Good point. Losing the ability to use the scroll wheel clicker would make tabbed browsing in Mozilla less appealling. If you don't open new tabs by middle-clicking (not default; must set in Preferences), you have to right-click and select Open Link in New Tab.
The New English Translation is a free translation of the Scriptures with extensive translator's and study notes. I couldn't bookmark it fast enough when I saw what a fantastic tool it is.
The most important innovation in coping with scarce water supplies has been drip irrigation. This method of irrigation applies water and nutrients directly to the root of the plant at a controlled rate. See the drip irrigation pipelines. With traditional irrigation, most of the water evaporates from the ditch and is wasted. Drip irrigation uses less water, works with saline water, requires less fertilizer, and produces more crops.
It was invented in 1965 and has been used all over the world. If those former Soviet republics aren't using it, I suspect the reason is that they don't think they can afford to pay for the equipment. I would say that perhaps they can't afford not to pay for it.
"The Cacophony Society is a randomly gathered network of individuals united in the pursuit of experiences beyond the pale of mainstream society through subversion, pranks, art, fringe explorations and meaningless madness."
If Bible study is your aim, check out a freeware program called e-Sword. It has dozens of free, downloadable modules of Bible versions/languages (modern, classical, and ancient), lexicons/dictionaries, commentaries, classical theological literature, maps, art, and even devotionals. When you click on any verse or word, all your commentaries and dictionaries jump into action to show what info they've got pertaining to it. The KJV has integrated Strong's Concordance numbers that you can mouseover and get the info in a tooltip.
I'm a big enough fan that I actually paid for the e-Sword CD. It's only $15 for almost everything.
After all, looking up Psalm 137:9 in King James Version is much more eloquent:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Let's see that with a little context:
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Babylon, hmmm... Iraq.
I think this is the answer to somebody's sig that reads: Who would Jesus bomb?
:-)
Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. Jane Roe, did not "change her mind"! That would imply that she had once supported abortion. Norma was lied to about what abortion is when she had hers. At the time of the case, she did not know what "abortion" meant.
Norma was a poor, homeless, sexually-abused, and very naive woman who was mercilessly exploited by abortion activists and corrupt lawyers. The facts of abortion and abortionist practices, both of which violated several existing statutes and Constitutional tenets, were never discussed during the case.
The illegal basis for the decision apparently was that a woman has the right to choose -- not to control her own body -- but to destroy another person's body. Normally, this is called murder or manslaughter. In one fell swoop, however, these rogue judicial ideologues trampled across the Constitutional separation of Court and Congress and created a new law -- a law that flew in the face of well over 300 years of American legal precedent (going back to colonial governments) that outlawed the willful killing of an innocent human being. The court here usurped a power reserved exclusively for the legislative branch, and in doing so, contradicted thousands of federal, state, and local laws of every municipality in the country, and likewise, contradicted the majority beliefs and will of both the citizens and their elected representative legislators.
Because of this, plus the numerous deceptions that occurred during the proceedings, as well as the invalidity of the very basis of the case and the misrepresentation and exploitation of the plaintiff by her own legal "advocates" means that the decision of Roe v. Wade has absolutely no legal basis.
You have a right to choose as long as the exercise of that right does not infringe on the rights of others. Abortion completely annihilates all the rights of another person, including that person's right to live. There is empirical scientific proof très beaucoup that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that abortion is the destruction of a living human being. There is not a shred of science to assuage the blood-guilt of abortionists. Their 30-year legacy stands in history as a holocaust*, in which these self-proclaimed champions of civil rights have exterminated more than 35,000,000 living, pre-born babies (without their consent, obviously, nor with due process to convict them guilty of a crime) and caused tremendous emotional devastation and physical pain to the women they claim to be fighting to help.
Read the affidavit. It's a quick and eye-opening read.
* The usage of the term "holocaust" in reference to widespread abortion has been sanctioned by Jewish survivors of the Nazi-inflicted holocaust.
When I first read about XML in 1997, the hype was that it was going to solve this kind of problem because XML defines semantics rather than layout as HTML does. XHTML documents should have keywords that can be defined something along these lines:
I included a SIC code to demonstrate further distinction since there are probably other companies with "apple" in their name. The SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) system, used mostly by the government, uses 4-digit codes used to categorize and uniquely identify business activities.
Many Slashdot discussions of important, relevant topics will eventually be stifled by an invocation of Godwin's Law, Occam's Razor, or some other conversational black hole when the invoker is unable or unwilling to continue defending his position.
Everything is not about terrorism, but it's blazingly obvious to me that a machine that could transfer cash internationally, anonymously, and instantaneously would be a huge help to terrorists.
Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers? One aspect of this story that most people don't know about is that up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare, a virtual machine emulator, under which they will run Windows and Windows applications. That's right, folks: The majority of those "Linux desktops" will be used to run... Windows. I'm not a big fan of Gartner, but they've issued a report, correctly titled, "Munich's Choice Doesn't Prove Linux OK for General Desktop Use," that raises some interesting issues. First, many of the Windows desktops they're migrated are very old Windows versions like Windows 3.1, making the switch to Linux less painful (it would be equally painful to switch to XP). Gartner says the cost of switching to Linux will cost 30 million Euros, or 3 million Euros more than it would cost to switch to XP, not including any steep discounts Microsoft would have no doubt provided. And finally, because most of the Linux machines will use VMWare to run Windows anyway, Linux is really being used as a hosting environment, and not as a replacement. In other words, this isn't exactly a good business case on which other companies can base a decision to migrate to Windows desktops.
Pretty amusing, when you consider that once, long, long ago, in an America far, far away, the President was an accessible private citizen.
Right, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln never had such onerous e-mail policies.
I cannot believe you said what you did. TV, Internet, satellite communication - these things are new. In the 1700s and 1800s, Americans were lucky to see a couple of grainy pictures of a president. What kind of access did a Californian or Texan have to Washington, D.C. back then? Do you realize that 99.999% of American citizens went their whole lives without ever hearing a word their presidents said? Even radio is new. The country went for over a century without that.
We have more access to the president than ever! True, not as much physical access to the president for the locals in D.C. or visitors who want to shake his hand or sit down for a chat as in ye olde days, but more communication access.
Why should you be entitled to unfettered access via all possible communication media? This coming from the armchair privacy police. In 2050, you people will be complaining about repressive White House policies that restrict you from interfacing with the nanobots in the president's brain.
I went looking for pictures of Sealand and came across this sensationalist site calling itself Rough Sands Gazette with a headline from September 2001: "UK UNDER TERRORIST THREAT: TERRORISTS OCCUPY FORMER UK WAR BASE LESS THAN 8 MILES FROM ESSEX." (The tower that Sealand sits upon is called Roughs Tower.) It hasn't been updated since then. I'm not sure what to make of it.
"The bottom line is, 100% of former Mozilla developers in the employ of AOL are no longer working on Mozilla. I don't know of any exceptions."
Not correct. In addition to the financial and equipment contributions that AOL has made to the Mozilla Foundation, it continues to employ a small team of "Mozilla people" (myself included, as well as developers and infrastructure people) to assist in the transition.
If you're having the same problem I am -- I used the zipped distro instead of the exe installer -- here's the solution (Windows XP/2k only, see further down for note on 9x).
[HKEY_LOCAL_MAC HINE\SOFTWARE\mozilla.org\Mozilla\1.4\Main] "Inst all Directory"="C:\\Program Files\\Mozilla\\bin\\"
Of course, first change the Install Directory value to the correct path according to where you unzipped Mozilla (where mozilla.exe is). If you're using Windows 9x, you have to change Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 to Regedit4.
Rename the file as mozilla.reg (or whatever.reg), and run it as a user with Administrator privileges. It will import the data into the right place in the registry. You can delete the reg file if the operation was successful.
Shut down Mozilla completely, restart it, and Java will work. I didn't have to use the Java Control Panel. The CP still won't let me check "Mozilla 1.1 or later" in the Browser tab, but it works anyway for me.
To paraphrase an excerpt from the linked article below: The United States Navy was born on March 27th, 1794. On that day the United States Congress formally signed off on a bill calling for the building of the first six warships of a navy, and the gentlemen sitting in the temporary capital of Philadelphia did so in response to the menace of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East.
But what surprised [Thomas Jefferson, the future third U.S. president] during his investigation into the problem [of piracy] was that contrary to popular usage, which called these hijackers "pirates," he discovered that they were not typical pirates at all, criminals out for lucre, who when ashore liked to hang out in taverns and get drunk and paw at wenches.
Oh no. These so-called Barbary "pirates" were in reality just normal Middle Easterners, Muslims, who did not drink alcohol at all. They prayed several times daily, like all good Muslims and in fact saw themselves not as independent, free-booting, venal "pirates" but sailors in the official navy of the city-state they sailed from; and while their occupation was capturing and selling slaves--as well as the captured ships and their cargoes--their rationale for doing so was religious. They saw themselves engaged in a jihad and called themselves mujahiddin (holy warriors).
[...]
Jefferson foresaw catastrophe and thus spent the fall of 1784 reading up on Islam, asking fellow diplomats in Paris how their countries dealt with the issue. He discovered that for a thousand years the Muslims of North Africa had plagued Europe with their hijacking, hostage-taking and enslaving. In truth, Europe also engaged in capturing Muslims and enslaving them too, but that practice had faded away by the early 18th century.
What in the hell does IE offer as far as those standards are concerened that any other major browser or OS does not have? Please don't tell me that they are going to try to do this with some stupid, insecure ActiveX control, please, please don't tell me that.
No, the Technical FAQ just says that your browser must support SSL 3.0. It specifies IE 5.5+ or Netscape 6+ as a requirement, probably because they weren't aware of any other browsers. I would guess that any Gecko-based browser would be technically compatible with the voting system, but the FAQ does say that you have to have Windows. I don't know what the OS has to do with SSL. It seems like a meaningless requirement. I'm thinking that it's really just the recommended or "supported" configuration. In other words, they don't want to hear your complaints that you couldn't vote if you are using Mosaic on OS/2.
Moreover, I think the requirements might be intended to limit their own legal liability if you are unable to vote. There are countless configurations out there, and the government doesn't want to guarantee that you'll be able to vote with whatever h4x0r OS or browser you're using. Voting is a serious thing; a Constitutional right. If they claim it works, then it has to work. I think the stated software requirements is just a measure to protect themselves.
I don't know if the voting system would prohibit you from trying to vote from a non-Windows box. But since you defied the instructions, you'd probably have no legal grounds to protest if your vote gets "lost."
But it's clearly not. Any casual reader (or Biblical scholar) can see this. The Bible is a collection of 66 books written over a 1500 year span by more than 40 authors on three continents (Asia, Africa, Europe) in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). As a result of the diversity in which the books were composed, the Bible includes various kinds of literature: poetry, historical narrative, song, romance, didactic treatise, personal correspondence, memoirs, satire, biography, autobiography, law, prophecy, parable, and allegory. Parables are just one kind.
The idea that the Bible, which has undergone more revisions then Enron's accounting books, is still 100% accurate from the words of the original authors of the scripture is hardly possible.
There is more manuscript evidence to vouch for the integrity of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, than any other ancient writing. We're talking tens of thousands of documents. And there are no significant differences between the texts.
You imply that the accuracy of the Biblical text in our languages is becoming less genuine over time, but reality shows the exact opposite. The reason? Biblical archaeology. We have discovered more things about Biblical events and cultures in the last few decades than in the previous several hundreds of years.
Translation is a complicated thing. First of all, you must realize that there are major differences between modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew. Secondly, it is not sufficient to know Biblical Hebrew and English in order to translate Biblical manuscripts into English. Scholars who translate these things have a vast knowledge of languages, such as Persian, Arabic, Ugaritic, Aramaic, etc., some of which are extinct.
The New Testament is particularly tricky, because although it is in Greek, it frequently uses Hebrew idioms. The KJV is a literal translation, which guarantees that the resulting English text is confusing and wrong. Maybe "wrong" is too strong a word (with regard to its literalness; it is wrong because of other matters of ignorance); the problem is that we, the readers, don't have the knowledge and experience of first century Jews to interpret it correctly. You see, having an understanding of Hebrew thought patterns and idioms is a prerequisite for understanding NT Greek. This entails understanding first century Hebrew culture under the influence of the reigning Roman Empire as well as the Aramaic language, which was predominant among the Jews at that time.
The field of Biblical archaeology is exploding, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, which revealed the oldest known manuscripts of many Old Testament passages in the world. We are uncovering new facts all the time that aid in translating and interpreting the Bible. This has led to an explosion of new Bible versions in the last few decades.
Our understanding and translation of Biblical text is not becoming less accurate; it is becoming more accurate!
I used to go to Bi-Lo and use their Bonus Card, thinking I was getting good savings.
Then I discovered Wal-Mart's groceries. Most products that I buy are 20% to 40% cheaper than Bi-Lo's with the special discounts. And you don't have to join a tracking program.
Alas, Wal-Mart will probably be the first to use RFIDs wide-scale, so be ready to don the tin foil hat when pass by a store.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Losing the ability to use the scroll wheel clicker would make tabbed browsing in Mozilla less appealling. If you don't open new tabs by middle-clicking (not default; must set in Preferences), you have to right-click and select Open Link in New Tab.
The New English Translation is a free translation of the Scriptures with extensive translator's and study notes. I couldn't bookmark it fast enough when I saw what a fantastic tool it is.
How did they make the desert bloom?
The most important innovation in coping with scarce water supplies has been drip irrigation. This method of irrigation applies water and nutrients directly to the root of the plant at a controlled rate. See the drip irrigation pipelines. With traditional irrigation, most of the water evaporates from the ditch and is wasted. Drip irrigation uses less water, works with saline water, requires less fertilizer, and produces more crops.
It was invented in 1965 and has been used all over the world. If those former Soviet republics aren't using it, I suspect the reason is that they don't think they can afford to pay for the equipment. I would say that perhaps they can't afford not to pay for it.
I think I found one of its members.
See some hippies take a ride on a bus to blow off some steam.
if you know what I mean. It'll be fun!
I don't know. They take the flash mob thing literally.
I'm a big enough fan that I actually paid for the e-Sword CD. It's only $15 for almost everything.
For online Bible reference, check out the ultimate Bible search engine.
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Let's see that with a little context:
Babylon, hmmm... Iraq.I think this is the answer to somebody's sig that reads: Who would Jesus bomb?
:-)
Norma was a poor, homeless, sexually-abused, and very naive woman who was mercilessly exploited by abortion activists and corrupt lawyers. The facts of abortion and abortionist practices, both of which violated several existing statutes and Constitutional tenets, were never discussed during the case.
The illegal basis for the decision apparently was that a woman has the right to choose -- not to control her own body -- but to destroy another person's body. Normally, this is called murder or manslaughter. In one fell swoop, however, these rogue judicial ideologues trampled across the Constitutional separation of Court and Congress and created a new law -- a law that flew in the face of well over 300 years of American legal precedent (going back to colonial governments) that outlawed the willful killing of an innocent human being. The court here usurped a power reserved exclusively for the legislative branch, and in doing so, contradicted thousands of federal, state, and local laws of every municipality in the country, and likewise, contradicted the majority beliefs and will of both the citizens and their elected representative legislators.
Because of this, plus the numerous deceptions that occurred during the proceedings, as well as the invalidity of the very basis of the case and the misrepresentation and exploitation of the plaintiff by her own legal "advocates" means that the decision of Roe v. Wade has absolutely no legal basis.
You have a right to choose as long as the exercise of that right does not infringe on the rights of others. Abortion completely annihilates all the rights of another person, including that person's right to live. There is empirical scientific proof très beaucoup that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that abortion is the destruction of a living human being. There is not a shred of science to assuage the blood-guilt of abortionists. Their 30-year legacy stands in history as a holocaust*, in which these self-proclaimed champions of civil rights have exterminated more than 35,000,000 living, pre-born babies (without their consent, obviously, nor with due process to convict them guilty of a crime) and caused tremendous emotional devastation and physical pain to the women they claim to be fighting to help.
Read the affidavit. It's a quick and eye-opening read.
* The usage of the term "holocaust" in reference to widespread abortion has been sanctioned by Jewish survivors of the Nazi-inflicted holocaust.
In related news, the stock price of 3M Inc., maker of Post-It (R) notes, jumped 30 points today.
I use an advanced version of plaintext. It's called Double ROT-13.
Mozilla 1.4 on all platforms supports MNG. MNG/JNG support wasn't dropped until the 1.5a builds.
Many Slashdot discussions of important, relevant topics will eventually be stifled by an invocation of Godwin's Law, Occam's Razor, or some other conversational black hole when the invoker is unable or unwilling to continue defending his position.
Everything is not about terrorism, but it's blazingly obvious to me that a machine that could transfer cash internationally, anonymously, and instantaneously would be a huge help to terrorists.
Right, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln never had such onerous e-mail policies.
I cannot believe you said what you did. TV, Internet, satellite communication - these things are new. In the 1700s and 1800s, Americans were lucky to see a couple of grainy pictures of a president. What kind of access did a Californian or Texan have to Washington, D.C. back then? Do you realize that 99.999% of American citizens went their whole lives without ever hearing a word their presidents said? Even radio is new. The country went for over a century without that.
We have more access to the president than ever! True, not as much physical access to the president for the locals in D.C. or visitors who want to shake his hand or sit down for a chat as in ye olde days, but more communication access.
Why should you be entitled to unfettered access via all possible communication media? This coming from the armchair privacy police. In 2050, you people will be complaining about repressive White House policies that restrict you from interfacing with the nanobots in the president's brain.
I went looking for pictures of Sealand and came across this sensationalist site calling itself Rough Sands Gazette with a headline from September 2001: "UK UNDER TERRORIST THREAT: TERRORISTS OCCUPY FORMER UK WAR BASE LESS THAN 8 MILES FROM ESSEX." (The tower that Sealand sits upon is called Roughs Tower.) It hasn't been updated since then. I'm not sure what to make of it.
Make a text file with the following:
Of course, first change the Install Directory value to the correct path according to where you unzipped Mozilla (where mozilla.exe is). If you're using Windows 9x, you have to change Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 to Regedit4.Rename the file as mozilla.reg (or whatever.reg), and run it as a user with Administrator privileges. It will import the data into the right place in the registry. You can delete the reg file if the operation was successful.
Shut down Mozilla completely, restart it, and Java will work. I didn't have to use the Java Control Panel. The CP still won't let me check "Mozilla 1.1 or later" in the Browser tab, but it works anyway for me.
This is true, and for good reason.
To paraphrase an excerpt from the linked article below: The United States Navy was born on March 27th, 1794. On that day the United States Congress formally signed off on a bill calling for the building of the first six warships of a navy, and the gentlemen sitting in the temporary capital of Philadelphia did so in response to the menace of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East.
Read about Jefferson and Islamic piracy:
No, the Technical FAQ just says that your browser must support SSL 3.0. It specifies IE 5.5+ or Netscape 6+ as a requirement, probably because they weren't aware of any other browsers. I would guess that any Gecko-based browser would be technically compatible with the voting system, but the FAQ does say that you have to have Windows. I don't know what the OS has to do with SSL. It seems like a meaningless requirement. I'm thinking that it's really just the recommended or "supported" configuration. In other words, they don't want to hear your complaints that you couldn't vote if you are using Mosaic on OS/2.
Moreover, I think the requirements might be intended to limit their own legal liability if you are unable to vote. There are countless configurations out there, and the government doesn't want to guarantee that you'll be able to vote with whatever h4x0r OS or browser you're using. Voting is a serious thing; a Constitutional right. If they claim it works, then it has to work. I think the stated software requirements is just a measure to protect themselves.
I don't know if the voting system would prohibit you from trying to vote from a non-Windows box. But since you defied the instructions, you'd probably have no legal grounds to protest if your vote gets "lost."
Why don't they put GPS devices on the ducks so they can track their paths the whole way?
But it's clearly not. Any casual reader (or Biblical scholar) can see this. The Bible is a collection of 66 books written over a 1500 year span by more than 40 authors on three continents (Asia, Africa, Europe) in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). As a result of the diversity in which the books were composed, the Bible includes various kinds of literature: poetry, historical narrative, song, romance, didactic treatise, personal correspondence, memoirs, satire, biography, autobiography, law, prophecy, parable, and allegory. Parables are just one kind.
The idea that the Bible, which has undergone more revisions then Enron's accounting books, is still 100% accurate from the words of the original authors of the scripture is hardly possible.
There is more manuscript evidence to vouch for the integrity of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, than any other ancient writing. We're talking tens of thousands of documents. And there are no significant differences between the texts.
You imply that the accuracy of the Biblical text in our languages is becoming less genuine over time, but reality shows the exact opposite. The reason? Biblical archaeology. We have discovered more things about Biblical events and cultures in the last few decades than in the previous several hundreds of years.
Translation is a complicated thing. First of all, you must realize that there are major differences between modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew. Secondly, it is not sufficient to know Biblical Hebrew and English in order to translate Biblical manuscripts into English. Scholars who translate these things have a vast knowledge of languages, such as Persian, Arabic, Ugaritic, Aramaic, etc., some of which are extinct.
The New Testament is particularly tricky, because although it is in Greek, it frequently uses Hebrew idioms. The KJV is a literal translation, which guarantees that the resulting English text is confusing and wrong. Maybe "wrong" is too strong a word (with regard to its literalness; it is wrong because of other matters of ignorance); the problem is that we, the readers, don't have the knowledge and experience of first century Jews to interpret it correctly. You see, having an understanding of Hebrew thought patterns and idioms is a prerequisite for understanding NT Greek. This entails understanding first century Hebrew culture under the influence of the reigning Roman Empire as well as the Aramaic language, which was predominant among the Jews at that time.
The field of Biblical archaeology is exploding, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, which revealed the oldest known manuscripts of many Old Testament passages in the world. We are uncovering new facts all the time that aid in translating and interpreting the Bible. This has led to an explosion of new Bible versions in the last few decades.
Our understanding and translation of Biblical text is not becoming less accurate; it is becoming more accurate!
Politically correct bigotry: It's okay to make fun of poor people if they're white (especially Christians).
He had a dream...
Would somebody give an English translation?
Then I discovered Wal-Mart's groceries. Most products that I buy are 20% to 40% cheaper than Bi-Lo's with the special discounts. And you don't have to join a tracking program.
Alas, Wal-Mart will probably be the first to use RFIDs wide-scale, so be ready to don the tin foil hat when pass by a store.