|
|
@
|
Tuesday, March 26, 2002
|
|
| |
Now I need to add the global glossary. Oh. That reminds me. I want to change the way the glossary works. Right now you have a name and a value and the value gets replaced anywhere the name is enclosed in quotes. But the only thing I ever put for a value is a link. So I'm going to change it so that links are assumed and anything in quotes that is a name gets turned into a link with the value as the href and the name as the part between the a-tags.
10:06:02 PM #
|
|
Added a bit more to Radio Poster. I moved the http socket into the poster window so that when the poster window closes the socket gets closed. That's the idea, anyway. It turns out that with my high speed internet connection it isn't really possible to stop a post before it is on its way. But if the server was not responsive, for example, you might have post status window staring you in the face for a long time and there should be some way to get rid of it. Now there is.
10:04:08 PM #
|
|
Google makes the best dictionary. Better, even, than dictionary.com. dictionary.com doesn't do a very good job of understanding my spelling mistakes. But I can type almost any garbage into Google's search field and if I've misspelled something, it will come back with did you mean: XXX.
12:59:07 PM #
|
|
You often hear people say of Evolution it's just a theory. It turns out there are (at least) two uses for the word theory. One is the common everyday use to mean speculation or assumption. The other is the scientific use to mean a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. When non-scientists refer to Evolution as "just a theory" they are applying the common-use meaning of theory. But theory in the theory of Evolution actually referes to the scientific use of theory. It's such a simple misunderstanding and yet it has caused so much trouble.
12:56:04 PM #
|
|
Doubting the Existence of Black Holes: There's a lesson here for Creationists, believe it or not. Science requires that a theory be disprovable. In other words, a scientist has to be prepared for the possibility that data will come along that disproves the theory he or she is working on. So if Creationists want their theory of the origin of life to be science, then they have to be prepared for the possibility that it can be disproved. Basically, that means that Creationism can only be science if God is disprovable.
10:11:34 AM #
|
|
I could really go for a cup of coffee. But there's none in the "house". I may have to resort to walking to the nearest Starbucks. I wish I could walk to Peet's, but it is just too far.
9:15:37 AM #
|
|
There's a place in Japan that upgrades old macs so that they can run Mac OS X. Weird.
9:11:13 AM #
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2002
Will Leshner.
Last update:
3/26/02; 9:59:10 PM.
|
|


|