It's the same reason I run a dual boot Linux/Windows machine. I'm making the transition from Windows to Linux for obvious reasons, but there are still plenty of things that I need to do that I already know how to do in Windows and I don't know how to do in Linux.
As I learn my way around in Linux, I'll rely less and less on Windows, and eventually I will probably even just get rid of the Windows partition altogether, but it makes me much more comfortable making the switch if I have the option to cross back and forth at will.
It may be more of a security blanket than anything else, but I think that there are more than just a few Windows users who would think about making the transition to Mac if they just had that security blanket in place. I know I love the idea of running OSX, Linux, and Windows all on one machine, even though I would probably just end up running OSX most of the time.
Occam's razor deals in probablilties, not in empirical proof. When you invoke Occam's razor, you are simply saying that, given multiple scenarios, the least exotic is the most likely. It proves absolutely nothing.
Also, the article you linked to says that ID is inherently falsifiable. It does not claim that it has been falsified. There's a big difference.
Say ID is unlikely, say it's rediculous, say it's udder nonsense. Say that there's much more evidence pointing towards Darwinism. I wholeheartedly agree with all those statements. Just don't say that ID has or will been disproven, because it hasn't, and it won't be.
I think you need to have the term "proof" defined for you, because nothing you just said proves anything. Saying that something is highly unlikely, or not credible, or just completely pulled out of somebody's ass, is not the same as empirically proving that it is false.
You can't prove that God doesn't exist, just like you can't prove that the FSM or the Easter Bunny don't exist.
I'm with you, I'd like to see the whole ID thing disappear. Good luck, though. It's going to take more than a few comparisons to fictional characters.
I'm not sure you can call this a "nail in the coffin" of ID when there's still such a high percentage of our population that believes in it, you know? The catch-22 of ID is that it can't really be disproved with logic or science. You can shoot down their arguements when they try to put it in terms of biology like this, but I think we all know that this is not going to convince any "true believers" out there.
I love that whole "if you are trying to defend yourself, you must be guilty" logic. That's just silly.
I agree with the rant. We all realize exactly what Beatles-Beatles is doing. He's sponging off of Slashdot's pagerank by posting stories. Still, I say "So what?" Is he hurting anybody? No. Why do you guys keep freaking out about it?
He's submitting legitimate stories that have perfectly legitimate value. Yes, he has an alterior motive. I guess you're only allowed to do anything if it is purely out of altruism or philanthropy, right? That's stupid and naive.
I have to say that I find it much more annoying to hear all these people on Slashdot bitching and moaning about this guy than the fact that he's posting stories with self-serving links.
I realize I'm probably going to get modded down for having an unpopular opinion here, but I'm just damn sick of hearing about this. Seriously.
I think it's probably a good idea to have a few "JavaScript tricks" up your sleeve. After all, why make a round trip to the server when something can be done quicly on the client side?
A good web developer knows how and when to do something on the client side or the server side, and can make the two play nice with each other.
I don't get the big deal here. The guy is submitting legitimate articles, and the/. editors obviously see enough value in them to put them on the front page.
So he's getting something out of it, and he's got an alterior motive. So what? Is it really hurting the way you browse the site? You have to admit that this is a newsworthy story. It's not like he's submitting nonsense and then reaping rewards for it.
If you have that big a problem, don't click on his stories, and don't follow his links. Otherwise, quit freaking out every time he submits a story, because it's getting old.
"I don't see the big deal. How is this one of the big puzzles in computer science again?"
Yeah, that seems to be a common sentiment here. That's because apparently nobody here took an algorithms class.
Yes, it wouldn't be that difficult to create an algorithm that would theoretically solve this problem. I say "theoretically" because this assumes that you have infinite time and infinite memory.
Exhaustively testing all the combinations from a dictionary of 10-letter words would have such an astronomical computational complexity that even the fastest computers or clusters wouldn't be able to do it in a lifetime.
That's not to say that there's no such thing as an algorithm that could do it in a different way, but that's the challenge, isn't it? Coming up with heuristics and filters and such so that it could be done in a reasonable amount of time is harder than it sounds.
Opt-in targeted advertising is better than being held as a captive audience, but I'm not sure I'm crazy about them using my bandwidth and precious hard drive space to store their ads that I may never watch. I think it's getting close to time for me to try out MythTv. Hmm.
This really is the cool thing about Google's model. They deliver targeted adds catered to the individual. If a person clicks on the link, you can't necessarily assume that they are going to open their wallet, but it is a reasonably safe assumption that your message was recieved. In order for it to be as successful as it has been historically, since it is pay-per-click, they must be delivering a pretty decent volume of messages, right?
There was a pretty good discussion and article on slashdot not too awful long ago about dispelling common myths regarding garbage collection and performance in Java.
It's definitely worth checking out before people go spouting off the traditional rants against garbage collection.
Of course, determining which one is best always depends on your application and your available resources, among other things. There are good arguements for both in various situations.
I code C++ for embedded devices for a living, which means that I am working with the new/delete/malloc/free model, but for school projects I really like to work with Java, because it lets me focus entirely on implementing an algorithm without having to spend any time thinking about memory allocation or the underlying hardware.
I tend to be a bit of an introvert, especially around new people. One of the main reasons for this is that I start getting this internal filter for everything I say. Like, if I think about telling a joke, my brain kicks in and goes, "How will this be percieved by these people? Will they think it's funny? Will they be offended? Blah blah blah". Before I know it, the conversation has moved on to a different topic, and my comment would no longer make sense.
I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes I feel like I'm an introvert specificly because I can't silence this little internal monologue in my head. I overthink everything, to the point that I end up not speaking at all.
That's why I'm glad I have slashdot, so that I can pretend I'm interacting with people. Hooray!!!!
For real!!! Is there anybody out there who would be willing to get a sub-dermal RFID chip so that their TiVo could identify them? I mean, my key ring is full, but I bet I could fit one more thing on there.
"Isn't this like talking to the inventor of FTP and telling him to not let you download movies from his site?"
I don't think I get your point. Are you saying that the inventor of FTP should be allowed to host movies and other IP on his site for other people to freely download? Why, because he invented a protocol? I guess you're modded at +5 insightful, so who am I to say that it's faulty logic and a bad analogy?
Changing subjects, BitTorrent was not invented as a tool for piracy and illegal downloading, and we can all agree that there are plenty of completely great, legitimate uses for the technology, so I can completely understand the inventor wanting to safeguard his creation.
I don't mean that as a jab at pirates, by any means, just some sympathy from a programmer.
Re:To the Mythbusters whom it may concern-
on
Ask The Mythbusters
·
· Score: 1
I know you're joking, but the answer is no.
I'm just saying that you can't say something didn't happen just by trying it yourself a couple times, right? Like, let's say you got a woman's phone number at Blockbuster video the other night, so I go there for the next three nights and ask every woman in the place for a date. If it doesn't work for me, I can't say that it's "busted" and that it never happened for you. Right?
I'm not saying we should all believe something just because it hasn't been disproved. That's what believing in intelligent design is. I'm saying we should not say something has been disproved based on the results of a handful of not-so-rigorous experiments that failed to duplicate it.
Watch the show looking specifically for this sometime. You'll see what I mean.
To the Mythbusters whom it may concern-
on
Ask The Mythbusters
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Dear Mythbusters- It seems like it must be tempting to definitively call a myth "busted", even though the reality is that you just couldn't duplicate the results. Whether something is fact or fiction, scientifically a myth probably shouldn't be considered "busted" unless you have empirically show it to be implausable.
You guys generally do a good job of this, though on occasion I've seen an episode where you seemed a little premature. What can you say about where you draw the line, and do you feel like you generally do a good job of following the scientific method to get your results?
Renegade government agencies will not be able to dictate what software their citizens can use based on file-formats.
Seriously? You haven't been following this story very closely, have you?
Nobody is "dictating what software their citizens can use" by switching to open-document. By saying that government employees (not citezens) of the state of Mass. must use open document at work (they can use what they like at home), they're switching to a file format that allows anybody to implement it. MS just chooses not to.
If anything, everybody who mandates MS's format (pre-openness) is dictating software based on a file format. You've got this totally backwards.
If these files are opened - really opened, Microsoft will have to compete on the basis of quality, price and by innovation.
Don't underestimate the average user's apathy, misinformation, and unwillingness to change. Walk around your office and take a poll (no fair if you're polling techies) and see how many people
Have even heard of Open Office
Would believe you if you told them there's a product that rivals Office that's completely free
Would be willing to learn a new office suite
Would even bother to download it and install it just to give it a try
I bet you'd find the answers depressing. Top that off with the fact that PC manufacturers probably won't be selling computers with OO.o installed anytime soon because it makes them no money, and you're left with a great alternative to MS Office that the general populace couldn't care less about.
MS can feel relatively safe opening up their document format, and this way they don't have to change a single line of code to have an open document format without actually supporting open document.
My take on this is that they have caught a lot of flak for not supporting open document. This way, they don't have to make any changes, and they don't have to support open document, but they'll still be supporting a document format that is open.
Now, many of the reasons for switching to open document will be nullified, and if Microsoft's doc becomes the standard, the burden will be on the OSS community to make changes to their software rather than the other way around.
Basically, it's MS's way of waying, "You want openness? Fine, but if we're going to play, we're going to play with our ball."
I think it would be awesome to see MS support an open standard. This seems like kind of a petty way to go about it, but that's the Microsoft we all love to hate, right?
"Pop-ups weren't simply replaced, they were stamped out.
Very true, but Google had a hand in that, as well. The Google toolbar, with popup blocking, was popular before browsers like Firefox that have integrated popup blocking were part of the mainstream. It's definitely what I used in IE before I made the switch.
You want to be accepted, then stop accepting scum. Simple."
That's an absolutely rediculous response. If we are all to be judged by the actions of the worst of our fellow countrymen, are you prepared to be held up as an associate of Jeffrey Dahmer, David Duke, or Timothy McVeigh? That is very ignorant, overly-simplified, xenophobic, and lame.
Not a terrible idea, but it assumes that end users are going to be able to figure out how to configure static IP addresses for all their devices, which is a pretty big assumption.
Plus, who would be in charge of assigning them? Would that mean that I have to register for an IP like I do for a domain name? Who's handing them out, the DMV? The Social Security office? The UN?
Also, it seems like it would be easy for hackers to mimic other people's IP address. Seems like maintenence nightmare.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same reason I run a dual boot Linux/Windows machine. I'm making the transition from Windows to Linux for obvious reasons, but there are still plenty of things that I need to do that I already know how to do in Windows and I don't know how to do in Linux.
As I learn my way around in Linux, I'll rely less and less on Windows, and eventually I will probably even just get rid of the Windows partition altogether, but it makes me much more comfortable making the switch if I have the option to cross back and forth at will.
It may be more of a security blanket than anything else, but I think that there are more than just a few Windows users who would think about making the transition to Mac if they just had that security blanket in place. I know I love the idea of running OSX, Linux, and Windows all on one machine, even though I would probably just end up running OSX most of the time.
Also, the article you linked to says that ID is inherently falsifiable. It does not claim that it has been falsified. There's a big difference.
Say ID is unlikely, say it's rediculous, say it's udder nonsense. Say that there's much more evidence pointing towards Darwinism. I wholeheartedly agree with all those statements. Just don't say that ID has or will been disproven, because it hasn't, and it won't be.
I think you need to have the term "proof" defined for you, because nothing you just said proves anything. Saying that something is highly unlikely, or not credible, or just completely pulled out of somebody's ass, is not the same as empirically proving that it is false.
You can't prove that God doesn't exist, just like you can't prove that the FSM or the Easter Bunny don't exist.
I'm with you, I'd like to see the whole ID thing disappear. Good luck, though. It's going to take more than a few comparisons to fictional characters.
I'm not sure you can call this a "nail in the coffin" of ID when there's still such a high percentage of our population that believes in it, you know? The catch-22 of ID is that it can't really be disproved with logic or science. You can shoot down their arguements when they try to put it in terms of biology like this, but I think we all know that this is not going to convince any "true believers" out there.
I love that whole "if you are trying to defend yourself, you must be guilty" logic. That's just silly.
I agree with the rant. We all realize exactly what Beatles-Beatles is doing. He's sponging off of Slashdot's pagerank by posting stories. Still, I say "So what?" Is he hurting anybody? No. Why do you guys keep freaking out about it?
He's submitting legitimate stories that have perfectly legitimate value. Yes, he has an alterior motive. I guess you're only allowed to do anything if it is purely out of altruism or philanthropy, right? That's stupid and naive.
I have to say that I find it much more annoying to hear all these people on Slashdot bitching and moaning about this guy than the fact that he's posting stories with self-serving links.
I realize I'm probably going to get modded down for having an unpopular opinion here, but I'm just damn sick of hearing about this. Seriously.
I think it's probably a good idea to have a few "JavaScript tricks" up your sleeve. After all, why make a round trip to the server when something can be done quicly on the client side?
A good web developer knows how and when to do something on the client side or the server side, and can make the two play nice with each other.
I don't get the big deal here. The guy is submitting legitimate articles, and the /. editors obviously see enough value in them to put them on the front page.
So he's getting something out of it, and he's got an alterior motive. So what? Is it really hurting the way you browse the site? You have to admit that this is a newsworthy story. It's not like he's submitting nonsense and then reaping rewards for it.
If you have that big a problem, don't click on his stories, and don't follow his links. Otherwise, quit freaking out every time he submits a story, because it's getting old.
If you're so concerned about your intellectual property, then don't put it on the web. If you do put it on the web, search engines will find it.
Plus, isn't there a tag you can put in an HTML file that will keep Google's spiders from indexing your site? Why not just use that?
These are people looking for a free meal ticket, from what I can see.
Yes, it wouldn't be that difficult to create an algorithm that would theoretically solve this problem. I say "theoretically" because this assumes that you have infinite time and infinite memory.
Exhaustively testing all the combinations from a dictionary of 10-letter words would have such an astronomical computational complexity that even the fastest computers or clusters wouldn't be able to do it in a lifetime.
That's not to say that there's no such thing as an algorithm that could do it in a different way, but that's the challenge, isn't it? Coming up with heuristics and filters and such so that it could be done in a reasonable amount of time is harder than it sounds.
Give it a shot. I'm sure you'll see what I mean.
Please do not taunt the AI.
Opt-in targeted advertising is better than being held as a captive audience, but I'm not sure I'm crazy about them using my bandwidth and precious hard drive space to store their ads that I may never watch. I think it's getting close to time for me to try out MythTv. Hmm.
This really is the cool thing about Google's model. They deliver targeted adds catered to the individual. If a person clicks on the link, you can't necessarily assume that they are going to open their wallet, but it is a reasonably safe assumption that your message was recieved. In order for it to be as successful as it has been historically, since it is pay-per-click, they must be delivering a pretty decent volume of messages, right?
It's definitely worth checking out before people go spouting off the traditional rants against garbage collection.
Of course, determining which one is best always depends on your application and your available resources, among other things. There are good arguements for both in various situations. I code C++ for embedded devices for a living, which means that I am working with the new/delete/malloc/free model, but for school projects I really like to work with Java, because it lets me focus entirely on implementing an algorithm without having to spend any time thinking about memory allocation or the underlying hardware.
I tend to be a bit of an introvert, especially around new people. One of the main reasons for this is that I start getting this internal filter for everything I say. Like, if I think about telling a joke, my brain kicks in and goes, "How will this be percieved by these people? Will they think it's funny? Will they be offended? Blah blah blah". Before I know it, the conversation has moved on to a different topic, and my comment would no longer make sense.
I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes I feel like I'm an introvert specificly because I can't silence this little internal monologue in my head. I overthink everything, to the point that I end up not speaking at all.
That's why I'm glad I have slashdot, so that I can pretend I'm interacting with people. Hooray!!!!
For real!!! Is there anybody out there who would be willing to get a sub-dermal RFID chip so that their TiVo could identify them? I mean, my key ring is full, but I bet I could fit one more thing on there.
Who wants to be the first to flip through my E.coli scrapbook?
Changing subjects, BitTorrent was not invented as a tool for piracy and illegal downloading, and we can all agree that there are plenty of completely great, legitimate uses for the technology, so I can completely understand the inventor wanting to safeguard his creation.
I don't mean that as a jab at pirates, by any means, just some sympathy from a programmer.
I know you're joking, but the answer is no.
I'm just saying that you can't say something didn't happen just by trying it yourself a couple times, right? Like, let's say you got a woman's phone number at Blockbuster video the other night, so I go there for the next three nights and ask every woman in the place for a date. If it doesn't work for me, I can't say that it's "busted" and that it never happened for you. Right?
I'm not saying we should all believe something just because it hasn't been disproved. That's what believing in intelligent design is. I'm saying we should not say something has been disproved based on the results of a handful of not-so-rigorous experiments that failed to duplicate it.
Watch the show looking specifically for this sometime. You'll see what I mean.
Dear Mythbusters-
It seems like it must be tempting to definitively call a myth "busted", even though the reality is that you just couldn't duplicate the results. Whether something is fact or fiction, scientifically a myth probably shouldn't be considered "busted" unless you have empirically show it to be implausable.
You guys generally do a good job of this, though on occasion I've seen an episode where you seemed a little premature. What can you say about where you draw the line, and do you feel like you generally do a good job of following the scientific method to get your results?
Also, can you get me that redhead's phone number?
Nobody is "dictating what software their citizens can use" by switching to open-document. By saying that government employees (not citezens) of the state of Mass. must use open document at work (they can use what they like at home), they're switching to a file format that allows anybody to implement it. MS just chooses not to.
If anything, everybody who mandates MS's format (pre-openness) is dictating software based on a file format. You've got this totally backwards.
- Have even heard of Open Office
- Would believe you if you told them there's a product that rivals Office that's completely free
- Would be willing to learn a new office suite
- Would even bother to download it and install it just to give it a try
I bet you'd find the answers depressing. Top that off with the fact that PC manufacturers probably won't be selling computers with OO.o installed anytime soon because it makes them no money, and you're left with a great alternative to MS Office that the general populace couldn't care less about.MS can feel relatively safe opening up their document format, and this way they don't have to change a single line of code to have an open document format without actually supporting open document.
My take on this is that they have caught a lot of flak for not supporting open document. This way, they don't have to make any changes, and they don't have to support open document, but they'll still be supporting a document format that is open.
Now, many of the reasons for switching to open document will be nullified, and if Microsoft's doc becomes the standard, the burden will be on the OSS community to make changes to their software rather than the other way around.
Basically, it's MS's way of waying, "You want openness? Fine, but if we're going to play, we're going to play with our ball."
I think it would be awesome to see MS support an open standard. This seems like kind of a petty way to go about it, but that's the Microsoft we all love to hate, right?
Not a terrible idea, but it assumes that end users are going to be able to figure out how to configure static IP addresses for all their devices, which is a pretty big assumption.
Plus, who would be in charge of assigning them? Would that mean that I have to register for an IP like I do for a domain name? Who's handing them out, the DMV? The Social Security office? The UN?
Also, it seems like it would be easy for hackers to mimic other people's IP address. Seems like maintenence nightmare.