Of course, the rules of proper written English dictate that we must write small numbers out instead of using the arabic numerals, which would cause some inconvienience when backing up data on paper...
Zero one one zero one one one one zero one one zero one zero zero zero zero zero one zero zero zero zero zero zero one one zero one one one zero zero one one zero one one one one!
As a (the, actually) computer lab guy at a school in Southern California, I have anecdotal evidence in support of interactive software as an educational device. Granted, the computers are terrible, the computer literacy rate among students and teachers is practically zero, and the kids are sometimes frustrated with the computers-- still, there are students that are reached by an interactive computer program that have a very difficult time with normal classes. In that respect, it's a huge benefit for education. And these kids are working on PowerMac Green & White G3s (running OS 9, 'natch.) Interactive learning may not be a revolutionary new replacement for standard teaching methods, but it is a valuable tool in any teacher's arsenal, IMO.
Agreed-- the decision to use MS or OSS should be based on merits alone. Of course, "freeness" is a merit all by itself, and that should be considered too.
Arguing that OSS is "better" without mentioning Microsoft could prove difficult indeed. "Better" is a word that takes two arguments-- the thing that is better, and the thing the first thing is better than. X is better than Y. If no argument is given for Y directly, we find one based on context. In a discussion wherein OSS is said to be "better", the logical inference is that it's being compared with its competition-- specifically, Microsoft.
I think you're saying OSS should stand on its merits alone. Well, it *does*. I mean, it works. It has merits, and these merits make it *good* (remember, we can't say better without implicitly mentioning MS). You can surf the web, and things. Also, I hear you can use OSS to make a neato webserver, and talk to your pals on the AIM. Very exciting. Whether it works better than MS's stuff... Well, I guess I can't talk about that without being a religious nut.
Qualities! OSS has them! It's... Better. But we're not talking about MS! Just better. It isn't bad. It's.. better than good!
I hear tell bugs are still a major annoyance in the "out-side", if only for those foolish enough to venture there without their Hostile Enviornment Suits. Moe-skeet-ohs, I've heard, can be particularly annoying to those unequipped with personal force fields. Of course, I couldn't tell you first hand. I'm neither an anthropologist nor a historian-- the concerns of our primitive forefathers are not my domain, and I'm not about to test it for myself.
Ridiculous comments aside, the speed of light really *is* a constant. I remember wheedling a science teacher for this information long ago. Light *appears* to go more slowly when it passes through a dense medium because the photons are absorbed and then reemitted, which takes an amount of time. Naturally, the more often photons are absorbed, the slower the photons move *on average*. Really though, whenever they're moving, they're moving at c.
First bit: You're saying the necessity of Protestant Christianity for an empirical worldview is based on history, your evidence is: there wasn't empirical science until after Protestant Christianity was the dominant worldview. Correlation != causality-- I am asking you why the axioms of your religion are better for establishing a constant world. Please answer this question without incorporating any religious dogma. I, in turn, will try to keep any disputed facts out of this as well (so far so good, I think...)
Your second bit is completely dogma-- if I do not share your faith (and share it rabidly and intolerantly, too) I have no reason to accept what you're saying. You can go dancing around in your own axiomatic territory all you want, but you're not going to prove a point in general unless you can provide evidence without these extra (and not universal) axioms.
Next bit, you say God is the original axiom-- but you derived that from faith. Those of us that do not share your faith have no reason to consider your argument. Please, please, argue your point from a shared set of beliefs.
Also, I don't think I'm bringing my evolutionary views into this. I'm not saying "you have to do it with evolution!", I'm just saying you don't have to do it with Christianity. There are indeed other sets of beliefs that lead to a worldview equally fertile for the pursuit of science. Some of them are practiced today, and some of them predate Christianity.
Once again I implore you to keep any responses free of the axioms specific to your religion, the same way I have kept mine free from the axioms of evolution. If you feel I have included evolutionary axioms, please point them out to me. It's impossible to have an argument unless everyone is making the same assumptions.
You're telling me that the set of axioms necessary to investigate something scientifically are a subset of Christianity's axioms-- and what's more, you're saying that no axiom set predating Christianity contained the assumptions necessary to investigate scientifically.
Let's address the first thing first. Christianity is not the oldest religion to propose a system of creation managed by a capital G guy-in-the-sky God. Since that's the case, even if the body of your argument is true, your statement that science is derived from biblical Christianity is arrogant and misleading at best, and downright inane at worst.
At any rate, the idea of a consistent, predictable, universe does not require an intelligent creator by necessity. We can arrive at a universe with consistent laws (at least in a tentative way) via inductive reasoning based on direct observations, i.e. "I observe the universe obeying certain rules of cause and effect, and inductively infer that these rules continue to hold throughout the universe, irrespective of time, etc."
Arriving at the conclusion deductively by taking the existence of an intelligent creator as an axiom is a messier way of going about it, since it throws away empirical evidence in favor of the new axiom.
Based on the assumption that humans started with a simpler set of axioms than they have today, we can infer that the direct, empirical, induction of cause and effect predated the deductive, intelligent creator method. Indeed, we see that an understanding of cause and effect, and of the universe as a consistent place, is more or less hardwired into the mammalian brain. Everyone from humans to chimps to cats assumes that stasis is the default mode. Perhaps the best example of this is classical conditioning-- through Pavlov's classic experiment, we see that the assumption of stasis extends even to an unconscious level. The dog's conditioned brain expects food when it hears a bell. In this case two stimuli are associated, and it is biologically assumed that they will continue to be associated until there is evidence presented to the contrary.
In the end, science is based on the rather reflexive statement, "unless things change, they stay the same." The scientific method involves making observations about things, checking to see if they've changed, and, at some arbitrary point where there's "enough" evidence to suggest that the thing will *continue* to stay the same, accepting it (but continuing to check periodically, to make sure it's still the same).
Unfortunately, that estimate neglects any internal processing capabilities that neurons might (do) have. It's generally thought these days that neurons do more than simply sum their input signals-- they've been observed doing much stranger things. Keep in mind that every neuron is a complete (though specialized) cell, and cells are awfully complicated little buggers. To *accurately* simulate the brain, you'd have to multiply the estimate by the average number of operations it *actually* takes to simulate whatever processing a neuron does. It may turn out that the things electrical signals in neurons provoke chemical reactions (which in cells, inevitably involve proteins) that change the output.
In other words, if I gave you 3.0 x 10^17 operations per second and a model of the synaptic connections between all the neurons of a human brain... Well, you would get some damned interesting results, but it wouldn't be anything remotely human. Before you can simulate a human brain in an accurate way, you have to account for internal processing and the (none too simple) action of neurotransmitters.
Nevermind if you want to simulate, say, the brain of someone consuming a chemical with unknown effects but a known chemical makeup (one very useful application for a complete electronic model of a human brain). Then you have model the structure of every type of receptor and determine their concentrations on a neuron by neuron basis throughout the brain-- then talk about the affinity of the chemical for those receptors.
As you can see, talking about two operations per second per synapse is extremely unrealistic, so the numbers we get for a computer powerful enough to simulate a human brain are absurdly low.
Maybe the machine is too complex, too expensive, too ponderous and big and pointless-- but it's such a beautifully human little thing to build that I can't help but love it. Not only that, but it's human in a way that is perhaps unique to modern times. The retrospection-- the self consciousness of a people that have discovered they are a part of *history*-- that's what I appreciate in this machine.
Have you ever wondered why we don't find time capsules from two thousand years ago with messages for the future? It, apparently, simply didn't occur to anyone that they might be able to, by leaving a durable message, communicate in a one sided way with the future. That the human race now can think "I wonder what people will think of us when we're gone... we'd better let them know what kind of folks we are so they don't get the wrong impression", is a very hopeful sign. It indicates to me an elevation of consciousness-- the kind of consideration for the future that might make it so we don't *need* to build devices explaining our society to a hypothetical post-apocalyptic people.
Maybe we can make this whole civilization thing sustainable after all. The big concern is, are there enough people like this?
Oh, I'm sorry... Slashdot, right. "Yes, but does it store phone numbers?
Jack Thompson, at a press conference with Cubics professor Gene Ray today, is quoted as saying "Gleeko flarny blutnot spoing. Scam bananna mongo charves. The Jews ate my T-Shirt! Gah!"
Jack Thompson-- Real Life Troll
I didn't know they were still scaping the nets. At first glance this looked completely inane, but I guess "...Netscape 8 is based on Firefox, but lets users switch between both the Firefox and IE browser engines." That's almost snappy. Makes a fella wonder exactly how this switching mechanism works. I'm on the verge of interested, but a quick visit to http://www.netscape.com/ makes me think Netscape might be more interested in "...Jenna Bush's Latest Surprising Escapades" than being my browser choice. Doesn't look like they're into Linux much, either. So much for a blast from the web browsing past.
Ugh... The Furby is a great example of how being able to reset personality can lead to emotional detachment. Also, when you fling it at the wall it gives an enthusiastic "Whee!".
I can't see why Alienware'd be on the list at all. They're effectively charging a heavy markup for the "service" of putting your very expensive computer together for you. So far as I know, they don't have access to any components that aren't readily available to the public. If you're spending thousands upon thousands of dollars for a gaming rig, building it should be part of the fun. Also, a quick google of "alienware sucks" will tell you that they have dicey customer service.
Heavily marked up components and spotty support. Alienware is performing a "service" indeed.
"But it also comes with several lives. Owners can skip the maturing process and make AIBO an adult instantly or switch the adult back to a pup to enjoy the growing-up stage."
I realize that the AIBO is an extremely simple piece of equipment when compared to even a unicellular organism, but still. People who buy this are looking to impose the "dog" abstraction on it. Sony is trying very hard to make AIBO owners treat it like a real dog. It's a little disturbing that it can be reset with the push of a button. Either the owners are going to be apathetic towards it, since it isn't realistic enough to empathize with, or they're going to be wierded out when their mature "dog" suddenly starts acting like a puppy. I know it'd creep me out.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the rules of proper written English dictate that we must write small numbers out instead of using the arabic numerals, which would cause some inconvienience when backing up data on paper... Zero one one zero one one one one zero one one zero one zero zero zero zero zero one zero zero zero zero zero zero one one zero one one one zero zero one one zero one one one one!
As a (the, actually) computer lab guy at a school in Southern California, I have anecdotal evidence in support of interactive software as an educational device. Granted, the computers are terrible, the computer literacy rate among students and teachers is practically zero, and the kids are sometimes frustrated with the computers-- still, there are students that are reached by an interactive computer program that have a very difficult time with normal classes. In that respect, it's a huge benefit for education. And these kids are working on PowerMac Green & White G3s (running OS 9, 'natch.) Interactive learning may not be a revolutionary new replacement for standard teaching methods, but it is a valuable tool in any teacher's arsenal, IMO.
Live performances just can't compare. Go vinyl, go!
Agreed-- the decision to use MS or OSS should be based on merits alone. Of course, "freeness" is a merit all by itself, and that should be considered too.
Arguing that OSS is "better" without mentioning Microsoft could prove difficult indeed. "Better" is a word that takes two arguments-- the thing that is better, and the thing the first thing is better than. X is better than Y. If no argument is given for Y directly, we find one based on context. In a discussion wherein OSS is said to be "better", the logical inference is that it's being compared with its competition-- specifically, Microsoft.
I think you're saying OSS should stand on its merits alone. Well, it *does*. I mean, it works. It has merits, and these merits make it *good* (remember, we can't say better without implicitly mentioning MS). You can surf the web, and things. Also, I hear you can use OSS to make a neato webserver, and talk to your pals on the AIM. Very exciting. Whether it works better than MS's stuff... Well, I guess I can't talk about that without being a religious nut.
Qualities! OSS has them! It's... Better. But we're not talking about MS! Just better. It isn't bad. It's.. better than good!
Great!? No. Better.
Yeah, and the winning bid was made by a guy with 0 feedback. Irritating prankster, or covert Microsoft hype agent? You decide.
I hear tell bugs are still a major annoyance in the "out-side", if only for those foolish enough to venture there without their Hostile Enviornment Suits. Moe-skeet-ohs, I've heard, can be particularly annoying to those unequipped with personal force fields. Of course, I couldn't tell you first hand. I'm neither an anthropologist nor a historian-- the concerns of our primitive forefathers are not my domain, and I'm not about to test it for myself.
Ridiculous comments aside, the speed of light really *is* a constant. I remember wheedling a science teacher for this information long ago. Light *appears* to go more slowly when it passes through a dense medium because the photons are absorbed and then reemitted, which takes an amount of time. Naturally, the more often photons are absorbed, the slower the photons move *on average*. Really though, whenever they're moving, they're moving at c.
First bit: You're saying the necessity of Protestant Christianity for an empirical worldview is based on history, your evidence is: there wasn't empirical science until after Protestant Christianity was the dominant worldview. Correlation != causality-- I am asking you why the axioms of your religion are better for establishing a constant world. Please answer this question without incorporating any religious dogma. I, in turn, will try to keep any disputed facts out of this as well (so far so good, I think...)
Your second bit is completely dogma-- if I do not share your faith (and share it rabidly and intolerantly, too) I have no reason to accept what you're saying. You can go dancing around in your own axiomatic territory all you want, but you're not going to prove a point in general unless you can provide evidence without these extra (and not universal) axioms.
Next bit, you say God is the original axiom-- but you derived that from faith. Those of us that do not share your faith have no reason to consider your argument. Please, please, argue your point from a shared set of beliefs.
Also, I don't think I'm bringing my evolutionary views into this. I'm not saying "you have to do it with evolution!", I'm just saying you don't have to do it with Christianity. There are indeed other sets of beliefs that lead to a worldview equally fertile for the pursuit of science. Some of them are practiced today, and some of them predate Christianity.
Once again I implore you to keep any responses free of the axioms specific to your religion, the same way I have kept mine free from the axioms of evolution. If you feel I have included evolutionary axioms, please point them out to me. It's impossible to have an argument unless everyone is making the same assumptions.
You're telling me that the set of axioms necessary to investigate something scientifically are a subset of Christianity's axioms-- and what's more, you're saying that no axiom set predating Christianity contained the assumptions necessary to investigate scientifically.
Let's address the first thing first. Christianity is not the oldest religion to propose a system of creation managed by a capital G guy-in-the-sky God. Since that's the case, even if the body of your argument is true, your statement that science is derived from biblical Christianity is arrogant and misleading at best, and downright inane at worst.
At any rate, the idea of a consistent, predictable, universe does not require an intelligent creator by necessity. We can arrive at a universe with consistent laws (at least in a tentative way) via inductive reasoning based on direct observations, i.e. "I observe the universe obeying certain rules of cause and effect, and inductively infer that these rules continue to hold throughout the universe, irrespective of time, etc."
Arriving at the conclusion deductively by taking the existence of an intelligent creator as an axiom is a messier way of going about it, since it throws away empirical evidence in favor of the new axiom.
Based on the assumption that humans started with a simpler set of axioms than they have today, we can infer that the direct, empirical, induction of cause and effect predated the deductive, intelligent creator method. Indeed, we see that an understanding of cause and effect, and of the universe as a consistent place, is more or less hardwired into the mammalian brain. Everyone from humans to chimps to cats assumes that stasis is the default mode. Perhaps the best example of this is classical conditioning-- through Pavlov's classic experiment, we see that the assumption of stasis extends even to an unconscious level. The dog's conditioned brain expects food when it hears a bell. In this case two stimuli are associated, and it is biologically assumed that they will continue to be associated until there is evidence presented to the contrary.
In the end, science is based on the rather reflexive statement, "unless things change, they stay the same." The scientific method involves making observations about things, checking to see if they've changed, and, at some arbitrary point where there's "enough" evidence to suggest that the thing will *continue* to stay the same, accepting it (but continuing to check periodically, to make sure it's still the same).
Unfortunately, that estimate neglects any internal processing capabilities that neurons might (do) have. It's generally thought these days that neurons do more than simply sum their input signals-- they've been observed doing much stranger things. Keep in mind that every neuron is a complete (though specialized) cell, and cells are awfully complicated little buggers. To *accurately* simulate the brain, you'd have to multiply the estimate by the average number of operations it *actually* takes to simulate whatever processing a neuron does. It may turn out that the things electrical signals in neurons provoke chemical reactions (which in cells, inevitably involve proteins) that change the output.
In other words, if I gave you 3.0 x 10^17 operations per second and a model of the synaptic connections between all the neurons of a human brain... Well, you would get some damned interesting results, but it wouldn't be anything remotely human. Before you can simulate a human brain in an accurate way, you have to account for internal processing and the (none too simple) action of neurotransmitters.
Nevermind if you want to simulate, say, the brain of someone consuming a chemical with unknown effects but a known chemical makeup (one very useful application for a complete electronic model of a human brain). Then you have model the structure of every type of receptor and determine their concentrations on a neuron by neuron basis throughout the brain-- then talk about the affinity of the chemical for those receptors.
As you can see, talking about two operations per second per synapse is extremely unrealistic, so the numbers we get for a computer powerful enough to simulate a human brain are absurdly low.
Maybe the machine is too complex, too expensive, too ponderous and big and pointless-- but it's such a beautifully human little thing to build that I can't help but love it. Not only that, but it's human in a way that is perhaps unique to modern times. The retrospection-- the self consciousness of a people that have discovered they are a part of *history*-- that's what I appreciate in this machine.
Have you ever wondered why we don't find time capsules from two thousand years ago with messages for the future? It, apparently, simply didn't occur to anyone that they might be able to, by leaving a durable message, communicate in a one sided way with the future. That the human race now can think "I wonder what people will think of us when we're gone... we'd better let them know what kind of folks we are so they don't get the wrong impression", is a very hopeful sign. It indicates to me an elevation of consciousness-- the kind of consideration for the future that might make it so we don't *need* to build devices explaining our society to a hypothetical post-apocalyptic people.
Maybe we can make this whole civilization thing sustainable after all. The big concern is, are there enough people like this?
Oh, I'm sorry... Slashdot, right. "Yes, but does it store phone numbers?
Jack Thompson, at a press conference with Cubics professor Gene Ray today, is quoted as saying "Gleeko flarny blutnot spoing. Scam bananna mongo charves. The Jews ate my T-Shirt! Gah!" Jack Thompson-- Real Life Troll
Rip they Rip rip only rip dvrip!? Hahaha! Jokes are funny!
I didn't know they were still scaping the nets. At first glance this looked completely inane, but I guess "...Netscape 8 is based on Firefox, but lets users switch between both the Firefox and IE browser engines." That's almost snappy. Makes a fella wonder exactly how this switching mechanism works. I'm on the verge of interested, but a quick visit to http://www.netscape.com/ makes me think Netscape might be more interested in "...Jenna Bush's Latest Surprising Escapades" than being my browser choice. Doesn't look like they're into Linux much, either. So much for a blast from the web browsing past.
Ugh... The Furby is a great example of how being able to reset personality can lead to emotional detachment. Also, when you fling it at the wall it gives an enthusiastic "Whee!".
I can't see why Alienware'd be on the list at all. They're effectively charging a heavy markup for the "service" of putting your very expensive computer together for you. So far as I know, they don't have access to any components that aren't readily available to the public. If you're spending thousands upon thousands of dollars for a gaming rig, building it should be part of the fun. Also, a quick google of "alienware sucks" will tell you that they have dicey customer service.
Heavily marked up components and spotty support. Alienware is performing a "service" indeed.
"But it also comes with several lives. Owners can skip the maturing process and make AIBO an adult instantly or switch the adult back to a pup to enjoy the growing-up stage." I realize that the AIBO is an extremely simple piece of equipment when compared to even a unicellular organism, but still. People who buy this are looking to impose the "dog" abstraction on it. Sony is trying very hard to make AIBO owners treat it like a real dog. It's a little disturbing that it can be reset with the push of a button. Either the owners are going to be apathetic towards it, since it isn't realistic enough to empathize with, or they're going to be wierded out when their mature "dog" suddenly starts acting like a puppy. I know it'd creep me out.