Well they can actually - it's just a bit tricky because you need to know the transfer function of the person's head and since everyone's head is different everyone has a unique function. The simmulation of the acustics of a room is certainly a lot easier to do since that part isn't unique to the listener. It is the requirement for knowing all these audio cues that makes the simulation of 3D sound with just two speakers tricky - but it certainly is not impossible to do.
Oh I wouldn't say never. Clearly we've solved it and unless you happen to think there's something about humans that's special we're not much more than bioelectrical machines - there's no physical reason why we can't build our own similar machines.
When people say that I can't help but wonder when times weren't dangerous.
Re:Thank god it's just audio visual
on
IT Crowd On-line
·
· Score: 1
All the Italians I know eat very well. Good food is simply a part of their culture that we seem to be lacking somewhat in the UK. We may try but we fail miserably.
He appeared in one episode with a different actor in the role. Unlike the novels he was not a staple of the crew until series 3 when Robert Llewelyn took on the ice-cube headed mechanoid role.
When was the last time a docter treated a patient for free?
It happens all the time in more civilized countries.
Seriously though doctors aren't all about those $$$, some probably actually got involved to preserve life.
The basic point though is that you are failing to appreciate is that people will do things for other reasons than money.
For one thing you fail to appreciate that OSS developers benefit from the use of their products as well.
Why work on Linux so Google can have cheap servers? Well, because I can run Linux too.
If I use a GPL text editor to write a program in C I am under no obligation to distribute the C source to the program as well as the binaries - no different to how it'd be if I used notepad.
If I edit a GPL text editor and release a binary I am obliged to provide the edits I have made on request. I can't do that to notepad so that's not even an issue.
So I can use the text editor just like any other and do whatever I like with what I produce with it. I can't edit the editor and do whatever I like with it though.
It's ironic to me though that this sort of complaint often comes from entities that would probably happly use a EULA to implement the former (i.e. restricting what you can do with the products of their progam).
I'm sure that many church leaders honestly believe that if kids are encouraged to doubt and question, they will lose their nascent faith, and perhaps discourage others. Likewise many educators assume that students who doubt and question current scientific beliefs will never become scientists, and undermine others who might.
That's probably because these people are right in both instances.
I mean common, you don't need anything else to occupy your time than the endless satisfaction of clearing line after line and trying to pass 300 lines when you're working in the top third of the screen and blocks are coming in at breakneck speeds...
I didn't say otherwise. The point I am making is just HOW MANY can you possibly be interested in?
Thousands? Tens of thousands? The scale is dizzying.
--signed, an old bastard of 24 years.
Well the question one has to ask is how many people do you really want to hear about?
I think I'm probably one of the old guard in that I don't assume anyone should give a crap about my life. The one's that did started blogs. And now they're popular everyone wants a slice of the pie.
I guess it's just a symptom of our society that our worth is dictated by how many people 'love' us.
I believe it means to make a fist at a person to whom you wish to 'flip the bird' then to rapidly extend the middle finger of the hand. This constitutes the flipping action. What birds have to do with it I do not know. Once held for a few moments the finger may be returned to the fist position and then the fist may be retracted.
May also be accompanied with a upward thrusting motion of the arm similar to an upper-cut in boxing. This is used to enforce the gesture to more strongly make your dislike of the person known.
It's a bit rich expecting people's baseless theories to actually make any damn sense now.
Putting a god in the equation raises far more questions then it could ever hope to answer. Especially when the gods that are put in place are those created by people who were blissfully ignorant of the modern concerns of their decendents.
Well if their great insight into sci-fi includes using Buffy and Xena as examples I don't doubt they've looked much futher than the 60's clothing of the original Star Trek to see just how socially progressive it was. It had the first interacial kiss on US TV for one thing. So basically this woman who said this didn't know what she was talking about.
And yes, with Babylon 5 we get Susan Ivanova, Delenn, Na'Toth, Lyta Alexander - a whole host of strong female characters.
Basically this article is deeply flawed because the Sci-Fi channel doesn't actually seem to show much Sci-Fi.
Buffy is not sci-fi! They kill people with sticks and spells, not phasers and technobabble!
Which is what? Have you never seen the great variation in belief of the various branches in Christianity? I mean, is he a Mormon? A JW? A Catholic? Protestant? Charismatic? Orthodox? Anyone of these can radicually change this 'Christian worldview' he ascribes to.
But please Mr Anon, you tell me what great insights you can get from a person who tells you he is Christian and nothing else?
Why do you think this is of relevance? Are you selective in your bigotry?
Um, no. My point is that when a Christian says 'I am a Christian and I have a Christian worldview' that doesn't qualify anything. He might as well say, 'I am a human and I have a human worldview'.
Look up the meaning of "engender". You probably mean to say "endear".
"mistrust of one science is hardly going to [bring into existence; give rise to] people to another one is it?"
That is to say we're not likely to produce scientists in other fields if the objective of the ID agenda is to foster mistrust in biology. Endearment is one thing: you can be endeared to science without being a scientist yourself.
Anyway, it is possible to judge each case on its own merit. Only bigots like you tar all with one brush.
Except I explicitly did otherwise by asking for the specification of his Christianity - making an assumption about what type of Christian he is would be tarring him with the same brush would it not?
Thanks for the ad hom anyway though.
It is bigots like you who claim that this is true of all Christians
Except I didn't - for someone who wanted to suggest I use another word above you seem to be failing at the comprehension part here.
Plenty of non-Christians distrust science.
Really? Well I never! You must think I'm really stupid if you don't think I've noticed the same crap going on in other religions - any religion which presents itself as having all the answers is sooner or later going to have to reconsile its 'answers' with science or plain ignore or vilify it.
For example, Saddam thought it was possible for his neighbouring countries to drill "sideways" into "his" oil!
And there are Buddists who think some people are going to be reborn as plants. People all over the world have non-scientific ideas? Well I never! But this topic isn't about those people is it?
Don't be stupid. Only an idiot like you would pretend that the original poster was referring to a point of grammar.
I think it's a valid point -OF LOGIC, not grammar. Is it necessarially obvious that the original statement was false? I'm sure you'd find people who'd argue that very point. Either way it was a strawman.
You need to confront your own bigotry.
Sure. Just as soon as you point out which statement was bigoted.
People who dismiss science are merely ignorant. Religion is no indicator of ignorance.
Thanks Captain Strawman! But I didn't say this did I?
I *WOULD* blame Evolutionists who seem to totally ignore any other options.
Well I haven't seen any IDers who are considering other creation options that don't happen to derrive from Babylon about.
The problem is, Evolutionists are quick to point the finger at Creationists as irrational, religiously fanatics souly base on the fact that it has religious roots.
No, it's based solely on the fact that shouting that 'goddidit!' as much and as loud as possible is never going to be science.
But the fact is, neither can be proved,
And now we get to the crux of the issue! You don't get science! It's about DISPROVING! People propose a hypothesis and then everyone tries to disprove it. We base our view of the world on the strength of hypothesises we cannot disprove.
ID on the other hand presents us with a false choice: well, if it wasn't evolution IT MUST have been designed (by Yahweh of course, but keep that bit quiet).
There's no experiment that can be done to disprove such a thing. The hypothesis is proposed and CANNOT be knocked down by any method. Such a hypothesis is useless to science.
IDers rely on this basic lack of understanding of the scientific method to make their propositions seem reasonable and evolutionary biologists unreasonable when they rightly discard this concept without any investigation: BECAUSE THERE IS NONE TO BE DONE!
Disagree? Then just start giving me the wealth of ID experimental data that shows there's been some actual inquiry into how ID works. What? There's none? Shocker.
thus *ANY* ideas about the start of everything are essentially "religious beliefs".
And now we have equivocation - and another classic example of someone who thinks evolution includes abiogenesis.
The sad thing is, "science" (or so its called) today is based more on "prove the anomalies wrong" rather than "adjust your hypothesis for the anomalies".
You say what now? I don't see what's sad or not about it.
Granted there are religious fanatics who hang on to Creationism on purely religious grounds, but we're in America, freedom of speech... rather amazing at how much/.ers wants to limit some people's speech.
Firstly, I'M not in America nor a member of the aforementioned nation. Secondly those who espouse creationism would dearly love to shut every commie pinko atheist up and ban anyone disparaging their god and any other 'false' god (because lets get real again, the people pushing this stuff aren't polytheists). Thirdly I fail to see how anyone can believe in creationism on a purely scientific basis when the belief that some deity related incident is responsible for existence is clearly not something that can be scientifically investigated.
Evolutionists feel they are so smart because they are empirical *ss-holes, Creationists think they have God's backing. Both groups are f*cked up and need fixing.
I don't know where you get this from: most people working in biological science just try to get on with it. If there's any backchat it's because THEY were attacked first.
We'll only reach a solution when sides want to talk, and neither side will, so both are guilty of being unscientific and religiously fanatic for avoiding the scientific method in exchange for gripping to a small belief that in reality has no bearing on living well or as a human being.
These people aren't peers! There's nothing to discuss! Biologists just want to be left alone to do science! They didn't go out looking for a fight! I'm sorry but this attempt to be 'fair and balanced' - to coin a phrase - just ignores the fact that it was the creationists who went spoiling for a fight, not the biologists.
I am a Christian, and hold a Christian world view.
Which actually says very little about anything. Which type of Christian are you?
Is this the case?
Certainly - mistrust of one science is hardly going to engender people to another one is it?
To blame christians for this percieved lack of interest is naive and misinformed.
Well no it isn't. The people who are pushing the ID agenda that is fostering a distrust of science label themselves as Christian. It's not my fault that you may choose to associate with people of disperate views because you choose to be part of that great moveable feast of Christendom.
It also harbours an agenda. It's like saying the problems with the western world are all related to TV. Is this a valid statement?
It's a valid statement. You want to be asking if it's a true statement or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm, that's not really scaling. It's not like they were running XP on an 8086 - it's an underclocked Pentium.
Mere stereo speakers cannot simulate that.
Well they can actually - it's just a bit tricky because you need to know the transfer function of the person's head and since everyone's head is different everyone has a unique function. The simmulation of the acustics of a room is certainly a lot easier to do since that part isn't unique to the listener. It is the requirement for knowing all these audio cues that makes the simulation of 3D sound with just two speakers tricky - but it certainly is not impossible to do.
Oh I wouldn't say never. Clearly we've solved it and unless you happen to think there's something about humans that's special we're not much more than bioelectrical machines - there's no physical reason why we can't build our own similar machines.
When people say that I can't help but wonder when times weren't dangerous.
All the Italians I know eat very well. Good food is simply a part of their culture that we seem to be lacking somewhat in the UK. We may try but we fail miserably.
He appeared in one episode with a different actor in the role. Unlike the novels he was not a staple of the crew until series 3 when Robert Llewelyn took on the ice-cube headed mechanoid role.
When was the last time a docter treated a patient for free? It happens all the time in more civilized countries. Seriously though doctors aren't all about those $$$, some probably actually got involved to preserve life. The basic point though is that you are failing to appreciate is that people will do things for other reasons than money. For one thing you fail to appreciate that OSS developers benefit from the use of their products as well. Why work on Linux so Google can have cheap servers? Well, because I can run Linux too.
It certainly is.
If I use a GPL text editor to write a program in C I am under no obligation to distribute the C source to the program as well as the binaries - no different to how it'd be if I used notepad.
If I edit a GPL text editor and release a binary I am obliged to provide the edits I have made on request. I can't do that to notepad so that's not even an issue.
So I can use the text editor just like any other and do whatever I like with what I produce with it. I can't edit the editor and do whatever I like with it though.
It's ironic to me though that this sort of complaint often comes from entities that would probably happly use a EULA to implement the former (i.e. restricting what you can do with the products of their progam).
GAIM or Kopete would be a good choice.
The oxymoron, I believe, is that the idea that any market is truly free is a nonsense.
Hardly inexplicable.
There are only three things that can occur with a medical condition:
1) It improves
2) It worsens
3)It stays the same
The placebo effect is simply the instance where 1 occurs and substance X is credited even though substance X had no effect on the condition.
I'm sure that many church leaders honestly believe that if kids are encouraged to doubt and question, they will lose their nascent faith, and perhaps discourage others. Likewise many educators assume that students who doubt and question current scientific beliefs will never become scientists, and undermine others who might.
That's probably because these people are right in both instances.
( a government news organzation and mouthpeice) The BBC a mouthpiece for the UK Government? HAHA. Very funny.
I mean common, you don't need anything else to occupy your time than the endless satisfaction of clearing line after line and trying to pass 300 lines when you're working in the top third of the screen and blocks are coming in at breakneck speeds...
I think the basic question is that if someone punches you in the nose and then gives you some money is that person still an asshole?
I didn't say otherwise. The point I am making is just HOW MANY can you possibly be interested in? Thousands? Tens of thousands? The scale is dizzying. --signed, an old bastard of 24 years.
Well the question one has to ask is how many people do you really want to hear about?
I think I'm probably one of the old guard in that I don't assume anyone should give a crap about my life. The one's that did started blogs. And now they're popular everyone wants a slice of the pie.
I guess it's just a symptom of our society that our worth is dictated by how many people 'love' us.
How else does Pop/American Idol get any air time?
I believe it means to make a fist at a person to whom you wish to 'flip the bird' then to rapidly extend the middle finger of the hand. This constitutes the flipping action. What birds have to do with it I do not know. Once held for a few moments the finger may be returned to the fist position and then the fist may be retracted.
May also be accompanied with a upward thrusting motion of the arm similar to an upper-cut in boxing. This is used to enforce the gesture to more strongly make your dislike of the person known.
It's a bit rich expecting people's baseless theories to actually make any damn sense now. Putting a god in the equation raises far more questions then it could ever hope to answer. Especially when the gods that are put in place are those created by people who were blissfully ignorant of the modern concerns of their decendents.
PLUS you've killed most - if not all - of their natural predators as well.
So not only do you get resistant mosquitos there's now no natural mechanism in place to stop them reproducing in even greater numbers!
And some people want to return to this insanity? I guess conspiracy theories are better than real science.
Well if their great insight into sci-fi includes using Buffy and Xena as examples I don't doubt they've looked much futher than the 60's clothing of the original Star Trek to see just how socially progressive it was. It had the first interacial kiss on US TV for one thing. So basically this woman who said this didn't know what she was talking about.
And yes, with Babylon 5 we get Susan Ivanova, Delenn, Na'Toth, Lyta Alexander - a whole host of strong female characters.
Basically this article is deeply flawed because the Sci-Fi channel doesn't actually seem to show much Sci-Fi.
Buffy is not sci-fi! They kill people with sticks and spells, not phasers and technobabble!
Stupid story: handle with skepticism.
No, it says a great deal
Which is what? Have you never seen the great variation in belief of the various branches in Christianity? I mean, is he a Mormon? A JW? A Catholic? Protestant? Charismatic? Orthodox? Anyone of these can radicually change this 'Christian worldview' he ascribes to.
But please Mr Anon, you tell me what great insights you can get from a person who tells you he is Christian and nothing else?
Why do you think this is of relevance? Are you selective in your bigotry?
Um, no. My point is that when a Christian says 'I am a Christian and I have a Christian worldview' that doesn't qualify anything. He might as well say, 'I am a human and I have a human worldview'.
Look up the meaning of "engender". You probably mean to say "endear".
"mistrust of one science is hardly going to [bring into existence; give rise to] people to another one is it?"
That is to say we're not likely to produce scientists in other fields if the objective of the ID agenda is to foster mistrust in biology. Endearment is one thing: you can be endeared to science without being a scientist yourself.
Anyway, it is possible to judge each case on its own merit. Only bigots like you tar all with one brush.
Except I explicitly did otherwise by asking for the specification of his Christianity - making an assumption about what type of Christian he is would be tarring him with the same brush would it not?
Thanks for the ad hom anyway though.
It is bigots like you who claim that this is true of all Christians
Except I didn't - for someone who wanted to suggest I use another word above you seem to be failing at the comprehension part here.
Plenty of non-Christians distrust science.
Really? Well I never! You must think I'm really stupid if you don't think I've noticed the same crap going on in other religions - any religion which presents itself as having all the answers is sooner or later going to have to reconsile its 'answers' with science or plain ignore or vilify it.
For example, Saddam thought it was possible for his neighbouring countries to drill "sideways" into "his" oil!
And there are Buddists who think some people are going to be reborn as plants. People all over the world have non-scientific ideas? Well I never! But this topic isn't about those people is it?
Don't be stupid. Only an idiot like you would pretend that the original poster was referring to a point of grammar.
I think it's a valid point -OF LOGIC, not grammar. Is it necessarially obvious that the original statement was false? I'm sure you'd find people who'd argue that very point. Either way it was a strawman.
You need to confront your own bigotry.
Sure. Just as soon as you point out which statement was bigoted.
People who dismiss science are merely ignorant. Religion is no indicator of ignorance.
Thanks Captain Strawman! But I didn't say this did I?
Oh dear.
/.ers wants to limit some people's speech.
I *WOULD* blame Evolutionists who seem to totally ignore any other options.
Well I haven't seen any IDers who are considering other creation options that don't happen to derrive from Babylon about.
The problem is, Evolutionists are quick to point the finger at Creationists as irrational, religiously fanatics souly base on the fact that it has religious roots.
No, it's based solely on the fact that shouting that 'goddidit!' as much and as loud as possible is never going to be science.
But the fact is, neither can be proved,
And now we get to the crux of the issue! You don't get science! It's about DISPROVING! People propose a hypothesis and then everyone tries to disprove it. We base our view of the world on the strength of hypothesises we cannot disprove.
ID on the other hand presents us with a false choice: well, if it wasn't evolution IT MUST have been designed (by Yahweh of course, but keep that bit quiet).
There's no experiment that can be done to disprove such a thing. The hypothesis is proposed and CANNOT be knocked down by any method. Such a hypothesis is useless to science.
IDers rely on this basic lack of understanding of the scientific method to make their propositions seem reasonable and evolutionary biologists unreasonable when they rightly discard this concept without any investigation: BECAUSE THERE IS NONE TO BE DONE!
Disagree? Then just start giving me the wealth of ID experimental data that shows there's been some actual inquiry into how ID works. What? There's none? Shocker.
thus *ANY* ideas about the start of everything are essentially "religious beliefs".
And now we have equivocation - and another classic example of someone who thinks evolution includes abiogenesis.
The sad thing is, "science" (or so its called) today is based more on "prove the anomalies wrong" rather than "adjust your hypothesis for the anomalies".
You say what now? I don't see what's sad or not about it.
Granted there are religious fanatics who hang on to Creationism on purely religious grounds, but we're in America, freedom of speech... rather amazing at how much
Firstly, I'M not in America nor a member of the aforementioned nation. Secondly those who espouse creationism would dearly love to shut every commie pinko atheist up and ban anyone disparaging their god and any other 'false' god (because lets get real again, the people pushing this stuff aren't polytheists). Thirdly I fail to see how anyone can believe in creationism on a purely scientific basis when the belief that some deity related incident is responsible for existence is clearly not something that can be scientifically investigated.
Evolutionists feel they are so smart because they are empirical *ss-holes, Creationists think they have God's backing. Both groups are f*cked up and need fixing.
I don't know where you get this from: most people working in biological science just try to get on with it. If there's any backchat it's because THEY were attacked first.
We'll only reach a solution when sides want to talk, and neither side will, so both are guilty of being unscientific and religiously fanatic for avoiding the scientific method in exchange for gripping to a small belief that in reality has no bearing on living well or as a human being.
These people aren't peers! There's nothing to discuss! Biologists just want to be left alone to do science! They didn't go out looking for a fight! I'm sorry but this attempt to be 'fair and balanced' - to coin a phrase - just ignores the fact that it was the creationists who went spoiling for a fight, not the biologists.
Creationists can be scientists. But their unscientific ideas remain unscientific.
I am a Christian, and hold a Christian world view.
Which actually says very little about anything. Which type of Christian are you?
Is this the case?
Certainly - mistrust of one science is hardly going to engender people to another one is it?
To blame christians for this percieved lack of interest is naive and misinformed.
Well no it isn't. The people who are pushing the ID agenda that is fostering a distrust of science label themselves as Christian. It's not my fault that you may choose to associate with people of disperate views because you choose to be part of that great moveable feast of Christendom.
It also harbours an agenda. It's like saying the problems with the western world are all related to TV. Is this a valid statement?
It's a valid statement. You want to be asking if it's a true statement or not.