People suggested that Google would refuse to find Firefox, because Firefox recommends Adblock Plus, but Google still provides 85% of Mozilla's revenue, even though Mozilla users often block advertisers.
I know a vendor that uses it as his only ISP hecause he travels so much. He pays $50 a month for nationwide broadband.
I pay $45 a month for broadband at home.
That seems reasonable. Others have responded that their experiences with cellular broadband are spotty. I wouldn't know as I don't use it, but the vendor seemed to think highly of it.
I heard a rumor that Google will implement their own version of ad block, which won't fully stop the ads from loading, but rather will hide them in the rendering process. Advertisers still see an ad generate, and users don't see the ad.
Anyone who has looked at Webkit seems to fall in love with it. QT ships with it. KDE now includes a Webkit-part despite the bad Webkit/KHTML-feelings, Android uses it, Arora uses, Safari uses it, and Chrome uses it.
The amazing thing is that I keep hearing how huge browsers must be, and how complex browser code must be. Then arora comes along, and Chrome, and the basic QT-web-browser. I see these mini-browers based on Webkit that are amazingly light-weight and feature rich at the same time.
It is hard to just "trim bloat" when you're talking legacy code from 10+ years in an app that has changed so drastically in both form and function.
Gecko just had a major two-year-plus makeover, and it still isn't as good as Webkit. One could argue that Webkit of two years ago stacks up reasonably well with Gecko of today.
Mozilla spent so much time on rendering engine refactoring, and they want to focus on stabilizing 3, and then moving to Firefox 4.
Moving to a new rendering engine might seem daunting. I don't see Mozilla approaching the project themselves.
There is a new QT branch of Firefox, but even that isn't a proper QT branch. It uses QT widgets, but QT is integrated with Webkit, provides its own JS implementation, etc. I'd love to see an outside team fully develop a QT/Webkit/Xulrunner fork of Firefox that allows me to use Firefox extensions on top of a Webkit rendering engine.
Your other option is cellular based internet. You can get plans around $50 a month and have broadband anywhere in the country you can get a cellular signal on your network.
Postulates form the basis for many other scientific theories, and a good chunk of math.
Many models just can't exist without them.
Dark matter largely started as a postulate, though we are gathering more evidence to suggest it does in fact exist.
However, if we never started with accepting it as a postulate to begin with, then it prevents us from examining other things.
You study the origin of species, and the origin of the universe. You continue to test for answers. And with all the evidence you find, you ask yourself, "what does this mean if there is a Creator, and what does this mean if there isn't a Creator?"
Frankly, right now the concept of a big bang is prety silly if and of itself. The concept that someone may have created what preceded the big bang is one postulate. You could contend that right now, only that beliefs enables the realistic belief in the big bang.
How does a finite universe with finite mass work? What exists at the boundary of the universe? What holds that mass in? What exists beyond the boundary of all mass?
We won't be able to reach the boundary of the universe in our lifetimes, nor in any forseeable future. Should we then not explore these questions?
You suggest there is no means to test for a Creator, and yet a few years back one could have suggested there was no means to test what the universe was like at the time of creation, and super-colliders are somewhat giving us that opportunity now. If you never look for answers, you won't find them.
So your babbling about abiogenesis and the creation of the universe was a pointless non-sequiteur?
No, you assume that I don't understand evolution if I believe in creationism. Many people insist that the belief in creationism means people can't believe in evolution.
The belief in evolution does not necessitate the belief that man evolved from primordial soup. There is actually evidence against abiogenesis that many patently ignore, just as evidence against the big bang theory, because some people who supposedly want to uphold science prefer to put their heads in the sand.
Creighton University helped sponsor the STARS project at Brookhaven to look for the Biggs-Hoson, and test the ramifications of the big bang theory. They are a Jesuit school that believes in creationism, and yet upholds the tenets of science. They believe that faith isn't threatened by the pursuit of science.
It should also work the other way around. When theories like abiogenesis and the big bang are knocked around, people get testy and upset. It is so important that these theories be upheld in the face of evidence against them, because of some foolish crusade that all science is predicated on atheism.
It isn't.
There is a great deal of irony in your post. You seek to mock those who believe in flat-earth theory. They defy observation and common sense. You insist on keeping your head in the sand and defy observation and common sense.
Scientific method teaches us that we find a problem, propose a possible hypothesis and test it.
Not one other theory has proposed an answer for how the universe came into being in the first place. The big bang theory not only has a litanty of evidence against it (red shifts don't account for movement per se, universal background temperature has evidence against it, age and relation of galaxies suggests that most weren't created around the same time, let alone a universal speed of expansion). Furthermore, even if the big bang occured, there is no explanation for what preceded it. Where did the matter and anti-matter come from?
It the responsibility of responsible science to not discount these questions, and yet many do. Why? Either there was a Creator, or there wasn't. Why not examine the possibility and attempt to test it?
Three of the largest religions on the planet all stem from the Abramic tree, and thusly share the same creation story. The Hindu still teach that man had a creator, as do Native American religions as well. Wicca believes in a variety of deities, but still uses a Creator, but often a pair of Creators. If you start branching real small into stuff like Jainism, you find some that don't believe in creationism, but the key here isn't teaching religion, but a basic tenet/belief that is shared by the majority of the people on the planet that a Creator exists on some level.
If you branch in sociology, psychology and literature, you see certain archetypes that are consistent across human culture, even early cultures that had no connection or communication. Exploring these archetypes and beliefs may be crucial to human understanding. The earliest of human records point to a Creator, where as religions that don't point to a creator (like Buddhism and off-shoots like Jainism) are more recent.
Science should be focused on understanding the evolution of man from a biological and sociological model. Exploring such common held beliefs that transcend most every culture and the entirety of observed history should be a part of that.
If science is the unbiased pursuit of truth, why flee away from certain questions? The true scientific method should be to attempt to develop tests for these questions.
That's a straw man. Nobody who speaks about the separation of church and state actually believes those specific words are contained in the Bill of Rights.
Except when I hear judges directly quote the phrase separation of church and state and use that to say something is unconstitutional. You can't claim something is part of the constitution, when it is not.
Teaching creationism in public schools interferes with my right to not be subject by the government to your religious dogma.
I think this point is debatable and not inherently clear. You suggest your rights are abridged when the two are taught side-by-side, but how are they really abridged here? I can contend that refusing to allow creationism to be taught side-by-side instead is actually abridging my right to free expression. There is certainly an argument to be made for both sides.
To be honest, I don't even really care strongly about the matter. I don't feel that creationism needs to be taught at all, so long as evolution is explained and taught properly. My high school biology class taught that evolution was the firmest scientific knowledge we had, and that the phylogenic tree was just flat-out fact. Humans evolved from primordial soup, and that was that. I argued with the teacher on that point. Our final was to basic recap how humans came from early acids sloshing around. I wrote how I disagreed with it, did my research and managed to pull off an A, but it didn't change the way he taught his class.
We observe evolution happening all the time. Only a fool would disregard that it occurs. The origin of man however is a debated theory. It should be taught as a theory, outlining the evidence that supports it and allow young minds to come to their own conclusions.
No, you're a fool who still refuses to learn and understand the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and the start of the universe. It's kind of sad that those as wilfully ignorant as you can vote.
You are making false assumptions and resorting to personal attacks.
I firmly believe in evolution.
And your analogy still fails. One of us grasps logic. The other apparently doesn't.
No, but I often hear that any law that advocates morality is forcing religion. For instance, people who support pro-life ideals are often accused of forcing religion on the masses. My belief is that the spirit of the 14th amendment suggests legislation should stop and start when there is a victim. Government is a social contract designed to give power to the government for the betterment of the people. We agree to a social construct of legislation based upon the morality of the mass. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion.
Ok, we'll teach creationism--the Vedic kind. Has just as much evidence (none) behind it as the Abrahamic religions' version(s).
The concept that there is a Creator is shared by many groups, as you just pointed out. If you don't provide specifics, then you aren't going into religious territory.
Almost every single religion on the planet believes in a creator, Buddhism being the prime exception. Teaching the concept that there is a Creator, without giving specifics of a specific creator is religion-agnostic, and does establish a state religion.
The Earth has proven definitively not to be flat. It has not been proven definitively that the universe didn't have a creator. In fact, science has never once even come up with a single hypothesis for how nothing became something.
I wish everyone else on the planet would understand "separation of church and state" which actually isn't mentioned in the Constitution, yet everyone quotes as part of the Constitution. The term comes from the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote about the evils of forcing a state religion on the people, often with violence as England had done repeatedly. That doesn't mean morality must be removed from legislation, as most laws actually relate to morals on some level.
The 1st amendment protects the expression of religion which inherently is tied into free speech. Teaching of creationism as a theory isn't forcing a specific state religion on the people. It is teaching the theory that some people (the majority of the people on the planet according to census results of who claims a religion that believes in a Creator) believe that there was a Creator.
As a Christian myself, I don't want Judeo-Christian specifics taught in school. I don't want people teaching the 10 Commandments, and I've actually seen that in Millard Public Schools who teach the "history" of Moses. But creationism is fine in my book.
Not all Christians are anti-science. I believe the world has a Creator, but that doesn't mean I don't believe evolution occurs. I firmly believe that evolution and creationism exist side-by-side, not just as teaching ALTERNATE theories, but rather cooperating theories. Evolution doesn't explain how everything came to be in the beginning. It explains how creatures continue to evolve.
The phylogenic tree gets overhauled all the time, and there isn't much consensus or proof that we really evolved from primordial soup, save for the fact that all life shares a good chunk of genetic code. It could just be all that life shares genetic code, because that is an aspect of life.
She hasn't pushed creationism. And many people just want creationism taught side-by-side with evolution. Just because there are a few anti-science Christians who are intimidated by dinosaur bones, that doesn't make the majority, let alone every other Christian an ignorant fool.
I keep getting told that ext3 doesn't lose data, and the problem must be on my end. My wife changes laptops every year. I replace my desktop every two years. We usually have 4 different computers in our house at any given moment.
Hardware keeps changing. I triple boot. And you know what? I never lost any data with Reiser4, I hardly ever lost anything with NTFS, and I very quickly lose data with ext3 and ext4 any time I tried either (within weeks).
That is just my personal experience. ext3 always pushes for fsck, and fsck keeps moving important files (once my entire/etc folder) to lost+found when I have a dirty shutdown. I have an old house (1890's) with bad wiring, and a 2 year old who loves power buttons. Dirty shutdowns happen more frequently in my house than in others.
He is looking for specific features to fit his needs. He wants it shrinkable, which ext3 somewhat meets. It can't easily be shrunk with gparted, though other tools can do it. He wants it to handle frequent power outages. ext3 has plenty of tools to recover data, but I've lost more data with ext3 than any other FS I've ever dealt with (save for possibly for DoubleSpace in DOS). ReisferFS also provides him faster performance. Ext3 is the default because so many other people use it. So few people want to stray away from it. That doesn't actually make ext3 the best FS on the planet. Far from it. Most other file systems I've seen have numerous advantages over ext3, and that is why they were created.
I agree. Reiser4 is likely to vanish due to lack of interest and support, which is sad because it remains one of the most promising file systems out there.
ReiserFS was already abandoned by Hans and Namesys well before the murder trial. It is in kernel, and maintained by the kernel team. I'm not sure that is going to change.
No, I bought a next-gen console/media-hub, and effectively got a BluRay player for free. If the thing was a BluRay player exclusively, then you could say I paid $400 for a BluRay player.
I take it you don't have a BluRay player. BluRay is adding some new, neat features, such as the ability to connect to the internet and add new content to a disc that wasn't there at launch.
I can buy a movie, and the studios can add trailers, features, deleted scenes, etc. after the fact and provide them as downloads.
BluRay gives me uncompressed audio which is really nice.
DVD had a really basic chapter/scene branching and basic DVD menus. BluRay allows for full-on java apps. People have even ported Java games to run off the PS3.
And even though it is a small feature, I rather like it. There is a top menu, and a pop-up menu. Instead of stopping the movie, I can bring a pop-up menu over the movie as it is playing and access features that way. Some people are using that for more interactive experiences while watching the movie.
Slashdot Mirror
People suggested that Google would refuse to find Firefox, because Firefox recommends Adblock Plus, but Google still provides 85% of Mozilla's revenue, even though Mozilla users often block advertisers.
I know a vendor that uses it as his only ISP hecause he travels so much. He pays $50 a month for nationwide broadband.
I pay $45 a month for broadband at home.
That seems reasonable. Others have responded that their experiences with cellular broadband are spotty. I wouldn't know as I don't use it, but the vendor seemed to think highly of it.
Google has Android. Apple isn't putting Chrome on the iPhone. End of discussion.
I heard a rumor that Google will implement their own version of ad block, which won't fully stop the ads from loading, but rather will hide them in the rendering process. Advertisers still see an ad generate, and users don't see the ad.
Firefox 3 on my system uses around 200 megs of memory. IE8 pushes 400 megs. Firefox is snappy. IE8 makes IE7 look snappy in comparison.
Anyone who has looked at Webkit seems to fall in love with it. QT ships with it. KDE now includes a Webkit-part despite the bad Webkit/KHTML-feelings, Android uses it, Arora uses, Safari uses it, and Chrome uses it.
The amazing thing is that I keep hearing how huge browsers must be, and how complex browser code must be. Then arora comes along, and Chrome, and the basic QT-web-browser. I see these mini-browers based on Webkit that are amazingly light-weight and feature rich at the same time.
It is hard to just "trim bloat" when you're talking legacy code from 10+ years in an app that has changed so drastically in both form and function.
Gecko just had a major two-year-plus makeover, and it still isn't as good as Webkit. One could argue that Webkit of two years ago stacks up reasonably well with Gecko of today.
Mozilla spent so much time on rendering engine refactoring, and they want to focus on stabilizing 3, and then moving to Firefox 4.
Moving to a new rendering engine might seem daunting. I don't see Mozilla approaching the project themselves.
There is a new QT branch of Firefox, but even that isn't a proper QT branch. It uses QT widgets, but QT is integrated with Webkit, provides its own JS implementation, etc. I'd love to see an outside team fully develop a QT/Webkit/Xulrunner fork of Firefox that allows me to use Firefox extensions on top of a Webkit rendering engine.
Your other option is cellular based internet. You can get plans around $50 a month and have broadband anywhere in the country you can get a cellular signal on your network.
I did mean Higgs-Boson. I am exceedingly dyslexic and either juxatpose things, or type the opposite of what I am thinking in my head.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postulate
Postulates form the basis for many other scientific theories, and a good chunk of math.
Many models just can't exist without them.
Dark matter largely started as a postulate, though we are gathering more evidence to suggest it does in fact exist.
However, if we never started with accepting it as a postulate to begin with, then it prevents us from examining other things.
You study the origin of species, and the origin of the universe. You continue to test for answers. And with all the evidence you find, you ask yourself, "what does this mean if there is a Creator, and what does this mean if there isn't a Creator?"
Frankly, right now the concept of a big bang is prety silly if and of itself. The concept that someone may have created what preceded the big bang is one postulate. You could contend that right now, only that beliefs enables the realistic belief in the big bang.
How does a finite universe with finite mass work? What exists at the boundary of the universe? What holds that mass in? What exists beyond the boundary of all mass?
We won't be able to reach the boundary of the universe in our lifetimes, nor in any forseeable future. Should we then not explore these questions?
You suggest there is no means to test for a Creator, and yet a few years back one could have suggested there was no means to test what the universe was like at the time of creation, and super-colliders are somewhat giving us that opportunity now. If you never look for answers, you won't find them.
So your babbling about abiogenesis and the creation of the universe was a pointless non-sequiteur?
No, you assume that I don't understand evolution if I believe in creationism. Many people insist that the belief in creationism means people can't believe in evolution.
The belief in evolution does not necessitate the belief that man evolved from primordial soup. There is actually evidence against abiogenesis that many patently ignore, just as evidence against the big bang theory, because some people who supposedly want to uphold science prefer to put their heads in the sand.
Creighton University helped sponsor the STARS project at Brookhaven to look for the Biggs-Hoson, and test the ramifications of the big bang theory. They are a Jesuit school that believes in creationism, and yet upholds the tenets of science. They believe that faith isn't threatened by the pursuit of science.
It should also work the other way around. When theories like abiogenesis and the big bang are knocked around, people get testy and upset. It is so important that these theories be upheld in the face of evidence against them, because of some foolish crusade that all science is predicated on atheism.
It isn't.
There is a great deal of irony in your post. You seek to mock those who believe in flat-earth theory. They defy observation and common sense. You insist on keeping your head in the sand and defy observation and common sense.
Scientific method teaches us that we find a problem, propose a possible hypothesis and test it.
Not one other theory has proposed an answer for how the universe came into being in the first place. The big bang theory not only has a litanty of evidence against it (red shifts don't account for movement per se, universal background temperature has evidence against it, age and relation of galaxies suggests that most weren't created around the same time, let alone a universal speed of expansion). Furthermore, even if the big bang occured, there is no explanation for what preceded it. Where did the matter and anti-matter come from?
It the responsibility of responsible science to not discount these questions, and yet many do. Why? Either there was a Creator, or there wasn't. Why not examine the possibility and attempt to test it?
You say it isn't science. How isn't it?
Three of the largest religions on the planet all stem from the Abramic tree, and thusly share the same creation story. The Hindu still teach that man had a creator, as do Native American religions as well. Wicca believes in a variety of deities, but still uses a Creator, but often a pair of Creators. If you start branching real small into stuff like Jainism, you find some that don't believe in creationism, but the key here isn't teaching religion, but a basic tenet/belief that is shared by the majority of the people on the planet that a Creator exists on some level.
If you branch in sociology, psychology and literature, you see certain archetypes that are consistent across human culture, even early cultures that had no connection or communication. Exploring these archetypes and beliefs may be crucial to human understanding. The earliest of human records point to a Creator, where as religions that don't point to a creator (like Buddhism and off-shoots like Jainism) are more recent.
Science should be focused on understanding the evolution of man from a biological and sociological model. Exploring such common held beliefs that transcend most every culture and the entirety of observed history should be a part of that.
If science is the unbiased pursuit of truth, why flee away from certain questions? The true scientific method should be to attempt to develop tests for these questions.
That's a straw man. Nobody who speaks about the separation of church and state actually believes those specific words are contained in the Bill of Rights.
Except when I hear judges directly quote the phrase separation of church and state and use that to say something is unconstitutional. You can't claim something is part of the constitution, when it is not.
Teaching creationism in public schools interferes with my right to not be subject by the government to your religious dogma.
I think this point is debatable and not inherently clear. You suggest your rights are abridged when the two are taught side-by-side, but how are they really abridged here? I can contend that refusing to allow creationism to be taught side-by-side instead is actually abridging my right to free expression. There is certainly an argument to be made for both sides.
To be honest, I don't even really care strongly about the matter. I don't feel that creationism needs to be taught at all, so long as evolution is explained and taught properly. My high school biology class taught that evolution was the firmest scientific knowledge we had, and that the phylogenic tree was just flat-out fact. Humans evolved from primordial soup, and that was that. I argued with the teacher on that point. Our final was to basic recap how humans came from early acids sloshing around. I wrote how I disagreed with it, did my research and managed to pull off an A, but it didn't change the way he taught his class.
We observe evolution happening all the time. Only a fool would disregard that it occurs. The origin of man however is a debated theory. It should be taught as a theory, outlining the evidence that supports it and allow young minds to come to their own conclusions.
No, you're a fool who still refuses to learn and understand the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and the start of the universe. It's kind of sad that those as wilfully ignorant as you can vote.
You are making false assumptions and resorting to personal attacks.
I firmly believe in evolution.
And your analogy still fails. One of us grasps logic. The other apparently doesn't.
So in your view religion==morality?
No, but I often hear that any law that advocates morality is forcing religion. For instance, people who support pro-life ideals are often accused of forcing religion on the masses. My belief is that the spirit of the 14th amendment suggests legislation should stop and start when there is a victim. Government is a social contract designed to give power to the government for the betterment of the people. We agree to a social construct of legislation based upon the morality of the mass. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion.
Ok, we'll teach creationism--the Vedic kind. Has just as much evidence (none) behind it as the Abrahamic religions' version(s).
The concept that there is a Creator is shared by many groups, as you just pointed out. If you don't provide specifics, then you aren't going into religious territory.
Almost every single religion on the planet believes in a creator, Buddhism being the prime exception. Teaching the concept that there is a Creator, without giving specifics of a specific creator is religion-agnostic, and does establish a state religion.
The Earth has proven definitively not to be flat. It has not been proven definitively that the universe didn't have a creator. In fact, science has never once even come up with a single hypothesis for how nothing became something.
Your analogy fails.
I wish everyone else on the planet would understand "separation of church and state" which actually isn't mentioned in the Constitution, yet everyone quotes as part of the Constitution. The term comes from the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote about the evils of forcing a state religion on the people, often with violence as England had done repeatedly. That doesn't mean morality must be removed from legislation, as most laws actually relate to morals on some level.
The 1st amendment protects the expression of religion which inherently is tied into free speech. Teaching of creationism as a theory isn't forcing a specific state religion on the people. It is teaching the theory that some people (the majority of the people on the planet according to census results of who claims a religion that believes in a Creator) believe that there was a Creator.
As a Christian myself, I don't want Judeo-Christian specifics taught in school. I don't want people teaching the 10 Commandments, and I've actually seen that in Millard Public Schools who teach the "history" of Moses. But creationism is fine in my book.
Not all Christians are anti-science. I believe the world has a Creator, but that doesn't mean I don't believe evolution occurs. I firmly believe that evolution and creationism exist side-by-side, not just as teaching ALTERNATE theories, but rather cooperating theories. Evolution doesn't explain how everything came to be in the beginning. It explains how creatures continue to evolve.
The phylogenic tree gets overhauled all the time, and there isn't much consensus or proof that we really evolved from primordial soup, save for the fact that all life shares a good chunk of genetic code. It could just be all that life shares genetic code, because that is an aspect of life.
She hasn't pushed creationism. And many people just want creationism taught side-by-side with evolution. Just because there are a few anti-science Christians who are intimidated by dinosaur bones, that doesn't make the majority, let alone every other Christian an ignorant fool.
I keep getting told that ext3 doesn't lose data, and the problem must be on my end. My wife changes laptops every year. I replace my desktop every two years. We usually have 4 different computers in our house at any given moment.
Hardware keeps changing. I triple boot. And you know what? I never lost any data with Reiser4, I hardly ever lost anything with NTFS, and I very quickly lose data with ext3 and ext4 any time I tried either (within weeks).
That is just my personal experience. ext3 always pushes for fsck, and fsck keeps moving important files (once my entire /etc folder) to lost+found when I have a dirty shutdown. I have an old house (1890's) with bad wiring, and a 2 year old who loves power buttons. Dirty shutdowns happen more frequently in my house than in others.
He is looking for specific features to fit his needs. He wants it shrinkable, which ext3 somewhat meets. It can't easily be shrunk with gparted, though other tools can do it. He wants it to handle frequent power outages. ext3 has plenty of tools to recover data, but I've lost more data with ext3 than any other FS I've ever dealt with (save for possibly for DoubleSpace in DOS). ReisferFS also provides him faster performance. Ext3 is the default because so many other people use it. So few people want to stray away from it. That doesn't actually make ext3 the best FS on the planet. Far from it. Most other file systems I've seen have numerous advantages over ext3, and that is why they were created.
I agree. Reiser4 is likely to vanish due to lack of interest and support, which is sad because it remains one of the most promising file systems out there.
ReiserFS was already abandoned by Hans and Namesys well before the murder trial. It is in kernel, and maintained by the kernel team. I'm not sure that is going to change.
No, I bought a next-gen console/media-hub, and effectively got a BluRay player for free. If the thing was a BluRay player exclusively, then you could say I paid $400 for a BluRay player.
I take it you don't have a BluRay player. BluRay is adding some new, neat features, such as the ability to connect to the internet and add new content to a disc that wasn't there at launch.
I can buy a movie, and the studios can add trailers, features, deleted scenes, etc. after the fact and provide them as downloads.
BluRay gives me uncompressed audio which is really nice.
DVD had a really basic chapter/scene branching and basic DVD menus. BluRay allows for full-on java apps. People have even ported Java games to run off the PS3.
And even though it is a small feature, I rather like it. There is a top menu, and a pop-up menu. Instead of stopping the movie, I can bring a pop-up menu over the movie as it is playing and access features that way. Some people are using that for more interactive experiences while watching the movie.
Go into BestBuy and Sams and you will see new notebooks all with BluRay drives. 2 years from now, many people will have them in their homes.