Gold Price
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Debat Filsafat
Sumber
ALKISAH, seorang profesor filsafat menantang mahasiswanya: “Apakah Tuhan menciptakan segala yang ada?”
Seorang mahasiswa menjawab, “Betul, Dia yang menciptakan semuanya”.
“Tuhan menciptakan semuanya?”, tanya professor sekali lagi.
“Ya, Pak, semuanya”, kata mahasiswa tersebut.
Profesor itu menjawab, Jika Tuhan menciptakan segalanya, berarti Tuhan menciptakan Kejahatan. Karena kejahatan itu ada, dan menurut prinsip kita bahwa pekerjaan kita menjelaskan siapa kita, jadi kita bisa berasumsi bahwa Tuhan itu adalah kejahatan.”
Mahasiswa itu terdiam dan tidak bisa menjawab pernyataan professor tersebut.
Seorang mahasiswa lain mengangkat tangan dan berkata, “Profesor, boleh saya bertanya sesuatu?”
“Tentu saja,” jawab si professor, “itulah inti dari diskurus filsafat.”
Mahasiswa itu berdiri dan bertanya, “Profesor, apakah dingin itu ada?”
“Tentu saja,” ungkap si professor. Raut muka si professor tidak berubah karena ia sudah mendengar argumen buruk seperti ini berulang kali.
Si murid menanggapi, “Kenyataannya, Pak, dingin itu tidak ada. Menurut hukum fisika, yang kita anggap dingin itu adalah ketiadaan panas. Suhu -460F adalah ketiadaan panas sama sekali. Dan semua partikel menjadi diam dan tidak bisa bereaksi pada suhu tersebut. Kita menciptakan kata dingin untuk mendeskripsikan ketiadaan panas.”
Sang professor pun menjawab dengan tegas: “Kamu ingat bab mengenai kesesatan semantik dalam bukumu?”
Si murid tampak bingung.
“Biar saya ulangi secara singkat. “Panas” dan “dingin” adalah istilah subjektif. Menurut John Locke, keduanya merupakan contoh “kualitas sekunder”. Kualitas sekunder merujuk kepada bagaimana kita merasakan suatu fenomena yang memang ada, dan dalam kasus ini pergerakan partikel atomik. Istilah “dingin” dan “panas” merujuk kepada interaksi antara sistem saraf manusia dengan variasi kecepatan dalam partikel atomik di lingkungan. Jadi apa yang sesungguhnya ada adalah suhu… istilah “panas” dan “dingin” hanyalah istilah subjektif yang kita gunakan untuk menjelaskan pengalaman kita mengenai suhu.”
“Maka argumen Anda salah. Anda tidak membuktikan bahwa “dingin” itu tidak ada, atau bahwa “dingin” ada tanpa status ontologis, apa yang Anda lakukan adalah menunjukkan bahwa “dingin” adalah istilah subjektif. Hapuskanlah konsep subjektif tersebut, dan suhu yang kita sebut “dingin” akan tetap ada. Menghapuskan istilah yang kita gunakan untuk merujuk kepada suatu fenomena tidak menghapuskan keberadaan fenomena tersebut.”
Murid: (agak shock) “Uh… oke… em, apakah gelap itu ada?”
Professor: “Anda masih mengulangi kesesatan logika yang sama, hanya kualitas sekundernya yang diganti.”
Murid: “Jadi menurut professor kegelapan itu ada?”
Professor: “Apa yang saya katakan adalah bahwa Anda mengulangi kesesatan yang sama. “Kegelapan” adalah kualitas sekunder.”
Murid: “Professor salah lagi. Gelap itu juga tidak ada. Gelap adalah keadaan dimana tidak ada cahaya. Cahaya bisa kita pelajari, gelap tidak. “Kita bisa menggunakan prisma Newton untuk memecahkan cahaya menjadi beberapa warna dan mempelajari berbagai panjang gelombang setiap warna. Tapi Anda tidak bisa mengukur gelap. Seberapa gelap suatu ruangan diukur dengan berapa intensitas cahaya di ruangan tersebut. Kata gelap dipakai manusia untuk mendeskripsikan ketiadaan cahaya.”
Professor: “Gelap dan terang” adalah istilah subjektif yang kita gunakan untuk mendeskripsikan bagaimana manusia mengukur foton atau partikel dasar cahaya secara visual. Foton itu memang ada, sementara “gelap” dan “terang” hanyalah penilaian subjektif kita… yang sekali lagi terkait dengan interaksi antara sistem saraf manusia dengan fenomena alam yang lain, yaitu foton. Jadi, sekali lagi, hapuskanlah istilah subjektif itu dan foton akan tetap ada. Jika manusia menyebut “foton sebanyak x” sebagai “gelap” sementara kucing menyebutnya “cukup terang untukku”, foton sebanyak x yang kita sebut sebagai “gelap” tetap ada, dan akan tetap akan ada walaupun kita tidak menyebutnya gelap. Sudah paham, atau masih kurang jelas?”
Sang murid tampak tercengang. Sang professor berkata, “Tampaknya Anda masih bingung dengan kesesatan dalam argumen Anda. Tapi silakan lanjutkan, mungkin Anda akan paham.”
Sang murid berkata, “Professor mengajar dengan dualitas. Professor berargumen tentang adanya kehidupan lalu mengajar tentang adanya kematian, adanya Tuhan yang baik dan Tuhan yang jahat. Professor memandang Tuhan sebagai sesuatu yang dapat kita ukur.”
Professor langsung memotong, “Berhati-hatilah. Jika Anda menempatkan Tuhan di luar jangkauan nalar, logika dan sains dan membuatnya “tak terukur”, maka yang tersisa hanyalah misteri yang Anda buat sendiri. Jadi jika Anda menggunakan dalih bahwa Tuhan ada di luar jangkauan untuk menyelesaikan masalah, Anda juga tak bisa mengatakan bahwa Tuhan Anda bermoral. Bahkan Anda tak bisa menyebutnya sebagai apapun kecuali tak terukur. Jadi solusi Anda tidak ada bedanya dengan membersihkan ketombe dengan memangkas rambut.”
Murid tersebut tercengang, namun tetap berusaha melanjutkan, “Professor, sains bahkan tidak dapat menjelaskan sebuah pemikiran. Ilmu ini memang menggunakan listrik dan magnet, tetapi tidak pernah seorangpun yang melihat atau benar-benar memahami salah satunya..”
Professor: “Anda mengatakan bahwa sains tak bisa menjelaskan pikiran. Saya sendiri kurang paham apa yang Anda maksud. Apakah Anda mencoba mengatakan bahwa masih banyak misteri dalam neurosains?”
Murid: “Begitulah.”
“Dan bahwa pikiran, listrik dan magnetisme itu kita anggap ada walaupun tak pernah kita lihat?”
“Benar!”
Sang professor tersenyum dan menjawab, “Bukalah kembali bukumu mengenai kesesatanfalse presumption. Perhatikan bab “kesalahan kategoris.” Kalau Anda pernah membacanya, Anda akan ingat bahwa kesalahan kategoris adalah saat Anda menggunakan tolak ukur yang salah untuk suatu entitas, misalnya menanyakan warna dari suara. Meminta seseorang melihat magnetisme secara langsung merupakan kesalahan kategoris.”
“Namun, masih ada kesalahan lain dalam argumen Anda. Anda berasumsi bahwa empirisisme atau bahkan sains hanya didasarkan kepada pengamatan langsung. Ini tidak tepat. Penglihatan bukanlah satu-satunya cara untuk memahami dunia, dan sains juga bukan ilmu yang mempelajari apa yang kita lihat. Kita dapat menggunakan indera lain untuk melacak suatu fenomena. Dan kita juga dapat mempelajari pengaruh fenomena tersebut terhadap dunia.”
“Lebih lagi, Anda kembali melakukan kesalahan dengan menyatakan bahwa karena sains itu belum lengkap berarti Tuhan itu ada. Mungkin Anda perlu mempelajari kembali kesesatan “argumentum ad ignoratiam” atau argumen dari ketidaktahuan.”
“Dan juga, seperti yang dikatakan oleh Neil deGrasse Tyson, gunakanlah contoh yang lebih baik karena sains sudah mampu menjelaskan bagaimana pikiran terbentuk dan bahkan Maxwell sudah lama menggabungkan elektrisme dan magnetisme menjadi elektromagnetisme. Contoh yang lebih baik itu misalnya materi gelap yang membuat perluasan alam semesta menjadi begitu cepat. Fisikawan tak bisa menjawab itu, dan mungkin Anda akan mengatakan jawabannya Tuhan. Namun dengan begitu, Anda justru sedang menyusutkan Tuhan. Anda melakukan kesesatan ad ignoratiam bahwa yang belum dijelaskan sains itu adalah keajaiban Tuhan, dan itu berarti Anda menempatkan Tuhan untuk mengisi gap dalam sains. Nah, dahulu manusia juga tak mampu menjawab mengapa hujan terbentuk atau mengapa gunung meletus, dan orang-orang dulu menyebutnya karena Tuhan. Kini kita sudah memahami hujan dan gunung meletus, begitu pula pikiran, listrik dan magnetisme, dan ke depannya materi gelap juga mungkin akan kita pahami. Dengan begitu Tuhan yang mengisi gap pun terus menciut.”
“Masih ada yang mau ditambahkan? Apakah penjelasan saya sudah cukup jelas?”
Sang murid tampak bingung dan mencoba melakukan ad nauseam, “Em… kembali ke diskusi awal kita. Untuk menilai kematian sebagai kondisi yang berlawanan dengan kehidupan sama saja dengan melupakan fakta bahwa kematian tidak bisa muncul sebagai suatu hal yang substantif. Kematian bukanlah kontradiksi dari hidup, hanya ketiadaan kehidupan saja.”
Professor pun berkata, “Apakah Anda jatuh cinta dengan kesesatan kualitas sekunder? Lagi-lagi Anda melakukan kesalahan yang sama.” “Kematian” dan “kehidupan” adalah istilah subjektif yang kita gunakan untuk menjelaskan fenomena keadaan-keadaan biologis. Menghapuskan istilah subjektif kematian tidak menghapuskan keberadaan kematian.
Si murid pun mencoba mengalihkan pembicaraan, “Apakah imoralitas itu ada?”
Si professor menggelengkan kepalanya dan berkata, “Keledai pun tidak akan jatuh ke dalam lubang yang sama. Ada yang masih kurang jelas, atau perlu saya ulangi lagi?”
Sang murid yang terus berusaha menjustifikasi kepercayaannya berkata, “Begini.. imoralitas itu adalah ketiadaan moralitas. Apakah ketidakadilan itu ada? Tidak. Ketidakadilan adalah ketiadaan keadilan. Apakah kejahatan itu ada? Bukankah kejahatan itu ketiadaan kebaikan?”
Sang professor menanggapi, “Jadi, jika seseorang membunuh ibumu malam ini, tidak terjadi apa-apa? Hanya ada ketiadaan moralitas di rumah Anda? Tunggu… dia tidak mati… cuma ketiadaan hidup kan?”
Si murid berkata, “eh…”
“Sekarang sudah mengerti di mana salahnya?”, ujar sang professor, “Anda mencampur kualitas sekunder dengan fenomena. “Imoralitas” adalah istilah deskriptif untuk perilaku. Istilah tersebut bersifat sekunder, namun perilaku tetaplah ada. Jadi jika Anda menghapuskan kualitas sekunder itu, Anda tidak menghapuskan perilaku yang sesungguhnya terjadi. Dengan mengatakan imoralitas sebagai ketiadaan moralitas, Anda tidak menghapuskan keinginan atau perilaku imoral, tetapi hanya istilah subjektifnya. Begitu lho.”
Si murid masih kukuh, “Apakah professor pernah mengamati evolusi itu dengan mata professor sendiri?”
Sang professor sudah bosan mendengar argumen “pernah lihat angin tidak”.
“Evolusi itu bisa diamati karena hingga sekarang masih berlangsung. Misalnya, pada tahun 1971, beberapa kadal dari pulau Pod Kopiste di Kroasia dipindah ke pulau pod Mrcaru. Pulau Pod Kopiste tidak banyak tumbuhan sehingga memakan serangga, sementara di pulau Pod Mrcaru ada banyak tumbuhan. Setelah ditinggal selama beberapa dekade, ketika ditemukan kembali, kadal di pulau Pod Mrcaru mengalami proses evolusi. Kadal tersebut mengembangkan caecal valve, yaitu organ yang penting untuk mengolah selulosa dalam tumbuhan, yang sebelumnya tidak ada. Atau, jika Anda pergi ke laboratorium Richard Lenski di Amerika Serikat, Anda bisa saksikan sendiri bagaimana bakteri e coli yang sebelumnya tak bisa mengolah asam sitrat, karena evolusi dengan seleksi alam muncul e coli yang bisa mengolah asam sitrat.”
“Lagipula, Anda lagi-lagi terjeblos dalam kesesatan ad ignoratiam. Jika ingin konsisten dengan logika Anda, Anda akan mengatakan bahwa pohon tidak pernah tumbuh karena Anda tak pernah melihat langsung bagaimana pohon tumbuh. Lebih lagi, Anda kembali melakukan kesalahan dengan mengasumsikan bahwa sains itu hanya terdiri dari pengamatan langsung…. “
Si murid memotong, “Apakah ada dari kelas ini yang pernah melihat otak Profesor? Apakah ada orang yang pernah mendengar otak Profesor, merasakannya, menyentuhnya atau menciumnya? Tampaknya tak seorang pun pernah melakukannya. Jadi, menurut prosedur pengamatan, pengujian dan pembuktian yang disahkan, ilmu pengetahuan mengatakan bahwa professor tidak memiliki otak. Dengan segala hormat, bagaimana kami dapat mempercayai pengajaran professor?”
Si professor tertawa dan menjawab, “Terima kasih sudah hadir di kelas ini sehingga saya bisa membenarkan kesalahan Anda walaupun Anda terus menerus mengulanginya. Sekali lagi, sains itu tidak terbatas kepada “melihat” sesuatu. Sains itu juga rasional. Kita dapat menyimpulkan berdasarkan bukti yang ada. Dan salah satu simpulan yang dapat saya tarik dengan mengamati perilaku Anda hari ini adalah bahwa Anda telah membuang-buang uang karena tidak membaca buku logika yang sudah Anda beli. Jadi saya sarankan bacalah buku itu kembali dari halaman satu agar tidak terus menerus mengulangi kesalahan yang sama.”
- Dan murid itu adalah orang yang tidak banyak membaca.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sumber
A philosophy professor challenged his students with a form of the Euthyphro dilema: Did 'God' create everything that exists?" A student replied, "Yes, he did!" (The 'bravely' part is removed: civil disagreement is the very point of philosophy courses, no bravery is required for dissent! Civil dissent is rewarded! Agreement is the death of philosophy, disagreement is its life's blood.)
"God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes," the student replied. (The 'sir' part is removed: no college student in the 21st century addresses a college professor as 'sir' - which demonstrates that whoever it was that made up the original story never went to college. In addition, the use of 'sir' is just a pretense of 'respect' - it comes off as passive aggressive anger more than anything else.)
The professor answered, "Well then, here's a logical puzzle for you: If God created everything, then God created evil; Therefore, according to the principal that 'our works define who we are', 'God' is evil."
The student became silently enraged over his worldview being 'attacked'. He began to project out his feelings of inadequecy as smugness coming from the professor.
The student then said: "Can I ask you a question professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor. That's the point of philosophical discourse. (The writer of the original story clearly has little experience with a real college classroom. The whole point of a philosophy or theology course is to foster discussion.)
Student: Is there such thing as heat?"
Professor: Yes, the professor replies.
Student: "Is there such a thing as cold?"
Professor: "Yes, there's cold too."
Student: "No, there isn't"
The professor doesn't grin or frown or react with any emotion other than curiosity. After all, he's heard bad arguments like this for more years than the student has been alive. (The desire to see the professors 'smug smile wiped off his face' is just another projection of the feelings of inadequecy found in theists who aren't able to argue their own points well...)
The student continues. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, just the absence of it"
Professor: (Nodding his head in dismay, and working out how many times he's heard this bad logic by now. 100 times?). Do you remember the section in your workbook on semantic fallacies?
Student: ( gives a confused look a dog might make)
Professor: Let me give you a quick review. Both 'heat' and 'cold' are subjective terms... They are what the philosopher John Locke properly called "secondary qualities". The secondary qualities refer to how we humans experience a very real phenomena: the movement of atomic particles. The terms 'heat' and 'cold' refer to an interaction between human nervous systems and various speeds of atomic particles in their environment. So what we 'really' have is temperature.... the terms 'heat' and "cold' are merely subjective terms we use to denote our relative experience of temperature.
So your entire argument is specious. You have not 'proven' that 'cold' does not exist, or that 'cold' somehow exists without any ontological status, what you have done is shown that 'cold' is a subjective term. Take away the subjective concept, and the 'thing in itself', the temperature we are denoting as 'cold', still exists. Removing the term we use to reference the phenomena does not eradicate the phenomena.
Student: (a bit stunned) "Uh... Ok.... Well, is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
Professor: You are still employing the same logical fallacy. Just with a different set of of secondary qualities.
Student: "So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
Professor: "What I am telling you is that you are repeating the very same error. "Darkness" exists as a secondary quality.
Student: "You're wrong again. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darkness, professor?
Professor: Sure, right after you give me a jar of light. Seriously, "light and dark' are subjective terms we use to describe how we humans measure measure photons visually. The photons actually exist, the terms 'light' and 'dark' are just subjective evaluations, relative terms... having to do, again, with an interaction between our nervous systems and another phenomenon of nature - this time, photons. So again, doing away with a subjective term does not eradicate the actual phenomena itself - the photons. Nothing actually changes. If we humans tend to call 'x number of photons' 'dark' (while cats refer to it as 'bright enough for me"Eye-wink those number of photons we denote as 'dark' exist, and they continue to exist even if we do away with the term 'dark.'
Do you get it now?
Student: (gives a look not unlike a 3 year old trying to work out quantum physics)
Professor: I see your still struggling with the fallacy hidden in your argument. But let's continue, perhaps you'll see it.
Student: Well, you are working on the premise of duality, the christian explains.
Professor: Actually, I've debunked that claim two times now. But carry on.
Student: "Well, you assume, for example, that there is a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.
Professor: Be careful. If you want to place your god beyond the grasps of reason, logic, and science and make him 'unmeasurable', then you are left with nothing but a mystery of your own devising. So if you use this special plead your god beyond reason to solve the problem, you can't call your god moral either. You can't call 'him' anything. You can't say anything else about something that you yourself have defined as beyond reason other than that the term you've created is incoherent. So your solution is akin to treating dandruf by decapitation.
Student: (Gulps. Continues on, oblivious to what was just said) Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them.
Professor: You just said that science cannot explain a thought. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I think what you mean to say is this: there remains many mysteries in neuroscience. Would you agree?
Student: Yes.
Professor: And, along the same line of thought, we accept that there are things like thoughts, or electricity or magnetism even though we have never seen them?
Student: Yes!
Professor: Recall the section in your textbook concerning fallacies of false presumption. Turn to the entry on 'Category error'. You'll recall that a category error occurs when an inappropriate measure is used in regards to an entity, such as asking someone what the color of a sound is... Asking someone to 'see' magnetism directly (and not just its effects) commits such an error. However, there is yet another error in your argument: your assumption that empircism or even science is based on 'real time observation' alone. This is false. Sight is not the sole means of knowing the world, nor is science merely the study of whatever we are currently looking at. We can use other senses to detect phenomena. And we can also examine their effects upon the world.
Furthermore, you are importing yet another erroneous presumption into the discussion: you are conflating the fact that science is incomplete with the implication that a lack of an answer from naturalism automatically means that your theistic assertion is correct. So you'll also want to review the section on 'arguing form ignorance.'
Do you have more to say?
Student: (The student, continues, mainly unfazed, due to the protection his shield of ignorance affords him.) .... Um....... to view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it"
Professor: You are really in love with this secondary quality fallacy, aren't you? You are again confusing a secondary quality with the phenomena in of itself. "Death" and "life" are subjective terms we use to describe a more fundamental phenomena - biology. The phenomena in question, however, does exist. Biological forms in various states exist. Doing away with the subjective term does not eradicate the existence of death.
Nonplussed, the young man continues: "Is there such a thing as immorality?"
Professor: (Reaches for an asprin in his desk) You're not going to again confuse a secondary quality for an atttribute, are you? Please... what can I do to help you see this problem?
Student: (Continues on, fueled by ideology and oblivious to reality) You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"
Professor: So, if someone murders your mother tonight, nothing happened? There was just an absence of morality in your house? Wait, I forgot... she's not dead... she's just experiencing an absence of life, right?
Student: Uh.....
Professor: You're beginning to see that something is missing in your argument, aren't you? Here's what you're missing. You are confusing a secondary quality... a subjective term that we can use to describe a phenomena, for the phenomena itself. Perhaps you heard me mention this before? (The class erupts in laughter, the professor motions for them to stop laughing.) 'Immorality' is a descrptive term for a behavior. The terms are secondary, but the behaviors exist. So if you remove the secondary qualities, you do nothing to eradicate the real behavior that the terms only exist to describe in the first place. So by saying that 'immorality' is a lack of morality, you are not removing immoral intentions and behaviors, or the problem of immoral intentions and behaviors from existence, you are just removing the secondary attribute, the subjective term.
And notice how dishonest your argument is on yet another level... in that it speaks of morality and immorality devoid of behavior, but 'evil' exists as a behavior, evil is an intent to do harm and an act commited with such an intent.
By the way, are you really trying to imply that immorality or evil are merely subjective qualities?
Student: Gulp! (Reeling from the psychological blows to his corrupt worldview....) Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, professor?"
The professor soothes his aching forehead, and prepares for the 1 millionth time that he will be subjected to the 'can you see the wind' argument.
Professor: What an interesting turn this conversation has taken. Can I advise you to read Brofenbrenner's suggestion against arguing over subjects over which you are uninformed? It's in your textbook. Page 1.
Student: "Professor, since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?
Professor: Interesting indirect comment on the priesthood. But let's leave that aside... We do observe the process of evolution at work, for the process works at this very moment. As for the implication in your argument that one must 'be there' to observe a process at it occurs, surely you realize that we can infer the process through examining the evidence that these processes leave behind? In a sense, we are there when we observe artifacts.
Consider for example the science of astronomy. How do we know about super novas? Because we can observe diferrent supernovas in different stages of super nova, by observing their 'artifacts' in the night sky. The same stands for any historical science. Your mistake here is that you think science is merely 'real-time-observation'. This is a strawman of science. By your logic trees can't grow - after all, who's actually witnessed a tree growing?
Science is both direct and indirect observation... it also allows for inference. If, for the sake of consistency you were asked to follow your own rule, you'd have to concede that we have no evidence tree growth, or mountain formation - after all, I've never actually seen a seed grow into a tree, I've only seen it in stages.
Student: "But professor! You stated that science is the study of observed phenomena.
Professor: No, this is a strawman of what science is... Science is more than just real time observation, we also observe artifacts and make inferences. But continue....
Student: (Responds to this as a goat might respond to a book on calculus) May I give you an example of what I mean?"
Professor: Certainly.
Student: "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor's brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter. The christian points towards professor, "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" "No one appears to have done so", The christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I declare that the professor has no brain!"
(So much for the student's pretense of respect, clearly his goal is to ridicule).
Professor: You mean, according to your strawman view of science. I am glad that you are here in my class so that I can help you better understand what you criticize. Science is not merely 'looking' at things. Science is empirical, but also rational. We can make inferences from evidence of things that we do see, back to phenonema that we might not be able to directly see. Such as a functioning brain.
And one inference I can make from observing your behaviors here today is that you've wasted the money you've spent on your logic textbook so far this year. I strongly advise, for your own sake, that you crack open that book today, and start reading. From page 1.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Yang Manakah Anda? Wortel, Telur atau Kopi (Kisah Inspiratif)
Ada seorang anak yang mengeluh kepada ayahnya tentang kehidupannya yang sulit dan ia tak tahu harus berbuat apa lagi pada saat dirinya berjuang untuk memecahkan persoalan dan berhasil dipecahkan timbul masalah lainnya.
Ayahnya yang seorang koki tersenyum dan membawa anaknya tersebut ia lalu mengambil tiga buah panci dan mengisinya dengan masing-masing air panas yang mendidih di kompor.
Pada beberapa menit kemudian panci pertama ia masukkan wortel dan panci kedua telur sedangkan panci ketiga adalah biji kopi yang di tumbuk dan ia membiarkan masing-masing mendidih.
Menjelang beberapa menit si anak merasa heran dengan maksud sang ayah, wortel, telur dan kopi. Ia membimbing anaknya mendekat dan memintanya untuk memegang wortel dan anak itu kemudian melakukan apa yang diminta oleh ayahnya.
Pertama anak itu mengambil telur yang sudah terasa keras, kedua anak itu mengambil wortel yang telah menjadi lunak dan yang ketiga menghirup aroma wangi dari kopi yang sudah dimasak.
Setelah itu sang ayah bertanya kepada anaknya, "nak, kira-kira kamu yang mana diantara tiga benda yang sudah dimasukkan tadi? air yang mendidih diibaratkan sebagai permasalahan sedangkan benda diibaratkan dengan kita."
Mendengar hal seperti itu si anak berpikir dan kemudian merenung sejenak dan berkata di dalam hati "Kira-kira aku yang mana yah?"
Ayahnya menambahkan "Semua itu tergantung di dalam diri kita sendiri dan ingat bahwa motivator terbaik terdapat di dalam diri kita sendiri bukan orang lain, bagaimana cara kita bisa bangkit dari keterpurukan. Orang lain hanyalah motivasimu untuk melakukan sesuatu."
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Forbes Top 100 Inspirational Quotes
Forbes Top 100 Inspirational Quotes
- Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve. –Napoleon Hill
- Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. –Steve Jobs
- Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. –Albert Einstein
- Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. –Robert Frost
- The common question that gets asked in business is, ‘why?’ That’s a good question, but an equally valid question is, ‘why not?’ -Jeffrey Bezos
- You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. –Wayne Gretzky
- I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. 26 times I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed. –Michael Jordan
- Every strike brings me closer to the next home run. –Babe Ruth
- Definiteness of purpose is the starting point of all achievement. –W. Clement Stone
- Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans. –John Lennon
- We become what we think about. –Earl Nightingale
- Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do, so throw off the bowlines, sail away from safe harbor, catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore, Dream, Discover. –Mark Twain
- Life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. –John Maxwell
- If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten. –Tony Robbins
- The mind is everything. What you think you become. –Buddha
- The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. –Chinese Proverb
- An unexamined life is not worth living. –Socrates
- Eighty percent of success is showing up. –Woody Allen
- Don’t wait. The time will never be just right. –Napoleon Hill
- Winning isn’t everything, but wanting to win is. –Vince Lombardi
- I am not a product of my circumstances. I am a product of my decisions. –Stephen Covey
- Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up. –Pablo Picasso
- You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore. –Christopher Columbus
- I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. –Maya Angelou
- Either you run the day, or the day runs you. –Jim Rohn
- Whether you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re right. –Henry Ford
- The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why. –Mark Twain
- Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. –Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
- The best revenge is massive success. –Frank Sinatra
- People often say that motivation doesn’t last. Well, neither does bathing. That’s why we recommend it daily. –Zig Ziglar
- Inspiration exists, but it must find you working. –Pablo Picasso
- If you hear a voice within you say “you cannot paint,” then by all means paint and that voice will be silenced. –Vincent Van Gogh
- There is only one way to avoid criticism: do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing. –Aristotle
- Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off the goal. –Henry Ford
- The only person you are destined to become is the person you decide to be. –Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined. –Henry David Thoreau
- When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left and could say, I used everything you gave me. –Erma Bombeck
- Successful people are always looking for opportunities to help others. Unsuccessful people are always asking, “What’s in it for me?” – Brian Tracy
- Certain things catch your eye, but pursue only those that capture the heart. – Ancient Indian Proverb
- Believe you can and you’re halfway there. –Theodore Roosevelt
- Everything you’ve ever wanted is on the other side of fear. –George Addair
- We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. –Plato
- Once you choose hope, anything’s possible. –Christopher Reeve
- Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can. –Arthur Ashe
- When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life. –John Lennon
- Fall seven times and stand up eight. –Japanese Proverb
- When one door of happiness closes, another opens, but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one that has been opened for us. –Helen Keller
- Everything has beauty, but not everyone can see. –Confucious
- How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. –Anne Frank
- When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. –Lao Tzu
- The difference between a successful person and others is not lack of strength not a lack of knowledge but rather a lack of will. –Vince Lombardi
- Happiness is not something readymade. It comes from your own actions. –Dalai Lama
- The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible. –Arthur C. Clarke
- First, have a definite, clear practical ideal; a goal, an objective. Second, have the necessary means to achieve your ends; wisdom, money, materials, and methods. Third, adjust all your means to that end. –Aristotle
- If the wind will not serve, take to the oars. –Latin Proverb
- You can’t fall if you don’t climb. But there’s no joy in living your whole life on the ground. –Unknown
- Whoever loves much, performs much, and can accomplish much, and what is done in love is done well. –Vincent Van Gogh
- Too many of us are not living our dreams because we are living our fears. –Les Brown
- Challenges are what make life interesting and overcoming them is what makes life meaningful. –Joshua J. Marine
- The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing. –Walt Disney
- I have been impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do. –Leonardo da Vinci
- Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless. –Jamie Paolinetti
- Expose yourself to your deepest fear; after that, fear has no power, and the fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes. You are free. –Jim Morrison
- What’s money? A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do. –Bob Dylan
- I didn’t fail the test. I just found 100 ways to do it wrong. –Benjamin Franklin
- In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure. –Bill Cosby
- A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new. – Albert Einstein
- The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it. –Chinese Proverb
- There are no traffic jams along the extra mile. –Roger Staubach
- It is never too late to be what you might have been. –George Eliot
- You become what you believe. –Oprah Winfrey
- I would rather die of passion than of boredom. –Vincent van Gogh
- A truly rich man is one whose children run into his arms when his hands are empty. –Unknown
- It is not what you do for your children, but what you have taught them to do for themselves, that will make them successful human beings. –Ann Landers
- If you want your children to turn out well, spend twice as much time with them, and half as much money. –Abigail Van Buren
- Build your own dreams, or someone else will hire you to build theirs. –Farrah Gray
- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. –Frank Zappa
- Education costs money. But then so does ignorance. –Sir Claus Moser
- Remember that the happiest people are not those getting more, but those giving more. –H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
- It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop. –Confucius
- Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. –H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
- Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck. –Dalai Lama
- You can’t use up creativity. The more you use, the more you have. –Maya Angelou
- Dream big and dare to fail. –Norman Vaughan
- Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. –Martin Luther King Jr.
- Do what you can, where you are, with what you have. –Teddy Roosevelt
- The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any. –Alice Walker
- Dreaming, after all, is a form of planning. –Gloria Steinem
- It’s your place in the world; it’s your life. Go on and do all you can with it, and make it the life you want to live. –Mae Jemison
- You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don’t try. –Beverly Sills
- Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. –Eleanor Roosevelt
- Life is what we make it, always has been, always will be. –Grandma Moses
- The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me. –Ayn Rand
- When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. –Henry Ford
- It’s not the years in your life that count. It’s the life in your years. –Abraham Lincoln
- Change your thoughts and you change your world. –Norman Vincent Peale
- Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. –Benjamin Franklin
- Nothing is impossible, the word itself says, “I’m possible!” –Audrey Hepburn
- The only way to do great work is to love what you do. –Steve Jobs
- If you can dream it, you can achieve it. –Zig Ziglar
Saturday, August 31, 2013
BUDAYA MENGANTRI
Seorang guru di Australia pernah berkata:
“Kami tidak terlalu khawatir jika anak2 sekolah dasar kami tidak pandai Matematika ”kami jauh lebih khawatir jika mereka tidak pandai mengantri.”
“Sewaktu ditanya mengapa dan kok bisa begitu ?”
Kerena yang terjadi di negara kita justru sebaliknya.
Inilah jawabannya:
Karena kita hanya perlu melatih anak selama 3 bulan saja secara intensif untuk bisa Matematika, sementara kita perlu melatih anak hingga 12 Tahun atau lebih untuk bisa mengantri dan selalu ingat pelajaran berharga di balik proses mengantri.
Karena tidak semua anak kelak akan berprofesi menggunakan ilmu matematika kecuali TAMBAH, KALI, KURANG DAN BAGI. Sebagian mereka anak menjadi Penari, Atlet Olimpiade, Penyanyi, Musisi, Pelukis dsb.
Karena biasanya hanya sebagian kecil saja dari murid-murid dalam satu kelas yang kelak akan memilih profesi di bidang yang berhubungan dengan Matematika. Sementara SEMUA MURID DALAM SATU KELAS ini pasti akan membutuhkan Etika Moral dan Pelajaran Berharga dari mengantri di sepanjang hidup mereka kelak.
”Memang ada pelajaran berharga apa dibalik MENGANTRI ?”
”Oh iya banyak sekali pelajaran berharganya:”
- Anak belajar manajemen waktu jika ingin mengantri paling depan datang lebih awal dan persiapan lebih awal.
- Anak belajar bersabar menunggu gilirannya tiba terutama jika ia di antrian paling belakang.
- Anak belajar menghormati hak orang lain, yang datang lebih awal dapat giliran lebih awal dan tidak saling serobot merasa diri penting..
- Anak belajar berdisiplin dan tidak menyerobot hak orang lain.
- Anak belajar kreatif untuk memikirkan kegiatan apa yang bisa dilakukan untuk mengatasi kebosanan saat mengantri. (di Jepang biasanya orang akan membaca buku saat mengantri)
- Anak bisa belajar bersosialisasi menyapa dan mengobrol dengan orang lain di antrian.
- Anak belajar tabah dan sabar menjalani proses dalam mencapai tujuannya.
- Anak belajar hukum sebab akibat, bahwa jika datang terlambat harus menerima konsekuensinya di antrian belakang.
- Anak belajar disiplin, teratur dan kerapihan.
- Anak belajar memiliki RASA MALU, jika ia menyerobot antrian dan hak orang lain.
- Anak belajar bekerjasama dengan orang2 yang ada di dekatnya jika sementara mengantri ia harus keluar antrian sebentar untuk ke kamar kecil.
- Anak belajar jujur pada diri sendiri dan pada orang lain.
dan mungkin masih banyak lagi pelajaran berharga lainnya, silahkan anda temukan sendiri sisanya.
Saya sempat tertegun mendengarkan butir-butir penjelasannya. Dan baru saja menyadari hal ini saat satu ketika mengajak anak kami berkunjung ke tempat bermain anak Kids Zania di Jakarta.
Apa yang di pertontonkan para orang tua pada anaknya, dalam mengantri menunggu giliran sungguh memprihatinkan.
Ada orang tua yang memaksa anaknya untuk ”menyusup” ke antrian depan dan mengambil hak anak lain yang lebih dulu mengantri dengan rapi. Dan berkata ”Sudah cuek saja, pura-pura gak tau aja !!”
Ada orang tua yang memarahi anaknya dan berkata ”Dasar Penakut”, karena anaknya tidak mau dipaksa menyerobot antrian.
Ada orang tua yang menggunakan taktik dan sejuta alasan agar anaknya di perbolehkan masuk antrian depan, karena alasan masih kecil capek ngantri, rumahnya jauh harus segera pulang, dsb. Dan menggunakan taktik yang sama di lokasi antrian permainan yang berbeda.
Ada orang tua yang malah marah2 karena di tegur anaknya menyerobot antrian, dan menyalahkan orang tua yang menegurnya.
dan berbagai macam kasus lainnya yang mungkin anda pernah alami juga?
Ah sayang sekali ya.... padahal disana juga banyak pengunjung orang Asing entah apa yang ada di kepala mereka melihat kejadian semacam ini?
Ah sayang sekali jika orang tua, guru, dan Kementrian Pendidikan kita masih saja meributkan anak muridnya tentang Ca Lis Tung (Baca Tulis Hitung), Les Matematika dan sejenisnya. Padahal negara maju saja sudah berpikiran bahwa mengajarkan MORAL pada anak jauh lebih penting dari pada hanya sekedar mengajarkan anak pandai berhitung.
Ah sayang sekali ya... Mungkin itu yang menyebabkan negeri ini semakin jauh saja dari praktek-praktek hidup yang beretika dan bermoral?
Ah sayang sekali ya... seperti apa kelak anak2 yang suka menyerobot antrian sejak kecil ini jika mereka kelak jadi pemimpin di negeri ini?
Semoga ini menjadi pelajaran berharga bagi kita semua para orang tua juga para pendidik di seluruh tanah air tercinta. Untuk segera menyadari bahwa mengantri adalah pelajaran sederhana yang banyak sekali mengandung pelajaran hidup bagi anak dan harus di latih hingga menjadi kebiasaan setiap anak Indonesia. Mari kita ajari generasi muda kita untuk mengantri, untuk Indonesia yang lebih baik...
Sumber fb an Agung Celuler
https://www.facebook.com/agung.cellular?fref=ts
Friday, June 7, 2013
Membaca Hasil Tes Darah lengkap
Pemeriksaan darah lengkap biasanya terdiri dari :
- Leukosit
- Eritrosit
- Hemoglobin
- Hematokrit
- Trombosit
- Hitung jenis leukosit (basofil, eosinofil, batang, segmen, limfosit dan monosit)
- Laju endap darah
Nilai rujukan pada setiap laboratorium dapat berbeda tergantung reagent dan alat yang dipergunakan.
Untuk membacanya, anda perlu melihat satu per satu jenis pemeriksaan, membandingkan hasil pemeriksaan dengan nilai rujukan.
Lekosit dan Hitung Jenis
Leukosit atau sel darah putih adalah komponen sel darah yang berperan dalam sistem kekebalan tubuh untuk melawan berbagai infeksi. Apabila jumlah leukosit melebihi atau kurang dari nilai dapat disebabkan infeksi, proses radang, keganasan dan lain-lain.
Jumlah Eritrosit
Eritrosit atau sel darah merah yang berfungsi membawa oksigen ke seluruh tubuh. Di dalam sel darah merah terdapat protein yang berfungsi mengikat oksigen, yaitu haemoglobin.
Apabila jumlah eritrosit di bawah nilai normal ada kemungkinan terdapat anemia/ kurang darah.
Apabila eritrosit lebih dari normal biasanya pada penyakit polisitemia. Namun untuk menentukan anemia atau polisitemia perlu melihat nilai hemoglobin.
- M C V (Mean Cell Volume) : Merupakan perbandingan antara Hematocrite dengan Jumlah eritrosit
- M C H (Mean Cell Haemoglobine) : Mengukur banyaknya Hb yang terdapat dalam satu sel darah merah. Ditentukan dengan membagi jumlah Hb dalam 1000 ml darah dengan jumlah eritrosit Per mm3 darah à pikogram
- M C H C ( Mean Cell Hb Concentrate ) : Merupakan perbandingan Kadar rata-rata Hb dengan volume eritrosit. Kadar Hb/Haematocrite
- RDW ( Red Cell Distribution Width) : Membantu dalam klasifikasi anemia, berhubungan dengan hapusan darah dan indeks eritrosit lainnya. RDW penting untuk indicator derajat anisositosis atau variasi abnormal dari ukuran RBC.
Hemoglobin (Haemoglobin)
Hemoglobin atau sering kita kenal Hb adalah protein di dalam sel darah merah yang berfungsi mengikat oksigen. Bila hemoglobin lebih rendah dari nilai normal maka disebut anemia. Apabila nilai hemoglobin lebih tinggi dari nilai normal maka disebut polisitemia.
Banyak kondisi yang dapat menyebabkan anemia di antaranya kekurangan/defisiensi zat besi, defisiensi asam folat, talasemia, infeksi kronik, keganasan dan lain-lain. Untuk mengetahui penyebab anemia perlu dilakukan pemeriksaan lanjutan yaitu serum iron, feritin, TIBC, gambaran darah tepi, dan elektroforesa Hb. Pemeriksaan tersebut dilakukan secara bertahap sesuai indikasi.
Hematokrit
Hematokrit adalah perbandingan volume sel darah merah terhadap volume darah secara keseluruhan. Nilai hematokrit biasanya dikaitkan dengan ada tidaknya perembesan plasma pada kasus demam berdarah dengue. Pada kasus demam berdarah dengue (DBD), apabila terdapat peningkatan hematokrit berarti terdapat rembesan plasma ke luar pembuluh darah.
Trombosit
Trombosit adalah sel darah yang berperan pada proses pembekuan atau menghentikan perdarahan. Trombositopenia adalah jumlah trombosit lebih rendah dari nilai normal. Trombositopenia dapat disebabkan infeksi virus (termasuk demam dengue atau demam berdarah dengue), keganasan, ITP, perdarahan, dan lain-lain.
Sedangkan trombositosis adalah peningkatan jumlah trombosit melebihi nilai normal. Trombositosis dapat disebabkan infeksi, keganasan, reaksi dari kerusakan jaringan, dan lain-lain.
Laju Endap Darah
Laju endap darah adalah kecepatan sel darah merah (eritrosit) mengendap dalam satuan mm/jam.
Laju endap darah yang tinggi biasanya dikaitkan dengan adanya infeksi akut, infeksi kronik dan inflamasi.
Mungkin tidak mudah bagi kita membaca hasil pemeriksaan darah. Hal tersebut bukanlah masalah.
Mengetahui bahwa ada nilai yang tidak normal dan mengetahui istilah-istilahnya sudah lebih dari cukup. Interpretasi hasil pemeriksaan harus dilakukan oleh dokter karena masih harus disesuaikan korelasinya dengan kondisi klinis pasien.
Sumber
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Nokia Symbian S60 OS Platform
S60 (software platform)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The S60 Platform (formerly Series 60 User Interface) is a software platform for smartphones that runs on the Symbian operating system. It was created by Nokia in 2001, and was first released in 2002 with the Nokia 7650 smartphone. The OS platform has since seen 5 updated editions. In 2010, S60 was replaced by the new Symbian^3.
S60 consists of a suite of libraries and standard applications, such as telephony, personal information manager (PIM) tools, and Helix-basedmultimedia players. It is intended to power fully featured modern phones with large colour screens, which are commonly known assmartphones.
The S60 software is a multivendor standard for smartphones that supports application development in Java MIDP, C++, Python[1] and Adobe Flash. Originally, the most distinguishing feature of S60 phones was that they allowed users to install new applications after purchase. Unlike a standard desktop platform, however, the built-in apps are rarely upgraded by the vendor beyond bug fixes. New features are only added to phones while they are being developed rather than after public release. Certain buttons are standardized, such as a menu key, a four way joystick or d-pad, left and right soft keys and a clear key.
S60 is mainly used by Nokia but has also been used by a few other manufacturers, including Lenovo, LG Electronics, Panasonic,Samsung,[2] Sendo,[3] and Siemens Mobile.
In addition to the manufacturers the community includes:
- Software integration companies such as Sasken, Elektrobit, Teleca, Digia, Mobica, Atelier.tm
- Semiconductor companies Texas Instruments, STMicroelectronics, Broadcom, Sony, Freescale Semiconductor, Samsung Electronics
- Operators such as Vodafone and Orange who develop and provide S60-based mobile applications and services
- Software developers and independent software vendors (ISVs).
Series 60 was renamed as S60 in November 2005.
Contents[hide] |
S60 editions [edit]
There have been four major releases of S60: "Series 60" (2001), "Series 60 Second Edition" (2003), "S60 3rd Edition" (2005) and "S60 5th Edition" (2008).
- S60 1st Edition
- In Series 60 1st Edition, the devices' display resolution was fixed to 176×208.
- S60 2nd Edition
- Also known as S60v2. Starting with 2nd Edition Feature Pack 3 (S60v2.3), Series 60 supports multiple resolutions, i.e. Basic (176×208), and Double (352×416). Nokia N90 was the first S60 device to support a higher resolution (352×416). Some devices, however, have non-standard resolutions, like the Siemens SX1, with 176×220. Nokia 5500 Sport has a 208×208 screen resolution, and the Nokia E90 with its wide 800×352 inner display.
- S60 3rd Edition
- S60v3 uses a hardened version of Symbian OS (v9.1), which has mandatory code signing. In S60v3, a user may install only programs that have a certificate from a registered developer, unless the user disables that feature or modify the phone's firmware through third-party hacks that circumvent the mandatory signing restrictions. This makes software written for S60 1st Edition or 2nd Edition not binary-compatible with S60v3.
- In 2006, a "Designed for S60 Devices" logo program for developers was launched. The logotype can be used with conforming programs regardless of them being native Symbian or Java.
- S60 5th Edition
- In October 2008, S60 5th Edition was launched. Nokia decided to move from 3rd Edition directly to 5th Edition "as a polite gesture to Asian customers",[4] because the number four means bad luck in some Asian cultures). S60 5th Edition runs on Symbian OS version 9.4.[5] The major feature of 5th Edition is support for high-resolution 640×360 touchscreens; before 5th Edition, all S60 devices had a button-based user interface. S60 5th Edition also integrates standard C/C++ APIs and includes Adobe Flash Lite 3.0 with S60-specific ActionScript extensions that give Flash Lite developers access to phone features like contacts, text messaging, sensors and device location information (GPS).
- The S60 5th Edition is the last edition of S60. Its assets along with Symbian OS, UIQ and MOAP(S) have been used as a base for Symbian, an open source operating systembeing developed by the Symbian Foundation. The first edition of Symbian, Symbian^1, uses S60 5th Edition on top of Symbian OS 9.4 as its base.
S60 versions and supported devices [edit]
Many devices are capable of running the S60 software platform with the Symbian OS. Devices ranging from the early Nokia 7650 running S60 v0.9 on Symbian OS v6.1,[6][7] to the latest Samsung i8910 Omnia HD running S60 v5.0 on Symbian OS v9.4.[8] In Symbian^3 the version of the revised platform is v5.2.
The table lists devices carrying each version of S60 as well as the Symbian OS version it is based on. Note that new devices since Symbian^3 May be capable of upgrading to later systems, such as Symbian Anna and Symbian Belle. Therefore, you may see a device being listed in many systems.
Symbian is now progressing through a period of organisational change to metamorph into an open source software platform project. As an OS, Symbian OS originally provided nouser interface (UI), the visual layer that runs atop an operating system. This was implemented separately. Examples of Symbian UIs are MOAP; Series 60; Series 80; Series 90and UIQ. This separation of UI from underlying OS has created both flexibility and some confusion in the market place. The Nokia purchase of Symbian was brokered with the involvement of the other UI developers and all major user interface layers have been (or have been pledged to be) donated to the open source foundation who will independently own the Symbian operating system. The new Symbian Foundation has announced its intent to unify different Symbian UIs into a single UI based on the S60 platform. (Announcements made in March 2009 indicated this would be the S60 5th edition with feature pack 1).
Symbian Anna [edit]
On 12 April 2011, Nokia announced Symbian Anna as a software update to the Symbian^3 release. Three new devices (500, X7 and E6) were announced which will have Symbian Anna pre-installed. Symbian Anna will be available as a Software Update for Symbian^3 based devices as well. Most Significant updates that come with "Anna" are
- Portrait QWERTY with split-view data entry
- New Icon Set
- New internet browser with an improved user interface, search-integrated address field, faster navigation and page loading.
- Updated Ovi Maps (search public transport, download full country maps via WLAN or Nokia Ovi Suite, check-in to Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare).
- Java Runtime 2.2, Qt Mobility 1.1 and Qt4.7.
Symbian Belle [edit]
On 24 August 2011, Nokia announced Symbian Belle as a software update to the Symbian Anna release. Three new devices (603, 700 and 701) [Nokia 600 is cancelled and is replaced with Nokia 603] were announced which will have Symbian Belle pre-installed. Symbian Belle will be available as a Software Update for Symbian Anna based devices as well. Most Significant updates that come with "Belle" are
- Free-form, differently-sized, live widgets
- More homescreens
- Improved status bar
- Dropdown menu
- Modernised navigation
- New apps
- Informative lock screen
- NFC devices
- Visual multitasking
Competitions and the End of Symbian [edit]
In February 2011, Nokia announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate Windows Phone 7 as their Primary OS, leaving further Symbian development in question. Nokia has promised support for Symbian and its newer devices till at least 2016, but no new Symbian devices will be released after Nokia 808 PureView. As a part of this plan, Nokia announced on 29 April 2011, to transfer and outsource Symbian activities to Accenture along with 3000 employees.
See also [edit]
- Sailfish OS, the open source Linux platform based on MeeGo from Jolla, the company which was established by ex-Nokia employees.
- Android OS, an partly open-source mobile platform by Google
- Maemo, Nokia's Debian Linux-based platform
- MOAP, another Symbian-based platform
- Series 40, Nokia's non-Symbian-based platform for mass-market devices.
- Series 80
- Series 90
- UIQ, another Symbian-based platform
- Web Browser for S60
References [edit]
- ^ Python for S60, Nokia
- ^ Licensees, S60
- ^ Pakalski, Ingo (21 October 2003). "Symbian-Smartphone von Sendo mit Digitalkamera samt Blitz"(in German). Golem.de. Retrieved 15 January 2011.
- ^ S60 5th Edition and the Nokia 5800 XpressMusic are here!, 3rd comment
- ^ "is now closed". S60.com. Retrieved 13 March 2011.
- ^ a b Forum Nokia Device Specifications for S60 models(operating system information)
- ^ a b Sony Ericsson Satio Press Release(information about S60 version)
- ^ a b c Samsung OMNIAHD Dazzles at Mobile World Congress with Its HD Brilliance
- ^ a b "Fast moving phone viruses appear". BBC. 30 December 2004. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
- ^ Screenshot with Nokia 600
- ^ Z:\resource\versions\platform.txt
- ^ a b [1]
- ^ Z:\resource\versions\platform.txt
- ^ Z:\resource\versions\platform.txt
Symbian Belle – the facts, the features and the pictures
External links [edit]
 | Wikibooks has more on the topic of: S60 (software platform) |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)