In many contexts they are quite complementary. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about concepts like self-reflection. Have you considered that evidence-based self reflection might be possible?
Not only are they compatible, but they're not even measuring the same thing, so how can they be opposite at all? Even if they contradicted each other, which they generally do not, they would still not be opposite.
The mishmash that you're doing that is full of unstated and inaccurate assumptions? That is "normal" thinking. The things the wikipedia page describes? That is "critical" thinking. If there is any hope for you at all, keep re-reading the wiki until you manage to understand the words in a way that makes sense. Then you'll have removed the conflicting assumptions from your mind, and understanding will be achieved.
I'd wager that humans with eye patches have an increased need for eye drops because they'll have more difficulty with a little dirt in their eye, or compensating for dry eyes by temporarily accepting lower resolution.
Just as long as they don't mess up the next Y2K programming bonanza when 0x7fffffff gets here. You can change the wall calendar, but please don't screw up, or fix, the UNIX Epoch until a year after it ends.:P
My wife is Thai, and thinks using the Buddhist calendar. So 2014 is 2557. But Thais use a modified version that is otherwise a renumbered Gregorian, so at least the New Years Day on the calendar is the same, even if the party is in April.
The constant is certainly rational. It is the human numbering system which is irrational, proven by how awful it is at describing any known constants... even easily calculated ratios like pi
Yeah, but luckily when it comes to calendars we can be saved by people that implement 13 equal months with 14 unequal months that are claimed to be 13, except when you have to talk about the 14th, which they think they can hide by numbering it 0.
By thinking about the context.;) The newer paradigms are designed for small devices because of the claimed problems with traditional paradigms on those devices. You're claiming that the newer paradigms are better for large screens, but to support that you're actually agreeing that the new paradigms are designed to overcome problems on SMALL screens. So you're supporting my case, by attacking what I said in the wrong direction.;)
The case only gets thrown out when there is Prosecutorial misconduct, that is, misconduct by the prosecutors. Misconduct by law enforcement only gets certain related evidence thrown out; in a situation like this, where he has already been convicted and the misconduct is not related to evidence used in his trial, he isn't going to get anything like that.
He might be able to sue for monetary damages, in a civil rights case.
You should see the recent work done showing that the sense of smell probably relies on some sort of quantum effects; some animals can still detect a scent when it is diluted so much that there weren't any particles to lodge in the sensory tract, and generally refuting the (already known to be problematic) traditional understanding of how scent works.
So on basic principles, it seems that most of the homeopathy skeptics are like flat-Earthers; they disbelieve because they don't know and presume it to be outlandish. In most cases homeopathy is probably not an effective treatment; that has been shown clinically without resorting to absurdities like claiming we understand the limits and edges of quantum effects inside the body. However, for some conditions homeopathy has been shown to be very slightly better than a placebo.
People who find it impossible that there might be an effect without transmitting whole atoms of medicine might be shocked by things like laser treatments. Or the existence of bloodhounds.;)
Charlie Sheen would end up dead in the jungle, the ring girl would get a major magazine cover shot, and John McAfee would be found on the beach a week later muttering, "Those ring girls are powerful"
I remember back in the 80s making my first FTP connection, on an Apple ][ at school. You could login with some silly username like "customer" (it was something different but I forget what, where are my meds?) and the password was 12345 or something. You could then download the whole (commercial) software package for free. In a time before most open source, when most of my software was "Cracked by The Nibbler," McAfee ("or however you spell it") would just give it away to anybody who would rather download an unlicensed copy than buy one. He probably recognized that actual companies would buy it anyways.
He is legend for real reasons, and a mixed bag of reasons.
And for the curious, no, we had no need for a DOS virus scanner on an Apple ][. It was just really awesome to download "real software" for free.
You also remembered your coursework, good job! Now go back, re-read the problem, re-read his link, understand the formula used. It is the formula for LANDING on the Sun. Not for crashing into it. And using a gravity well, even landing on the Sun only requires fuel to get to the nearest object you can use to slingshot (the Earth, presumably on the next orbit). It is the SAME fuel cost for both; less than the link describes. Not only can you crash into the Sun on less fuel than they describe, you can also leave the solar system with less. It is a valuable thought experiment but only if you understand the thought!
The newer desktop paradigms seem to be driven by devices with very small screens, so it seems that more traditional desktop environments might actually have better support than the newer ones.
No. Devices with very small screens operated by touch work abysmally with 'traditional desktop environments'. That's why Windows CE phones never took off.
You said "no" but then you went on to paint a picture that supports what I said.
The "balance" doesn't mean squat. When I came to slashdot over 15 years ago, it was normal for people to have multiple screens, of various sizes, and the open source technology already supported it. The main difference now is that we don't have to calculate (or look up) modelines and hand configure a bunch of crap. But the windowing systems already had good support for it, and the X Window System surely doesn't care how many screens you want to configure.
The newer desktop paradigms seem to be driven by devices with very small screens, so it seems that more traditional desktop environments might actually have better support than the newer ones.
I'm using XFCE and I can just type "evince" in xterm. I still use a lot of gtk and gnome-based apps, but they only way to escape innovation is to abandon projects that innovate.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus claimed to be human, too. He didn't call himself Son of God, he called himself "Son of Man."
If those are the supposed options, manipulation or bowing and scraping, I gotta say, you're beyond simple sociopathy.
In many contexts they are quite complementary. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about concepts like self-reflection. Have you considered that evidence-based self reflection might be possible?
Not only are they compatible, but they're not even measuring the same thing, so how can they be opposite at all? Even if they contradicted each other, which they generally do not, they would still not be opposite.
The mishmash that you're doing that is full of unstated and inaccurate assumptions? That is "normal" thinking. The things the wikipedia page describes? That is "critical" thinking. If there is any hope for you at all, keep re-reading the wiki until you manage to understand the words in a way that makes sense. Then you'll have removed the conflicting assumptions from your mind, and understanding will be achieved.
When when you look at the back of a switch you're not authorized to maintain, it can instantly notify the sysadmin. I'm starting to like this!
I'd wager that humans with eye patches have an increased need for eye drops because they'll have more difficulty with a little dirt in their eye, or compensating for dry eyes by temporarily accepting lower resolution.
Naw, the Christians would all freak out unless you exclude the ones they don't like.
Wow, man, I knew you were older than water but I didn't realize you were older than time!
Just as long as they don't mess up the next Y2K programming bonanza when 0x7fffffff gets here. You can change the wall calendar, but please don't screw up, or fix, the UNIX Epoch until a year after it ends. :P
My wife is Thai, and thinks using the Buddhist calendar. So 2014 is 2557.
But Thais use a modified version that is otherwise a renumbered Gregorian, so at least the New Years Day on the calendar is the same, even if the party is in April.
There are still lots of calendars in the world.
The constant is certainly rational. It is the human numbering system which is irrational, proven by how awful it is at describing any known constants... even easily calculated ratios like pi
Yeah, but luckily when it comes to calendars we can be saved by people that implement 13 equal months with 14 unequal months that are claimed to be 13, except when you have to talk about the 14th, which they think they can hide by numbering it 0.
By thinking about the context. ;) ;)
The newer paradigms are designed for small devices because of the claimed problems with traditional paradigms on those devices.
You're claiming that the newer paradigms are better for large screens, but to support that you're actually agreeing that the new paradigms are designed to overcome problems on SMALL screens. So you're supporting my case, by attacking what I said in the wrong direction.
The case only gets thrown out when there is Prosecutorial misconduct, that is, misconduct by the prosecutors. Misconduct by law enforcement only gets certain related evidence thrown out; in a situation like this, where he has already been convicted and the misconduct is not related to evidence used in his trial, he isn't going to get anything like that.
He might be able to sue for monetary damages, in a civil rights case.
He might be able to re-start some of his appeals.
You should see the recent work done showing that the sense of smell probably relies on some sort of quantum effects; some animals can still detect a scent when it is diluted so much that there weren't any particles to lodge in the sensory tract, and generally refuting the (already known to be problematic) traditional understanding of how scent works.
So on basic principles, it seems that most of the homeopathy skeptics are like flat-Earthers; they disbelieve because they don't know and presume it to be outlandish. In most cases homeopathy is probably not an effective treatment; that has been shown clinically without resorting to absurdities like claiming we understand the limits and edges of quantum effects inside the body. However, for some conditions homeopathy has been shown to be very slightly better than a placebo.
People who find it impossible that there might be an effect without transmitting whole atoms of medicine might be shocked by things like laser treatments. Or the existence of bloodhounds. ;)
You should google (har har) "branding"
Charlie Sheen would end up dead in the jungle, the ring girl would get a major magazine cover shot, and John McAfee would be found on the beach a week later muttering, "Those ring girls are powerful"
Why is he eternally relevant?
I remember back in the 80s making my first FTP connection, on an Apple ][ at school. You could login with some silly username like "customer" (it was something different but I forget what, where are my meds?) and the password was 12345 or something. You could then download the whole (commercial) software package for free. In a time before most open source, when most of my software was "Cracked by The Nibbler," McAfee ("or however you spell it") would just give it away to anybody who would rather download an unlicensed copy than buy one. He probably recognized that actual companies would buy it anyways.
He is legend for real reasons, and a mixed bag of reasons.
And for the curious, no, we had no need for a DOS virus scanner on an Apple ][. It was just really awesome to download "real software" for free.
Why would anyone want to ask this dipshit anything? He's not even funny anymore.
It is because he is so expert at being a dipshit, or at least appearing to be one (how would I know?) that he is still funny.
My question for him: Explain the business case for impersonating a world class dipshit.
Mr Coward, I understand you're new here, but no, we do not "click on" (or read) the story.
You also remembered your coursework, good job! Now go back, re-read the problem, re-read his link, understand the formula used. It is the formula for LANDING on the Sun. Not for crashing into it. And using a gravity well, even landing on the Sun only requires fuel to get to the nearest object you can use to slingshot (the Earth, presumably on the next orbit). It is the SAME fuel cost for both; less than the link describes. Not only can you crash into the Sun on less fuel than they describe, you can also leave the solar system with less. It is a valuable thought experiment but only if you understand the thought!
It isn't "easier" at all, you DO NOT NEED THE DELTA V FOR A SUN LANDING IN ORDER TO CRASH INTO IT WHY DO YOU SKIP THE ONLY IMPORTANT WORDS?
abcdefghi.jklmnopqwertyuiopasdfgh.jklzxcvbnmqwert.yuiop.asdfghj.klzxcvbnm
qwertyuiop.asdfghj.klzxcvbnm,qwertyuiopas.dfghjklzxcvbnm
You seem pretty confused about how traditional *nix desktops work. Why would I get stuck using some gtk3 "gunk?" Oh, I wouldn't. Air ball!
The newer desktop paradigms seem to be driven by devices with very small screens, so it seems that more traditional desktop environments might actually have better support than the newer ones.
No. Devices with very small screens operated by touch work abysmally with 'traditional desktop environments'. That's why Windows CE phones never took off.
You said "no" but then you went on to paint a picture that supports what I said.
The "balance" doesn't mean squat. When I came to slashdot over 15 years ago, it was normal for people to have multiple screens, of various sizes, and the open source technology already supported it. The main difference now is that we don't have to calculate (or look up) modelines and hand configure a bunch of crap. But the windowing systems already had good support for it, and the X Window System surely doesn't care how many screens you want to configure.
The newer desktop paradigms seem to be driven by devices with very small screens, so it seems that more traditional desktop environments might actually have better support than the newer ones.
I'm using XFCE and I can just type "evince" in xterm. I still use a lot of gtk and gnome-based apps, but they only way to escape innovation is to abandon projects that innovate.