Generally, it only is included for historical context... so that people can understand the history that led to Christ. The proscriptions of the old testament carry no weight or authority.
Sure, maybe some people might think they do, but if so it's because they're ignorant of their own religion. No major christian religion believes that. Individual people believe all sort of odd things.
This concept of separating sin from sinner - act from actor - is incoherent nonsense.
Nonsense. It's a valuable and necessary lesson one needs to learn. An act does not exist apart from an actor, but an actor is not defined by an act. I hate socialism, but many socialists are well-meaning and caring people who simply don't truly understand the consequences of what they're advocating.
Too many people even here on slashdot project all their emotional feelings about a specific act or position onto a person. That's shallow and immature. It's what leads to somebody who posts "Microsoft builds a pretty good IDE" getting a collection of vulgar insults in response.
"...and this has never happened in the history of the planet," she added.
This sort of stuff drives me crazy. If she can say this sort of thing with a straight face, she is absolutely not a credible person to listen to on this issue. There's people like this on both sides of the climate debate, and it's hard not to dismiss the whole business, both sides, as too emotionally politicized to allow anybody to be trusted.
Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. However it is MUCH more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, so over a 20 year period a ton of methane will cause the same amount of global warming as 72 tons of carbon dioxide.
So, the 12 years goes by. Methane had caused some warming, but now it's gone. I can't think of any mechanism that stops the methane-induced warming from going away.
Right. You're not the problem with the world; you're just A problem with the world. You are the obsessive one, the extremist one, the one that has lost self-awareness and perspective.
Android's target demographic is hardcore techies combined with budget buyers unconcerned with smartphone quality.
Which will quickly massively outnumber Apple's demographic. Apple will be a major player for a while yet, but they're pursuing a dead end, I think. Don't know if it's a year or a couple years before they lose their perception as market leader, but it's clearly going to happen.
I don't mean this as trolling against Apple; they've done some amazing stuff. I just think they have no realistic hope of outcompeting Android at this point. You can't occupy 'high end' and 'numerically dominant' niches at the same time...
If you're wondering about delusions, being an obsessed poster that repeats in ever more frantic terms the same comment, anonymously, every time the subject of space travel is broached on slashdot should give you insights into that psychological malfunction.
By the way, no matter how much you rant about 'Space Nutters', the term will never catch on. It's only function is as an indicator that the user of the term (a set with a population of one) is a monomaniacal and inflexible obsessive.
Do we want to call MS Big Brother over this, when they're following the example of Firefox?
IE has been getting a lot better, and the more sane release schedule was becoming more and more of a selling point over Firefox. Funny how the browser field has shifted. It used to be Firefox for the smart people, Opera for the independent smart people, and IE/Safari for the people that didn't really know how computers operated.
Now, IE and Safari have improved, Firefox is squandering it's lead, and Chrome is on par with Firefox, and Opera is still the Ron Paul of browsers. There's no obviously bad browser anymore, but we also don't have an obviously superior browser.
Every dollar of government aid for tuition will result in tuition being raised by one dollar, so as to continue to extract as much money from students as possible.
Just a side note... buying textbooks from overseas is a very good strategy. A chemistry, physics, math, or CS book might sell for $150 in the US, but have a softcover edition sold in India for $12. They're generally identical, same exercises and page numbers, except the Indian copy has 'not legal for resale in the United States' printed on the cover.
Eh, I know it's supposed to be 'cute', but I still call it 'kyoo-tee', and probably always will. It's a deliberate refusal. I don't think I'm alone in that.
On the other hand, I do honor the creator's wishes in the case of.gif files, and pronounce it 'jiff.'
Yes, and that's quite reasonable. There's really no sensible alternative to allowing corporations to make political donations; we have to, in order to apply rights consistently. I think the supreme court made the right call there.
Although I confess, I wouldn't personally be terribly heartbroken to see corporations restricted, if unions, non-profits, and all other collective organizations are restricted as well.
It is legal to listen to CDs off youtube. It isn't legal to put CDs on youtube. There are fair use exceptions, which playing a snippet in a news story is obviously one of. However, posting a full song online for others to download is illegal, and this is pretty settled law. It is less settled when the music is a minor part of another, transformative, use.
They tweet a photo, and the photo is judged. not the Tweet.
This isn't much different than tweeting a link to an essay. Just because 'twitter' is mentioned somewhere in the story, doesn't mean the twitter is the most important part of the story.
You're only seeing them because you browse at -1 (which I do as well). I don't think there's much of a chance a troll will get banned.
I use the 'friend/foe' mechanism to flag people who are trolls, nuts, or spout obscenities. It doesn't hide them, but it lets me know not to try to engage them in discussion.
We didn't declare war, but we did say: "We are moving a massive army into the region and we're going to attack you". Ethically, it's not like we did a sneak attack.
It turns it into a MORE efficient gasoline-powered vehicle when you're on a long trip.
Then why not just use this instead of a standard gasoline engine? If it's more efficient, then we'd presumably be getting 40, 50, 60 mpg using it, right?
I would love for that sort of breakthrough to happen, but I'm skeptical. Maybe it gets better MPG, but at a much higher price per gallon?
Is the article saying they've developed a gasoline-based fuel cell that you can recharge at a 'fueling station', with which you can generate electricity to power your electric car?
Doesn't this just turn your EV into a less-efficient gasoline-powered vehicle?
Manipulating a social situation is not evil. It can be a simple as smiling at appropriate times. It can be showing to others that your presence can make a day more enjoyable. It is a valuable skill, that many programmers not only lack... they deny it's a valuable skill at all.
Surely people aren't just going to turn over the means to get themselves charged with fraud out of the goodness of their hearts.
Well, maybe the scientists that aren't committing fraud will be happy to share their data... then, that small percentage of scientists that refuse to will be shamed and/or ignored.
Whilst you were getting the data they were publishing off some other poor sod, and at the end of the day you've got 1 pub to their 5 and no hope of a job.
The problem there isn't with the science, or sharing data; both are good. The problem is with the inane and counterproductive prestige game that science has become. Counting publications is a moronic method of measuring ability. Generating and making available a good data set is often times MORE important than publishing a particular paper.
I wonder if we just haven't quite mastered the techniques necessary to deal scientifically with highly complex systems. Psychology, economics, climatology, etc., all are theoretically understandable, but are so chaotic that our standard scientific methodology can't be applied... you can't, for instance, repeat an experiment. You can't isolate one changing variable.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, it only is included for historical context... so that people can understand the history that led to Christ. The proscriptions of the old testament carry no weight or authority.
Sure, maybe some people might think they do, but if so it's because they're ignorant of their own religion. No major christian religion believes that. Individual people believe all sort of odd things.
This concept of separating sin from sinner - act from actor - is incoherent nonsense.
Nonsense. It's a valuable and necessary lesson one needs to learn. An act does not exist apart from an actor, but an actor is not defined by an act. I hate socialism, but many socialists are well-meaning and caring people who simply don't truly understand the consequences of what they're advocating.
Too many people even here on slashdot project all their emotional feelings about a specific act or position onto a person. That's shallow and immature. It's what leads to somebody who posts "Microsoft builds a pretty good IDE" getting a collection of vulgar insults in response.
"...and this has never happened in the history of the planet," she added.
This sort of stuff drives me crazy. If she can say this sort of thing with a straight face, she is absolutely not a credible person to listen to on this issue. There's people like this on both sides of the climate debate, and it's hard not to dismiss the whole business, both sides, as too emotionally politicized to allow anybody to be trusted.
Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. However it is MUCH more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, so over a 20 year period a ton of methane will cause the same amount of global warming as 72 tons of carbon dioxide.
So, the 12 years goes by. Methane had caused some warming, but now it's gone. I can't think of any mechanism that stops the methane-induced warming from going away.
Right. You're not the problem with the world; you're just A problem with the world. You are the obsessive one, the extremist one, the one that has lost self-awareness and perspective.
But there's lots of problems worse than you.
Android's target demographic is hardcore techies combined with budget buyers unconcerned with smartphone quality.
Which will quickly massively outnumber Apple's demographic. Apple will be a major player for a while yet, but they're pursuing a dead end, I think. Don't know if it's a year or a couple years before they lose their perception as market leader, but it's clearly going to happen.
I don't mean this as trolling against Apple; they've done some amazing stuff. I just think they have no realistic hope of outcompeting Android at this point. You can't occupy 'high end' and 'numerically dominant' niches at the same time...
If you're wondering about delusions, being an obsessed poster that repeats in ever more frantic terms the same comment, anonymously, every time the subject of space travel is broached on slashdot should give you insights into that psychological malfunction.
By the way, no matter how much you rant about 'Space Nutters', the term will never catch on. It's only function is as an indicator that the user of the term (a set with a population of one) is a monomaniacal and inflexible obsessive.
You think that free fall is a magical land where laws of physics break down and nothing acts the same?
Sticky things stick. They might even stick better in low-g... you might be able to build outwards, not just up.
Do we want to call MS Big Brother over this, when they're following the example of Firefox?
IE has been getting a lot better, and the more sane release schedule was becoming more and more of a selling point over Firefox. Funny how the browser field has shifted. It used to be Firefox for the smart people, Opera for the independent smart people, and IE/Safari for the people that didn't really know how computers operated.
Now, IE and Safari have improved, Firefox is squandering it's lead, and Chrome is on par with Firefox, and Opera is still the Ron Paul of browsers. There's no obviously bad browser anymore, but we also don't have an obviously superior browser.
Every dollar of government aid for tuition will result in tuition being raised by one dollar, so as to continue to extract as much money from students as possible.
Just a side note... buying textbooks from overseas is a very good strategy. A chemistry, physics, math, or CS book might sell for $150 in the US, but have a softcover edition sold in India for $12. They're generally identical, same exercises and page numbers, except the Indian copy has 'not legal for resale in the United States' printed on the cover.
A lot of stupid teenagers think that being away from home for a few years is worth another $30,000 in debt.
Nearly everybody I know spent their late 20's and early 30's fixing the terrible mistakes they made in their early 20's and teens.
Eh, I know it's supposed to be 'cute', but I still call it 'kyoo-tee', and probably always will. It's a deliberate refusal. I don't think I'm alone in that.
.gif files, and pronounce it 'jiff.'
On the other hand, I do honor the creator's wishes in the case of
Yes, and that's quite reasonable. There's really no sensible alternative to allowing corporations to make political donations; we have to, in order to apply rights consistently. I think the supreme court made the right call there.
Although I confess, I wouldn't personally be terribly heartbroken to see corporations restricted, if unions, non-profits, and all other collective organizations are restricted as well.
It is legal to listen to CDs off youtube. It isn't legal to put CDs on youtube. There are fair use exceptions, which playing a snippet in a news story is obviously one of. However, posting a full song online for others to download is illegal, and this is pretty settled law. It is less settled when the music is a minor part of another, transformative, use.
They tweet a photo, and the photo is judged. not the Tweet.
This isn't much different than tweeting a link to an essay. Just because 'twitter' is mentioned somewhere in the story, doesn't mean the twitter is the most important part of the story.
You're only seeing them because you browse at -1 (which I do as well). I don't think there's much of a chance a troll will get banned.
I use the 'friend/foe' mechanism to flag people who are trolls, nuts, or spout obscenities. It doesn't hide them, but it lets me know not to try to engage them in discussion.
People reveal their shallow understand of history when they condemn the bombing of Hiroshima.
We didn't declare war, but we did say: "We are moving a massive army into the region and we're going to attack you". Ethically, it's not like we did a sneak attack.
It turns it into a MORE efficient gasoline-powered vehicle when you're on a long trip.
Then why not just use this instead of a standard gasoline engine? If it's more efficient, then we'd presumably be getting 40, 50, 60 mpg using it, right?
I would love for that sort of breakthrough to happen, but I'm skeptical. Maybe it gets better MPG, but at a much higher price per gallon?
Is the article saying they've developed a gasoline-based fuel cell that you can recharge at a 'fueling station', with which you can generate electricity to power your electric car?
Doesn't this just turn your EV into a less-efficient gasoline-powered vehicle?
Manipulating a social situation is not evil. It can be a simple as smiling at appropriate times. It can be showing to others that your presence can make a day more enjoyable. It is a valuable skill, that many programmers not only lack... they deny it's a valuable skill at all.
Surely people aren't just going to turn over the means to get themselves charged with fraud out of the goodness of their hearts.
Well, maybe the scientists that aren't committing fraud will be happy to share their data... then, that small percentage of scientists that refuse to will be shamed and/or ignored.
Whilst you were getting the data they were publishing off some other poor sod, and at the end of the day you've got 1 pub to their 5 and no hope of a job.
The problem there isn't with the science, or sharing data; both are good. The problem is with the inane and counterproductive prestige game that science has become. Counting publications is a moronic method of measuring ability. Generating and making available a good data set is often times MORE important than publishing a particular paper.
I wonder if we just haven't quite mastered the techniques necessary to deal scientifically with highly complex systems. Psychology, economics, climatology, etc., all are theoretically understandable, but are so chaotic that our standard scientific methodology can't be applied... you can't, for instance, repeat an experiment. You can't isolate one changing variable.