Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Google Tests Multiple Account Login

orabidoo Re:Finally!!! (122 comments)

Or use the multifox extension for Firefox. It adds an option to the File menu to open a window with a "new Identity Profile", which doesn't share cookies with the main window. Works fine for me.

more than 4 years ago
top

Microsoft-Yahoo Search Deal Gets Go-Ahead From EU, US DoJ

orabidoo these guys are dead (113 comments)

from the article:

engineers will begin adapting Bing for the Yahoo site "in the coming days" and that they hope work is completed, at least the United States, by the end of this year.

and:

After full implementation, which the companies expect will come about two years after regulatory approval...

with these kind of glacial speeds of development... and they wonder why the mighty Google is trouncing them?

more than 4 years ago
top

Tomorrow's Science Heroes?

orabidoo Re:Sorry, No. (799 comments)

From the Wikipedia article on scientism:

The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. The term is used by social scientists like Hayek[1] or Karl Popper to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists.

I've explicitly discounted both factual claims about measurable things (as in "physical stuff has this or that other charactersitic") and talk of creator god(s), from what I claim is the interesting core of religions, so both your arguments are beside the point.

What I actually claim, is that the most interesting part of a human's life is the subjective experience, which has little to do with anything science could measure.

more than 5 years ago
top

Tomorrow's Science Heroes?

orabidoo Re:Sorry, No. (799 comments)

Heh, time for some lecturing on one of my favourite topics :)

The whole point of religion has nothing, and I mean really nothing, to do with filling explanatory gaps in our knowledge of the universe. It also has little to do, really, with conceptual notions of a kind of super-being called God. To quote from a christian authority on the subject: "If you can understand it, then it is not God" (St. Augustine). It also does not really have much to do with plain, cold facts.

That, in itself, is a pretty good thing. By and large, we humans do not live in a world of plain cold facts. Any one random given fact will probably make one person happy and another depressed, so it's clearly not the fact itself that makes much of a difference. And, "what's the point of living", arguably the most important question that a living and thinking individual faces, can hardly have a factual (let alone measurable) answer.

Meanings are not facts, and we humans need, want and crave meaning. Possibilities are also not facts, and we humans live in a whole world of possibilities.... there's much to say on that too.

At the same time, science has, for the past few centuries, done a pretty good job at amassing cold, plain facts, including meta-facts such as whole theories and models. So basically, we can feel pretty safe in delegating questions of plain cold facts to science and the scientific method. But as we've said, facts do not constitute meaning! A well-known scientific example of this is quantum theory, which has a large number of diverging "interpretations" for the exact same equations and sets of facts.

It's also good to be clear on the distinction between *science* and *scientism*. Science is a method of enquiry based on the principles empirical experimentation and theorisation, which inform each other in an evolutionary way. Scientism, on the other hand, is the *belief* that science produces not just plain, hard facts, but also the best, most authoritative and most useful interpretation of life in general. It often goes together with *materialism*, which means that everything that exists must come down to things that science can measure and make theories about. In any case, these are *beliefs*, or philosophical positions, not verified truths.

Now, these are a lot of hairy words, and the above sentences can be made to mean very different things depending on how you want to read it. What exactly do we mean by "exist". Does the number three exist? Does consciousness exist? Does a quantum state exist? And what does "come down to" really mean?

Another hairy thing to consider when we look for any "truth" involving "meaning": there is no ultimate criterion for "truth" or meaning, besides "it convinces enough people who have thought hard about it". I know, that sounds inexcusably soft and flimsy and subjective, but that's the way it is. No matter how technical an argument may be, you just can't take the subjective element out of it. Turning an argument into a formal proof only raises the problem to a higher level: you'll still have to *convince* people that the logical model actually applies, etc.

Now, if religion is not about facts, what to do about the many facts that all the worlds' religions claim? That should not be much of a problem either! Remember, in Christian terms, "If you can understand it, then it is not God". So absolutely *any* claimed fact of any religion can be safely viewed as no more than a metaphor, or a stage of conceptualization which may be appropriate for some individuals (not necessarily all), and may help them towards finding that elusive "meaning".

And what kind of "meaning" is that? There are many possible answers, so I'll just highlight a couple of points.

An important point, is viewing the conscious human being in an absolute positive way, and without any pre-imposed limitations, both in terms of what it *is* and in its *potential*. Instead of taking Joe Sixpack, or Jane Prettygoodlawyer, or Bill Gates as the yardstick of humanity, you think of someone like Jesus, or Buddha, Socrates, Lao Tse, etc. Someone whose every word pretty much embodied "meaning": honesty, courage, generosity, humility, you name it. If you adopt the worldview that we are all basically made of *that stuff*, and that's what our innermost being is, and is trying to be all the time... well, something pretty deep changes.

Another point, is to realize that *you* are not the most important thing in the world. The individual "I" is not the biggest or most real "meaning". Which means that when you die (as we all will), the most important thing(s) in the world will still be there! On its own, this could even sound depressing, but if you put it together with the first point, it's entirely the other way around.

There are many more things to say, but that's best left to whole books than slashdot posts.

From here on, it's pretty much a matter of choice... there are many valid spiritual "systems" out there, with wildly different approaches and vocabularies. Some traditional, some not. Some profound and well-tested, some half-jokes. If you're interested, look around and choose wisely. Do choose one vocabulary, staying "neutral" doesn't really go anywhere. And get some guidance along the way. Good luck!

more than 5 years ago
top

Good Freeware System Snapshot Tool For Windows?

orabidoo Re:Horribly Inefficient (219 comments)

confirmed. VirtualBox does a great job and is freeware (there's even a GPL version).

even better, run VirtualBox on linux and create windows instances, then you have the best of both worlds: linux stability and security, and access to windows applications.

about 6 years ago
top

Where's the "IronPerl" Project?

orabidoo Re:perl missed several boats, sadly (390 comments)

yep, you have several good points there.

maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear, but what I meant by "embedding the code in the html" was not a reference to Javascript, but to PHP and ASP type of programming.

my point is that PHP could only have happened through a major blunder of the perl community, since it is basically a bland clone of perl. I don't see the languages themselves being different enough to make a difference, so I tend to think that the main reason why PHP took off is that it has a dead easy programming model ("change your files extension to .php and embed your <?php php code ?> in there"), and is friendly towards shared hosts, by basically resetting the interpreter between requests and having "safe_mode". The point is that all these things are possible to do with perl, but no-one at the time bothered to produce a package that did them and was simple to install, or if anyone did, they didn't make enough noise. So php came and filled the gap for the wider world, while the perl people smugly replied "we can do that too, and about 10,000 other things".

so yep, I know you can use mod_perl for the performance, and templating kits if you like them, and that CGI is still available. I regularly use all of these :)

besides, as a perl programmer, it bothers me if the perl community shoots itself in the foot, because I enjoy perl programming for the web, and that market looks to me like it's dwindling.

more than 6 years ago

Submissions

orabidoo hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

orabidoo has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?