Dude, what I can't understand is how any technically oriented person can NOT hate Microsoft. If MS simply produced mediocre software that happened to be installed by default on most computers, I wouldn't care. People who aren't in the know might simply be making a scapegoat out of MS, but for the rest of us, the company completely deserves its reputation. It boggles my mind that you think otherwise.
I've used the Ti89 since it came out in Summer '98. To this day it is probably the most capable calculator out there. The most powerful (and most unknown) feature is the built in units. I was a physics major and nearly all the (numerical) problems dealt involved dimensional analysis, which could get pretty hairy in and of itself.
Unlike other calculators the units are built in. They aren't a scalar multiplication but a representation of a fundamental unit, such as length or time or mass. You can calculate (9_kg * 6_mile) / (1_week) and it will give you momentum in SI units (_kg * _m / _s). That alone makes it stand apart.
As another reader pointed out, if the errors are random then a large sample size will reduce the relative error to approximately zero. Imagine flipping a (fair) coin 10 times and getting 8 tails and 2 heads. That's far from the expected value of 5 tails and 5 heads, but certainly possible given that each coin toss is a random, independent sample. However, if you flip a coin a very large number of times, the probability of any significant deviation from a 50/50 distribution is vanishingly small.
So let's hope the errors are random. Then again, I'm seriously skeptical of Diebold and any electronic voting system that is hidden from public scrutiny, and I doubt many politicians would refuse the chance to buy an election if they could.... Which is another story. I just wish there was something we could do about it.
Two investigators look at a crime scene. They have a body and a murder weapon. They have the same evidence to work with. Without an eyewitness account they have to form a hypothesis and ask, "what physical observables would I expect to find if the following scenario happened at the scene of the crime?" Then, they test the crime scene for these observables and refine their hypothesis. The testing of the hypothesis and the hypothesis itself are independent in the sense that a "silly" hypothesis should fail under the same tests that would invalidate a sensible, yet incorrect hypothesis.
Special creation assumes an initial condition, at some not so distant point in time, right? "Scientific" theories (and I use quotes not to imply that they aren't science, but to denote the stuff you'll see in textbooks) make no such assumption, but explain how things went from t=0 to present day by allowing natural processes (near-)infinite time to arrive here.
Now, just because special creation uses an initial condition based on a "silly" hypothesis doesn't mean that it cannot be subjected to the same tests of physical observables as evolution. In either case you're left guessing at a LOT. On the one hand you have an obviously untestable theory and on the other you're taking a time-limited sampling of measurements and extrapolating millions and millions of years. (I don't mean measurements of physical laws, but of geological processes).
Either way this planet is a pocketwatch found in the middle of a field, and either way we're left with something that's hard to explain. To me, a theory that allows infinite time for that watch to build itself is not necessarily any more or less valid than one that suggests that perhaps someone put it there. Either way, we're left with evidence of _something_ that we try to test against our hunch.
I recognize that our "hunches" affect our world view, and thereby also affect our interpretation of the evidence. Confirmation bias, right? It does go both ways, and good (and bad) science can be done by both sides. You suspect the butler, I suspect the doctor. But I will be modded down. Lots. Just because the doctor happens to be the one true God, in my case... =) Or off-topic.
I too was raised in a Christian home and have done very well in Physics and Enginnering, and will soon be pursuing my Ph.D in Applied Physics. Reading your post, I would say that we have quite a bit in common when it comes to background and strengths. It sounds like you've considered the argument regarding special creation for yourself, so I can't disagree with your conclusion. Theologically speaking, I would say that special creation vs. evolution pales in comparison to the larger questions that Christianity addresses. So when people disagree about it, I don't think it's anything to get worked up about.
Anyway, your conclusion that special creation is "drivel" is fine with me, since you arrived at your own conclusions... Not like it's my job to act as an authority on the matter anyway. What I disagree with is your assertion that anyone who accepts special creation just hasn't taken the time (or lacks the ability) to look into the matter for themselves....although I feel that anyone who hasn't thought it through, should.
I believe the story of creation, not because it was spoon fed to me, not because my worldview depends on it, and certainly not because my faith would fall apart without it. I believed it only after researching it carefully for myself - not over the course of years, but more like months - enough to settle the matter in my mind. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, but at least credit me with being intelligent enough to weigh the evidence for myself and make up my own mind. In the same way, I credit you with the intelligence to make up your own mind and I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
Honestly, I can't answer even half of the "if special creation happened then how do you explain such-and-such" questions, so I'll cut that discussion short and simply say "I don't know." There is nothing wrong with asking those questions, regardless of who is doing the asking. But from my perspective, what Christianity says about who Jesus was and what he did is so incredible that it _requires_ faith to believe. Part of that faith is learning to trust that there ARE answers, even when we may never know them. But it certainly doesn't mean it's not okay to ask.
> Exactly what piece of open source sofware have you found that has really well writen documention?
Personally, I have found open source to be extremely well documented. Just in the last few months I've relied upon the documentation of the GNU C library (and GNU software in general), fftw3, FLTK, and PlPlot. In addition to being generally well written, the documentation was extremely useful from a technical standpoint.
In contrast, I've found the documentation for the closed-source libraries I've used to be relatively scarce on technical detail. They may have been smaller companies with only a few people hired to do the documentation for a limited time, I don't know. At any rate, this is many times worse than scarce open source documentation, since you're basically left guessing (or calling up "support") to figure out anything the documentation leaves unanswered.
It may be true that "end user" applications have varying degrees of documentation in the world of open source, but as a _developer_, I wouldn't want to use anything else.
I wrote both my senator and representative. Knowing how busy they must be, I made the subject line "!!!! CLICK HERE FOR FREE PICS !!!!" just to grab their attention! Then they're SURE to read my letter!
Dear Senator,
As a resident of (town), I am writing you to express my support of CIO Peter Quinn and the recent Massachusetts decision to support Open Document Format (ODF) over Microsoft Open XML format. As an engineer at a local research laboratory, I write and use software on a daily basis and from my experience, I cannot stress how important it is for documents, and software in general, to adhere to written standards.
For many reasons, both technical and ethical, ODF it is the _right_ thing to do. But that does not mean it is the _easy_ thing to do. I anticipate significant controversy over the Commonwealth's decision to move to ODF, but I urge you to remain steadfast in your support of the initiative. By Microsoft's own choice not to support the format, it is not in their interests for Open Document to succeed, and they will do everything in their (considerable) power to stop it.
Senator, there are two visions for computing in the future, and they are diametrically opposed: one side places freedom above all else, while the other sees freedom as its enemy. By taking a stand for open standards, Massachusetts is sending a strong message to those that wish to take that freedom. At the same time, Massachusetts is setting an example for other sovereign entities to follow, and I have the utmost respect and support for those, like Peter Quinn, who have the vision to see it through.
Slashdot Mirror
What about "We didn't have access to Vista's internals until two months ago?"
That would be a good excuse for most security vendors...
Dude, what I can't understand is how any technically oriented person can NOT hate Microsoft. If MS simply produced mediocre software that happened to be installed by default on most computers, I wouldn't care. People who aren't in the know might simply be making a scapegoat out of MS, but for the rest of us, the company completely deserves its reputation. It boggles my mind that you think otherwise.
How about this for some easy reading?
I've used the Ti89 since it came out in Summer '98. To this day it is probably the most capable calculator out there. The most powerful (and most unknown) feature is the built in units. I was a physics major and nearly all the (numerical) problems dealt involved dimensional analysis, which could get pretty hairy in and of itself.
Unlike other calculators the units are built in. They aren't a scalar multiplication but a representation of a fundamental unit, such as length or time or mass. You can calculate (9_kg * 6_mile) / (1_week) and it will give you momentum in SI units (_kg * _m / _s). That alone makes it stand apart.
Has anyone noticed that when you Google for "Linux" the first sponsored link is Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign?
As another reader pointed out, if the errors are random then a large sample size will reduce the relative error to approximately zero. Imagine flipping a (fair) coin 10 times and getting 8 tails and 2 heads. That's far from the expected value of 5 tails and 5 heads, but certainly possible given that each coin toss is a random, independent sample. However, if you flip a coin a very large number of times, the probability of any significant deviation from a 50/50 distribution is vanishingly small.
... Which is another story. I just wish there was something we could do about it.
So let's hope the errors are random. Then again, I'm seriously skeptical of Diebold and any electronic voting system that is hidden from public scrutiny, and I doubt many politicians would refuse the chance to buy an election if they could.
Yes, Evidence.
Two investigators look at a crime scene. They have a body and a murder weapon. They have the same evidence to work with. Without an eyewitness account they have to form a hypothesis and ask, "what physical observables would I expect to find if the following scenario happened at the scene of the crime?" Then, they test the crime scene for these observables and refine their hypothesis. The testing of the hypothesis and the hypothesis itself are independent in the sense that a "silly" hypothesis should fail under the same tests that would invalidate a sensible, yet incorrect hypothesis.
Special creation assumes an initial condition, at some not so distant point in time, right? "Scientific" theories (and I use quotes not to imply that they aren't science, but to denote the stuff you'll see in textbooks) make no such assumption, but explain how things went from t=0 to present day by allowing natural processes (near-)infinite time to arrive here.
Now, just because special creation uses an initial condition based on a "silly" hypothesis doesn't mean that it cannot be subjected to the same tests of physical observables as evolution. In either case you're left guessing at a LOT. On the one hand you have an obviously untestable theory and on the other you're taking a time-limited sampling of measurements and extrapolating millions and millions of years. (I don't mean measurements of physical laws, but of geological processes).
Either way this planet is a pocketwatch found in the middle of a field, and either way we're left with something that's hard to explain. To me, a theory that allows infinite time for that watch to build itself is not necessarily any more or less valid than one that suggests that perhaps someone put it there. Either way, we're left with evidence of _something_ that we try to test against our hunch.
I recognize that our "hunches" affect our world view, and thereby also affect our interpretation of the evidence. Confirmation bias, right? It does go both ways, and good (and bad) science can be done by both sides. You suspect the butler, I suspect the doctor. But I will be modded down. Lots. Just because the doctor happens to be the one true God, in my case... =) Or off-topic.
I too was raised in a Christian home and have done very well in Physics and Enginnering, and will soon be pursuing my Ph.D in Applied Physics. Reading your post, I would say that we have quite a bit in common when it comes to background and strengths. It sounds like you've considered the argument regarding special creation for yourself, so I can't disagree with your conclusion. Theologically speaking, I would say that special creation vs. evolution pales in comparison to the larger questions that Christianity addresses. So when people disagree about it, I don't think it's anything to get worked up about.
...although I feel that anyone who hasn't thought it through, should.
Anyway, your conclusion that special creation is "drivel" is fine with me, since you arrived at your own conclusions... Not like it's my job to act as an authority on the matter anyway. What I disagree with is your assertion that anyone who accepts special creation just hasn't taken the time (or lacks the ability) to look into the matter for themselves.
I believe the story of creation, not because it was spoon fed to me, not because my worldview depends on it, and certainly not because my faith would fall apart without it. I believed it only after researching it carefully for myself - not over the course of years, but more like months - enough to settle the matter in my mind. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, but at least credit me with being intelligent enough to weigh the evidence for myself and make up my own mind. In the same way, I credit you with the intelligence to make up your own mind and I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
Honestly, I can't answer even half of the "if special creation happened then how do you explain such-and-such" questions, so I'll cut that discussion short and simply say "I don't know." There is nothing wrong with asking those questions, regardless of who is doing the asking. But from my perspective, what Christianity says about who Jesus was and what he did is so incredible that it _requires_ faith to believe. Part of that faith is learning to trust that there ARE answers, even when we may never know them. But it certainly doesn't mean it's not okay to ask.
Sorry for the extra-long post...
Maybe it's because Hubble giggled...
> Exactly what piece of open source sofware have you found that has really well writen documention?
Personally, I have found open source to be extremely well documented. Just in the last few months I've relied upon the documentation of the GNU C library (and GNU software in general), fftw3, FLTK, and PlPlot. In addition to being generally well written, the documentation was extremely useful from a technical standpoint.
In contrast, I've found the documentation for the closed-source libraries I've used to be relatively scarce on technical detail. They may have been smaller companies with only a few people hired to do the documentation for a limited time, I don't know. At any rate, this is many times worse than scarce open source documentation, since you're basically left guessing (or calling up "support") to figure out anything the documentation leaves unanswered.
It may be true that "end user" applications have varying degrees of documentation in the world of open source, but as a _developer_, I wouldn't want to use anything else.
I wrote both my senator and representative. Knowing how busy they must be, I made the subject line "!!!! CLICK HERE FOR FREE PICS !!!!" just to grab their attention! Then they're SURE to read my letter!
Dear Senator,
As a resident of (town), I am writing you to express my support of CIO Peter Quinn and the recent Massachusetts decision to support Open Document Format (ODF) over Microsoft Open XML format. As an engineer at a local research laboratory, I write and use software on a daily basis and from my experience, I cannot stress how important it is for documents, and software in general, to adhere to written standards.
For many reasons, both technical and ethical, ODF it is the _right_ thing to do. But that does not mean it is the _easy_ thing to do. I anticipate significant controversy over the Commonwealth's decision to move to ODF, but I urge you to remain steadfast in your support of the initiative. By Microsoft's own choice not to support the format, it is not in their interests for Open Document to succeed, and they will do everything in their (considerable) power to stop it.
Senator, there are two visions for computing in the future, and they are diametrically opposed: one side places freedom above all else, while the other sees freedom as its enemy. By taking a stand for open standards, Massachusetts is sending a strong message to those that wish to take that freedom. At the same time, Massachusetts is setting an example for other sovereign entities to follow, and I have the utmost respect and support for those, like Peter Quinn, who have the vision to see it through.
Respectfully,