Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Michael
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in The Opera Browser Revisited on Ace on Tech
I've been running Opera 9.24 on Ubuntu 7.10 for a while now. I'm not experiencing the lagging issues you've described, although I don't use AJAX much that I'm aware of. My experience is that it's been just as fast as Firefox, hasn't demonstrated any memory leakage, and is running very nicely on an older system with 512MB RAM. Reviews I've read of the upcoming 9.25 update have been largely optimistic with regard to better memory usage and performance. Your Mileage May Vary, of course.
1 year ago
in How Would *You* Prove Evolution? on danielmiessler.com | grep understanding
That's not entirely accurate, Waldo. Just because a species can change to a certain degree in a certain time period doesn't mean it will continue that same degree of change proportionate to the increase in time. Evolution works on the principle that species change to meet the needs of their environment. For example, alligators haven't been seen to change much since the age of dinosaurs (with the possible exception of losing some mass) because their environments haven't changed much. They're sufficiently adapted to the degree that they don't need to change. They're a dead-end on the evolutionary scale.
Some species demonstrate greater change than others because they're attempting to adapt to sub-optimal conditions. That's why when biologists run experiments for evolution, they create inhospitable environments for the species they want to change while creating an optimized environment for the control groups.
I understand what you meant, but I thought I'd nitpick on your generalization.
Some species demonstrate greater change than others because they're attempting to adapt to sub-optimal conditions. That's why when biologists run experiments for evolution, they create inhospitable environments for the species they want to change while creating an optimized environment for the control groups.
I understand what you meant, but I thought I'd nitpick on your generalization.
1 year ago
in How Would *You* Prove Evolution? on dmiessler.com | grep understanding
That's not entirely accurate, Waldo. Just because a species can change to a certain degree in a certain time period doesn't mean it will continue that same degree of change proportionate to the increase in time. Evolution works on the principle that species change to meet the needs of their environment. For example, alligators haven't been seen to change much since the age of dinosaurs (with the possible exception of losing some mass) because their environments haven't changed much. They're sufficiently adapted to the degree that they don't need to change. They're a dead-end on the evolutionary scale.
Some species demonstrate greater change than others because they're attempting to adapt to sub-optimal conditions. That's why when biologists run experiments for evolution, they create inhospitable environments for the species they want to change while creating an optimized environment for the control groups.
I understand what you meant, but I thought I'd nitpick on your generalization.
Some species demonstrate greater change than others because they're attempting to adapt to sub-optimal conditions. That's why when biologists run experiments for evolution, they create inhospitable environments for the species they want to change while creating an optimized environment for the control groups.
I understand what you meant, but I thought I'd nitpick on your generalization.
1 year ago
in How Would *You* Prove Evolution? on dmiessler.com | grep understanding
How do we know the scientists are telling the truth when they talk about the evidence they claim to have? Without access to peer journals, it becomes difficult. At that point you have to have faith that the scientific community really is dedicated to uncovering the truth and reporting it as they find it. Conjecture is the name of the game: scientists try to explain what they see supported with the knowledge already amassed.
Peer review is really the key here. How do we know that the science is good? Because scientists have a vested interest in being able to prove or disprove evidence. Particularly during the cold war, international scientists were all about getting one up on their competitors. But their claims had to satisfy everyone, not just their political masters, so the math and logic chains had to be impeccable.
But suppose you don't trust the motives of the scientists behind the work? Suppose there's a massive conspiracy to undermine the veracity of religion? Then, as has been suggested, you can begin your own study based on the claims the scientists make. You can go to the sites where they claim to have found various fossils. You can set up your own experiments with simple lifeforms and control groups. You can use the scientific method to derive your own conclusions, and submit them for review. You can literally make the system work for you.
What's the alternative? Accept that the fossils found were "planted" there by an invisible deity? Conclude that dinosaurs walked the earth alongside mankind? Insist that microevolution can't possibly become macroevolution in the long term? If microevolution is possible then what's so difficult about macroevolution, the notion that incremental changes eventually add up to a large overall change?
Most of the time, religionists' complaints about evolution stem purely from the difficulty of reconciling their holy texts with actual data from the real world. You don't hear about religious complaints about astronomical data any longer. They had them originally, but the data was overwhelming. Neither do you hear religious complaints about medicine, although that too came under fire from religion once we started relearning everything we'd lost during the Dark Ages. Evolution is the among the newest genres of science that directly attack devoutly held religious beliefs, so inevitably suffers the same attacks.
Attacking evolution by nitpicking the details is akin to attacking astronomy because we don't have all the answers. Of COURSE we don't have all the answers; we wouldn't be studying it if we did. We don't have direct knowledge of what we call black holes because we don't yet have the capacity to visit and observe them in person. That doesn't mean creationists are attacking astronomers because they don't have all the answers. But like evolution we have sufficient data, including indirect observations, that allow us to make good theories about them. We can accept those theories because there's sufficient peer reviewed material to support those claims. But even in the case of those questions that are impossible for us to answer at this time, like where the Universe comes from or how life got started, the most honest answer is "I don't know." Substituting some sort of God as an answer to the unanswerable is simply wish fulfillment.
Peer review is really the key here. How do we know that the science is good? Because scientists have a vested interest in being able to prove or disprove evidence. Particularly during the cold war, international scientists were all about getting one up on their competitors. But their claims had to satisfy everyone, not just their political masters, so the math and logic chains had to be impeccable.
But suppose you don't trust the motives of the scientists behind the work? Suppose there's a massive conspiracy to undermine the veracity of religion? Then, as has been suggested, you can begin your own study based on the claims the scientists make. You can go to the sites where they claim to have found various fossils. You can set up your own experiments with simple lifeforms and control groups. You can use the scientific method to derive your own conclusions, and submit them for review. You can literally make the system work for you.
What's the alternative? Accept that the fossils found were "planted" there by an invisible deity? Conclude that dinosaurs walked the earth alongside mankind? Insist that microevolution can't possibly become macroevolution in the long term? If microevolution is possible then what's so difficult about macroevolution, the notion that incremental changes eventually add up to a large overall change?
Most of the time, religionists' complaints about evolution stem purely from the difficulty of reconciling their holy texts with actual data from the real world. You don't hear about religious complaints about astronomical data any longer. They had them originally, but the data was overwhelming. Neither do you hear religious complaints about medicine, although that too came under fire from religion once we started relearning everything we'd lost during the Dark Ages. Evolution is the among the newest genres of science that directly attack devoutly held religious beliefs, so inevitably suffers the same attacks.
Attacking evolution by nitpicking the details is akin to attacking astronomy because we don't have all the answers. Of COURSE we don't have all the answers; we wouldn't be studying it if we did. We don't have direct knowledge of what we call black holes because we don't yet have the capacity to visit and observe them in person. That doesn't mean creationists are attacking astronomers because they don't have all the answers. But like evolution we have sufficient data, including indirect observations, that allow us to make good theories about them. We can accept those theories because there's sufficient peer reviewed material to support those claims. But even in the case of those questions that are impossible for us to answer at this time, like where the Universe comes from or how life got started, the most honest answer is "I don't know." Substituting some sort of God as an answer to the unanswerable is simply wish fulfillment.
1 year ago
in How Would *You* Prove Evolution? on danielmiessler.com | grep understanding
How do we know the scientists are telling the truth when they talk about the evidence they claim to have? Without access to peer journals, it becomes difficult. At that point you have to have faith that the scientific community really is dedicated to uncovering the truth and reporting it as they find it. Conjecture is the name of the game: scientists try to explain what they see supported with the knowledge already amassed.
Peer review is really the key here. How do we know that the science is good? Because scientists have a vested interest in being able to prove or disprove evidence. Particularly during the cold war, international scientists were all about getting one up on their competitors. But their claims had to satisfy everyone, not just their political masters, so the math and logic chains had to be impeccable.
But suppose you don't trust the motives of the scientists behind the work? Suppose there's a massive conspiracy to undermine the veracity of religion? Then, as has been suggested, you can begin your own study based on the claims the scientists make. You can go to the sites where they claim to have found various fossils. You can set up your own experiments with simple lifeforms and control groups. You can use the scientific method to derive your own conclusions, and submit them for review. You can literally make the system work for you.
What's the alternative? Accept that the fossils found were "planted" there by an invisible deity? Conclude that dinosaurs walked the earth alongside mankind? Insist that microevolution can't possibly become macroevolution in the long term? If microevolution is possible then what's so difficult about macroevolution, the notion that incremental changes eventually add up to a large overall change?
Most of the time, religionists' complaints about evolution stem purely from the difficulty of reconciling their holy texts with actual data from the real world. You don't hear about religious complaints about astronomical data any longer. They had them originally, but the data was overwhelming. Neither do you hear religious complaints about medicine, although that too came under fire from religion once we started relearning everything we'd lost during the Dark Ages. Evolution is the among the newest genres of science that directly attack devoutly held religious beliefs, so inevitably suffers the same attacks.
Attacking evolution by nitpicking the details is akin to attacking astronomy because we don't have all the answers. Of COURSE we don't have all the answers; we wouldn't be studying it if we did. We don't have direct knowledge of what we call black holes because we don't yet have the capacity to visit and observe them in person. That doesn't mean creationists are attacking astronomers because they don't have all the answers. But like evolution we have sufficient data, including indirect observations, that allow us to make good theories about them. We can accept those theories because there's sufficient peer reviewed material to support those claims. But even in the case of those questions that are impossible for us to answer at this time, like where the Universe comes from or how life got started, the most honest answer is "I don't know." Substituting some sort of God as an answer to the unanswerable is simply wish fulfillment.
Peer review is really the key here. How do we know that the science is good? Because scientists have a vested interest in being able to prove or disprove evidence. Particularly during the cold war, international scientists were all about getting one up on their competitors. But their claims had to satisfy everyone, not just their political masters, so the math and logic chains had to be impeccable.
But suppose you don't trust the motives of the scientists behind the work? Suppose there's a massive conspiracy to undermine the veracity of religion? Then, as has been suggested, you can begin your own study based on the claims the scientists make. You can go to the sites where they claim to have found various fossils. You can set up your own experiments with simple lifeforms and control groups. You can use the scientific method to derive your own conclusions, and submit them for review. You can literally make the system work for you.
What's the alternative? Accept that the fossils found were "planted" there by an invisible deity? Conclude that dinosaurs walked the earth alongside mankind? Insist that microevolution can't possibly become macroevolution in the long term? If microevolution is possible then what's so difficult about macroevolution, the notion that incremental changes eventually add up to a large overall change?
Most of the time, religionists' complaints about evolution stem purely from the difficulty of reconciling their holy texts with actual data from the real world. You don't hear about religious complaints about astronomical data any longer. They had them originally, but the data was overwhelming. Neither do you hear religious complaints about medicine, although that too came under fire from religion once we started relearning everything we'd lost during the Dark Ages. Evolution is the among the newest genres of science that directly attack devoutly held religious beliefs, so inevitably suffers the same attacks.
Attacking evolution by nitpicking the details is akin to attacking astronomy because we don't have all the answers. Of COURSE we don't have all the answers; we wouldn't be studying it if we did. We don't have direct knowledge of what we call black holes because we don't yet have the capacity to visit and observe them in person. That doesn't mean creationists are attacking astronomers because they don't have all the answers. But like evolution we have sufficient data, including indirect observations, that allow us to make good theories about them. We can accept those theories because there's sufficient peer reviewed material to support those claims. But even in the case of those questions that are impossible for us to answer at this time, like where the Universe comes from or how life got started, the most honest answer is "I don't know." Substituting some sort of God as an answer to the unanswerable is simply wish fulfillment.
1 year ago
in Atheistic Societies Are Happy Societies on danielmiessler.com | grep understanding
Correlation does not imply causation. But when you check the math, the inverse is equally true. The more important religion becomes in lives of a population, the more crime and dissatisfaction they experience.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
1 year ago
in Atheistic Societies Are Happy Societies on dmiessler.com | grep understanding
Correlation does not imply causation. But when you check the math, the inverse is equally true. The more important religion becomes in lives of a population, the more crime and dissatisfaction they experience.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
2 years ago
in Report: For Every $2 Spent on Legit Software, $1 Goes To Pirates on Bob Caswell
Just remember to take statements from the BSA with a grain of salt. This is from an organization that wants to consider the money you pay for software as "lease" payments. Their principle member, Microsoft, now claims 235 patent infringements within Linux.
I don't dispute that software piracy exists. I simply dispute the numbers they post on the impact of it. Most of the time, software piracy increases revenues by exposing people to the software and giving them a chance to learn it before they pay for it.
I don't dispute that software piracy exists. I simply dispute the numbers they post on the impact of it. Most of the time, software piracy increases revenues by exposing people to the software and giving them a chance to learn it before they pay for it.
