- most doctors can't heal person with emotional dis-ease
No we are not talking past each other. What I think is going on your part, at best, it's sophistry. Sophistry: 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument. At worse your playing the favourite game of the Jesuits - lying by omission.
The Supreme Court Of The USA ruled that creationism cannot be taught in the school - because creationism is all about forcing religious beliefs on kids in the classroom. Instead of accepting the above fact - you try to side step the "No Creationism No Religion In The Classroom" decision of the Supreme Court - by some obtuse interpretation of The Constitution of the USA.
Naturally once your stop pretending - that you don't know that the Supreme Court's bans creationsim in the classroom because its attempt to force religious beliefs into the classroom - then you'll also have to acknowledge that the ploy to scratch out Creationism in the Panda book - and replace the scratched out Creationism with Intelligent Design - was just a childish scam to circumvent the Supreme Court. But the Courts are not stupid - neither are Republican judges appointed by Bush.
And once the scratching was finished - it is the height of sophistry to then say suddenly that the Panda book isn't a Creationism/Religious book - but instead, in the time it took to scratch out Creationism and replace the Creationism with the phrase Intelligent Design - that all the words in Panda that were religious in nature before - suddenly , those same words became words of "science".
As you know, the USA Supreme Court labelled several school board members - liars!
Now lets look at your second attempt at sophistry - as you try to explain away science by dragging in the term natural laws
Here's the "scientific method" just in case you didn't quite finish grade nine science course.
The scientific method has four steps (actually five):
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
5. And then, last but not least - others then repeat the same experiments and get the same results over and over and over.
Now we know that nothing in Creationism meets the criteria required by the "scientific method". Naturally, as explained above - Intelligent Design - just being born by scratching Creationism out - or is it by changing Pand's fur - can't fulfill the criteria required by the "scientific method" ?
Imagine combining - Canada's University of Toronto's CanX-2 nanosatellite - which is the size of a carton of milk (shot out of a high veolcity canon - also a Canadian invention) - with WiMax. No more phone lines (also a Canadian invention) for the new publicly owned controlled internet.
Now we know the crazies in the USA shadow government will try to jam the system - but I am sure that a 15 yr. old hacker could solve those issues in a few days.
Slashdot Mirror
Cute!
If it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk - it's a skun.... no wait... it's Steve Jobs.
Need I say More?
tried to go to mac thunderbird forum to talk about rss failure - and links on Thiunderbird web site don't work!!!
Just downloaded Thunderbird 1.5
Every rss feed i try to add is deemed invalid????
Software makers in North America (especially Apple) have never shown an interest or an understanding of "how people learn". As a result the "Usability" of the software, more often than not - simply sucks - sucks badly! By "Usability" - I am not referring to which fonts are being used (one being more readible than another and so on) - or whether someone with a seeing issue can use the software - I am referring to - was anyone who is a "proven scientific expert in how people learn" - an integral part of the design team from the getgo!
For examples, Apples FinalCut Pro comes with 8 manuals with several thousand pages - which suck as badly as the actual software when it comes to ease of use
"Apple has launched legal action in an attempt to have patents for video and audio delivery software held by Burst.com declared invalid. The company sued Burst in the US District Court in San Francisco requesting declaratory relief to determine the patents invalid.Burst warns that it will respond to Apple's action and file a counterclaim for patent infringement "shortly". The suit follows a break-down in protracted negotiations to issue a licence for Burst's patents to cover Apple's iPod and iTunes products. Burst first approached Apple in late 2004 in an attempt to agree licences for the use of the technology. Burst's legal team told Apple that the company believed Apple was infringing its patents, and that it would launch action. Apple denies the claims."
"Burst remains committed to the enforcement of its intellectual property and looks forward to successfully resolving this litigation through a licence covering Apple's Quicktime, iPod and iTunes products, including Apple's iTunes Music Store," the company said. Last year, Burst settled its patent and antitrust suit against Microsoft with Microsoft taking a licence to Burst's patents and paying a lump sum of $60 million."
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/09/apple_suit/
Apple left off list of - more or less one guy Apple censors by omission and "handcuffs" - in an attempt to monopolize- example Quicktime's H.264 implementation doesn't meet H.264 standards.
This story points out, once again, how the media and other Mauraders - (definition from Mark Cuban) - mis-use the word "scientific".
More often than not - pronouncements in the staus quo media as well as the so-called alternative media - write stories about one thing or another - so that it appears to be "scientific" - but in fact is simply a - "notion"!
Scientific is simple - means proven by the "scienific method" -and the proof replicated by others using the "scientific method". More often than not - the so-called science (or medical) research doesn't even follow the scientific method. And even worse - the results are never replicated to see if the original research was accurate.
The list of the failures is endless - the most glaring example is that HIV is the sole cause of auto immune dis-eases.
By the way - here's the five key criteria for the "scientific method":
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by originator of the hypothesis with properly performed experiments. 5.Replication of the experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
What a crock.......... when you state:
that I want Intelligent Design taught in the classroom (I don't)
Here's what you clearly state in a previous post, in this thread:
"Consider Evolutionary Origin vs. Intelligent Design. Ultimately, neither are scientific. Yet it's still profitable to discuss them in a science class because they both make assumptions about the nature of the universe in non-observable ways and have impacted the approach to science in academia. But no serious discussion will ever take place on this because so much emotional baggage is attached."
ha ha ha - looks like you did go to a Jesuit university or high school - but you didn't learn well - you have to do better with omissions!
Creationism or whatever term/name you want to pull out of hat - is a fairy tale: consequently belongs in fairy tale class or propaganda class - where it can be compared to Little Red Riding Hood.
Again - the battle isn't about Evolution - it's all about forcing religious beliefs into the classroom - and science happens to illustrate/reinforce the fact that god doesn't exist. Its about nasty religious folks trying to tell others how to live. Which is really funny - because the people who carry the biggest bibles tend to be the most immoral - the most evil.
Nothing like a monopolist striving fascist ....eh!
As a result of the Senate vote - Clinton was not impeached - yes no?
So in the end - the Senate's vote - essentially voted on the impeachment.
I'm guessing you are playing with words here. The Senate did vote - yes/no? In case you need more info: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/shields&gigot/february 99/sg_2-12.html
Hmm.
a) Clinton wasn't impeached - yes or no?
b) Who voted on whether he was guilty of the charges and consequently whether or not he could be impeached - the Senate! - yes/no?
Didn't the Senate did vote on whether or not to impeach Clinton?
"The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.
Wikipedia has it wrong again. It says to use "Rescue Breathing" for drowning persons:
"Rescue Breathing is a First Aid protocol which refers to the delivery of air from a person into a patient who has stopped breathing but continues to have a pulse. In some countries it is called Expired Air Resuscitation or EAR.
I added:
Do not use "Rescue Breathing" on a "drowned person". So-called "Rescue Breathing" will kill the drowning victim. Almost 100% of the time - a drowning person's lungs are full of water. Trying to force air into lungs that are full of water is ludicrous! Just use the "Heimlich Maneuver" to remove the water from the lungs - and almost always the "drowned person" will begin to breathe on their own!
Did "your" text book say - that the Senate voted on the impeachment or for the impeachment? Big difference. The name of the text book? Publisher? Year of publication?
Ha ha ha The Pedia is correct 90% of the time!? Can I see your data on that statement? Best example of the kind of mis-information found all over The Pedia!
I find it humerous that some pundits are stating that Google's low cost computer sales pitch is all about the Boys playing Santa Claus - and has got to be the joke of 2006.
Power corrupts - as demonstrated over and over again by Gates, and Jobs - as examples of CEOs with constant manipulation of the marketplace by monopolistic tendacies
Any bets that the Google Boys low cost computer will come with monopolistic "Handcuffs Included"?
Slashdot loves to censor anyone would doesn't regurgitate back anything that a geek looking guy in a $10 white lab coat says - whether its about so-called HIV, or Global Warming, or Apple Monopolists.
And if one does challenge what the guys in the $10 white lab coats says - then one is deemed a Troll or given Zero scores - or both.
Both Wikipedia and Slashdot Mauraders think that "Bullshit Will Always Baffle Brains" - it just aint so.
Now Slashdot and Wikipedia are not unique when it comes to "Bullshit Will Always Baffle Brains" attempts. 50% of all masters theses in the USA and Canada are cooked - not factual and once one starts to lie - it seems they can't stop.
In part that's why:
- most urban planners know nothing about the design of cities,
- most teachers don't know how to teach
- most doctors can't heal person with emotional dis-ease
and so on.
People are voting with their cheque books - like Abe Lincoln said:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Time For A Timely Death For Wikipedia
No we are not talking past each other. What I think is going on your part, at best, it's sophistry. Sophistry: 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument. At worse your playing the favourite game of the Jesuits - lying by omission.
The Supreme Court Of The USA ruled that creationism cannot be taught in the school - because creationism is all about forcing religious beliefs on kids in the classroom. Instead of accepting the above fact - you try to side step the "No Creationism No Religion In The Classroom" decision of the Supreme Court - by some obtuse interpretation of The Constitution of the USA.
Naturally once your stop pretending - that you don't know that the Supreme Court's bans creationsim in the classroom because its attempt to force religious beliefs into the classroom - then you'll also have to acknowledge that the ploy to scratch out Creationism in the Panda book - and replace the scratched out Creationism with Intelligent Design - was just a childish scam to circumvent the Supreme Court. But the Courts are not stupid - neither are Republican judges appointed by Bush.
And once the scratching was finished - it is the height of sophistry to then say suddenly that the Panda book isn't a Creationism/Religious book - but instead, in the time it took to scratch out Creationism and replace the Creationism with the phrase Intelligent Design - that all the words in Panda that were religious in nature before - suddenly , those same words became words of "science" .
As you know, the USA Supreme Court labelled several school board members - liars!
Now lets look at your second attempt at sophistry - as you try to explain away science by dragging in the term natural laws
Here's the "scientific method" just in case you didn't quite finish grade nine science course. The scientific method has four steps (actually five):
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
5. And then, last but not least - others then repeat the same experiments and get the same results over and over and over.
Now we know that nothing in Creationism meets the criteria required by the "scientific method". Naturally, as explained above - Intelligent Design - just being born by scratching Creationism out - or is it by changing Pand's fur - can't fulfill the criteria required by the "scientific method" ?
Q.E.D.
Imagine combining - Canada's University of Toronto's CanX-2 nanosatellite - which is the size of a carton of milk (shot out of a high veolcity canon - also a Canadian invention) - with WiMax. No more phone lines (also a Canadian invention) for the new publicly owned controlled internet.
Now we know the crazies in the USA shadow government will try to jam the system - but I am sure that a 15 yr. old hacker could solve those issues in a few days.
http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/050829-1595.asp