TrickyPeach

Oh great female intellegence apon the organisation of girls/tennagers/women.... Of course its a joke, flirtings a joke on a internet forum, still a nice one (thats male deduction for you!)

I'm male too.

What mole the animal or the pigmented patch of skin?

What about googling the webcam model and then seeing what pop ups? Could it have come with the driver?

Also google some key wolds you used it this like: surveillance, webcam etc

wtf is free energy?

Free energy is when you live at your parents house and plug your PC into their sockets.

Sweet! I remember before adolesance, one of those wierd discussions... my mom said something like "girls dont like to have the titties suckled". I went up to the attic, pulled out her own aged book on human sexual expression. Booya! 2-5% become aroused, right there... Booya.

Girls probably don't, teenagers, probably might and women probably will enjoy it.

You do know that I was joking, right?

A food container?

Which society?

The one in my head, they pressure me to do things I don't always like. They give me migraines...

I've been butting heads for a year or two on boards with hardcore creationists...

Butting heads... it is all you'll ever do, my opinion is (unless of course you find it fun) not to bother. You can't logically convince them using any argument, because they believe they are right - even in the presence of blindingly obvious proof.

But at the same time, water is the most common molecule in the universe.

Hydrogen is in fact the most common molecule.

Apart from this small factual error, I get the feeling you haven't properly understood evolution.

If in fact there are pyramids there. This is a great example of how of the internet community at large can be irresponsible when attempting to discredit theories purely based on speculations and arm chair analysis.

Opinions on the internet are usually overrepresented, but in fact very rarely hold any valid real world worth, either fortunately or unfortunately.

A future in a big way. If nothing else, it sets a minimum standard that Microsoft would have to surpass (for a combination of price and quality and trustworthiness) if they are to stay in business; they will not be able to just rest on their laurels. I personally think that Linux will eventually surpass the best Microsoft has to offer, and Microsoft will be forced to go open source to keep up.

I've been only Linux for a few years and never looked back. I love Linux, it's a Computer Scientists dream OS, not to mention that it also works perfectly for my Linguist parents and a friend as I've converted them too.

It'd be silly to say that it will surpass MS in popularity though any time soon, it's still at a very low usage. And although its fame has been increasing lately I don't really think the increase in users has been significant enough to worry MS at all. The main reason is big companies, which are the driving force keeping MS where it is are really what tips the scales and news like this is bad news for open source: Stanford and Harvard teach businesses how to squash open source

I actually prefer Linux already, all it is missing is the ability to run programs designed for Windows so we can play all our games on it. There is already some limited success with that.

Wine seems to be fine for me, I have Photoshop running perfectly. If that's what you meant, Wine is pretty powerful with a lot of community support.

What I find is a bad approach though is saying we need Linux to make the games for Windows run on it... that makes no sense, what we need is Game Developers to make games for Linux: simpler, easier, faster and generally less headache-inducing to just write for what you are targeting. And loads of these games already exist, a simple Google search will reveal lists and lists of native games.

There too small! and my tounge cant reach there!

I would offer mine but society would think badly of me.

Also, it has a future (this is a conclusion often drawn from the nature of its development).

A future in general or do you mean more of a future. Because as much as I would like to see it go surpass the user base Windows I doubt it will happen any time soon...

Yes, we're also machines, although chemical machines. If we were to genetically engineer people, you could say they are artificial. Would genetically engineered people count as artificial intelligence?

Why not?

I mean they are artificial in a sense are they not?

You seem to be a bit confused. ANSI C has a rather limited standard library. This says nothing about C the language, only the contents of "libc"

 

POSIX provides a much more diverse selection of functions, most of which aren't available in ANSI C.

 

That said, Scheme and Prolog are both interesting languages.

Yeah, I missed your point, I don't know why, I was probably too tired.

There's an FAQ for the forum software if that's what you'd like?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/faq.php

Not I meant in the sense of an "About" style page, who runs this forum etc

While it is a nice, easy to read book, it is not really a textbook about genetics (or a textbook at all, for that matter). "Genes" (Lewin), was a nice book, IIRC.

I proposed it as a starting point. Anyway, I don't think diving head first alone into a textbook is that easy actually.

Hi I'm just getting into genetics I have my high school biology text book as one resource. Could any one help me find more resources ebooks, online articles, and books. Type of genetics research does not matter Im just getting started so thanks for all replies:eek:

Just curious but have you tried googling? I think seeing the stuff out there helps to see what exactly you want to focus on as well as reading about actual genetics. What I mean you might find a popular science book on amazon which is on a topic you would like to lean even more about.

I suggest read Dawkins, read Wikipedia, get a feel for the area and then invest in a textbook, which are costly and heavy, so you know you are making the right decision.

I don't think that it's fair to dismiss archeology/geology as factoids. Speculation is where everyone begins. It's the first step towards learning more.

I don't dismiss archeology/geology as factoids, I'm sure any archaeological/geological findings on the site may be interesting and date back thousands of years.

What I do think is bad is the jumping to conclusions attitude of some people and over hyping stuff just because you are a famous person or because you can... a PhD or any qualification does not prove you are sensible, wise, clever, selfless, truthful etc all it does is prove you have a PhD. (Not meaning to undermine PhDs what so ever.) But just because you have one or two, doesn't mean you are always right, just because the man is an expert doesn't make him omniscient and we should criticise him until he brings forth evidence to back up his claims fully, I'm not saying he is a liar, I'm just not willing to accept everything he claims as the truth yet.

Maybe I'm too cynical and too critical, more than most people, I don't know. I think you should be weary, it's better to be undecided until you can be sure than decide and then find out you were being hasty.

Tricky: Yes, it's a belief system. Our whole reality is a belief system. People do not know the real power of concious. Religious leaders know this and knows this well. Beliefs are the machine that driven man. I'll explain more if you are interest. One example is this topic. You can see by history that the foundation of this theory is not ridgid, yet modern science is so persistant with its existance and ready to fight to the death to protect their belief. You can even apply this in real life. If you know someone desire, you can manipulate them through their desires.

You think modern science is based on believing things that are not real? I was sure there was experimentation and maths involved somewhere.

Not meaning to burst any bubbles but I'm not in any way spiritual, I don't "believe" nor do I feel any inclination to follow a belief system, or religious leader.

I'm assuming you think science nowadays makes stuff up and believes things to be happening without them actually occurring? If so then, why do you believe that about science, what evidence do you have? Or are you the one believing without any evidence?

I think these are particularly interesting:

http://getclicky.com/global-marketshare-statistics

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/02/1637216

Not very many options, has some scrolling issues, but my biggest complaint is how it looks. One of the things I really hate is when an app has complete disregard for window styles.

I completely agree, it's not only irritating because it looks ugly but it's arrogant too. I like to have my own style, uniformly.

I'm sure Mozilla is not too happy about it. It'll probably cut more into Firefox users than IE users.

Check the first link I posted to see the relative percentages.

Is it even functioning properly yet? Google will never be toppled, not for a while. They are the new MS, in a way, except of course their motto (which makes it all ok) is: "Don't be evil" so we can sleep well.

I actually quite like Google, Cuil was just trying to copy it rather than bring something new and useful into the mix, which is why it's doing badly.

The thing is not if it ever will but if we ever want it to. If we want a computer with emotions, which seems pretty pointless to me, we could build it it's not that hard. (What I mean by"not that hard" is that the meta-process to doing this is simple - not the actual process.)

Because as you say emotions do cloud your judgment, it's a fact.

The idea is, we humans sit on our *brains* and fail to use them as smartly as the *machines* (extras) we make to help us *live*. Unfortunately we sometimes tend to think machines can perform better than humans, but fail to understand that we *trained* these computers to do what they do

We are as much machines created by machines as computers are.

DNA creates us (as a way for the DNA to move around etc, the theory of selfish DNA), then in turn we create computers with AI.

I can't really be trusted on this, because these are the only two I have read, but I have read "C# in a Nutshell" and "C# Essentials", which are both the in the same series and they are pretty decent. The first is like a "full" reference book and the second a quick version and much much smaller.

What I can be trusted on is to know, as my course demands quite a few programming languages to be learned, that the best way to learn is not only the reference book. It's a good starter. I think the best way is to start off is reading the book only to gain some confidence and then start coding, doing exercises and experimenting on your own, like setting yourself little tasks. Using on-line tutorials and resources is another good way to learn if you get bored of the books, which can be quite boring occasionally. Of course: Wikipedia on C# is another good place to go to.

Reading the language specification is also a key to grasping some more complicated concepts as well.

YouTube videos that are also a clever way to get insight into how other people work and think as well as actually teaching you the language, which is useful if you are a beginner.

Good luck and I hope you have fun coding!

Thanks for the rep by the way, I appreciate it

Nifty colors, and you may be charming?

Oh, well, that's lovely then, big314mp.

I think C is pretty useless without POSIX, or failing that, Win32 *groan*...

I actually like C as a language, when I did a crash course offered by my uni in it and then used it to build compilers and in conjunction with OpenGL I found to be quite an enjoyable language. But I have been told my "taste" (for lack of a better word) in programming languages is bad by a few people. I seem to be one of the few people, to like and enjoy using scheme and prolog as well.

On the actual usefulness of C, I'm assuming you mean implementing something that will be used commercially? Because C was pretty useful doing what I just mentioned above, which by the way was all done on Linux as I'm not fond of anything MS-related.