That's just because they want a piece of every cake - just in case. Nothing new there (remember Zune?). I'm talking about getting everyone used to their technology hoping that they convert to their platform (see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100124111743687).
This unnatural selection may lead to a new breed of sharp-fearing people. I predict the return of the 70's design and the development of the hypo-spray.
You misunderstood it. Take a look at the link. The script replaces the flash player with the traditional pre-HTML5 embedded video (you need a totem or a vlc plug-in). It plays flv, has several "quality" options to chose from. I'm guessing not all of those files are encoded with H.blah (although tbh, i'm not sure), so if you get a video tag with H.blah (if you lie you're Safari), you could use greasemonkey (javascript) to replace the video tag src property with another (non-H.blah) URI.
Someone should make a greasemonkey script that replaces the H.blah thing with mpeg or flv - whichever Firefox supports. The tricky thing would be to fake browser title (Safari or Chrome) only on youtube sites - since Youtube doesn't really give you the video tag on other things as far as I can see. Faking is possible to change in about:, so maybe someone already wrote an extension to do that on the fly (would need to be modified to do it automatically on *youtube.com* sites), so some sort of mix should be made - I don't really know the limitations of either - perhaps you can do it both in just greasemonkey. Alternatively (and until then), you can use this script: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50771 (it's free software)
Whoever I ask about this, everyone says "games", and "rendering" - that's why you need it. But what if I'm not interested in gamedev and 3D stuff? What if I like trees and system programming instead (let's call it low level algorithms)? Wouldn't I be better of with graphs and stuff?
Fosr identification, you can use OpenID, and PGP (electronic signing). You don't need to associate IP (or alike) with identity to confirm it - that would only compromise privacy.
Now that's just totally wrong. I hope it fails miserably and turns out to be a disgrace for whoever supported it, and I hope everyone sees that and learns from it (so that they never consider any similar idea again).
Oh, c'mon, what the heck is happening? I thought we'd be over this Internet police crap by now. Torrent files are p2p links (trackers enable those links making them dynamic, as they need to be for p2p). This is utter bull.
Unless to make a donation. Otherwise, they will only feel the bad side of Slashdotting. This is what probably provides the info you'd want anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks
This is an utterly false conclusion. We can logically prove (as said before) God, we can empirically experience Him, we just can't scientifically test Him (although we can test some of his works - miracles). Also if you're going to mock me, I don't really care. Just goes to show you're close-minded.
>Ask yourself this - did YOU choose your sexual orientation or gender identity?
Again, irrelevant for the matter at hand. I don't claim straight people fornicating isn't a sin, and there is no justification for doing it. Celibacy is a valid option, and a calling for homosexual persons.
>They don't say you're "sinning" or deviant for being straight
I'm not saying they're sinning by being homosexual. Homosexual tendencies are intrinsically disordered, but not in themselves a sin - no. Sin are only homosexual acts, as they can be nothing more but forincation. For more information, or further discussion of the topic, you may want to visit my Youtube Channel and seek my old video (but active comments) on the topic.
>discrimination based on (...)
You're trying to assert again that there is some "right" for homosexuals to marry. Yet, you have not disputed my argument that there are no valid basis for such a union (since the foundations of the institution are clear). I don't approve of discrimination based on inclinations of homosexual persons. But they are not discriminated against regarding to marriage, other than by their own sexual preference (which is unfortunate). Hatred and intolerance is not what I promote, but neither do I feel it's justified to rewrite the definition of marriage. Really, visit my religous channel on youtube.com/paxcoder - To see better where I stand on this issue.
>Even the bible warns against placing faith in tradition:-)
It warns about human tradition. Holy tradition is promoted (can give you quotes if you want:-P). Even though I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the shroud, this was not my only argument.
>Neither do many activities that species engage in. How many things did you do this week that had nothing to do with bringing kids into the world?
That's different, we were talking about weather it is a valid foundation for marriage, not weather it's a good excersise/feels good/whatever else.
>And the gospel writers had plenty of incentive to lie.
Oh? How's it in your benefit to die for a lie rather than live?
>In addition, we've seen how people can whip themselves into a state where they believe they see things that just aren't true - weeping statues, etc.
If a statue leaks and it's not a miracle, then it's a deception from someone with a hidden motive. Mass hypnosis of such magnitude is impossible (or would you disagree?).
>Physical proof of the existence of god.
What?
>If god is not part of the universe, and doesn't interact with it, then god is of no effect, and can safely be ignored.
Who said He "doesn't interact with it"? I stated otherwise.
>Stop putting your faith in filthy rags.
I put my trust into a person whose blood stained those rags.
Well I'd say it was you who was trying to disprove it. The evidence for its authenticity are mentioned in the documentary. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if we have the conclusive evidence for its exact dating (evidence I mentioned is geography, season of Christ's crucifixion etc). That being said, I trust the Tradition that it is Christ's body. If we were to date it to the exact date of Christ's death, we'd still need to prove it is Jesus' who lied there. But since it's miraculous itself, and the blood type matches those found in miracles of Eucharist, and since all other things correspond to descriptions of Christ's torments etc, I require no additional proof at this time (but would like a carbon dating if possible).
>Why hasn't it been weeded out?
Because it *is not* genetic! Are you messing with me?
>Also, where is your proof that it is a "disorder" when many species engage in it?
Because it has no natural, procreative purpose.
>It must have SOME advantage if its found in so many diverse species.
That is speculation. Plus, I don't think it's found in many species. Bonobo monkeys, for example - as far as I know - cannot be characterized as homosexual, for the reasons I have explained. They are bisexual at best (not really, but they do exhibit what we might call bisexual behavior - but I think they know... "where to go" when procreation is in order).
>The egyptians who worshiped Rah would beg to differ with you as to which god.
Hehe, perhaps. My belief is that all have distorted spirituality, save those who received the Revelation from the genuine God (I'm sure you'd agree there are false gods).
>... and my counter-point was that it happens all the time. See "terrorists".
They don't *know* it's a lie, they're convinced otherwise. Gospel writers and apostles would know if what they wrote about living with a miraculous Man was a lie.
>Same age means nothing whatsoever.
Is it same age? Because given everything else, that's pretty conclusive evidence as far as I'd say.
Evolution weeds out undesirable traits, some quicker than others. But those pertaining to sexual inability - the quickest. Homosexuality would classify as one if it was indeed genetic. It is not, and noone is claiming this anymore but you for who knows what reason. Homosexuality is a non-genetic, non-inherited disorder. I thanked you earlier that you have read things about Shroud of Turin, but I was obviously once again wrong about you following this discussion. In short, Shroud of Turin was not "disproved" and the burden of proof to prove otherwise would fall on you. But there is no conclusive evidence that it is not as old as claimed. There is no reason for me to try to experimentally prove God. It would presumably be a futile attempt, since He is not bound by nature of this universe. But reason and logic prove His existence. And I have mentioned one of the logical proofs. People died for various causes, some right, some wrong, this was *not my point*. My point was why would someone lie, and then die for a lie. It's obvious the apostles either lived with Jesus or not. If they lied they wouldn't stick to the lie for the price of their lives. I implied God's personal involvement with humanity since its beginnings. That's what I meant when I said "depends on what you call Judaism", because clearly the Moses' law was not established then yet. Logic uses laws of nature, which are very specific. You have randomness, but also selection. Had you had no laws of the universe (had it not been for a rational being to create them), evolution would not be possible. Above I have explained how evolution permits not for genetic sexual disability (at least not of this magnitude, only few degeneric exceptions). Homosexuality is not genetic, and this isn't a baseless opinion. Now stop shouting false accusations and calling me a liar. If you have any more "arguments", bring them on.
You have either stopped reading even that which you comment from me, or you intentionally disregard it in hope you can somehow appear to win the argument. And still with multiple unsubstantiated claims might I add. In any case, I will not address those comments, since anyone reading can see their real value. As for you, I can give up now or spend hours more trying to get you think about my arguments which you now refuse to acknowledge. I hate to repeat myself just to get the point across so I won't.
One thing I will address is the experiment again: The effect (manifestation of one of the natures of the photon) does not precede the cause which is the fact that it is or isn't observed! You need to see which slit the particle went through, and in doing so, you influence its behavior (so it no longer acts as a wave, but rather a particle). Now, that is all. If you still want to argue that the double slit experiment disproves causality, please do that on Freenode in ##physics. Be sure to invite me, so I can watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you deaf George?
That's just because they want a piece of every cake - just in case. Nothing new there (remember Zune?). I'm talking about getting everyone used to their technology hoping that they convert to their platform (see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100124111743687).
'The driver doesn't offer 2D or 3D acceleration' -- o.O
This unnatural selection may lead to a new breed of sharp-fearing people. I predict the return of the 70's design and the development of the hypo-spray.
Microsoft must be loving this.
Maybe that new Irish law isn't all that bad after all...
You misunderstood it. Take a look at the link. The script replaces the flash player with the traditional pre-HTML5 embedded video (you need a totem or a vlc plug-in). It plays flv, has several "quality" options to chose from. I'm guessing not all of those files are encoded with H.blah (although tbh, i'm not sure), so if you get a video tag with H.blah (if you lie you're Safari), you could use greasemonkey (javascript) to replace the video tag src property with another (non-H.blah) URI.
Someone should make a greasemonkey script that replaces the H.blah thing with mpeg or flv - whichever Firefox supports. The tricky thing would be to fake browser title (Safari or Chrome) only on youtube sites - since Youtube doesn't really give you the video tag on other things as far as I can see. Faking is possible to change in about:, so maybe someone already wrote an extension to do that on the fly (would need to be modified to do it automatically on *youtube.com* sites), so some sort of mix should be made - I don't really know the limitations of either - perhaps you can do it both in just greasemonkey.
Alternatively (and until then), you can use this script: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50771 (it's free software)
Whoever I ask about this, everyone says "games", and "rendering" - that's why you need it. But what if I'm not interested in gamedev and 3D stuff? What if I like trees and system programming instead (let's call it low level algorithms)? Wouldn't I be better of with graphs and stuff?
Fosr identification, you can use OpenID, and PGP (electronic signing). You don't need to associate IP (or alike) with identity to confirm it - that would only compromise privacy.
Now that's just totally wrong. I hope it fails miserably and turns out to be a disgrace for whoever supported it, and I hope everyone sees that and learns from it (so that they never consider any similar idea again).
Oh, c'mon, what the heck is happening? I thought we'd be over this Internet police crap by now.
Torrent files are p2p links (trackers enable those links making them dynamic, as they need to be for p2p).
This is utter bull.
Nah, it can easily be replaced by HTML5 video and javascripting.
Oooh you mean cracker! Phew, for a second there, I thought you thought they'll develop apps for it.
Unless to make a donation. Otherwise, they will only feel the bad side of Slashdotting.
This is what probably provides the info you'd want anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks
At this time, I'll have to stop answering you.
This is an utterly false conclusion. We can logically prove (as said before) God, we can empirically experience Him, we just can't scientifically test Him (although we can test some of his works - miracles). Also if you're going to mock me, I don't really care. Just goes to show you're close-minded.
>Next you'll be saying (...)
Not a constructive comment.
>Ask yourself this - did YOU choose your sexual orientation or gender identity?
Again, irrelevant for the matter at hand. I don't claim straight people fornicating isn't a sin, and there is no justification for doing it. Celibacy is a valid option, and a calling for homosexual persons.
>They don't say you're "sinning" or deviant for being straight
I'm not saying they're sinning by being homosexual. Homosexual tendencies are intrinsically disordered, but not in themselves a sin - no. Sin are only homosexual acts, as they can be nothing more but forincation. For more information, or further discussion of the topic, you may want to visit my Youtube Channel and seek my old video (but active comments) on the topic.
>discrimination based on (...)
You're trying to assert again that there is some "right" for homosexuals to marry. Yet, you have not disputed my argument that there are no valid basis for such a union (since the foundations of the institution are clear).
I don't approve of discrimination based on inclinations of homosexual persons. But they are not discriminated against regarding to marriage, other than by their own sexual preference (which is unfortunate). Hatred and intolerance is not what I promote, but neither do I feel it's justified to rewrite the definition of marriage. Really, visit my religous channel on youtube.com/paxcoder - To see better where I stand on this issue.
We could feel the effect of this interaction, but there's no reason why we should be able to test it.
Merry Christmas to you too.
>Even the bible warns against placing faith in tradition :-)
It warns about human tradition. Holy tradition is promoted (can give you quotes if you want :-P). Even though I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the shroud, this was not my only argument.
>Neither do many activities that species engage in. How many things did you do this week that had nothing to do with bringing kids into the world?
That's different, we were talking about weather it is a valid foundation for marriage, not weather it's a good excersise/feels good/whatever else.
>And the gospel writers had plenty of incentive to lie.
Oh? How's it in your benefit to die for a lie rather than live?
>In addition, we've seen how people can whip themselves into a state where they believe they see things that just aren't true - weeping statues, etc.
If a statue leaks and it's not a miracle, then it's a deception from someone with a hidden motive. Mass hypnosis of such magnitude is impossible (or would you disagree?).
>Physical proof of the existence of god.
What?
>If god is not part of the universe, and doesn't interact with it, then god is of no effect, and can safely be ignored.
Who said He "doesn't interact with it"? I stated otherwise.
>Stop putting your faith in filthy rags.
I put my trust into a person whose blood stained those rags.
>That's certainly not the definition of faith. ...
Please put this in a sci-fi story, not on Slashdot. We're trying not to think about is, and if and when we come to the bridge, then burn it down.
What I believe is "offensive"!? That's not an intellectual difference, that's a non-provoked insult.
I wish you all the best, but this was uncalled for.
>the person making the claim.
Well I'd say it was you who was trying to disprove it. The evidence for its authenticity are mentioned in the documentary. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if we have the conclusive evidence for its exact dating (evidence I mentioned is geography, season of Christ's crucifixion etc). That being said, I trust the Tradition that it is Christ's body. If we were to date it to the exact date of Christ's death, we'd still need to prove it is Jesus' who lied there. But since it's miraculous itself, and the blood type matches those found in miracles of Eucharist, and since all other things correspond to descriptions of Christ's torments etc, I require no additional proof at this time (but would like a carbon dating if possible).
>Why hasn't it been weeded out?
Because it *is not* genetic! Are you messing with me?
>Also, where is your proof that it is a "disorder" when many species engage in it?
Because it has no natural, procreative purpose.
>It must have SOME advantage if its found in so many diverse species.
That is speculation. Plus, I don't think it's found in many species. Bonobo monkeys, for example - as far as I know - cannot be characterized as homosexual, for the reasons I have explained. They are bisexual at best (not really, but they do exhibit what we might call bisexual behavior - but I think they know ... "where to go" when procreation is in order).
>The egyptians who worshiped Rah would beg to differ with you as to which god.
Hehe, perhaps. My belief is that all have distorted spirituality, save those who received the Revelation from the genuine God (I'm sure you'd agree there are false gods).
> ... and my counter-point was that it happens all the time. See "terrorists".
They don't *know* it's a lie, they're convinced otherwise. Gospel writers and apostles would know if what they wrote about living with a miraculous Man was a lie.
>Same age means nothing whatsoever.
Is it same age? Because given everything else, that's pretty conclusive evidence as far as I'd say.
Evolution weeds out undesirable traits, some quicker than others. But those pertaining to sexual inability - the quickest. Homosexuality would classify as one if it was indeed genetic. It is not, and noone is claiming this anymore but you for who knows what reason. Homosexuality is a non-genetic, non-inherited disorder.
I thanked you earlier that you have read things about Shroud of Turin, but I was obviously once again wrong about you following this discussion. In short, Shroud of Turin was not "disproved" and the burden of proof to prove otherwise would fall on you. But there is no conclusive evidence that it is not as old as claimed.
There is no reason for me to try to experimentally prove God. It would presumably be a futile attempt, since He is not bound by nature of this universe. But reason and logic prove His existence. And I have mentioned one of the logical proofs.
People died for various causes, some right, some wrong, this was *not my point*. My point was why would someone lie, and then die for a lie. It's obvious the apostles either lived with Jesus or not. If they lied they wouldn't stick to the lie for the price of their lives.
I implied God's personal involvement with humanity since its beginnings. That's what I meant when I said "depends on what you call Judaism", because clearly the Moses' law was not established then yet.
Logic uses laws of nature, which are very specific. You have randomness, but also selection. Had you had no laws of the universe (had it not been for a rational being to create them), evolution would not be possible.
Above I have explained how evolution permits not for genetic sexual disability (at least not of this magnitude, only few degeneric exceptions). Homosexuality is not genetic, and this isn't a baseless opinion.
Now stop shouting false accusations and calling me a liar. If you have any more "arguments", bring them on.
You have either stopped reading even that which you comment from me, or you intentionally disregard it in hope you can somehow appear to win the argument. And still with multiple unsubstantiated claims might I add. In any case, I will not address those comments, since anyone reading can see their real value. As for you, I can give up now or spend hours more trying to get you think about my arguments which you now refuse to acknowledge. I hate to repeat myself just to get the point across so I won't.
One thing I will address is the experiment again: The effect (manifestation of one of the natures of the photon) does not precede the cause which is the fact that it is or isn't observed! You need to see which slit the particle went through, and in doing so, you influence its behavior (so it no longer acts as a wave, but rather a particle). Now, that is all. If you still want to argue that the double slit experiment disproves causality, please do that on Freenode in ##physics. Be sure to invite me, so I can watch.
Goodbye.