What exactly do you mean by bloat? Do you mean software that is badly written (e.g. they could have exited that loop when the condition was met rather than loop round everything) or do you mean changes to the Look and Feel of the OS (Which, in my opinion, are improvements and not bloat)?
That's true for fine interference patterns (They are not true colours anyway). But colour TVs won't "Just show" colour because there are chroma-dots that can be interpreted.
Because colour TVs don't interpret chroma dots to display colour, they use three different signals for RGB. Engineers would have had to build chroma-dot interpretation into the colour TVs.
Things don't just work. They have to be made to work. Are you in middle management by any chance?. Do you use the phrase "Make it so Number One"?
Solipsism is irrelevant, and not just to science. You can believe that all that you can really know for sure is your mind if you like, but I bet you don't actually live like that. It's not a philosophy that says anything meaningful or useful, regardless of the type of truth you are seeking, metaphysical/scientific or whatever.
No it's not. It is a fixed set of dogmas that you must follow in order to meet the requirements of whoever the God is you worship. Buddhism may be an exeption.
Scientists do not treat science as a religion. A religion takes a fixed viewpoint and defends it. Science uses evidence to search for what is.
Science, by definition, changes it's viewpoint when evidence shows the original viewpoint is false/unfounded. Religion, by definition, has a set of unchanging doctrines. There is no comparison between the two.
As for philosophy. Philosophy can only teach us whether a question we ask is valid or not and if it is not, how to re-frame it. It cannot and does not provide answers to questions.
I would say those with an education Ph.D. are often the worst as they tend to teach according to some formulaic method they helped devise while doing their Ph.D.
Science has the most scrutiny. It must. Something must actually be repeatable. If one philosopher makes a mistake in a leap of logic, because they are of a particular viewpoint to start with, it is fairly likely another will do the same. No-one can actually test it.
Isn't the internet just a large collection of computers connected together via a smaller (though still large) collection of computers that control things like DNS tables (OK, a bit of a simplification). But what would stop some determined criminals from creating their own "internet 2", say, and using that, totally un-policed? Surely there is a way round any law for determined criminals?
We ARE on slashdot, I suspect most of us know the difference between polarised and tinted. The lenses do darken down the image considerably. The best 3D cinemas I have been to use the system where each lens is synched with the projector. The lenses are clear, but blacked out when the other lens is being used.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, Naysayers have always predicted the end of advancements!
Moore's law was always about transistor count and only about transistor count!
What exactly do you mean by bloat? Do you mean software that is badly written (e.g. they could have exited that loop when the condition was met rather than loop round everything) or do you mean changes to the Look and Feel of the OS (Which, in my opinion, are improvements and not bloat)?
That's true for fine interference patterns (They are not true colours anyway). But colour TVs won't "Just show" colour because there are chroma-dots that can be interpreted.
" ... Why doesn't it just work ... "
Because colour TVs don't interpret chroma dots to display colour, they use three different signals for RGB. Engineers would have had to build chroma-dot interpretation into the colour TVs.
Things don't just work. They have to be made to work. Are you in middle management by any chance?. Do you use the phrase "Make it so Number One"?
Open source alternative to skype? Skype isn't just software! Who would pay for all the links to national telecoms etc... ?
Solipsism is irrelevant, and not just to science. You can believe that all that you can really know for sure is your mind if you like, but I bet you don't actually live like that. It's not a philosophy that says anything meaningful or useful, regardless of the type of truth you are seeking, metaphysical/scientific or whatever.
No it's not. It is a fixed set of dogmas that you must follow in order to meet the requirements of whoever the God is you worship. Buddhism may be an exeption.
What truths have been found through religion?
" Popper, who provided the concept of falsifiability as an answer to the problem of scientific induction faced by the positivists"
That isn't an answer, it is telling us how to ask questions, like I said earlier.
Science can't be completely independent of metaphysics. Citations/Examples needed, I think.
Scientists do not treat science as a religion. A religion takes a fixed viewpoint and defends it. Science uses evidence to search for what is.
Science, by definition, changes it's viewpoint when evidence shows the original viewpoint is false/unfounded. Religion, by definition, has a set of unchanging doctrines. There is no comparison between the two.
As for philosophy. Philosophy can only teach us whether a question we ask is valid or not and if it is not, how to re-frame it. It cannot and does not provide answers to questions.
I would say those with an education Ph.D. are often the worst as they tend to teach according to some formulaic method they helped devise while doing their Ph.D.
Science has the most scrutiny. It must. Something must actually be repeatable. If one philosopher makes a mistake in a leap of logic, because they are of a particular viewpoint to start with, it is fairly likely another will do the same. No-one can actually test it.
Philosophy does not have answers. It can give a clearer view of what questions make sense, or how better to ask a question, but it has no answers.
Try defining logic without philosophy.
A Ph.D. tells you nothing except that the holder did some original research at an early point in their career.
Isn't the internet just a large collection of computers connected together via a smaller (though still large) collection of computers that control things like DNS tables (OK, a bit of a simplification). But what would stop some determined criminals from creating their own "internet 2", say, and using that, totally un-policed? Surely there is a way round any law for determined criminals?
We ARE on slashdot, I suspect most of us know the difference between polarised and tinted. The lenses do darken down the image considerably. The best 3D cinemas I have been to use the system where each lens is synched with the projector. The lenses are clear, but blacked out when the other lens is being used.
I saw an interview with some of the cast members and apparently their suits actually did glow. It wasn't CGI or hand drawn.
I'm just as worried about them using the word "science" for those classes!
If only half was algorithms, then maybe the "BS" part doesn't stand for what you originally thought. :-)
I still have to use one of those, you insensitive clod!
No, probably a typo! :-)
I, for one, welcome our cloud-based overlords!
They have 2 hours to appeal. What can have changed in two hours that another judge would reverse the decision?
Your post meets those criteria. Does that make you a troll? :-)