Viruses aren't cells. Of course, not everyone would call a virus "life", but of course they're not exactly non-life either.
There's also psions...it's interesting how much of a gray area there is between life and non-life. These guys are clearly having a lot of fun playing around in that gray area.
As for ID (sigh), it's a rejection of *evolution* theory based on Christian theology. This research seems like it has more implications for abiogenesis than it does for evolution. Also...don't do them the service of assuming that they have a consistent "theory". The arguments change depending on the weather.
ID is not merely the belief in a god that could have designed the universe (plenty of theists acknowledge evolution. The entire Catholic church, for instance). ID is dependent on the creation stories in Genesis, and is strictly anti-evolution. It is a method of promoting the teachings of particular religion, which is something the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized.
The term Intelligent Design is, well, "designed" to cause a person to think, at first glance, "oh, they just believe in a creator. That's not so strange". Whereas in reality there is no question that this has to do with Biblical Creationism, at the expense of properly teaching mainstream science in schools.
What I mean to say is, it's not logic, it's just rhetoric. Don't read too much into it. By attempting to refute it on logical grounds, you do it the service of acknowledging that it's worth your time. Those people are liars and they know it, and the courts know it too. At this point we can just sit back and laugh as they flounder.
Oh I know the monitor won't match the printed page. Most of what I do involves the same couple of PMS colors so I don't really need it to.
What I was saying was that, from the same program, with the same color profile, the page will print differently using the Mac driver or the PC driver. It is not a Postscript printer, so the artwork is getting flattened.
For anything serious we get a proof from the printer so the color doesn't annoy me. But it does annoy me that the Windows driver prints to more of the page than the Mac one does, so if I want to get closer to the edge I have to move everything to the PC.
We have a cheap HP color laserjet, I think 6100n, in the office. The Windows driver and the Mac driver disagree on the printable area of the page. The colors don't match either but I guess it'd be strange if they did. It's aggravating when designing a brochure or something because it means I have to make PDFs and move everything to another machine if I want it to print a certain way. I have a strong feeling that, were it a postscript printer, I would not have these issues.
With PCL sometimes you run up against the fact that some printers speak PCL5 (or one of its variants) and others PCL6. PCL in general lacks many of the features of PS and is not as precise. So I guess you can thank HP for the state of the modern printer driver.
With some GPS models you can download updated maps, or decide which region has a more detailed map. Presumably you'd want to be able to mount whatever filesystem is on the card in order to copy the map.
It's the fact that they separate them out for special treatment *at all* that bothers people. The degree to which they do that is an afterthought. It is the 21st goddam century, and this is supposed to be the land of the free.
If someone walked their dog in your yard, wouldn't you still be pissed if it was a small dog, and it took a small dump? It smells just as bad.
I'm fine with that...if you can prove Microsoft never received any tax breaks, corporate subsidies, or any other sort of incentives for staying in the US, and Washington specifically.
There is nothing "simple" about it because how one person acts affects those around them. Well, I suppose that part is simple...which makes it all the weirder that so many libertarians just don't get it.
How is this flamebait? I've yet to see this scenario and not interpret it the exact same way. Maybe the parent and I share a common delusion (doubt it though) but it most certainly is not flamebait. Anyone got a spare mod point?
If Microsoft has a clear policy of not letting gays and lesbians on their servers (which I doubt, since we would have heard about it years ago), then no amount of legal magic in their ToS would have kept them out of a courtroom.
The summary says: "...Microsoft has stood by its position that merely mentioning that you are gay or lesbian is grounds for terminating your XBOX Live membership."
If that's true, we have a bigger issue than just this one person.
The difference is that, were a straight person to refrain from "shutting up" about their orientation, they wouldn't have gotten banned.
You present a common trick here: implying that she was evangelizing, and perhaps implying that people that are different from you *always* evangelize.
The woman appears to have been banned for saying she was a lesbian. And MS seems to have confirmed it. Either you accept homosexuals as regular members of society, or you don't. Why do people think that some twist of logic will allow them to do the latter while claiming the former?
The Rush Limbaugh-style "it's not what she said, it's how loud she said it, I just don't want it in my face" is not a sufficient explanation for anyone not actively doing the mental contortions required to accept it as one. What's wrong with wanting a game console that doesn't come with a Bible packed in the box?
People: this is where "think of the children" gets you. We pander to people who want their children to be little "hear no evil" statues, and we let them decide what's evil. So, let's see...homosexuality, evolution...what's next on the agenda, America?
Lots of people chimed in to say I was wrong about IE being faster so I'm going to assume I was dead wrong there.
It has been a long time since I have even opened IE. My main system is a MacBook now and for the occasional site that doesn't work in Firefox I'll use Safari. We have one app at work that I haven't been able to get working in Firefox, but as the admin I don't have to use it much myself.
I guess I was conditioned into thinking that IE was faster from the IE6/FF2 days. Could be all my damn add-ons, too.
The market is already doing what they hope to achieve, and it got a nice head start. They should just let it happen instead of legislating it, we're already halfway there.
Oh yeah and I forgot to point out that basically the rendering engine and browser are separate, and have been for a long time.
What I see here is potentially different is that we might have a situation for the first time in a long time where there are a large chunk of users that flat-out don't have internet explorer. Assuming the EU doesn't let them leave it installed but not advertised. But maybe they will have to.
That's what I'm figuring. I have to wonder if this won't end up essentially deprecating ActiveX, because the only version guaranteed to be on Windows will be an older one (they have said that ActiveX is part of the rendering engine and cannot just be separated from it, since it interacts with the HTML). Then again, lots of people are still running IE6 so maybe that won't really change things.
Can't say I'm looking forward to Firefox and other browsers becoming a bigger target for malware. Pulling BHOs out of IE is one thing...the day I have to screw around with someone's userchrome files because of malware is the day I start telling people, "no, I don't know how these computer things work, sorry".
They could just host a build of the browser on microsoft.com once they've done a virus scan.
Barring that, hopefully the EU will be okay with MS putting in some sort of a disclaimer about why they're doing this and how it's unsupported software.
But I agree with you. This is something that looks good on paper but there's no good way of doing this in the real world. Browser customization happens in OEM land, and it should stay there. The EU should have just made sure that MS gives OEMs more options in terms of hiding Internet Explorer. And retail version customers should be taking more of a buyer beware attitude to begin with, so this doesn't affect them in my opinion.
Internet Explorer runs faster on Windows than Firefox does. And it works with sites that use ActiveX.
I use Firefox. But I am not deluded about the percentage of users that know what standards compliance is, let alone care about it. The only way "the other half" is going to switch to another browser is when they discover ad blocking. And if they do that, all that free content I enjoy so much is going to dry right up.
The real problem is that this decision should have been handed down ten years ago. It's irrelevant now. And who gets to decide what browsers come installed?
Slashdot Mirror
Viruses aren't cells. Of course, not everyone would call a virus "life", but of course they're not exactly non-life either.
There's also psions...it's interesting how much of a gray area there is between life and non-life. These guys are clearly having a lot of fun playing around in that gray area.
As for ID (sigh), it's a rejection of *evolution* theory based on Christian theology. This research seems like it has more implications for abiogenesis than it does for evolution. Also...don't do them the service of assuming that they have a consistent "theory". The arguments change depending on the weather.
I mean no offense here, but I think you're confused about what ID is, and what its purpose is. It's much easier of you just assume ID = Creationism and the attempt to get said Creationism into public schools. See here: See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
ID is not merely the belief in a god that could have designed the universe (plenty of theists acknowledge evolution. The entire Catholic church, for instance). ID is dependent on the creation stories in Genesis, and is strictly anti-evolution. It is a method of promoting the teachings of particular religion, which is something the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized.
The term Intelligent Design is, well, "designed" to cause a person to think, at first glance, "oh, they just believe in a creator. That's not so strange". Whereas in reality there is no question that this has to do with Biblical Creationism, at the expense of properly teaching mainstream science in schools.
What I mean to say is, it's not logic, it's just rhetoric. Don't read too much into it. By attempting to refute it on logical grounds, you do it the service of acknowledging that it's worth your time. Those people are liars and they know it, and the courts know it too. At this point we can just sit back and laugh as they flounder.
Oh I know the monitor won't match the printed page. Most of what I do involves the same couple of PMS colors so I don't really need it to.
What I was saying was that, from the same program, with the same color profile, the page will print differently using the Mac driver or the PC driver. It is not a Postscript printer, so the artwork is getting flattened.
For anything serious we get a proof from the printer so the color doesn't annoy me. But it does annoy me that the Windows driver prints to more of the page than the Mac one does, so if I want to get closer to the edge I have to move everything to the PC.
Postscript printers usually do. The cheaper ones aren't worth the trouble sometimes.
HP has a Windows-only universal driver that might interest you.
http://h20338.www2.hp.com/Hpsub/cache/342988-0-0-225-121.html
We have a cheap HP color laserjet, I think 6100n, in the office. The Windows driver and the Mac driver disagree on the printable area of the page. The colors don't match either but I guess it'd be strange if they did. It's aggravating when designing a brochure or something because it means I have to make PDFs and move everything to another machine if I want it to print a certain way. I have a strong feeling that, were it a postscript printer, I would not have these issues.
With PCL sometimes you run up against the fact that some printers speak PCL5 (or one of its variants) and others PCL6. PCL in general lacks many of the features of PS and is not as precise. So I guess you can thank HP for the state of the modern printer driver.
With some GPS models you can download updated maps, or decide which region has a more detailed map. Presumably you'd want to be able to mount whatever filesystem is on the card in order to copy the map.
Either someone's sarcasm detector needs batteries, or they've never heard of anti-discrimination laws.
Can't you combine anything with Stan Lee and get mutants?
It's the fact that they separate them out for special treatment *at all* that bothers people. The degree to which they do that is an afterthought. It is the 21st goddam century, and this is supposed to be the land of the free.
If someone walked their dog in your yard, wouldn't you still be pissed if it was a small dog, and it took a small dump? It smells just as bad.
I'm fine with that...if you can prove Microsoft never received any tax breaks, corporate subsidies, or any other sort of incentives for staying in the US, and Washington specifically.
Or that they don't doesn't dodge taxes either:
http://crosscut.com/2008/02/02/microsoft/11167/
There is nothing "simple" about it because how one person acts affects those around them. Well, I suppose that part is simple...which makes it all the weirder that so many libertarians just don't get it.
How is this flamebait? I've yet to see this scenario and not interpret it the exact same way. Maybe the parent and I share a common delusion (doubt it though) but it most certainly is not flamebait. Anyone got a spare mod point?
If Microsoft has a clear policy of not letting gays and lesbians on their servers (which I doubt, since we would have heard about it years ago), then no amount of legal magic in their ToS would have kept them out of a courtroom.
The summary says: "...Microsoft has stood by its position that merely mentioning that you are gay or lesbian is grounds for terminating your XBOX Live membership."
If that's true, we have a bigger issue than just this one person.
Right. It's just like how a store owner can kick out black people, because it's private property.
The difference is that, were a straight person to refrain from "shutting up" about their orientation, they wouldn't have gotten banned.
You present a common trick here: implying that she was evangelizing, and perhaps implying that people that are different from you *always* evangelize.
The woman appears to have been banned for saying she was a lesbian. And MS seems to have confirmed it. Either you accept homosexuals as regular members of society, or you don't. Why do people think that some twist of logic will allow them to do the latter while claiming the former?
The Rush Limbaugh-style "it's not what she said, it's how loud she said it, I just don't want it in my face" is not a sufficient explanation for anyone not actively doing the mental contortions required to accept it as one. What's wrong with wanting a game console that doesn't come with a Bible packed in the box?
People: this is where "think of the children" gets you. We pander to people who want their children to be little "hear no evil" statues, and we let them decide what's evil. So, let's see...homosexuality, evolution...what's next on the agenda, America?
Man, I totally thought you were talking about K-Mart there for a second...
You're exactly right. I hadn't thought of that.
I think IE even ship with a license number (if memory serves it matches whatever the host copy of Windows has), but the license itself is free.
Lots of people chimed in to say I was wrong about IE being faster so I'm going to assume I was dead wrong there.
It has been a long time since I have even opened IE. My main system is a MacBook now and for the occasional site that doesn't work in Firefox I'll use Safari. We have one app at work that I haven't been able to get working in Firefox, but as the admin I don't have to use it much myself.
I guess I was conditioned into thinking that IE was faster from the IE6/FF2 days. Could be all my damn add-ons, too.
I'm not a big fan of ActiveX either. I just remember hearing that certain places use ActiveX a great deal...Korea being the big one I guess.
The market is already doing what they hope to achieve, and it got a nice head start. They should just let it happen instead of legislating it, we're already halfway there.
Oh yeah and I forgot to point out that basically the rendering engine and browser are separate, and have been for a long time.
What I see here is potentially different is that we might have a situation for the first time in a long time where there are a large chunk of users that flat-out don't have internet explorer. Assuming the EU doesn't let them leave it installed but not advertised. But maybe they will have to.
That's what I'm figuring. I have to wonder if this won't end up essentially deprecating ActiveX, because the only version guaranteed to be on Windows will be an older one (they have said that ActiveX is part of the rendering engine and cannot just be separated from it, since it interacts with the HTML). Then again, lots of people are still running IE6 so maybe that won't really change things.
Can't say I'm looking forward to Firefox and other browsers becoming a bigger target for malware. Pulling BHOs out of IE is one thing...the day I have to screw around with someone's userchrome files because of malware is the day I start telling people, "no, I don't know how these computer things work, sorry".
The internet is my flash drive. :P
They could just host a build of the browser on microsoft.com once they've done a virus scan.
Barring that, hopefully the EU will be okay with MS putting in some sort of a disclaimer about why they're doing this and how it's unsupported software.
But I agree with you. This is something that looks good on paper but there's no good way of doing this in the real world. Browser customization happens in OEM land, and it should stay there. The EU should have just made sure that MS gives OEMs more options in terms of hiding Internet Explorer. And retail version customers should be taking more of a buyer beware attitude to begin with, so this doesn't affect them in my opinion.
What, Opera?
Internet Explorer runs faster on Windows than Firefox does. And it works with sites that use ActiveX.
I use Firefox. But I am not deluded about the percentage of users that know what standards compliance is, let alone care about it. The only way "the other half" is going to switch to another browser is when they discover ad blocking. And if they do that, all that free content I enjoy so much is going to dry right up.
The real problem is that this decision should have been handed down ten years ago. It's irrelevant now. And who gets to decide what browsers come installed?