If we can prove life migrating from one planet to another in same solar system it gives clear credencence of possibility of same happening between solar systems (panspermia) as well. We are talking about billions of years, after all, it's a fscking long time, bacteria drifting on interstellar space could fertilize HUGE amount of space if not the whole damn galaxy in two or three billion years.
So there could very well be those little green guys few dozen light years from here even if life only started in one place.
You should use what is readily available for purchase in the marketplace. Nobody compiles performance sensitive code with gcc on an x86, they either use Microsoft's compiler or Intel's compiler
These collide. Badly. They were, after all, comparing LINUX machine with Mac.
Are you seriously trying to claim that most Linux software (performance sensitive or no) on market is compiled, or is going to be compiled by user, with Intel compiler? If you do, it might be time to start looking another apartment, those cloud castles aren't very sturdy.
On Windows, comparing VC++ or whatever most of the precompiled closed-source crud is compiled with would've made sense - what's readily available in the market place, like you said.
But quite certainly it's law of capitalism that PC-hardware (or anything with competition) will always have superior price/performance ratio than monopoly (unless Apple opens theirs for clone manufacturers, that is).
I think you'll find that it's slightly different when you're dealing with copyright than with patents. While you're right that Compaq could get away with cloning the PC BIOS, I doubt you could get away with writing a Mario clone by simply naming the main character something else and having different graphics.
Yeah. Bit like Blizzard did not get away with writing a Dune II clone by simply naming it something else (WarCraft) and having different graphics... oh wait. They did. That they are now going after someone elses ass from doing the same thing they did back in 1994 makes it even more pathetic.
This is almost the same thing as taking a book, translating it into a different language, and posting it online.
It's not, and you know it. There is no other content to the book than the fully accessible text, seeing none of the code for a program and creating another implementation merely by observing how it plays and looks is quite a different thing.
Trademark angle may hold, but that would only require them to change the name. Game does not contain one line of Blizzard's code, thus it can not be a copyright violation, whatever you think, game mechanics and look and feel might perhaps be patented but have not, there's no case here other than name.
You were talking about "dilution of a trademark". Which automagically equals it has everything to do with "Craft".
Because "Craft" is only thing in Blizzard games that is, or even can be trademarked. "Warcraft 2-esque play" is not a name, or logo, that could in any way be trademarked, it MIGHT perhaps be patented, but there have been no mentions of patents here so I assume it has not been.
It doesn't matter if you are PLAYING stupid in your advocates role or you are stupid. The impression you are giving is you are stupid. If it's your own choice by some stupid "devil's advocate" game, good fsckin luck.
Now go do something creative, "defend" (you might use bit more constructive arguments as well, "computers come from aliens, we are too stupid to have invented them" will get you laughed out of the room and then your "client") someone with something to defend, instead of tinfoil freaks and their paranoid lunacies.
There is much misinformation about aliens and no-aliens? WOW, nice observation - information is bit hard to get when those aforementioned critters don't bother coming here for study.
Yeah, yeah, sure, addiction is real. You can be addicted to anything, should we perhaps ban sex because it can feel so good some may get addicted? Or eating, because some people eat obsessively? Or diets, so nobody could get anorexia? Or exercise because some people are bound to be addicted to that and exhaust themselves. NO! Most, if not all, of psychological "addictions" are still no fault of whatever is it person is addicted to.
If someone cant break a psychological addiction with a bit of willpower (or more likely, never get addicted in first place), there is probably something else wrong in that persons life and the addiction is just an escape route to fantasy world. If there wouldn't be TV, then that person would just be addicted to something else.
Humans tend to pay more attention to moving picture? WOW. The "researchers" hit it big this time, didn't they? Newsflash: real life is "moving picture" as well, very much more so than TV. Turn your head? See the view change. I wouldn't necessarily agree with this "finding", either. I have no trouble concentrating on reading a newspaper, etc while someone is watching TV on same room.
What comes to sound... background noise of tv when I'm not watching it annoys me, big time, if it has any effect as all then the effect is urge to turn TV off. If thats not possible, ignoring the noise works just fine.
Stopping watching TV might be unpleasant if you have to do it in a middle of show you want to see, but after it ends, there is no urge to watch it "just because" nor any unpleasantness in stopping.
That TV can be addictive might sure be a fact. As I said, most of things in life, good or bad, can be addictive, and thats a fact as well, and there's nothing we can do to it, except to try and fix the underlying problems that force someone to escape into addiction in first place.
No, it's not the medium. TV (and PC) is a good servant, but poor master. Letting it become your master is your own choice.
Nobody forces anyone to watch tv 6 hours in row, and there is no sense in trying to blame TV of it merely because it exists.
You abandoned TV completely, and there is NOTHING to stop anyone from doing it. Or keeping the tv but only watching it when there is something you really want to see. I've got tv, most of the days I don't even open the thing.
Great flood certainly occurred in the mediterranean, flood that led to creation of modern day black sea.
Newsflash: that might have been huge tragedy for people and animals living in there in that time, but its a vanishingly small fraction of Earth's total surface area, homo sapiens, or probably any other species was not in any danger of extinction in that cataclysm as claimed by the bible.
Not surprisingly, area where it occurred is roughly the same area where bible was thousands of years later written, ancestors of survivors still had legends of that great (but perfectly natural) disaster. Same area where jewry and later, its offspring, christianity arose. Religions inspired by real events no doubt, but not divine events. And religions that are in no way any better or any more true than dozens of others around the world.
Things that led to discovery of transistor are well known, nobody dropped any complete devices and their plans to us. Most of that work started tens of years before roswell and stupid ufo-mania in general.
That 2.6 gigahertz PC is still based on those very same transistors, they are very small and there is lot of them, but they are still transistors. It's certainly not first, and certainly not last, time something is figured out first as crude and later perfected and miniaturized, no need for aliens to explain that either.
If you are too stupid to understand basics on which semiconductors work (or too lazy to even try), please do not try to lower whole of humanity to your level by claiming only some mysterious aliens could do something like that. There are and were lot of brilliant people in the world, some of them actually do something useful, in contrary to posting conspiracy theories in slashdot.
Not a troll. But truth hurts, like always, so you must escape behind that excuse.
But Christianity has always flourished where intellectual exchange is most free, and the culture engendered by Christianity has led to more scientific advances than those made by all other cultures.
Indeed. Like middle aged most overtly christian europe where all scientific development was at almost total still, and no wonder, do something scientific and all those wonderful open-minded christians come and burn you as a wich. They didn't even manage to reclaim knowledge found by greeks and romans thousands of years earlier!
Right after the stranglehold of christianity broke, people broke into renaissance in sciences and arts, and pace of scientific discovery has from that point accelerated constantly towards this day - while christianity has at same time diminished and become more of a fashion than anything most people take serious any more.
So the price of entry to *real* debate is too high
There can never be a real debate between biblists and people who follow real scientific princibles. Your precious book has no other proof than itself! But that is enough for Christians, they don't want Knowledge, nor Truth, they only want to Believe.
will not, in the end, make you look any wiser than last century's Darwinist (which is fast becoming a scientific dead-end)
Darwin could obviously not know everything we do after recent advantages of biology, and his theory reflects it, but its basic princible is, and will be valid for a very long time. There are no viable alternatives for evolution. Creationism and its advocates has never been any more than a joke. Not even funny one. Hopefully I didn't lower myself to argue with one.
or the flat-earth society that came before that.
Very christian society, if I may remind you, based on direct interpretation of bible, interpretation that is still valid, and will always be, with dozens of others equally valid interpretations. Because bible is full of misinformation and is inconsistent even with itself.
The universe, under any degree of scrutiny, has always behaved in ways that are consistent with the Christian conception of the universe
Yeah, it was created in a week or so, about four (or was it six?) thousand years ago, world is flat and all the other universe is circling around it, et cetera.
Oh wait. Under any degree of scrutiny, christians have always changed their conception of the universe whenever new information has been uncovered (information that they couldn't silently bury, by burning its discoverer or otherwise).
Christianity itself is a self-consistent set of assertions that do exclude other religions.
Christianity is everything but consistent, and every monotheistic religion does by definition exclude other religions. All those other religions and their assertions are just as viable and valid as christianity.
But hey, it's trendy to look arrogant and philosophically naive, so go ahead and keep talking like this.
I don't tend to follow trends, and I've always been direct with my words for followers of imaginary deities. And no offence but if anything is naive and childish, it's believing in those said entities.
Maybe some day you'll have the good fortune to say something like this in front of somebody a) who knows better and b) whom you respect enough to listen to.
I hope the same for you. Sadly, fanatic christianism excludes any person from belonging to either groub a or b. Blindly clinging to dying god doesn't earn a person knowledge or wisdom any more than respect from me.
On that day, you might begin to see past all these sophomoric presumptions that you have welcomed as others have crammed them into your cranium and down your throat.
On that day, you might begin to see the Light of knowledge past all these tales and superstition crammed into your, and your ancestors, craniums for last few thousand years. And by the way, nobody has crammed anything, my opinions are totally my own, and I feels sad for persons who don't have that freedom, because even their private thinking is bound by that imaginary god.
If you really have so hard time reading (and understanding) few comments, as well as expressing your own concerns why do you post on Slashdot?
Hint: grandparent post was not mocking seti@home or other communication, or in any other way claimed it was useless. Neither was I. Didn't I give a damn example that said indians would've beaten Spaniards if they knew about hem in advance?
And gp specially said it was cheap compared to physical space missions (it is) and that it doesn't harm anything. Thus, both are good and certainly not exlusive. How the heck can anyone misunderstand that as "no-comm" advocacy goes beoynd me.
One of the greatest tragedies of our time is that we have a world full of people with graduate-school level understandings of their specialties but elementary-school understanding of the claims of the Biblical narrative and the claims of Christ.
Tragedy? Where? People have graduate-school level understandings of their specialties. They need to. Those specialties are real, and can be used in real life.
On the other hand, people DO NOT, need thorough education on storybooks such as bible, koran, adventures of the mickey mouse, and other equivalently true books just because someone, somewhere, happens to hold them "holy". Elementary knowledge of these so called religions is more than enough, and even that should center equally on them all, rising people to christians by force is not any goal, and that specific religion has no more factual basis than any of those other tales, if a person wants to study these works of fiction or even worship one of their imaginary deities, it should be solely his/her own decision and not something dictated by society.
Not a biologist, but if stemm cells would all turn to cancer, no human would ever have born (remember the religious debate of harvesting stem cells from embryos?) human, but a chaotic lump of cancerous tissue.
Nothing. They'll just weed out most improbable patterns, there is obviously no guarantees that even the remaining ones have any kind of intelligence behind them, but if some astronomical object is for some reason beaming out source code for Soft Doors 3041 or Episode 40 of Season 8 of popular Sci-Fi show Stellar Expedition, it's kinda curious and requires closer examining even if it eventually turns out there is no intelligence behind it. No?
What has that to do with SETI-projects, OR physical exploration of solar system? Right. Nothing. Nor does it have anything to do with anything except your overactive imagination.
Even if one would imagine something based on that encounter, example would be quite the opposite. If indians would've had an "search for cross-atlantic intelligence" project running, they'd known in advance that Cortez was a human, not god, and kicked the spaniards gold-greedy asses right to orbit when they first landed.
I'm sure they did have some coastal craft running around (in comparison to exploring the "near waters" of solar system), and much good did that do.
BTW. They don't come. They can't come. We're talking about distances *slightly* bigger than few thousand km's of atlantic ocean here.
Worse, they don't even get the Arecibo telescope for a continuous 24 hours. Rather, they get it for 8 hours a day, making it even more limited.
Not really. Less limited. Much less. They don't want to see the whole sky (this time) but concentrate on few "hot spots" they've picked up during normal research, so by scheduling those 8 hour periods to times that the telescope is directed at points of interest, they gain more time observing exactly what they want and less time waiting Earth to turn towards next one.
We probably can't detect that kind of radio pollution anyway, not from any farther than few nearest stars, at least. First, it's rather low-power to begin with, second, it's planetary communication and only a fraction of that low power will get sent to space (no sense in wasting) and even that will scatter to all around universe, very little will reach Earth and natural radio noise of universe will drown it.
We are almost blind and deaf, and probably need someone out there to focus narrow and powerful beam very near to the damn solar system to pick anything up... it's no wonder we can't find anything.
What makes you think you can "block" EU system, especially if you start another war with everyone (majority of EU included) opposing. You think they're just going to shut down the thing if they think your war is no good?
Or are you planning to start shooting down those EU satellites, perhaps?
As noted, on a crash your tabs are saved (more important, when you close Opera, you can reopen precisely where you left off).
Group of open tabs can be saved as bookmark folder and opened in tabs again later (I'm not sure if this is feature of tabbrowser extension, mozilla or only firebird)
Doesn't work in crash prevention, nor does it ask whether or not to save automagically when closing, or automagically open when starting, but otherwise I think they're easier to manage than "sessions", and enable you to only open one of the saved sites instead of all if so wanted.
Links that pop up a new window show up as a new tab in Opera, but create a new frame in Mozilla (and Firebird).
Closing a tab will change your current tab to be either last created or last viewed (user can select this). Mozilla/Firebird selects the neighboring tab to the right.
Tabbrowser extension can do these two.
If a page fails to load, Opera remembers the URL so you can try later. Mozilla leaves it as "about:blank" (Firebird may fix this, but I can't find a page that fails to load right now).
Doesn't work in firebird either. You're right, this one is annoying.
Forward/Prev tab is '1' or '2' on the keyboard.
This would break type-ahead find. Besides I think the mozilla default ctrl-page up/down for next/previous and ctrl + [1-9] for tab 1,2,...9 is better anyway.
Single-key functions are much better IMO than type-ahead-find: 'z' for back, 'x' for forward, and g for turning graphics off (with many more) -- and type-ahead find is available in a search box, by default Shift+F7 takes you there.
I prefer type-ahead find. After using for a while, no living without anymore... And operas version seems inferior anyawy (eg. no searching only links, one of the most useful properties of taf).
"View Source" is easily configurable, and I can use my preferred editor. The mozilla group can't decide whether that should be allowed.
Dunno. Most of the time I just want to view the damn source. And mozillas viewer is quite good. Who cares if it takes whole two seconds more to save the page and open the editor when you actually want to edit it (about one in hundred, maybe)?
Re:gcc 3.3 fails on glibc 2.3.2
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
So it should work with all the gnu projects at all costs even if they're full of broken and noncompliant code? Just because they've got the word GNU in their name? Wow. Quite a requirements you have there.
How about I'd want it to work with what C-compiler is supposed to work. C code, that is. Good C, standard compliant C, and screw all code that isn't exactly that, GNU or not GNU.
On every sane distro this is a very trivial and not that time-consuming task. Type up2date, apt-get update && apt-get upgrade, or something similar, then go for a cup of caffee and come back after few minutes and find that everything is working again.
Nice, isn't it? No need to wait for two days for your stupid *%FD%#:"%#:n excuse of a distro to compile.
The extensions are wonderful too. Simple things like NukeImage, Tabbrowser extensions, Adblock, and a tonne of other extensions.
Why are people always giving credit for the extensions specifically to phoenix/fb? It's not like they're something new and unique here, Mozilla has got 'em for ages, and most extensions (like all you mentioned) work just as well in both fb/moz.
And some that only work on fb are only putting stuff that IS ALREADY in Mozilla back to Firebird.
Slashdot Mirror
If we can prove life migrating from one planet to another in same solar system it gives clear credencence of possibility of same happening between solar systems (panspermia) as well. We are talking about billions of years, after all, it's a fscking long time, bacteria drifting on interstellar space could fertilize HUGE amount of space if not the whole damn galaxy in two or three billion years.
So there could very well be those little green guys few dozen light years from here even if life only started in one place.
You should use what is readily available for purchase in the marketplace. Nobody compiles performance sensitive code with gcc on an x86, they either use Microsoft's compiler or Intel's compiler
These collide. Badly. They were, after all, comparing LINUX machine with Mac.
Are you seriously trying to claim that most Linux software (performance sensitive or no) on market is compiled, or is going to be compiled by user, with Intel compiler? If you do, it might be time to start looking another apartment, those cloud castles aren't very sturdy.
On Windows, comparing VC++ or whatever most of the precompiled closed-source crud is compiled with would've made sense - what's readily available in the market place, like you said.
Universe? Maybe not.
But quite certainly it's law of capitalism that PC-hardware (or anything with competition) will always have superior price/performance ratio than monopoly (unless Apple opens theirs for clone manufacturers, that is).
I think you'll find that it's slightly different when you're dealing with copyright than with patents. While you're right that Compaq could get away with cloning the PC BIOS, I doubt you could get away with writing a Mario clone by simply naming the main character something else and having different graphics.
Yeah. Bit like Blizzard did not get away with writing a Dune II clone by simply naming it something else (WarCraft) and having different graphics... oh wait. They did. That they are now going after someone elses ass from doing the same thing they did back in 1994 makes it even more pathetic.
This is almost the same thing as taking a book, translating it into a different language, and posting it online.
It's not, and you know it. There is no other content to the book than the fully accessible text, seeing none of the code for a program and creating another implementation merely by observing how it plays and looks is quite a different thing.
Trademark angle may hold, but that would only require them to change the name. Game does not contain one line of Blizzard's code, thus it can not be a copyright violation, whatever you think, game mechanics and look and feel might perhaps be patented but have not, there's no case here other than name.
You were talking about "dilution of a trademark". Which automagically equals it has everything to do with "Craft".
Because "Craft" is only thing in Blizzard games that is, or even can be trademarked. "Warcraft 2-esque play" is not a name, or logo, that could in any way be trademarked, it MIGHT perhaps be patented, but there have been no mentions of patents here so I assume it has not been.
It doesn't matter if you are PLAYING stupid in your advocates role or you are stupid. The impression you are giving is you are stupid. If it's your own choice by some stupid "devil's advocate" game, good fsckin luck.
Now go do something creative, "defend" (you might use bit more constructive arguments as well, "computers come from aliens, we are too stupid to have invented them" will get you laughed out of the room and then your "client") someone with something to defend, instead of tinfoil freaks and their paranoid lunacies.
There is much misinformation about aliens and no-aliens? WOW, nice observation - information is bit hard to get when those aforementioned critters don't bother coming here for study.
Yeah, yeah, sure, addiction is real. You can be addicted to anything, should we perhaps ban sex because it can feel so good some may get addicted? Or eating, because some people eat obsessively? Or diets, so nobody could get anorexia? Or exercise because some people are bound to be addicted to that and exhaust themselves. NO! Most, if not all, of psychological "addictions" are still no fault of whatever is it person is addicted to.
If someone cant break a psychological addiction with a bit of willpower (or more likely, never get addicted in first place), there is probably something else wrong in that persons life and the addiction is just an escape route to fantasy world. If there wouldn't be TV, then that person would just be addicted to something else.
Humans tend to pay more attention to moving picture? WOW. The "researchers" hit it big this time, didn't they? Newsflash: real life is "moving picture" as well, very much more so than TV. Turn your head? See the view change. I wouldn't necessarily agree with this "finding", either. I have no trouble concentrating on reading a newspaper, etc while someone is watching TV on same room.
What comes to sound... background noise of tv when I'm not watching it annoys me, big time, if it has any effect as all then the effect is urge to turn TV off. If thats not possible, ignoring the noise works just fine.
Stopping watching TV might be unpleasant if you have to do it in a middle of show you want to see, but after it ends, there is no urge to watch it "just because" nor any unpleasantness in stopping.
That TV can be addictive might sure be a fact. As I said, most of things in life, good or bad, can be addictive, and thats a fact as well, and there's nothing we can do to it, except to try and fix the underlying problems that force someone to escape into addiction in first place.
No, it's not the medium. TV (and PC) is a good servant, but poor master. Letting it become your master is your own choice.
Nobody forces anyone to watch tv 6 hours in row, and there is no sense in trying to blame TV of it merely because it exists.
You abandoned TV completely, and there is NOTHING to stop anyone from doing it. Or keeping the tv but only watching it when there is something you really want to see. I've got tv, most of the days I don't even open the thing.
Great flood certainly occurred in the mediterranean, flood that led to creation of modern day black sea.
Newsflash: that might have been huge tragedy for people and animals living in there in that time, but its a vanishingly small fraction of Earth's total surface area, homo sapiens, or probably any other species was not in any danger of extinction in that cataclysm as claimed by the bible.
Not surprisingly, area where it occurred is roughly the same area where bible was thousands of years later written, ancestors of survivors still had legends of that great (but perfectly natural) disaster. Same area where jewry and later, its offspring, christianity arose. Religions inspired by real events no doubt, but not divine events. And religions that are in no way any better or any more true than dozens of others around the world.
Things that led to discovery of transistor are well known, nobody dropped any complete devices and their plans to us. Most of that work started tens of years before roswell and stupid ufo-mania in general.
That 2.6 gigahertz PC is still based on those very same transistors, they are very small and there is lot of them, but they are still transistors. It's certainly not first, and certainly not last, time something is figured out first as crude and later perfected and miniaturized, no need for aliens to explain that either.
If you are too stupid to understand basics on which semiconductors work (or too lazy to even try), please do not try to lower whole of humanity to your level by claiming only some mysterious aliens could do something like that. There are and were lot of brilliant people in the world, some of them actually do something useful, in contrary to posting conspiracy theories in slashdot.
Not only PICs. Lots of other microprocessors generally used in embedded projects are C-programmable as well.
New? Heck no. Unobtainium is relatively old word.
Not a troll. But truth hurts, like always, so you must escape behind that excuse.
But Christianity has always flourished where intellectual exchange is most free, and the culture engendered by Christianity has led to more scientific advances than those made by all other cultures.
Indeed. Like middle aged most overtly christian europe where all scientific development was at almost total still, and no wonder, do something scientific and all those wonderful open-minded christians come and burn you as a wich. They didn't even manage to reclaim knowledge found by greeks and romans thousands of years earlier!
Right after the stranglehold of christianity broke, people broke into renaissance in sciences and arts, and pace of scientific discovery has from that point accelerated constantly towards this day - while christianity has at same time diminished and become more of a fashion than anything most people take serious any more.
So the price of entry to *real* debate is too high
There can never be a real debate between biblists and people who follow real scientific princibles. Your precious book has no other proof than itself! But that is enough for Christians, they don't want Knowledge, nor Truth, they only want to Believe.
will not, in the end, make you look any wiser than last century's Darwinist (which is fast becoming a scientific dead-end)
Darwin could obviously not know everything we do after recent advantages of biology, and his theory reflects it, but its basic princible is, and will be valid for a very long time. There are no viable alternatives for evolution. Creationism and its advocates has never been any more than a joke. Not even funny one. Hopefully I didn't lower myself to argue with one.
or the flat-earth society that came before that.
Very christian society, if I may remind you, based on direct interpretation of bible, interpretation that is still valid, and will always be, with dozens of others equally valid interpretations. Because bible is full of misinformation and is inconsistent even with itself.
The universe, under any degree of scrutiny, has always behaved in ways that are consistent with the Christian conception of the universe
Yeah, it was created in a week or so, about four (or was it six?) thousand years ago, world is flat and all the other universe is circling around it, et cetera.
Oh wait. Under any degree of scrutiny, christians have always changed their conception of the universe whenever new information has been uncovered (information that they couldn't silently bury, by burning its discoverer or otherwise).
Christianity itself is a self-consistent set of assertions that do exclude other religions.
Christianity is everything but consistent, and every monotheistic religion does by definition exclude other religions. All those other religions and their assertions are just as viable and valid as christianity.
But hey, it's trendy to look arrogant and philosophically naive, so go ahead and keep talking like this.
I don't tend to follow trends, and I've always been direct with my words for followers of imaginary deities. And no offence but if anything is naive and childish, it's believing in those said entities.
Maybe some day you'll have the good fortune to say something like this in front of somebody a) who knows better and b) whom you respect enough to listen to.
I hope the same for you. Sadly, fanatic christianism excludes any person from belonging to either groub a or b. Blindly clinging to dying god doesn't earn a person knowledge or wisdom any more than respect from me.
On that day, you might begin to see past all these sophomoric presumptions that you have welcomed as others have crammed them into your cranium and down your throat.
On that day, you might begin to see the Light of knowledge past all these tales and superstition crammed into your, and your ancestors, craniums for last few thousand years. And by the way, nobody has crammed anything, my opinions are totally my own, and I feels sad for persons who don't have that freedom, because even their private thinking is bound by that imaginary god.
If you really have so hard time reading (and understanding) few comments, as well as expressing your own concerns why do you post on Slashdot?
Hint: grandparent post was not mocking seti@home or other communication, or in any other way claimed it was useless. Neither was I. Didn't I give a damn example that said indians would've beaten Spaniards if they knew about hem in advance?
And gp specially said it was cheap compared to physical space missions (it is) and that it doesn't harm anything. Thus, both are good and certainly not exlusive. How the heck can anyone misunderstand that as "no-comm" advocacy goes beoynd me.
One of the greatest tragedies of our time is that we have a world full of people with graduate-school level understandings of their specialties but elementary-school understanding of the claims of the Biblical narrative and the claims of Christ.
Tragedy? Where? People have graduate-school level understandings of their specialties. They need to. Those specialties are real, and can be used in real life.
On the other hand, people DO NOT, need thorough education on storybooks such as bible, koran, adventures of the mickey mouse, and other equivalently true books just because someone, somewhere, happens to hold them "holy". Elementary knowledge of these so called religions is more than enough, and even that should center equally on them all, rising people to christians by force is not any goal, and that specific religion has no more factual basis than any of those other tales, if a person wants to study these works of fiction or even worship one of their imaginary deities, it should be solely his/her own decision and not something dictated by society.
Not a biologist, but if stemm cells would all turn to cancer, no human would ever have born (remember the religious debate of harvesting stem cells from embryos?) human, but a chaotic lump of cancerous tissue.
Nothing. They'll just weed out most improbable patterns, there is obviously no guarantees that even the remaining ones have any kind of intelligence behind them, but if some astronomical object is for some reason beaming out source code for Soft Doors 3041 or Episode 40 of Season 8 of popular Sci-Fi show Stellar Expedition, it's kinda curious and requires closer examining even if it eventually turns out there is no intelligence behind it. No?
What has that to do with SETI-projects, OR physical exploration of solar system? Right. Nothing. Nor does it have anything to do with anything except your overactive imagination.
Even if one would imagine something based on that encounter, example would be quite the opposite. If indians would've had an "search for cross-atlantic intelligence" project running, they'd known in advance that Cortez was a human, not god, and kicked the spaniards gold-greedy asses right to orbit when they first landed.
I'm sure they did have some coastal craft running around (in comparison to exploring the "near waters" of solar system), and much good did that do.
BTW. They don't come. They can't come. We're talking about distances *slightly* bigger than few thousand km's of atlantic ocean here.
Worse, they don't even get the Arecibo telescope for a continuous 24 hours. Rather, they get it for 8 hours a day, making it even more limited.
Not really. Less limited. Much less. They don't want to see the whole sky (this time) but concentrate on few "hot spots" they've picked up during normal research, so by scheduling those 8 hour periods to times that the telescope is directed at points of interest, they gain more time observing exactly what they want and less time waiting Earth to turn towards next one.
We probably can't detect that kind of radio pollution anyway, not from any farther than few nearest stars, at least. First, it's rather low-power to begin with, second, it's planetary communication and only a fraction of that low power will get sent to space (no sense in wasting) and even that will scatter to all around universe, very little will reach Earth and natural radio noise of universe will drown it.
We are almost blind and deaf, and probably need someone out there to focus narrow and powerful beam very near to the damn solar system to pick anything up... it's no wonder we can't find anything.
What makes you think you can "block" EU system, especially if you start another war with everyone (majority of EU included) opposing. You think they're just going to shut down the thing if they think your war is no good?
Or are you planning to start shooting down those EU satellites, perhaps?
As noted, on a crash your tabs are saved (more important, when you close Opera, you can reopen precisely where you left off).
Group of open tabs can be saved as bookmark folder and opened in tabs again later (I'm not sure if this is feature of tabbrowser extension, mozilla or only firebird)
Doesn't work in crash prevention, nor does it ask whether or not to save automagically when closing, or automagically open when starting, but otherwise I think they're easier to manage than "sessions", and enable you to only open one of the saved sites instead of all if so wanted.
Links that pop up a new window show up as a new tab in Opera, but create a new frame in Mozilla (and Firebird).
Closing a tab will change your current tab to be either last created or last viewed (user can select this). Mozilla/Firebird selects the neighboring tab to the right.
Tabbrowser extension can do these two.
If a page fails to load, Opera remembers the URL so you can try later. Mozilla leaves it as "about:blank" (Firebird may fix this, but I can't find a page that fails to load right now).
Doesn't work in firebird either. You're right, this one is annoying.
Forward/Prev tab is '1' or '2' on the keyboard.
This would break type-ahead find. Besides I think the mozilla default ctrl-page up/down for next/previous and ctrl + [1-9] for tab 1,2,...9 is better anyway.
Single-key functions are much better IMO than type-ahead-find: 'z' for back, 'x' for forward, and g for turning graphics off (with many more) -- and type-ahead find is available in a search box, by default Shift+F7 takes you there.
I prefer type-ahead find. After using for a while, no living without anymore... And operas version seems inferior anyawy (eg. no searching only links, one of the most useful properties of taf).
"View Source" is easily configurable, and I can use my preferred editor. The mozilla group can't decide whether that should be allowed.
Dunno. Most of the time I just want to view the damn source. And mozillas viewer is quite good. Who cares if it takes whole two seconds more to save the page and open the editor when you actually want to edit it (about one in hundred, maybe)?
So it should work with all the gnu projects at all costs even if they're full of broken and noncompliant code? Just because they've got the word GNU in their name? Wow. Quite a requirements you have there.
How about I'd want it to work with what C-compiler is supposed to work. C code, that is. Good C, standard compliant C, and screw all code that isn't exactly that, GNU or not GNU.
On every sane distro this is a very trivial and not that time-consuming task. Type up2date, apt-get update && apt-get upgrade, or something similar, then go for a cup of caffee and come back after few minutes and find that everything is working again.
Nice, isn't it? No need to wait for two days for your stupid *%FD%#:"%#:n excuse of a distro to compile.
Guess one can never understand gentoo loonies.
The extensions are wonderful too. Simple things like NukeImage, Tabbrowser extensions, Adblock, and a tonne of other extensions.
Why are people always giving credit for the extensions specifically to phoenix/fb? It's not like they're something new and unique here, Mozilla has got 'em for ages, and most extensions (like all you mentioned) work just as well in both fb/moz.
And some that only work on fb are only putting stuff that IS ALREADY in Mozilla back to Firebird.