And repeatable healings are not possible. You can only be healed once, my friend. Multiple healings, that's a different matter. Look around, the reports are manifold. You will have to subject these to the same tests you do for any number of random scientific announcements. I understand if you do not accept them.
"Repeatable" doesn't mean healing the same person multiple times. It means that if you have a group of people with the same health problem, you should be able to heal them in the same way (or at least a statistically significant number of them as compared to the control group).
And the reason scientists don't take magical healing seriously is that it only happens in very specific (and suspicious) circumstances:
- No one who doesn't believe in magic present
- No recordings
- No examinations before and after to confirm that something actually happened
"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.
Now apply that to global warming "science."
"If CO2 levels cause global warming, we should be able to find evidence that CO2 levels and global temperature are correlated."
This probably isn't the exact kind of hypothesis being tested, but it's an example of one. You can record CO2 levels and temperature. You can also find evidence of CO2 levels in the past (for example from bubbles in old ice), and temperatures in the past (honestly I don't know how this do this, but it's bound to have an effect on things like vegetation and water levels, which would have geological effects).You can then do some sort of regression on that data to see if there is a correlation.
Tada - science!
Of course, that part has been done for years. The hard part now is proving that CO2 levels cause the temperature to raise, not the opposite, or some other unknown variable. But once again, there are plenty of things to test: Based on what we know about (other previous tests, which we could reproduce if we wanted to), can CO2 cause the temperature to raise (yes, the greenhouse effect); can the temperature to cause CO2 levels to raise (maybe? I'm not sure]). We could also try to find another variable that predicts both CO2 and temperature, which would show that something else is causing global warming. All of these things are testable.
So yes, it is science. What conclusion to take and whether there is enough evidence to support it might be up to debate, but whether it is science or not is only debatable if you don't know what science is.
As must Darwinian evolution. While we can test and prove micro-evolution (adaptation and such), the same cannot be said for macro (one species to another). It is interesting how measuring rods are both dually convenient and inconvenient at the same time depending upon our preferences for what's being measure.
Macro vs micro evolution is a distinction made for convenience, not to represent any special difference between the two. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing on different time scales, and if one works, the other has to. That's the great thing about science -- using small things that we can observe to understand big things that we can't.
Your argument makes as much sense as saying that since we will probably never be able to watch a planet form up-close, we'll never understand how planet formation works. Who cares if we understand the basics (gravity, thermodynamics, radioactive decay, conservation of momentum), we haven't actually seen it so despite what we know, it must be magic.
I think the argument is that the "year of x on the desktop" isn't important, since the "year of the desktop" is over. Who care if Windows wins in a market that doesn't matter anymore? Linux wins everywhere else.
Of course.. I think the "desktops are so last year" thing is just a fad, but we'll see.
Also, the cost of drives because only the cpu and ram need to be upgraded.
How long can a user keep using one drive? I don't see a 10-year-old 40 GB drive going very far with today's workloads, which include high-definition video.
I recently replaced my Phenom something something system with a Core something something system, and the hard drive was definitely one of the things I kept. Massive hard drive have been cheap for a really long time, and unless I replace my current one with an SSD, I plan to keep using it for a long time.
And as a direct response to your 40 GB drive comment -- I'm using a 55 GB drive on my laptop and it has almost 30 GB free (and that's with all of my music and homework). Of course I have a drive that small for a reason (cheap SSD), but the lack of space isn't even close to an issue.
Go to your Firefox preferences. Switch to the privacy tab. Firefox Will => Set to "Use custom settings for history" Uncheck "accept third-party cookies"
Congratulations, almost all tracking is now disabled (since most sites don't track you themselves, they set a third party cookie to track you).
My collection of C++ books from Addison Wesley (who has apparently cornered the market for C++ books above intro level) has just become obsolete.
Yeah, if only they had spent an entire decade making sure that it was fully backwards compatible. It sucks how C++ just completely throws out compatibility, like that time when they threw out compatibility with existing C code to make the language easier to maintain.
No, they'll use 12 different GUIs that depend on a hundred different libs and apps on different platforms. You'll go to the "gnufreecall" website and get a list of links to FTP sites that contain different and incompatible versions of various backend tools and GUIs, with "installation instructions" that start with, "To install from github..."
Oh no! Not multiple programs using the same library! Then we'll get terrible confusion like how end-users want to download Webkit, but it's a huge pain because they have to find their own Javascript library and network stack and everything, and then do a bunch of programming, then compile it themselves. It would be really helpful if normal users didn't know what libraries are, and always looked for an actual program instead of library -- like Safari, Chrome or Konquerer, but average people are way too interested in low-level details of their computer for that to ever work..
Why isn't there a "Caption" tag? (I mean for images, not for tables).
So if you had something like this:
<img caption="yadda yadda yadda" src='"blah blah blah">
Then the caption would be underneath the photo, with the photo and the caption treated as one block (i.e., with the body text wrapped around it the same way it is wrapped around the photo.)
My guess is that it's not there because it would make the standard more complicated, and it doesn't add anything you can't do now (<div><img src='"blah blah blah">yadda yadda yadda</div>). Besides that, making it an attribute wouldn't make very much sense, because you'd probably want to be able to apply HTML to the caption. Making it the content of the img tag might make sense though (<img...>yadda <i>yadda</i> yadda</img>), but that would make the distinction between the caption and the alt text confusing.
Shh! Don't tell anyone. Then we'll have to stop treating them like slaves and idiots (until they suddenly and magically become people at the age of 18 of course).
While that might seem like a violation of the GPL, it isn't because they do make the entire thing publicly available (no RHN subscription required) in the new (no separate patches) kernel package release.
Isn't it even simpler than that: The GPL only requires you to make source code available to people you give the binaries to. Since their customers can get it via the RHN, releasing the complete patch for everyone to use isn't strictly necessary.
Specifically:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
Note that it only refers to "the recipients" (of the program), not "everyone".
Sound. I switched to FreeBSD 4.x almost a decade ago, when Linux had two sound stacks. OSS didn't support sound mixing, ALSA did, but needed apps rewriting for it. So you needed a userspace sound daemon if you wanted more than one app to play audio at once. Some of my apps used the GNOME one, some the KDE one, and some just opened/dev/dsp. With FreeBSD 4, you could set up multiple/dev/dsp.x devices, and set each sound daemon or app to write to a different one. With FreeBSD 5 (2003), each device that opened/dev/dsp got a new audio channel. Multiple apps all playing audio just worked.
You realize OSS works on Linux too, right? Everyone who complains about the sound systems in Linux doesn't seem to get it: They all work, they're all compatible (code written to use OSS or ALSA will work right with OSS, ALSA, and PulseAudio), and if one doesn't work, you can use another.
I use OSS on my desktop and ALSA + PulseAudio on my laptop (because OSS wasn't working right). Sound on both computers works identically. What do you do with a machine where OSS doesn't work?
Oh, and per-channel (i.e. per app) volume control.
The one where you need to be already logged in? If someone malicious has an account on your server, it's only a matter of time before they do something bad, no matter what OS you're using.
If by "platform specific binaries" you mean the 32-bit packages are optimized/compiled for i686, that is certainly true - but really, who runs anything older than a Pentium Pro these days? And now I'll probably get a reply from someone still on a 486; but my point is, the vast majority of PCs still in use are at least i686-compatible, as such it doesn't make sense to have 386-optimized packages.
Not to mention that if you really wanted to, you can use the AUR to get a different kernel if you want. Example: Fedora's kernel. I'm actually surprised there's not a kernel26-386 package, but I guess even Arch users aren't that crazy;)
You know who also rebuilds engines? Engine shops for Professional race car drivers. At least at the top end. I'm sure there are start and park teams that don't bother so much, but if you want to be on top of things, you're willing to take apart your engines, check everything out and then put them back together. I think some of the leagues even have rules limiting how often that can be done in order to level the costs. Heaven knows they put enough other restrictions on building the engines.
Sure, those engines run for a lot longer, but you could make an intensity argument too.
You know who doesn't rebuild their engines every time they use them? Anyone who doesn't want to spend a bunch of money. Professional race car drivers aren't exactly a group of people known for using affordable vehicles, so I'm not sure why you used them as an example..
Slashdot Mirror
And repeatable healings are not possible. You can only be healed once, my friend. Multiple healings, that's a different matter. Look around, the reports are manifold. You will have to subject these to the same tests you do for any number of random scientific announcements. I understand if you do not accept them.
"Repeatable" doesn't mean healing the same person multiple times. It means that if you have a group of people with the same health problem, you should be able to heal them in the same way (or at least a statistically significant number of them as compared to the control group).
And the reason scientists don't take magical healing seriously is that it only happens in very specific (and suspicious) circumstances:
- No one who doesn't believe in magic present
- No recordings
- No examinations before and after to confirm that something actually happened
Now apply that to global warming "science."
"If CO2 levels cause global warming, we should be able to find evidence that CO2 levels and global temperature are correlated."
This probably isn't the exact kind of hypothesis being tested, but it's an example of one. You can record CO2 levels and temperature. You can also find evidence of CO2 levels in the past (for example from bubbles in old ice), and temperatures in the past (honestly I don't know how this do this, but it's bound to have an effect on things like vegetation and water levels, which would have geological effects).You can then do some sort of regression on that data to see if there is a correlation.
Tada - science!
Of course, that part has been done for years. The hard part now is proving that CO2 levels cause the temperature to raise, not the opposite, or some other unknown variable. But once again, there are plenty of things to test: Based on what we know about (other previous tests, which we could reproduce if we wanted to), can CO2 cause the temperature to raise (yes, the greenhouse effect); can the temperature to cause CO2 levels to raise (maybe? I'm not sure]). We could also try to find another variable that predicts both CO2 and temperature, which would show that something else is causing global warming. All of these things are testable.
So yes, it is science. What conclusion to take and whether there is enough evidence to support it might be up to debate, but whether it is science or not is only debatable if you don't know what science is.
As must Darwinian evolution. While we can test and prove micro-evolution (adaptation and such), the same cannot be said for macro (one species to another). It is interesting how measuring rods are both dually convenient and inconvenient at the same time depending upon our preferences for what's being measure.
Macro vs micro evolution is a distinction made for convenience, not to represent any special difference between the two. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing on different time scales, and if one works, the other has to. That's the great thing about science -- using small things that we can observe to understand big things that we can't.
Your argument makes as much sense as saying that since we will probably never be able to watch a planet form up-close, we'll never understand how planet formation works. Who cares if we understand the basics (gravity, thermodynamics, radioactive decay, conservation of momentum), we haven't actually seen it so despite what we know, it must be magic.
I think the argument is that the "year of x on the desktop" isn't important, since the "year of the desktop" is over. Who care if Windows wins in a market that doesn't matter anymore? Linux wins everywhere else.
Of course.. I think the "desktops are so last year" thing is just a fad, but we'll see.
Also, the cost of drives because only the cpu and ram need to be upgraded.
How long can a user keep using one drive? I don't see a 10-year-old 40 GB drive going very far with today's workloads, which include high-definition video.
I recently replaced my Phenom something something system with a Core something something system, and the hard drive was definitely one of the things I kept. Massive hard drive have been cheap for a really long time, and unless I replace my current one with an SSD, I plan to keep using it for a long time.
And as a direct response to your 40 GB drive comment -- I'm using a 55 GB drive on my laptop and it has almost 30 GB free (and that's with all of my music and homework). Of course I have a drive that small for a reason (cheap SSD), but the lack of space isn't even close to an issue.
Go to your Firefox preferences.
Switch to the privacy tab.
Firefox Will => Set to "Use custom settings for history"
Uncheck "accept third-party cookies"
Congratulations, almost all tracking is now disabled (since most sites don't track you themselves, they set a third party cookie to track you).
His skin color is much too "patriotic" for that to ever happen..
My collection of C++ books from Addison Wesley (who has apparently cornered the market for C++ books above intro level) has just become obsolete.
Yeah, if only they had spent an entire decade making sure that it was fully backwards compatible. It sucks how C++ just completely throws out compatibility, like that time when they threw out compatibility with existing C code to make the language easier to maintain.
There are still programs you have to reboot to install? Windows is hilarious.
Wouldn't it have to be a really big tower to get the pressure high enough?
No, they'll use 12 different GUIs that depend on a hundred different libs and apps on different platforms. You'll go to the "gnufreecall" website and get a list of links to FTP sites that contain different and incompatible versions of various backend tools and GUIs, with "installation instructions" that start with, "To install from github..."
Oh no! Not multiple programs using the same library! Then we'll get terrible confusion like how end-users want to download Webkit, but it's a huge pain because they have to find their own Javascript library and network stack and everything, and then do a bunch of programming, then compile it themselves. It would be really helpful if normal users didn't know what libraries are, and always looked for an actual program instead of library -- like Safari, Chrome or Konquerer, but average people are way too interested in low-level details of their computer for that to ever work..
All of that and you don't mention GNOME (or perhaps more importantly -- GTK)? :p
You should try Readability. They have an addon now for some reason, but the old bookmark version is still there: https://www.readability.com/bookmarklets
It makes any page readable (if it can figure out what the content is).
Why isn't there a "Caption" tag? (I mean for images, not for tables).
So if you had something like this:
<img caption="yadda yadda yadda" src='"blah blah blah">
Then the caption would be underneath the photo, with the photo and the caption treated as one block (i.e., with the body text wrapped around it the same way it is wrapped around the photo.)
My guess is that it's not there because it would make the standard more complicated, and it doesn't add anything you can't do now (<div><img src='"blah blah blah">yadda yadda yadda</div>). Besides that, making it an attribute wouldn't make very much sense, because you'd probably want to be able to apply HTML to the caption. Making it the content of the img tag might make sense though (<img ...>yadda <i>yadda</i> yadda</img>), but that would make the distinction between the caption and the alt text confusing.
kids are however humans still.
Shh! Don't tell anyone. Then we'll have to stop treating them like slaves and idiots (until they suddenly and magically become people at the age of 18 of course).
While that might seem like a violation of the GPL, it isn't because they do make the entire thing publicly available (no RHN subscription required) in the new (no separate patches) kernel package release.
Isn't it even simpler than that: The GPL only requires you to make source code available to people you give the binaries to. Since their customers can get it via the RHN, releasing the complete patch for everyone to use isn't strictly necessary.
Specifically:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.
Note that it only refers to "the recipients" (of the program), not "everyone".
Sound. I switched to FreeBSD 4.x almost a decade ago, when Linux had two sound stacks. OSS didn't support sound mixing, ALSA did, but needed apps rewriting for it. So you needed a userspace sound daemon if you wanted more than one app to play audio at once. Some of my apps used the GNOME one, some the KDE one, and some just opened /dev/dsp. With FreeBSD 4, you could set up multiple /dev/dsp.x devices, and set each sound daemon or app to write to a different one. With FreeBSD 5 (2003), each device that opened /dev/dsp got a new audio channel. Multiple apps all playing audio just worked.
You realize OSS works on Linux too, right? Everyone who complains about the sound systems in Linux doesn't seem to get it: They all work, they're all compatible (code written to use OSS or ALSA will work right with OSS, ALSA, and PulseAudio), and if one doesn't work, you can use another.
I use OSS on my desktop and ALSA + PulseAudio on my laptop (because OSS wasn't working right). Sound on both computers works identically. What do you do with a machine where OSS doesn't work?
Oh, and per-channel (i.e. per app) volume control.
Yeah, PulseAudio does that too.
Let's not forget that big one from last year:
The one where you need to be already logged in? If someone malicious has an account on your server, it's only a matter of time before they do something bad, no matter what OS you're using.
If by "platform specific binaries" you mean the 32-bit packages are optimized/compiled for i686, that is certainly true - but really, who runs anything older than a Pentium Pro these days? And now I'll probably get a reply from someone still on a 486; but my point is, the vast majority of PCs still in use are at least i686-compatible, as such it doesn't make sense to have 386-optimized packages.
Not to mention that if you really wanted to, you can use the AUR to get a different kernel if you want. Example: Fedora's kernel. I'm actually surprised there's not a kernel26-386 package, but I guess even Arch users aren't that crazy ;)
Yeah I really wish there was a way to run native code on a web server.
Doesn't OSX have a DPI setting? My roommate has been using that setting in Linux for years to make his TV-computer usable.
SpaceX is almost ready to fly people and to dock with the ISS, which is much farther than any other private organization has done.
And they're going to do it a lot cheaper too. Cheaper launches means more launches, and that means more fun stuff in space.
You know who also rebuilds engines? Engine shops for Professional race car drivers. At least at the top end. I'm sure there are start and park teams that don't bother so much, but if you want to be on top of things, you're willing to take apart your engines, check everything out and then put them back together. I think some of the leagues even have rules limiting how often that can be done in order to level the costs. Heaven knows they put enough other restrictions on building the engines.
Sure, those engines run for a lot longer, but you could make an intensity argument too.
You know who doesn't rebuild their engines every time they use them? Anyone who doesn't want to spend a bunch of money. Professional race car drivers aren't exactly a group of people known for using affordable vehicles, so I'm not sure why you used them as an example..
I always just go to Autozone. They have the fancy computers and will tell you why the light is on for free.
They get enough of those mind games from their girlfriends.
Sorry, as a Slashdotter, I have no experience with that. Could you repeat your post in the form of a car analogy?