Comment Ah, well... (Score 1) 272
...Who is John Galt?
Comment What will they call it? (Score 1) 354
I'm hoping for "Google Mentat."
Congress Endorses Open Source For Military 145
A draft defense authorizing act in Congress includes wording plugging open source software. It seems both cost and software security were considerations. This is an important victory for open source. "It's rare to see a concept as technical as open-source software in a federal funding bill. But the House's proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658) includes language that calls for military services to consider open-source software when procuring manned or unmanned aerial vehicles."
Comment Reread my comment (Score 0) 428
From my original post:
The point I was trying to make was that, despite significant evidence, a few people still don't believe him (note in my original post I said "several," not many or most). By the logic of "I have twenty friends whose consoles have never failed, therefore his could not have, either," I could just as easily say, "I have twenty friends who have never murdered someone, therefore the accused never could have, either." I was commenting more on the notion that some people are relying on mathematical probability derived from insufficient calculable data versus emperical data and verifiable evidence.
To believe a claim, no matter how unlikely, if there is sufficient evidence, is not gullibility, but if I refuse to at least lend it credence based on the proof, replying that it is a statistical nigh-impossibility, then I would just be plain stupid.
It's funny - if one person claims to have these problems, no matter how well documented, many don't believe him.
The point I was trying to make was that, despite significant evidence, a few people still don't believe him (note in my original post I said "several," not many or most). By the logic of "I have twenty friends whose consoles have never failed, therefore his could not have, either," I could just as easily say, "I have twenty friends who have never murdered someone, therefore the accused never could have, either." I was commenting more on the notion that some people are relying on mathematical probability derived from insufficient calculable data versus emperical data and verifiable evidence.
To believe a claim, no matter how unlikely, if there is sufficient evidence, is not gullibility, but if I refuse to at least lend it credence based on the proof, replying that it is a statistical nigh-impossibility, then I would just be plain stupid.
Slashdot Top Deals
RADIO SHACK LEVEL II BASIC READY >_
