Well, 5k2 years is within the Biblical timeline (which places creation around 6k-10k years ago), so it's not entirely, and possibly not even at all, at odds.
It is also inaccurate because it assumes that anyone who downloads does not then go on to purchase (a variation on your first point).
I can point to numerous books, DVDs and CDs in my collection that I own because I have already downloaded them and decided I like them enough to buy them as well. K-PAX is one example; after downloading it and watching it, I now have the DVD and all three K-PAX books.
I don't do speculative purchases any more. I have no end of CRAP on my shelves that results from this. Now I download stuff before I buy it. If I can't download it, I won't buy it.
Which leads to an interesting point: do the studios et al object to file sharing because their business models rely on people buying stuff they don't actually like and wouldn't have bought if they'd known how poor it was? (note: not necessarily poor quality. I'm sure Britney's stuff is extremely high quality in some respects (the packaging, for example); I just don't like that sort of music.)
And what's wrong with the "not done in Latin" argument, pray tell? If all you've got is the "English is a living dynamic language and Latin is dead" response, please don't bother.
It may not be just for approval. Ever been the one person in a silent audience that bursts out laughing? Embarrassing, isn't it? So after that you tend to look around to make sure others are laughing, then let rip.
I can't see why anyone'd want to do any of the things in the article, except perhaps multiple orgasm, which sounds like it might be fun. Clone a cat?? Run naked to the south pole??? Feed dung beetles??? What the fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuckity-doodah?????
Let's compose a list of 100 things for scientists to do instead of fannying around with this sort of nonsense. I'll start...
1: design a zip that doesn't snag on the surrounding material.
For the first time ever I've actually preordered something. Don't normally believe in that sort of crap, but I have so enjoyed the first two films. Even with the differences from the book, IMO Jacko's done a stunning job and I can't wait to see the extended rotk.
I'm also planning on hosting a back-to-back extended ringathon (no goatse jokes please) via projector for my friends.
So our doctors and nurses are now going to spend minimal time on an OS that just does stuff and maximal time on actually fixing people, rather than letting people waste away while they spend hours trying to figure out why the hell copy and paste doesn't work.
Oops, should have pressed "Preview." Was also going to add a response to:
"The actual difference is that creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic and work from there, whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't."
Well, as a literal six day creationist, let me just mention that I also take a scientific approach to my beliefs, which I do not take as axiomatic. I start with observation. OK so far? The observations I make are not only of fossils, dinosaurs, hobbits and so on, but also of my day to day walk with God and the effect he has on my life. I also start with one major assumption that differs from most evolutionists' position: they assume that the universe is a closed system and that there is no involvement from the supernatural - be that God, or whatever, but I assume the opposite, that God can, and does, affect the universe from outside. One thing I definitely do not do is reduce God to the God of the gaps. "Hey, we don't understand that bit, so that proves God exists" is NOT my position. If God is the God of the gaps, then as knowledge increases, God must decrease. However, by (my) definition, God is infinite, therefore (proof by contradiction) God cannot be the God of the gaps.
Yes, that's what scientists like people to think. However, have you ever seen a scientist's response to the idea of teaching creationism in schools - not as fact, but simply alongside evolution as a possible answer to the question of how we got here? It's a positively unscientific response. It's like - we believe people should be allowed to make up their own minds about things from the facts. Creation? No, they're not allowed to draw that conclusion. They can make their minds up themselves as long as they decide Evolution is True.
Don't believe me? Read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2982933.stm Quote:...plans have been condemned as "educational debauchery" by Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University.
"To call evolution a faith position equated with creationism is educational debauchery. It is teaching something that is utter nonsense," said Professor Dawkins.
"Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. These children are being deliberately and wantonly misled."
And what exactly is this guy getting his knickers in a twist about? "The schools would teach creationism - drawn from the Bible's account of the creation of life - alongside...evolution."
Stress: ***ALONGSIDE***. They're not planning on throwing out evolution. They're planning on teaching BOTH. This "professor"'s response verges on hysterical - terms like "debauchery", and "utter nonsense" sounds distinctly like the fundamentalist ranting that puts most of us off religion.
Evolution _IS_ a faith position, disguised in scientific terminology. "Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence" Well, what we actually have is observation. Observation doesn't prove anything. Interpretation of observations supports theories, but if the interpretation is made on the basis of the theory that interpretation supports, then most people here should be able to see this as nothing more than a circular definition and no "proof" - no real, hard, proof, of *anything*. Let's try an experiment:
Creation science suggests observation X means Y happened. If Y happened, then Creation must be true.
What's your response to this? "Bollocks?" Correct. Now substitute "evolution" for "creation." See what I mean?
Americans often confuse the relative status of England, Scotland and Britain, so let me explain it with a parallel:
Is Canada part of the USA? No. -> Scotland is not part of England.
Is Canada part of the American continent? Yes. -> Scotland is part of the British Isles.
So, Scotland<=>Canada. England<=>USA. British Isles<=>the Americas. Clear now?
The only major difference is that Scotland is partially ruled from London, whereas Canada IIRC is completely self-governed. Nevertheless Scotland is a separate country from England (and personally I'm in favour of complete Scottish independence, if they want it), although the borders are not fortified and there is no passport control.
That was exactly my first thought. The multicore processor market is in its infancy, and MS would be fools to kill off the Windows-on-multicore market before it has any real momentum.
When we're all using multicores and and the multiprocessor market starts to dwindle (i.e. once we're committed to multicore), THEN they'll start charging for it.
I'd like to see EULAs standardised. Then instead of reams of unreadable gobbledegook on each installer, you'd get something like "This is a Type 1 EULA", or "This is a Type 4 EULA with the following differences" and so on. Once you know what a Type 1 EULA is, anything that describes itself as such, you know exactly what it's all about and can determine quickly what exactly you need to do.
On Unix you use a compiler and source code control, and it's great. On Windows you use just a compiler, and you call it crippled.
How about adding source code control, then at least you're comparing like with like. Or remove source code control from the Unix environment and then let's call that crippled.
Let's not just call it crippled because it's Windows please. As you say, lots of people are developing lots of software on Windows and it's a very mature platform for this sort of work, and everything is in place, but you have to get your finger out of your arse and configure it.
Simple. All physical experiments can be described in terms of manipulation of subatomic particles, making everything physical a giant physics experiment.
However anyone who tried to claim, e.g., animal husbandry as a Physics experiment would be clearly labelled a nut and henceforth ignored.
Maths problems solved on a computer are maths problems. Animal husbandry simulations performed on a computer are animal husbandry experiments, not math experiments, even though there is a lot of maths involved in the programming.
* Open a new window - with contents referenceable by a URL, presumably
* Open a new window to a specific width and height - which must also contain something pointable to via some sort of URL
* Change the location of the current page - to something involving a URL at some point, perhaps?
* Change the source of an image on the page - that image could be displayed in another window via a URL
* Interact with a Flash movie - which might be referenceable via a URL
* Interact with form elements on screen - OK, probably no relevant URL for this.
So Firefox/could/ attempt to do something sensible in the majority of cases. Or at least pop up a message saying it can't figure out what to do (maybe presenting a few options?).
Your point that a general solution is impossible is accepted; however, simply opening a new tab with nothing in it and no indication to the user that what they/expected/ isn't going to happen is IMHO something that could be improved with just a small amount of thought.
Even just a warning would stop me, for example, browsing through interesting adverts in Loot.com, "Open In New Tab"-ing on all the interesting ones, then looking at the tabs to see nothing but (untitled) (untitled) (untitled) (untitled) which is damn annoying.
And the behaviour of Wanadoo's email page to a control-click is just bizarre - you get the mail you clicked on in the current window, and the mailbox in the new window. It's probably quite clever how they managed to engineer exactly the opposite behaviour of what is expected.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, 5k2 years is within the Biblical timeline (which places creation around 6k-10k years ago), so it's not entirely, and possibly not even at all, at odds.
...a woolly mammoth with food still in its mouth?
It is also inaccurate because it assumes that anyone who downloads does not then go on to purchase (a variation on your first point).
I can point to numerous books, DVDs and CDs in my collection that I own because I have already downloaded them and decided I like them enough to buy them as well. K-PAX is one example; after downloading it and watching it, I now have the DVD and all three K-PAX books.
I don't do speculative purchases any more. I have no end of CRAP on my shelves that results from this. Now I download stuff before I buy it. If I can't download it, I won't buy it.
Which leads to an interesting point: do the studios et al object to file sharing because their business models rely on people buying stuff they don't actually like and wouldn't have bought if they'd known how poor it was? (note: not necessarily poor quality. I'm sure Britney's stuff is extremely high quality in some respects (the packaging, for example); I just don't like that sort of music.)
> Language isn't meant to be a set of laws, it's supposed to be a way of conveying information.
Spif. Grooble woba nreep quagga wibble, foobar twif naganagga quack twiddle-i doodah.
Translation: yes, but if you make it a complete free-for-all, it will cease to convey information. There have to be rules for it to be effective.
And what's wrong with the "not done in Latin" argument, pray tell? If all you've got is the "English is a living dynamic language and Latin is dead" response, please don't bother.
It may not be just for approval. Ever been the one person in a silent audience that bursts out laughing? Embarrassing, isn't it? So after that you tend to look around to make sure others are laughing, then let rip.
> I guess I will just have to respectfully disagree...I never heard back
Perhaps he just didn't want to argue the finer points of grammar with someone who likes splitting infinitives.
I can't see why anyone'd want to do any of the things in the article, except perhaps multiple orgasm, which sounds like it might be fun. Clone a cat?? Run naked to the south pole??? Feed dung beetles??? What the fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuckity-doodah?????
Let's compose a list of 100 things for scientists to do instead of fannying around with this sort of nonsense. I'll start...
1: design a zip that doesn't snag on the surrounding material.
For the first time ever I've actually preordered something. Don't normally believe in that sort of crap, but I have so enjoyed the first two films. Even with the differences from the book, IMO Jacko's done a stunning job and I can't wait to see the extended rotk.
I'm also planning on hosting a back-to-back extended ringathon (no goatse jokes please) via projector for my friends.
...what ads?
Damn, I must get my eyes checked. Perhaps I've got glaucoma coming on. I had to double-take cos I thought that said lambourghini dildo.
So our doctors and nurses are now going to spend minimal time on an OS that just does stuff and maximal time on actually fixing people, rather than letting people waste away while they spend hours trying to figure out why the hell copy and paste doesn't work.
Oops, should have pressed "Preview." Was also going to add a response to:
"The actual difference is that creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic and work from there, whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't."
Well, as a literal six day creationist, let me just mention that I also take a scientific approach to my beliefs, which I do not take as axiomatic. I start with observation. OK so far? The observations I make are not only of fossils, dinosaurs, hobbits and so on, but also of my day to day walk with God and the effect he has on my life. I also start with one major assumption that differs from most evolutionists' position: they assume that the universe is a closed system and that there is no involvement from the supernatural - be that God, or whatever, but I assume the opposite, that God can, and does, affect the universe from outside. One thing I definitely do not do is reduce God to the God of the gaps. "Hey, we don't understand that bit, so that proves God exists" is NOT my position. If God is the God of the gaps, then as knowledge increases, God must decrease. However, by (my) definition, God is infinite, therefore (proof by contradiction) God cannot be the God of the gaps.
Yes, that's what scientists like people to think. However, have you ever seen a scientist's response to the idea of teaching creationism in schools - not as fact, but simply alongside evolution as a possible answer to the question of how we got here? It's a positively unscientific response. It's like - we believe people should be allowed to make up their own minds about things from the facts. Creation? No, they're not allowed to draw that conclusion. They can make their minds up themselves as long as they decide Evolution is True.
...plans have been condemned as "educational debauchery" by Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University.
Don't believe me? Read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2982933.stm
Quote:
"To call evolution a faith position equated with creationism is educational debauchery. It is teaching something that is utter nonsense," said Professor Dawkins.
"Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. These children are being deliberately and wantonly misled."
And what exactly is this guy getting his knickers in a twist about? "The schools would teach creationism - drawn from the Bible's account of the creation of life - alongside...evolution."
Stress: ***ALONGSIDE***. They're not planning on throwing out evolution. They're planning on teaching BOTH. This "professor"'s response verges on hysterical - terms like "debauchery", and "utter nonsense" sounds distinctly like the fundamentalist ranting that puts most of us off religion.
Evolution _IS_ a faith position, disguised in scientific terminology. "Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence" Well, what we actually have is observation. Observation doesn't prove anything. Interpretation of observations supports theories, but if the interpretation is made on the basis of the theory that interpretation supports, then most people here should be able to see this as nothing more than a circular definition and no "proof" - no real, hard, proof, of *anything*. Let's try an experiment:
Creation science suggests observation X means Y happened. If Y happened, then Creation must be true.
What's your response to this? "Bollocks?" Correct. Now substitute "evolution" for "creation." See what I mean?
Americans often confuse the relative status of England, Scotland and Britain, so let me explain it with a parallel:
Is Canada part of the USA? No. -> Scotland is not part of England.
Is Canada part of the American continent? Yes. -> Scotland is part of the British Isles.
So, Scotland<=>Canada. England<=>USA. British Isles<=>the Americas. Clear now?
The only major difference is that Scotland is partially ruled from London, whereas Canada IIRC is completely self-governed. Nevertheless Scotland is a separate country from England (and personally I'm in favour of complete Scottish independence, if they want it), although the borders are not fortified and there is no passport control.
Cue string of "Four Yorkshire Gentlemen"-style "Minus ten? Luxury! etc" posts.
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ascot/pa per/paper.html
That was exactly my first thought. The multicore processor market is in its infancy, and MS would be fools to kill off the Windows-on-multicore market before it has any real momentum.
When we're all using multicores and and the multiprocessor market starts to dwindle (i.e. once we're committed to multicore), THEN they'll start charging for it.
OK, slightly off topic, sorry.
I'd like to see EULAs standardised. Then instead of reams of unreadable gobbledegook on each installer, you'd get something like "This is a Type 1 EULA", or "This is a Type 4 EULA with the following differences" and so on. Once you know what a Type 1 EULA is, anything that describes itself as such, you know exactly what it's all about and can determine quickly what exactly you need to do.
...no more easy/cheap distribution for up and coming artists who don't want to be shafted by the *AA...
On Unix you use a compiler and source code control, and it's great. On Windows you use just a compiler, and you call it crippled.
How about adding source code control, then at least you're comparing like with like. Or remove source code control from the Unix environment and then let's call that crippled.
Let's not just call it crippled because it's Windows please. As you say, lots of people are developing lots of software on Windows and it's a very mature platform for this sort of work, and everything is in place, but you have to get your finger out of your arse and configure it.
Simple. All physical experiments can be described in terms of manipulation of subatomic particles, making everything physical a giant physics experiment.
However anyone who tried to claim, e.g., animal husbandry as a Physics experiment would be clearly labelled a nut and henceforth ignored.
Maths problems solved on a computer are maths problems. Animal husbandry simulations performed on a computer are animal husbandry experiments, not math experiments, even though there is a lot of maths involved in the programming.
If MS succeed there'll be plenty of quid pro Gates - he's a real pro.
I kept meaning to have a look at this, now I have.
What on earth is general.config.obscure_value? (And don't say "13" - I figured that part out!)
* Open a new window
/could/ attempt to do something sensible in the majority of cases. Or at least pop up a message saying it can't figure out what to do (maybe presenting a few options?).
/expected/ isn't going to happen is IMHO something that could be improved with just a small amount of thought.
- with contents referenceable by a URL, presumably
* Open a new window to a specific width and height
- which must also contain something pointable to via some sort of URL
* Change the location of the current page
- to something involving a URL at some point, perhaps?
* Change the source of an image on the page
- that image could be displayed in another window via a URL
* Interact with a Flash movie
- which might be referenceable via a URL
* Interact with form elements on screen
- OK, probably no relevant URL for this.
So Firefox
Your point that a general solution is impossible is accepted; however, simply opening a new tab with nothing in it and no indication to the user that what they
Even just a warning would stop me, for example, browsing through interesting adverts in Loot.com, "Open In New Tab"-ing on all the interesting ones, then looking at the tabs to see nothing but (untitled) (untitled) (untitled) (untitled) which is damn annoying.
And the behaviour of Wanadoo's email page to a control-click is just bizarre - you get the mail you clicked on in the current window, and the mailbox in the new window. It's probably quite clever how they managed to engineer exactly the opposite behaviour of what is expected.