I've used Opera for years and have never paid for it. It is just a matter of living with 5mm of space at the top of the browser window (which I have long since learned to ignore) which has a few google ads.
Although Opera has charged for their non-ad-ware version, it has never been a problem of getting Opera for free, as in beer.
"To Summarise: The EPIA-SP 13000 is an important update to the VIA EPIA range improving the 3D graphics performance of the system.... this is the best VIA EPIA system yet - highly capable as an office machine, or entertainment platform, even capable of the odd game or two. The compact size means it's suitable for a variety of systems, a compact cube case, or a custom solution. The extremely reliable system allows you to use the board as a permenantly switched on server / router / firewall / etc. The number of ports and expansion possibilities lets you customise the storage solution whether you want SATA RAID, or numerous IDE hard drives."
TiVo's UI is probably a lot better than Myth's. However, MythTV does "rewind a little after you stop fast forwarding", and it does have "schedule tables." So you'll need to be more specific about what you like about these features.
But the best thing that MythTV has is automatic commercial deletion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think TiVo has (or will ever have) this feature.
A good example of what you are talking about is Damasuc Steel.
"Damascus steel began to be produced from the wootz of india between c900 and 1600 in the Middle East, and then disappeared for reasons that are not entirely understood."
I'm sure part of the reason that the process for making Damascus Steel was forgotten was because the artisans who knew how to make it wanted to keep the process to themselves.
It kind of reminds you of the whole patent/IP/trade secret mentality we are facing these days.
Political correctness about women is something that people of both sexes subscribe to. And it is also something that people of both sexes reject.
So, oddly enough, you can be a woman, and be 'sexist' -- meaning that you do not subscribe to the current politically correct ideology with respect to 'women'.
You can also be a woman and be sexist in another way -- you think that men suck. But that's a different matter.
Did anyone see the recent NOVA program about Rosalin Franklin. She was doing DNA research at the same time as Watson and Crick, but in a different lab in England.
It turns out that Watson used her data without her permission and without attribution. And he went on to seriously misrepresent her in the book that he later wrote on the discovery of DNA. In fact, Harvard, the original publisher, ended up not publishing the book because of the complaints about the way she was portrayed by many of the other people who were there and mentioned in the book.
Watson basically created a fictional account about the way that DNA was discovered. And the public at large drank it up.
Watson got the Nobel prize. Rosalin Franklin is hardly remembered.
The scientific community is as full of intrigue and back-stabing as any other human community. Well, maybe except for Slashdot.
There is a reason why Greenland is called "Green"land.
Because it used to be, well, green.
600 years ago the temperature in Greenland was much warmer than it is now.
Interstingly enough, the chart here that is refered to in your link shows that the temperature in Greenland has been cooling for the last, say, 10 thousand years, plus or minus 5 degrees. So if it is warming now, perhaps it is just a recovery to the way it has been in the past.
And this was preceded by a 20 degree increase in temperature in the previous 10 thousand years.
If the earth goes through 20 degree temperature swings as a matter of course, then I can't imagine that there is much that mankind can do to prevent them.
What do you think would have happened if the CNet authors had published information about CNet's own CEO rather than Googles?
I think someone at CNet would be out of a job today.
Maybe arrogant was too strong a word. Perhaps "careless" would be better. But publishing personal information without permission is just not professional.
Yes, there is a bit of a twist here. But I think if this had been done (gratuitously) to any other (large) company in the US, we would have seen more fireworks than just a disinvitation.
I still disagree. Gathering information is one thing. Publishing it in the media is another.
My feeling is that CNet is accustomed to getting away with anything they want; they are the "media" after all, first ammendment and all that.
However, showing a lack of courtesy is another matter. As I said, if you are rude to someone, don't be surprised when you are dissed!
CNet is not accustomed to being on the receiving end of a dis. They are "media!" Everything they do is "hallowed!"
Not with Google, they aren't.
I am very happy with Google's behavior. The arrogance of the media is, from time to time, out of control. This is a perfect example. And I think a little humiliation is just what the doctor ordered.
Does anyone here rememeber what happened to PJ? A bunch of personal information was published about her(?) in a public forum.
The problem was not that a bunch of information about a person was gathered. There are many ways to do this. And Google is not the only one.
The problem was that it was published in a public forum.
The problem with CNET is the same problem. Not that the information was gathered. That it was PUBLISHED without the owner's permission. And that is just plain impolite (or worse).
So if you do something rude to someeone, don't be surprised if they dis you!
There's nothing "double" about Google's standards. But CNet still seems to be clueless about what they did. They need to grow a collective brain.
I have a fanless silent PC as well. I suppose that at 1 GHz, you would call it a low end rather than medium range system.
But my system has onboard hardware-assistend MPEG-decoding. It also has built-in TV out, both NTSC and S-Video. So it works perfectly as a standard-definition media PC -- and the CPU never breathes hard with this type of usage. In fact, mine runs exclusively as a Myth TV front end. And it works great!
Fanlesscases are available for about $180. (I use the former case and can atest to its utter silence. My system boots over the net and has no local drives. So when I mean utter silence, that's exactly what I mean.)
So, if I had my choice between spending £999 vs $400 for a Myth TV-type system, I would go with the latter. Again.
Natural
selection does not say that unused parts will not exist.
Its not just a matter of existing. They have to exist at the
same time, in the same place, in proper relation to each other.
Last time I looked, if I have a warehouse full of 747 parts, and a
tornado blasts through it, a 747 doesn't pop out fully formed and
perfectly functional.
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification,"
Consider the science called Astronomy. This community
surrounding this science entertains many fantastic hypotheses of how
the universe works, including multiple universes, N-dimensional
universes, electrons moving backward in time, dark matter, and many
other fantastic ideas. When new evidence about
the universe is discovered, this often stimulates many more fantastic
hypotheses. And this scientific community gives them all due
consideration. They are checked against the known facts to
see how well they stand up. And if they stand up well, then
adjustments are made to currently accepted theories to incorporate
those ideas. Many questions about the universe are still
considered unsolved and worthy of open-ended discussion.
Now consider this other science called evolution. I will not
get into the history of bias and politics in science here, but somehow
this scientific community behaves radically differently than the other
one. It has decided that all the important questions about
evolution have already been answered. There is exactly one
theory which is the acceptable description of how evolution occurred.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is a persona non grata. There
is no room for any open-ended discussion of the weaknesses of this
particular theory and certainly not of any possible alternative
hypotheses.
The difference in these communities is striking. My problem
is that the second community seems to have a really hard time remaining... scientific.
Intelligent
Design, at its most basic level, asks that with all the beauty, wonder,
and astounding perfection that make up the physical world around us,
and indeed the science itself which proves it to be more and more
elegant as time goes on, might there possibly be a force that surpasses
our understanding that has allowed for, or caused, its, and our,
creation? Is this provable? Nope. Is it a scientific theory? Nope. Will
it ever be? Nope.
Nice straw man there.
Evolutionist say, there is irreducible complexity everywhere, it must
have evolved.
ID proponents say, show me the evidence, explain the mechanism.
Evolutionists say, uh, it must be punctuated equilibrium
The reality is that there is no debate over evolution in the scientific community.
Consider the science called Astronomy. This community
surrounding this science entertains many fantastic hypotheses of how
the universe works, including multiple universes, N-dimensional
universes, electrons moving backward in time, dark matter, and many
other fantastic ideas. When new evidence about
the universe is discovered, this often stimulates many more fantastic
hypotheses. And this scientific community gives them all due
consideration. They are checked against the known facts to
see how well they stand up. And if they stand up well, then
adjustments are made to currently accepted theories to incorporate
those ideas. Many questions about the universe are still
considered unsolved and worthy of open-ended discussion.
Now consider this other science called evolution. I will not
get into the history of bias and politics in science here, but somehow
this scientific community behaves radically differently than the other
one. It has decided that all the important questions about
evolution have already been answered. There is exactly one
theory which is the acceptable description of how evolution occurred.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is a persona non grata. There
is no room for any open-ended discussion of the weaknesses of this
particular theory and certainly not of any possible alternative
hypotheses.
The difference in these communities is striking. My problem
is that the second community seems to have a really hard time remaining... scientific.
The
foundation of philosophy is logic, and true, provable argument
Since you say that the foundation of philosophy is logic, and true,
provable argument, you must be familiar with the concepts of deduction
and induction.
To refresh your memory, deduction is reasoning from the general to the
particular. You start with
general premises which you know to be true, and work toward
specific consequences which you can therefore also know to
be true. This is logically air tight reasoning.
Induction is the reverse process. It is starting from a
specific case to and moving to a general case. It is also
known as generalization. There is an expression about
induction: "Don't make sweeping generalizations."
The problem with induction is that it doesn't prove anything:
"I just flipped this coin three times and got heads. Therefore, the
next time I flip this coin, it will also be heads." That is
induction at work.
Most people will recognize that starting from a limited sample, you
cannot make a general statement about the rest of the sample.
Now, science is based completely on induction. It takes a
limited number of samples and makes sweeping generalizations about
them. The fact that it works at all is quite remarkable.
Science accomplishes many good and admirable things. But it
does not PROVE anything.
Please state what predictions ID makes so that we can design actual experiments to try to disprove it.
The notion of intelligent design is based on the observation that living systems exhibit irreducible complexity. This means that complex systems critically depend on variety of subsystems in order for the system as a whole to function. The problem is, these subsystems are generally useless in and of themselves and have no "selective" value. It is only when they are combined in a precise collection with the needed other subsystems will the system as a whole function properly.
To falsify ID, all you would have to do is show why there would be "selective force" for these subsystems to exist at all and come together. But this is a tough cookie to crack because these subsystems are useless on their own. Their only usefulness is when the all exist together and work in concert.
So go ahead and please design an experiment that would show how all the subcomponents of an eye, for example, would have evolved on their own. That would include how these individual components evolved by them selves: an iris by itself, a pupil by itself, a cornea by itself, a lens by itself, a retina by itself, an optic nerve by itself, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
He fixed the bug. He provided a patch. He was ignored.
Apparently, your expectation is not reasonable and contradicts experience.
Although Opera has charged for their non-ad-ware version, it has never been a problem of getting Opera for free, as in beer.
BTW, Opera has torrent support built in. So once you install it, you can go get the torrent!
Oh, wait...
VIA EPIA SP13000 Mini-ITX Motherboard.
"To Summarise: The EPIA-SP 13000 is an important update to the VIA EPIA range improving the 3D graphics performance of the system. ... this is the best VIA EPIA system yet - highly capable as an office machine, or entertainment platform, even capable of the odd game or two. The compact size means it's suitable for a variety of systems, a compact cube case, or a custom solution. The extremely reliable system allows you to use the board as a permenantly switched on server / router / firewall / etc. The number of ports and expansion possibilities lets you customise the storage solution whether you want SATA RAID, or numerous IDE hard drives."
And here's how someone built a MythTV on one.
But if you're going to setup a MythTV on one, I would use the minimyth custom MythTV front end.
TiVo's UI is probably a lot better than Myth's. However, MythTV does "rewind a little after you stop fast forwarding", and it does have "schedule tables." So you'll need to be more specific about what you like about these features. But the best thing that MythTV has is automatic commercial deletion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think TiVo has (or will ever have) this feature.
"Damascus steel began to be produced from the wootz of india between c900 and 1600 in the Middle East, and then disappeared for reasons that are not entirely understood."
I'm sure part of the reason that the process for making Damascus Steel was forgotten was because the artisans who knew how to make it wanted to keep the process to themselves.
It kind of reminds you of the whole patent/IP/trade secret mentality we are facing these days.
Political correctness about women is something that people of both sexes subscribe to. And it is also something that people of both sexes reject.
So, oddly enough, you can be a woman, and be 'sexist' -- meaning that you do not subscribe to the current politically correct ideology with respect to 'women'.
You can also be a woman and be sexist in another way -- you think that men suck. But that's a different matter.
Massachusettes wants the OASIS format to be the default, so that you don't have to "Save As" to get the open format.
Did anyone see the recent NOVA program about Rosalin Franklin. She was doing DNA research at the same time as Watson and Crick, but in a different lab in England.
It turns out that Watson used her data without her permission and without attribution. And he went on to seriously misrepresent her in the book that he later wrote on the discovery of DNA. In fact, Harvard, the original publisher, ended up not publishing the book because of the complaints about the way she was portrayed by many of the other people who were there and mentioned in the book.
Watson basically created a fictional account about the way that DNA was discovered. And the public at large drank it up.
Watson got the Nobel prize. Rosalin Franklin is hardly remembered.
The scientific community is as full of intrigue and back-stabing as any other human community. Well, maybe except for Slashdot.
Does that mean I should get off my low-carb diet and get back on my low-fat diet???
Because it used to be, well, green.
600 years ago the temperature in Greenland was much warmer than it is now.
Interstingly enough, the chart here that is refered to in your link shows that the temperature in Greenland has been cooling for the last, say, 10 thousand years, plus or minus 5 degrees. So if it is warming now, perhaps it is just a recovery to the way it has been in the past.
And this was preceded by a 20 degree increase in temperature in the previous 10 thousand years.
If the earth goes through 20 degree temperature swings as a matter of course, then I can't imagine that there is much that mankind can do to prevent them.
GALLANT claims "the jury is still out" on evolution or global warming, since he considers himself to be on the jury.
Here's a surprise for you: there are GALLANT's and GOOFUS's on both sides of the fence.
What do you think would have happened if the CNet authors had published information about CNet's own CEO rather than Googles?
I think someone at CNet would be out of a job today.
Maybe arrogant was too strong a word. Perhaps "careless" would be better. But publishing personal information without permission is just not professional.
Yes, there is a bit of a twist here. But I think if this had been done (gratuitously) to any other (large) company in the US, we would have seen more fireworks than just a disinvitation.
My feeling is that CNet is accustomed to getting away with anything they want; they are the "media" after all, first ammendment and all that.
However, showing a lack of courtesy is another matter. As I said, if you are rude to someone, don't be surprised when you are dissed!
CNet is not accustomed to being on the receiving end of a dis. They are "media!" Everything they do is "hallowed!"
Not with Google, they aren't.
I am very happy with Google's behavior. The arrogance of the media is, from time to time, out of control. This is a perfect example. And I think a little humiliation is just what the doctor ordered.
The problem was not that a bunch of information about a person was gathered. There are many ways to do this. And Google is not the only one.
The problem was that it was published in a public forum.
The problem with CNET is the same problem. Not that the information was gathered. That it was PUBLISHED without the owner's permission. And that is just plain impolite (or worse).
So if you do something rude to someeone, don't be surprised if they dis you!
There's nothing "double" about Google's standards. But CNet still seems to be clueless about what they did. They need to grow a collective brain.
This runs on linux: http://www.google.com/linux
But my system has onboard hardware-assistend MPEG-decoding. It also has built-in TV out, both NTSC and S-Video. So it works perfectly as a standard-definition media PC -- and the CPU never breathes hard with this type of usage. In fact, mine runs exclusively as a Myth TV front end. And it works great!
The motherboard is availble for about $150.
Fanless cases are available for about $180. (I use the former case and can atest to its utter silence. My system boots over the net and has no local drives. So when I mean utter silence, that's exactly what I mean.)
So, if I had my choice between spending £999 vs $400 for a Myth TV-type system, I would go with the latter. Again.
Into the Woods: Economics and declining birthrates are pushing large swaths of Europe back to their primeval state, with wolves taking the place of people.
I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but I think the "population bomb" never went off.
Natural selection does not say that unused parts will not exist.
Its not just a matter of existing. They have to exist at the same time, in the same place, in proper relation to each other.
Last time I looked, if I have a warehouse full of 747 parts, and a tornado blasts through it, a 747 doesn't pop out fully formed and perfectly functional.
Consider the science called Astronomy. This community surrounding this science entertains many fantastic hypotheses of how the universe works, including multiple universes, N-dimensional universes, electrons moving backward in time, dark matter, and many other fantastic ideas. When new evidence about the universe is discovered, this often stimulates many more fantastic hypotheses. And this scientific community gives them all due consideration. They are checked against the known facts to see how well they stand up. And if they stand up well, then adjustments are made to currently accepted theories to incorporate those ideas. Many questions about the universe are still considered unsolved and worthy of open-ended discussion.
... scientific.
Now consider this other science called evolution. I will not get into the history of bias and politics in science here, but somehow this scientific community behaves radically differently than the other one. It has decided that all the important questions about evolution have already been answered. There is exactly one theory which is the acceptable description of how evolution occurred. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a persona non grata. There is no room for any open-ended discussion of the weaknesses of this particular theory and certainly not of any possible alternative hypotheses.
The difference in these communities is striking. My problem is that the second community seems to have a really hard time remaining
Well, the universe is NOT infinite. It is 13.7 billion years old. So much for that theory.
Intelligent Design, at its most basic level, asks that with all the beauty, wonder, and astounding perfection that make up the physical world around us, and indeed the science itself which proves it to be more and more elegant as time goes on, might there possibly be a force that surpasses our understanding that has allowed for, or caused, its, and our, creation? Is this provable? Nope. Is it a scientific theory? Nope. Will it ever be? Nope.
Nice straw man there.
Evolutionist say, there is irreducible complexity everywhere, it must have evolved.
ID proponents say, show me the evidence, explain the mechanism.
Evolutionists say, uh, it must be punctuated equilibrium
ID proponents say, what is the mechnism?
Evolutionists say, uh, we'll get back to you
Consider the science called Astronomy. This community surrounding this science entertains many fantastic hypotheses of how the universe works, including multiple universes, N-dimensional universes, electrons moving backward in time, dark matter, and many other fantastic ideas. When new evidence about the universe is discovered, this often stimulates many more fantastic hypotheses. And this scientific community gives them all due consideration. They are checked against the known facts to see how well they stand up. And if they stand up well, then adjustments are made to currently accepted theories to incorporate those ideas. Many questions about the universe are still considered unsolved and worthy of open-ended discussion.
... scientific.
Now consider this other science called evolution. I will not get into the history of bias and politics in science here, but somehow this scientific community behaves radically differently than the other one. It has decided that all the important questions about evolution have already been answered. There is exactly one theory which is the acceptable description of how evolution occurred. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a persona non grata. There is no room for any open-ended discussion of the weaknesses of this particular theory and certainly not of any possible alternative hypotheses.
The difference in these communities is striking. My problem is that the second community seems to have a really hard time remaining
The foundation of philosophy is logic, and true, provable argument
Since you say that the foundation of philosophy is logic, and true, provable argument, you must be familiar with the concepts of deduction and induction.
To refresh your memory, deduction is reasoning from the general to the particular. You start with general premises which you know to be true, and work toward specific consequences which you can therefore also know to be true. This is logically air tight reasoning.
Induction is the reverse process. It is starting from a specific case to and moving to a general case. It is also known as generalization. There is an expression about induction: "Don't make sweeping generalizations."
The problem with induction is that it doesn't prove anything: "I just flipped this coin three times and got heads. Therefore, the next time I flip this coin, it will also be heads." That is induction at work.
Most people will recognize that starting from a limited sample, you cannot make a general statement about the rest of the sample.
Now, science is based completely on induction. It takes a limited number of samples and makes sweeping generalizations about them. The fact that it works at all is quite remarkable.
Science accomplishes many good and admirable things. But it does not PROVE anything.
The notion of intelligent design is based on the observation that living systems exhibit irreducible complexity. This means that complex systems critically depend on variety of subsystems in order for the system as a whole to function. The problem is, these subsystems are generally useless in and of themselves and have no "selective" value. It is only when they are combined in a precise collection with the needed other subsystems will the system as a whole function properly.
To falsify ID, all you would have to do is show why there would be "selective force" for these subsystems to exist at all and come together. But this is a tough cookie to crack because these subsystems are useless on their own. Their only usefulness is when the all exist together and work in concert.
So go ahead and please design an experiment that would show how all the subcomponents of an eye, for example, would have evolved on their own. That would include how these individual components evolved by them selves: an iris by itself, a pupil by itself, a cornea by itself, a lens by itself, a retina by itself, an optic nerve by itself, etc.