What I love about science (and true scientists) is that you will also have 1000 scientists who will ~admit~ that they are wrong, should a better answer come along.
Science is the polar opposite of anything biased or faith-based (itself biased): science is drawing conclusions from fact, not selecting (and twisting) only the facts that best fit predetermined 'points of view'.
People who 'question science' (or try to 'equate' faith with it) make me want to pull my (someone's) hair/teeth/fingernails out one by one - and the airwaves are so full of biased bloviators these days.
...and obviously I still need practice. My friends' wives with kids say it only took their husbands minutes to make a baby - it still takes me ~hours~ .
Really, a "lawyer" (irony recieved 10-4, over) only studies law to find a (technically) legal way to get ~around~ the very law he is studying (or applying laws to cases normally irrelevant to them). You can look up "lawyer" under "lying without lying" - and the better they are at it, the more they'll cost you. Now, you want to question our (MS') right to deny you access to our platform? What's your budget?
"Peer reviewed" is a vague term - especially when those choosing the 'peers' who publish 'new findings' are the very same who are funding/cheering for the (special-interest) group doing the research.
I have more faith in the term "scientific consensus" (meaning 'the majority of ~all~ scientists) - and I say 'faith' because, unless we ourselves already have the scientific knowledge necessary to correctly analyze the scientific findings, there is a certain element of that in any decision we make about the validity of any scientific 'truth'. In short, for me, 'scientific consensus' == 'as close to truth as we (as humans) can come, to date'.
Never mind - they'll just end up cutting what they already want to, but will use the website votes as 'support' for their pre-selected motions (especially for the media). Even if the most-voted 'cut target' was 'creationism eductation for pre-schoolers', you can be sure that no such motion will ever make it to congress - or the public eye.
Hear hear! Many (mathimatician) theorists try to imagine a scenario/equasion that 'fits the model' of everything we've learned until now - if anything in our present understanding is erronous, that behaviour would be the equivilant of one hurling oneself at a brick wall of one's own making. I think we have to take a step back, take a look at the relational 'big picture' between all things great and small, and re-think our theories.
If it is of interest to anyone (this subject is of a great interest to me), I've tried my hand at it here.
Between an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming actually ~is~ happening (and the public's lack of (empirical) scientific knowledge) and the corporate-funded airwaves spouting a disproportionate number of (minority) global-warming deniers, it is only normal that most of us don't know where to stand on the issue. It is only normal that we do our best to reason (in all stances) with the information we have - those of us who are not too lazy to actually ~think~ about the issue, that is.
Hey, I have to agree. I stopped using actionscript with version 2.0 (a version backwards-compatible with AS 1.0).
My major misgiving with flash is not the language it uses, but its insistence on putting proprietary brackets around functions that most any computer should be able to handle - or in other words, it's beyond its time. Shouldn't modern browsers be capable of natively handling image/video/graphic manipulation scripts? They are - but only through javascript. And yes, Javascript is a b*tch to program to Flash-comparable results.
Hear Hear. Rather than fixing the flaws in their browser, MS has chosen to add even more code that blocks the code that exploits those flaws. Talk about wallpapering over the sledgehammer holes in their drywall - and blaming the paper-er for their flaws - not the hammer-er - in the process.
I haven't had a television since ten years now, but I still get harangued with commercials when I watch online news - especially MSNBC. And what is it with that (super *#R$&#*$&#* annoying) technique of putting the volume way high for the first second of the commercial? Does that exist only on the web? The people who invented that should be sho... should be tied up, slathered in overripe bananas and left next to an ant colony.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not impossible, but impossible without the 'idea-holder' holding his 'idea' hostage in exchange for loads of $$$$.
Yes.
...female?
"1000 scientists can be wrong"
What I love about science (and true scientists) is that you will also have 1000 scientists who will ~admit~ that they are wrong, should a better answer come along.
Science is the polar opposite of anything biased or faith-based (itself biased): science is drawing conclusions from fact, not selecting (and twisting) only the facts that best fit predetermined 'points of view'.
People who 'question science' (or try to 'equate' faith with it) make me want to pull my (someone's) hair/teeth/fingernails out one by one - and the airwaves are so full of biased bloviators these days.
...and obviously I still need practice. My friends' wives with kids say it only took their husbands minutes to make a baby - it still takes me ~hours~ .
Yes, how are we supposed to work the procreation thing if we can't access the manual first?
Really, a "lawyer" (irony recieved 10-4, over) only studies law to find a (technically) legal way to get ~around~ the very law he is studying (or applying laws to cases normally irrelevant to them). You can look up "lawyer" under "lying without lying" - and the better they are at it, the more they'll cost you. Now, you want to question our (MS') right to deny you access to our platform? What's your budget?
"Peer reviewed" is a vague term - especially when those choosing the 'peers' who publish 'new findings' are the very same who are funding/cheering for the (special-interest) group doing the research. I have more faith in the term "scientific consensus" (meaning 'the majority of ~all~ scientists) - and I say 'faith' because, unless we ourselves already have the scientific knowledge necessary to correctly analyze the scientific findings, there is a certain element of that in any decision we make about the validity of any scientific 'truth'. In short, for me, 'scientific consensus' == 'as close to truth as we (as humans) can come, to date'.
Never mind - they'll just end up cutting what they already want to, but will use the website votes as 'support' for their pre-selected motions (especially for the media). Even if the most-voted 'cut target' was 'creationism eductation for pre-schoolers', you can be sure that no such motion will ever make it to congress - or the public eye.
(Muffled voice emanating from behind a couch from behind which a body and hindquarters are clearly visible) "Hahaha! They'll ~never~ find me!"
Only after they RTFC.
Hear hear! Many (mathimatician) theorists try to imagine a scenario/equasion that 'fits the model' of everything we've learned until now - if anything in our present understanding is erronous, that behaviour would be the equivilant of one hurling oneself at a brick wall of one's own making. I think we have to take a step back, take a look at the relational 'big picture' between all things great and small, and re-think our theories.
If it is of interest to anyone (this subject is of a great interest to me), I've tried my hand at it here.
Half my fortune? Okay, just let me file this bankruptcy claim...
Between an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming actually ~is~ happening (and the public's lack of (empirical) scientific knowledge) and the corporate-funded airwaves spouting a disproportionate number of (minority) global-warming deniers, it is only normal that most of us don't know where to stand on the issue. It is only normal that we do our best to reason (in all stances) with the information we have - those of us who are not too lazy to actually ~think~ about the issue, that is.
Hey, I have to agree. I stopped using actionscript with version 2.0 (a version backwards-compatible with AS 1.0).
My major misgiving with flash is not the language it uses, but its insistence on putting proprietary brackets around functions that most any computer should be able to handle - or in other words, it's beyond its time. Shouldn't modern browsers be capable of natively handling image/video/graphic manipulation scripts? They are - but only through javascript. And yes, Javascript is a b*tch to program to Flash-comparable results.
What Flash problem? Are they going to finally give up trying to proprieritize that encapsulated javascript(ish)?
Hear Hear. Rather than fixing the flaws in their browser, MS has chosen to add even more code that blocks the code that exploits those flaws. Talk about wallpapering over the sledgehammer holes in their drywall - and blaming the paper-er for their flaws - not the hammer-er - in the process.
I haven't had a television since ten years now, but I still get harangued with commercials when I watch online news - especially MSNBC. And what is it with that (super *#R$&#*$&#* annoying) technique of putting the volume way high for the first second of the commercial? Does that exist only on the web? The people who invented that should be sho... should be tied up, slathered in overripe bananas and left next to an ant colony.
brb.
Hm - I'm getting tired of how the word 'Monopoly' is (ab)used sometimes:
Majority != Monopoly.
Best Product != Monopoly.
Most Used != Monopoly.
And to answer your question: Yahoo, Windows Live and Baidu are within the world's top ten most-visited websites.
That sounds painful.
I find your phrase 'google something on Bing' highly amusing - and very revealing of the actual market situation ; )
Steve Jobs: "Damn! I ~knew~ we should have called our company 'Gapple' !"
...yep.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/19/234216/Hard-Coded-Bias-In-Google-Search-Results
...an old story? I'm pretty sure Google is on the line though.