Piquing the interest of geeks everywhere, the oft-criticized Imaginary Property has been seen cavorting with Imaginary Matter. Will this ugly IP monster finally settle down now that a romantic interest has developed? Story at 11:00!
Opening a new window in Internet Explorer (disclaimer: I'm using IE8 Beta emulating IE7) takes SECONDS to accomplish. I've done very superficial experiments as far as target=_blank links versus javascript: window.open() to try and understand what was at the root of the issue. I get the same results regardless of the method that I employ. To add insult to injury, while the new window is attempting to be created, the parent window becomes completely unusable, frozen like the polar bears' habitat used to be.
To contrast that.. I have Firefox 3 Beta 4 and Opera 9.5 Beta installed. The initial load for each of those is significantly slower for me, but to open a new tab/window is all but instantaneous.
Everything that I develop I do with a very microsoft-product-friendly attitude. I use.vbs files to parse reports into access databases which then at times get regurgitated via ASP to pages that are structured in a way that works (perhaps exclusively) in Internet Explorer. So if anything, I would be biased for IE. However, its performance has gotten to be pretty appalling.
If 1 = 1 Then End
Tell me, oh great Flamebaiter-modded-interesting, how this 'fundamentally flawed' programming language will insecurely compile the above code.
The proper order of progression is: Think, Speak.
He's saying that he's closing any of a number of database connections -- which one specifically depends on which object variable he passes to the function. This is, in his opinion, a better way to solve the problem as opposed to manually writing/copy+pasting the code that is, aside from which connection object it references, identical.
The original story on this garnered attention from quite a large crowd (even just in the scope of Slashdot). It would have been foolish on their part to plug ahead when, as was pointed out by a poster on the original thread, their customer service was already trained with what to tell people who didn't like the model: 'complain so that we don't make the same mistake with our next game release.'
general progression in were the Earth is older than Sun and Moon
The description in Genesis of God bringing forth Day and Night on the earth can be understood in thinking of the formative process of the earth. Everything was brought together over millenia (no, I never said six 24-hour days) and founded of one piece of molten -something- on top of another piece of molten -something-. Through all of this, the earth would logically have been covered by a thick cloud barrier as gases and so forth were released into the atmosphere from their solid elements. God's division of Day and Night was accomplished by parting that cloud barrier gradually, thereby allowing light from the Sun to shine in. Night was therefore realized, as it was a contrast to this period during which the earth was light, the Day.
Given your extremely argumentative nature and your resort to reviling, it's quite evident you're not really open to reason. As such, I won't spend any more of your nor my own time beating this particular dead horse.
"Six days" is not prescribed as a literal figure in the Bible. The word in Hebrew that was here rendered "day" actually referred to an indeterminate time period. Given the connection of events within that period, though, it was considered to be as one continuous unit rather than smaller, more precise, totally unnecessary units.
Given that view, then, and seeing how the Bible shows that these things all happened within their own, separate periods, what we're left seeing is the general progression of events. Science agrees with that basic progression.
Speaking to the aforementioned point and also to your objection on the matter of light--
DAY God introduced this fundamental division of time on the first "day" of the period during which he prepared the earth for mankind, when diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, thus causing the moisture-covered earth to experience its first day and night as it rotated on its axis through the light of the sun. "God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night." (Ge 1:4,5) Here the word "Day" refers to the daylight hours in contrast with the nighttime. However, the record thereafter goes on to use the word "day" to refer to other units of time of varying length. In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, the word "day" (Heb., yohm; Gr., hemera) is used in a literal and in a figurative or even symbolic sense.
The Bible also does not credit the mud with man's formation. It was God utilizing those basic elements and then infusing his power (in this form it became the breath of life); this same power that brought into creation every other thing in the physical universe.
Just look for "greek" or "hebrew" on your post: no notion of them.
In brief give me your definition of "notion" because it's clearly significantly different from mine.
I refuse to be redundant for your benefit. Please stop trying to pick a fight over one of the details you percieve to be flawed because of my failing to provide a checklist of:
Torah
Q'uran
Gnostic Gospels
Generally Accepted Canonical Scriptures That Have Been More Widely Distributed Than Any Other Book And Are The Only Set On Which Christian Theologies Are Traditionally Founded
Please remember that this is a discussion about the physical earth. My original point only goes to show that there is no disjointing conflict between what is written in the Generally Accepted Canonical Scriptures That Have Been More Widely Distributed Than Any Other Book And Are The Only Set On Which Christian Theologies Are Traditionally Founded and what Science has generally discovered to be true.
Asking "why do we have this effect?" is equivalent to "how was this effect caused?"
"Why" is only 'value-laden' as you so termed it if you really mean to get at the process leading up to the cause and can only be as such if you are referring to a cause that is the result of a conscious decision.
What various anti-intellectuals do not understand is that Theology is about one set of things and Science is about something else.
You are quite wrong. Christian Theology, the belief in a single sovereign God, having been based on God's written word, is "about" all things pertaining to God's adequacy and right to rule humankind, and therefore includes the origin of everything (and we are an object property of said everything).
the universe around us, and that includes us as well. This is why science is naturalistic: it is all about natural processes and natural events. Science involves both description, which tells us what has happened, and explanation, which tells us why it happened.
So then, you see, both the Bible (which term I will use rather than Theology, since when referencing theology you must be specific as to whose theology) and Science attempt to tell us What has happened: the physical space of the universe came into existence, followed by the stars and other heavenly bodies, geological formations occurred on earth while sitting in the midst of waters, vegetation began to live 'according to its kind,' creatures of the sea began life, then winged creatures of the sky ('heavens'), then living beasts on the surface of the ground; finally, mankind emerged on the scene, was superior to all of these previous lifeforms and was made out of dust (and Science certainly agrees that humans are composed of many of the same elements as dirt).
They also attempt to tell us Why it happened. The Bible says that God 'created the earth even for it to be inhabited,' or in other words, made the earth as a perfect home to host his creations. Science does not really have an explanation to 'why,' but empirical evidence over thousands of years has proven true the fact that the earth truly is a wonderful home to life on it. Science agrees with this too, in that the placement of the earth relative to the Sun is just right to keep us from freezing and from frying. The combination of gasses that make up our atmosphere are just right to keep everything from being either wholly flammable or toxic to breathe.
Relegating religionists and promoters of intelligent design to this class you deem 'anti-intellectual' really couldn't be more wrong. If one takes the time to discern what the Bible really says regarding creation, they will find it quite stimulating as well as accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Propitiatory is what Jesus' sacrifice was for mankind (completely and exactly covered -- in this case, our sins).
Proprietary is when something is specific to a given entity - not open, not shared, exclusively owned by something.
Bi-nary, Dec-imal, Hex-a-dec-imal... Right. Latin has nothing to do with computers.
imaginary matter!
Piquing the interest of geeks everywhere, the oft-criticized Imaginary Property has been seen cavorting with Imaginary Matter. Will this ugly IP monster finally settle down now that a romantic interest has developed? Story at 11:00!
Quantum Computing is going to seriously mess with those who worked so hard to accept that (1 OR 0) = 1.
You can't put your hand through the image and disrupt it!
More accurately, if you try, your hand is likely to be destroyed by the mirror spinning at very high speeds. It's sort of like a force field...
If you think Tabs are bad...
Opening a new window in Internet Explorer (disclaimer: I'm using IE8 Beta emulating IE7) takes SECONDS to accomplish. I've done very superficial experiments as far as target=_blank links versus javascript: window.open() to try and understand what was at the root of the issue. I get the same results regardless of the method that I employ. To add insult to injury, while the new window is attempting to be created, the parent window becomes completely unusable, frozen like the polar bears' habitat used to be.
To contrast that.. I have Firefox 3 Beta 4 and Opera 9.5 Beta installed. The initial load for each of those is significantly slower for me, but to open a new tab/window is all but instantaneous.
Everything that I develop I do with a very microsoft-product-friendly attitude. I use .vbs files to parse reports into access databases which then at times get regurgitated via ASP to pages that are structured in a way that works (perhaps exclusively) in Internet Explorer. So if anything, I would be biased for IE. However, its performance has gotten to be pretty appalling.
If 1 = 1 Then End Tell me, oh great Flamebaiter-modded-interesting, how this 'fundamentally flawed' programming language will insecurely compile the above code. The proper order of progression is: Think, Speak.
One word: hypervisor.
He's saying that he's closing any of a number of database connections -- which one specifically depends on which object variable he passes to the function. This is, in his opinion, a better way to solve the problem as opposed to manually writing/copy+pasting the code that is, aside from which connection object it references, identical.
The original story on this garnered attention from quite a large crowd (even just in the scope of Slashdot). It would have been foolish on their part to plug ahead when, as was pointed out by a poster on the original thread, their customer service was already trained with what to tell people who didn't like the model: 'complain so that we don't make the same mistake with our next game release.'
Pretty smart political move of Junior, invoking the swiss government like that.
The description in Genesis of God bringing forth Day and Night on the earth can be understood in thinking of the formative process of the earth. Everything was brought together over millenia (no, I never said six 24-hour days) and founded of one piece of molten -something- on top of another piece of molten -something-. Through all of this, the earth would logically have been covered by a thick cloud barrier as gases and so forth were released into the atmosphere from their solid elements. God's division of Day and Night was accomplished by parting that cloud barrier gradually, thereby allowing light from the Sun to shine in. Night was therefore realized, as it was a contrast to this period during which the earth was light, the Day.
Given your extremely argumentative nature and your resort to reviling, it's quite evident you're not really open to reason. As such, I won't spend any more of your nor my own time beating this particular dead horse.
-Eric"Six days" is not prescribed as a literal figure in the Bible. The word in Hebrew that was here rendered "day" actually referred to an indeterminate time period. Given the connection of events within that period, though, it was considered to be as one continuous unit rather than smaller, more precise, totally unnecessary units.
Given that view, then, and seeing how the Bible shows that these things all happened within their own, separate periods, what we're left seeing is the general progression of events. Science agrees with that basic progression.
Speaking to the aforementioned point and also to your objection on the matter of light--
The Bible also does not credit the mud with man's formation. It was God utilizing those basic elements and then infusing his power (in this form it became the breath of life); this same power that brought into creation every other thing in the physical universe.
In brief give me your definition of "notion" because it's clearly significantly different from mine.
I refuse to be redundant for your benefit. Please stop trying to pick a fight over one of the details you percieve to be flawed because of my failing to provide a checklist of:
Please remember that this is a discussion about the physical earth. My original point only goes to show that there is no disjointing conflict between what is written in the Generally Accepted Canonical Scriptures That Have Been More Widely Distributed Than Any Other Book And Are The Only Set On Which Christian Theologies Are Traditionally Founded and what Science has generally discovered to be true.
That would be a good, smug point, had I not already identified the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures in my reference to 'Christian Theology.'
Cause <-> Effect.
Asking "why do we have this effect?" is equivalent to "how was this effect caused?"
"Why" is only 'value-laden' as you so termed it if you really mean to get at the process leading up to the cause and can only be as such if you are referring to a cause that is the result of a conscious decision.
Sir, your post is all over the place.
What various anti-intellectuals do not understand is that Theology is about one set of things and Science is about something else.You are quite wrong. Christian Theology, the belief in a single sovereign God, having been based on God's written word, is "about" all things pertaining to God's adequacy and right to rule humankind, and therefore includes the origin of everything (and we are an object property of said everything).
Science is "about"
So then, you see, both the Bible (which term I will use rather than Theology, since when referencing theology you must be specific as to whose theology) and Science attempt to tell us What has happened: the physical space of the universe came into existence, followed by the stars and other heavenly bodies, geological formations occurred on earth while sitting in the midst of waters, vegetation began to live 'according to its kind,' creatures of the sea began life, then winged creatures of the sky ('heavens'), then living beasts on the surface of the ground; finally, mankind emerged on the scene, was superior to all of these previous lifeforms and was made out of dust (and Science certainly agrees that humans are composed of many of the same elements as dirt).
They also attempt to tell us Why it happened. The Bible says that God 'created the earth even for it to be inhabited,' or in other words, made the earth as a perfect home to host his creations. Science does not really have an explanation to 'why,' but empirical evidence over thousands of years has proven true the fact that the earth truly is a wonderful home to life on it. Science agrees with this too, in that the placement of the earth relative to the Sun is just right to keep us from freezing and from frying. The combination of gasses that make up our atmosphere are just right to keep everything from being either wholly flammable or toxic to breathe.
Relegating religionists and promoters of intelligent design to this class you deem 'anti-intellectual' really couldn't be more wrong. If one takes the time to discern what the Bible really says regarding creation, they will find it quite stimulating as well as accurate.