She says she hates the interface and doesn't know where anything is. It seems to be a look-and-feel thing more than a functional thing.
I use OpenOffice, myself, but my needs are few; I just need a simple spreadsheet and a simple word processor. I do most things in a text editor anyway.
From a technical standpoint, OpenOffice is more than capable of doing what she wants; it's about having to learn the new UI. She hates learning new things, especially on the computer.
Except my wife hates OpenOffice with a passion (regardless of how I attempt to convince her she'd get used to it rather quickly). It's the number one reason she refuses to switch to Linux, and she's not particularly tech-savvy. (The number two reason is Netflix.)
I think she'd be very happy with Ubuntu, and I know I'd like it more so I could actually get decent backups of her files without having to use the stupid Windows Scheduler crap and samba... but alas, when the wife says NO, that's that.
Did I write this and lose the memory of it? That's pretty much my situation. I signed up for Facebook because I got sick of hearing about my friends third-hand -- and these are friends with whom I speak regularly via skype, googletalk, text message, and telephone.
Though now that I have a Facebook account, I've reconnected with several friends from my younger years, so that's kind of cool.
There is ONE robot that can create water, as a PERK for the player. It seemed pretty obvious to me that in the "game world" that robot didn't really exist.
It's particularly egregiuos because just outside Megaton (and Rivet City) there's a beggar asking for pure water. It's supposed to give you karma because you're giving up something you need - but since you get infinite free pure water, it breaks the karma mechanic entirely.
You're arguing that you get the robot as a "perk", but they really shouldn't have given you a perk that ruins the urgency of the player's father's plan, and also breaks the balance of karma in the game.
Either the tech exists in the game world, and the plot is stupid, or the tech doesn't exist in the game world, and the devs just didn't care that the perk breaks karma.
If I were going to complain about unrealism, I'd be pointing out that water doesn't stay radioactive after 200 years, or I'd be pointing out that they're all living on 200 year old boxes of irradiated cereal and soda;)
My point is, I'm not asking for realism, I'm asking for self-consistency.
CHAOS RINGS. (In all caps, unfortunately, at least in the app store listing. It's ChaosRings on the app icon itself on the home screen.)
The control schemes suck in FF1 and FF2, or I'd actually play them. You can't slide your finger between the d-pad buttons; you have to actually lift your finger between changing directions or it won't work. I can't recall whether Chaos Rings behaves the same way.
I bought all three apps mostly for moral support... if we don't buy any RPGs, nobody will make more.
(The whole point of the plot is that nobody has enough pure water, but they have robots which regularly produce pure water for the asking. Player's dad (James? I forget) should have just focused on manufacturing the condensers those robots use, rather than searching for magic black-box tech.)
The game itself was decent, but not for the plot. It was the exploration that made Fallout 3 good.
Does anyone else miss the days when games came with actual, physical books full of coherent backstory? Starcraft and Starseige are the two that come most readily to mind... I lost my Starcraft book years ago, but I still have the one from Starseige.
The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.
That's pretty much what I said in the first place (emphasis added):
No, they can ask you to identify yourself. You only have to tell them your name and place of residence, if that (it varies by state, if memory serves)
So how, exactly, was I wrong? Your own source corroborates my statement.
Thanks to this ruling a police officer may detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime” and request that person stop and identify themselves.
Yes, but I was not claiming otherwise. You seem to be under the impression that "identify" implies a requirement of providing valid government-issued ID (e.g. a driver's license). That is not the case.
My point was that you are not required to present government-issued identification - you are simply required to give your name (and possibly place of residence, depending on your state), as corroborated by Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada and other cases.
If you're just standing there looking "suspicious", a cop can ask for ID. Why? So they can know who the hell you are. If you're innocent and don't have warrants out you have no reason not to say "sure here's my ID".
No, they can ask you to identify yourself. You only have to tell them your name and place of residence, if that (it varies by state, if memory serves). You are not required to carry government-issued ID with you unless you're driving. You cannot be (lawfully) arrested for simply refusing to present ID.
And if you're not driving, but you have your driver's license with you, you are not required to give it to the police officer even if asked.
It is domestic conservative and religious organizations that are poisoning the American spirit and sapping the will to learn from the people.
Maybe some do, but my church, at least, encourages its members to obtain as broad a secular education as possible, and as a whole it's what you'd call "conservative".
For the Gospel of Mark, it's generally accepted that Mark actually wrote it. But what we know as the Gospel of Mark is likely more than what he originally wrote, especially considering that there are at least four extant versions of the end of the Gospel.
So your argument is that because Mark wrote more than what we have in our current New Testament, then... what? This has no bearing on whether or not Mark knew Jesus.
Besides which, I would agree that the Bible as we have it is incomplete and contains many translation errors; this doesn't affect whether or not the original authors knew Jesus.
If you're going to argue that the authors could not have known Jesus, you're going to have to give evidence of that claim.
Wikipedia has some good information on the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but the Wikipedia entries don't appear to give any historical evidence either way regarding the existence of the apostles.
The Wikipedia entry on the Gospel of Matthew only states the following:
Many scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q". However, other scholars disagree variously on these points.
That doesn't read like it's "generally accepted"; quite the contrary, it seems to indicate that it's a subject of much discussion.
I'm not sure where you're getting your assertions of general acceptance, but it's not from Wikipedia.
Getting used to the + button not maximizing things - except when it does - is also absurdly hard. I've been at it for a month or so, still not used to it.
Perhaps I should clarify: I know some of the books of the Bible specifically were not written by men who knew Jesus before his death and resurrection, but the Bible itself is clear about that.
I'm interested, specifically, in evidence that Matthew and Mark, who were (according to the Bible) two of the twelve disciples that followed Jesus around during his life, were not actually personally acquainted Jesus.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who would say that the books of the bible were written by contemporaries of Jesus, let alone friends of his.
Hard pressed? I can think of half a dozen biblical scholars off the top of my head that I have met personally who are quite certain the Bible was written by people who were friends of Jesus.
At any rate, do you have any suggested search terms? The ones I've tried so far lead to articles questioning the existence of Jesus himself; while that would indirectly prove that the Bible authors could not have known Jesus, there is plenty of secular evidence that Jesus did exist, so I'd prefer to see this supposed evidence that the Bible authors themselves could not have known Jesus.
Most of these idiots also think the new testament was written by people who knew Jesus. Idiots and morons.
I'm curious to see what evidence you have that it wasn't written by people who knew Jesus. If you'd prefer to avoid a religion-fueled flamewar, feel free to send an e-mail. I won't even reply to it (unless you want me to), I'm just interested in your evidence;)
Do you really think them thar injuns are going to attack?
That was never the point of the second amendment. Did your US History classes really fail you so badly?
Also remember where it says "all men" it meant not women and not blacks.
It no longer means that, by virtue of the amendments that changed its meaning.
That's how amendments work, you see. They modify the meaning of the original text, such that the original text should now be taken in the context of the amendments which apply to it.
To put it in a biblical context it would be a bit like the pope contradicting scripture and reverting back to the scripture.
You know, some Christians believe commandments can be specific to a time period or group of people, and that those commandments may not be applicable outside that time or group, regardless of the size of the group or the duration of the time period.
(Actually, all Christians believe that, even if they don't realize it; one example would be Christ's teachings superceding the laws of Moses.)
That section was amended implicitly when slavery was banned, by making everyone "free Persons".
In other words, you are correct in that the section you quote is not a great guiding point, but that's irrelevant, because we changed it over a hundred years ago.
In other words, the system works as intended, so it's silly to put warning labels on it.
I read books in dim lighting holding them 8-10 inches from my face all through high school. (Reading in bed ftw!) My eye doctor thinks that is why my eyes are so strong.
When it comes to eyes, everyone's different. What works for you may not work for me, and vice versa.
Slashdot Mirror
She says she hates the interface and doesn't know where anything is. It seems to be a look-and-feel thing more than a functional thing.
I use OpenOffice, myself, but my needs are few; I just need a simple spreadsheet and a simple word processor. I do most things in a text editor anyway.
From a technical standpoint, OpenOffice is more than capable of doing what she wants; it's about having to learn the new UI. She hates learning new things, especially on the computer.
Except my wife hates OpenOffice with a passion (regardless of how I attempt to convince her she'd get used to it rather quickly). It's the number one reason she refuses to switch to Linux, and she's not particularly tech-savvy. (The number two reason is Netflix.)
I think she'd be very happy with Ubuntu, and I know I'd like it more so I could actually get decent backups of her files without having to use the stupid Windows Scheduler crap and samba... but alas, when the wife says NO, that's that.
They could give their music away for fee
The ironing is delicious.
Did I write this and lose the memory of it? That's pretty much my situation. I signed up for Facebook because I got sick of hearing about my friends third-hand -- and these are friends with whom I speak regularly via skype, googletalk, text message, and telephone.
Though now that I have a Facebook account, I've reconnected with several friends from my younger years, so that's kind of cool.
Apple engineers found that if you lick the antenna and hold it against a radio tower you get a full four bars.
Ironically, "full" is actually five bars.
There is ONE robot that can create water, as a PERK for the player. It seemed pretty obvious to me that in the "game world" that robot didn't really exist.
It's particularly egregiuos because just outside Megaton (and Rivet City) there's a beggar asking for pure water. It's supposed to give you karma because you're giving up something you need - but since you get infinite free pure water, it breaks the karma mechanic entirely.
You're arguing that you get the robot as a "perk", but they really shouldn't have given you a perk that ruins the urgency of the player's father's plan, and also breaks the balance of karma in the game.
Either the tech exists in the game world, and the plot is stupid, or the tech doesn't exist in the game world, and the devs just didn't care that the perk breaks karma.
If I were going to complain about unrealism, I'd be pointing out that water doesn't stay radioactive after 200 years, or I'd be pointing out that they're all living on 200 year old boxes of irradiated cereal and soda ;)
My point is, I'm not asking for realism, I'm asking for self-consistency.
CHAOS RINGS. (In all caps, unfortunately, at least in the app store listing. It's ChaosRings on the app icon itself on the home screen.)
The control schemes suck in FF1 and FF2, or I'd actually play them. You can't slide your finger between the d-pad buttons; you have to actually lift your finger between changing directions or it won't work. I can't recall whether Chaos Rings behaves the same way.
I bought all three apps mostly for moral support... if we don't buy any RPGs, nobody will make more.
Too bad Fallout 3's plot didn't make any sense.
(The whole point of the plot is that nobody has enough pure water, but they have robots which regularly produce pure water for the asking. Player's dad (James? I forget) should have just focused on manufacturing the condensers those robots use, rather than searching for magic black-box tech.)
The game itself was decent, but not for the plot. It was the exploration that made Fallout 3 good.
Does anyone else miss the days when games came with actual, physical books full of coherent backstory? Starcraft and Starseige are the two that come most readily to mind... I lost my Starcraft book years ago, but I still have the one from Starseige.
The moral seems to be, if you don't want to have to show your ID in those states, don't carry it with you... Of course, that precludes driving...
From your second wikipedia link (emphasis mine):
The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.
That's pretty much what I said in the first place (emphasis added):
No, they can ask you to identify yourself. You only have to tell them your name and place of residence, if that (it varies by state, if memory serves)
So how, exactly, was I wrong? Your own source corroborates my statement.
Thanks to this ruling a police officer may detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime” and request that person stop and identify themselves.
Yes, but I was not claiming otherwise. You seem to be under the impression that "identify" implies a requirement of providing valid government-issued ID (e.g. a driver's license). That is not the case.
My point was that you are not required to present government-issued identification - you are simply required to give your name (and possibly place of residence, depending on your state), as corroborated by Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada and other cases.
What's with all this hostility toward people with names that start with A?
If you're just standing there looking "suspicious", a cop can ask for ID. Why? So they can know who the hell you are. If you're innocent and don't have warrants out you have no reason not to say "sure here's my ID".
No, they can ask you to identify yourself. You only have to tell them your name and place of residence, if that (it varies by state, if memory serves). You are not required to carry government-issued ID with you unless you're driving. You cannot be (lawfully) arrested for simply refusing to present ID.
And if you're not driving, but you have your driver's license with you, you are not required to give it to the police officer even if asked.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "progressivism"... or why "realism" is relevant to the topic.
It is domestic conservative and religious organizations that are poisoning the American spirit and sapping the will to learn from the people.
Maybe some do, but my church, at least, encourages its members to obtain as broad a secular education as possible, and as a whole it's what you'd call "conservative".
but most critical scholars would agree.
So if a scholar does not agree, he isn't critical enough? ;)
For the Gospel of Mark, it's generally accepted that Mark actually wrote it. But what we know as the Gospel of Mark is likely more than what he originally wrote, especially considering that there are at least four extant versions of the end of the Gospel.
So your argument is that because Mark wrote more than what we have in our current New Testament, then... what? This has no bearing on whether or not Mark knew Jesus.
Besides which, I would agree that the Bible as we have it is incomplete and contains many translation errors; this doesn't affect whether or not the original authors knew Jesus.
If you're going to argue that the authors could not have known Jesus, you're going to have to give evidence of that claim.
Wikipedia has some good information on the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but the Wikipedia entries don't appear to give any historical evidence either way regarding the existence of the apostles.
The Wikipedia entry on the Gospel of Matthew only states the following:
Many scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q". However, other scholars disagree variously on these points.
That doesn't read like it's "generally accepted"; quite the contrary, it seems to indicate that it's a subject of much discussion.
I'm not sure where you're getting your assertions of general acceptance, but it's not from Wikipedia.
What's poppycock? That the guy who made the rules has more right to change them than someone else?
I'm pretty sure that's how society works - in families, the parents have much more right to change their own rules than their kids, for example.
The fact that the described situation is "Jesus + Bible" is more or less irrelevant to the concept.
Getting used to the + button not maximizing things - except when it does - is also absurdly hard. I've been at it for a month or so, still not used to it.
Can't really type illegibly, can you?
P3R|-|4P5 |\|0T, 8UT 50M3 P30PL3 5T1LL D0 TH31R 835T.
Sorry.
Perhaps I should clarify: I know some of the books of the Bible specifically were not written by men who knew Jesus before his death and resurrection, but the Bible itself is clear about that.
I'm interested, specifically, in evidence that Matthew and Mark, who were (according to the Bible) two of the twelve disciples that followed Jesus around during his life, were not actually personally acquainted Jesus.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who would say that the books of the bible were written by contemporaries of Jesus, let alone friends of his.
Hard pressed? I can think of half a dozen biblical scholars off the top of my head that I have met personally who are quite certain the Bible was written by people who were friends of Jesus.
At any rate, do you have any suggested search terms? The ones I've tried so far lead to articles questioning the existence of Jesus himself; while that would indirectly prove that the Bible authors could not have known Jesus, there is plenty of secular evidence that Jesus did exist, so I'd prefer to see this supposed evidence that the Bible authors themselves could not have known Jesus.
Most of these idiots also think the new testament was written by people who knew Jesus. Idiots and morons.
I'm curious to see what evidence you have that it wasn't written by people who knew Jesus. If you'd prefer to avoid a religion-fueled flamewar, feel free to send an e-mail. I won't even reply to it (unless you want me to), I'm just interested in your evidence ;)
Do you really think them thar injuns are going to attack?
That was never the point of the second amendment. Did your US History classes really fail you so badly?
Also remember where it says "all men" it meant not women and not blacks.
It no longer means that, by virtue of the amendments that changed its meaning.
That's how amendments work, you see. They modify the meaning of the original text, such that the original text should now be taken in the context of the amendments which apply to it.
To put it in a biblical context it would be a bit like the pope contradicting scripture and reverting back to the scripture.
You know, some Christians believe commandments can be specific to a time period or group of people, and that those commandments may not be applicable outside that time or group, regardless of the size of the group or the duration of the time period.
(Actually, all Christians believe that, even if they don't realize it; one example would be Christ's teachings superceding the laws of Moses.)
That section was amended implicitly when slavery was banned, by making everyone "free Persons".
In other words, you are correct in that the section you quote is not a great guiding point, but that's irrelevant, because we changed it over a hundred years ago.
In other words, the system works as intended, so it's silly to put warning labels on it.
I read books in dim lighting holding them 8-10 inches from my face all through high school. (Reading in bed ftw!) My eye doctor thinks that is why my eyes are so strong.
When it comes to eyes, everyone's different. What works for you may not work for me, and vice versa.