You can recycle by collecting the product and incinerate to make use of the energy. This is how it's mostly done, but usually emits CO2 as a byproduct.
I guess that if we're keen on getting more people into Linux, then some commonality across the major distros might be a good thing.
I dunno. Distro hopping seems to be a hobby in and of itself, especially for the newbies who can't really tweak their system to make it do what they want.
If all distros end up being similar, that would take away the Linux newbie's #1 form of entertainment.
So, if these math geniuses get a degree there, whats to keep them from just moving out of country? Nothing? Honestly, if I were born in an absolutely impoverished country, and ended up being a genius and getting a graduate degree in mathematics, I'm sure I'd hop on the first chance at a big corporate job in some other country.
You know, some people might prefer to stay at home and help improve their own country.
Also, some might feel indebted to their own country for the free education they received, thanks to taxpayer money.
Now, they could do what linux does, and just pick and choose what hardware they support, but with their dominant market position, that would probably look bad.
That's exactly what they did since day 1. They chose to support IBM's PC architecture.
This was the period in which Bill Joy used an ADM3a to write vi -- the fact that vi/vim still uses h, j, k, & l for cursor motion reflects the fact that the ADM3a had arrows on those keys
It also had the ESC key near the "Q", which must have made vi much more comfortable to use than it is on today's keyboards.
Unless you provide evidence that I am misinterpreting "my favorite holy book" such that it becomes scientifically plausible but the words do not permit such an interpretation, it will be obvious that you are simply repeating something you were told without having any evidence, since you have failed to provide any after several requests.
I'll repeat my question, since you never answered: how do you reconcile Adam and Eve with science?
Regarding faith: yes, the dictionary definition of faith simply states "belief without proof". However, blindly following what someone says will not, by most religions' beliefs, qualify as faith. Faith in a religious sense is more than simply believing without proof. Many religions believe that simply believing in Christ (i.e. belief without thought or evidence) is sufficient to save them. That view is both unscriptural and illogical.
Sorry, that's just not true: Jesus says "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". That's the very definition of "faith" in the Christian sense: faith is believing without seeing. What's more, Jesus says this as a "reprimenda" to disciple Thomas, who - according to the story - had wanted to perform an "experiment" (touching Jesus to prove to himself that he was real). Moral of the story: according to Jesus, true faith doesn't need evidence. So faith is the exact opposite of science. And since religion is based on faith, science and religion cannot coexist in a coherent mind.
Do you have any evidence that I would make excuses if it had been wrong? Upon what past behavior on my part do you base this conclusion?
Upon the fact that you believe that when your favorite holy book is wrong, it's due to misinterpretation.
Regarding faith, again you are mistaking faith for opinion or belief. Faith is nothing more than the desire which motivates a person to perform an experiment.
It appears I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt (which I gave despite all your other posts today). You are not interested in learning what my views and opinions are, or whether or not they are plausible, you are simply interested in attacking them.
I simply stated that "the holy spirit" doesn't exist until it is observed, just like everything else. You call this "attacking your opinions"? I call it "stating the obvious".
I will say this again to end the discussion: If you think it is impossible for science and religion to coexist, you do not understand religion.
If you think it is possible for science and religion to coexist, you do not understand science.
Calling something unscientific when it is clearly not is foolish. I apologize for stating the truth so bluntly, however I did not call you foolish, I called your opinion foolish. Even intelligent people have dumb ideas once in a while. It was not my intention to insult you.
OK, I'll take back my insults. What I'm not retracting is the fact that religion is unscientific.
In any case, what evidence do you have that I have "coerced texts into saying things that just aren't there"?
How do you "reconcile" Adam and Eve with science?
Put another way, faith is simply a precursor to knowledge; it is the desire for truth that allows us to gain knowledge.
Sorry, no. Faith never enters the scientific method, at any stage. There are even methods designed to avoid that the experimenter's own opinions will skew the results. Double-blind tests come to mind as an example.
I will give an example from modern times.
Sorry, this proves nothing. What's more, if the "prophecy" had turned out to be wrong, today you would be "reasoning" that "alcohol, tobacco and hot coffee" were not to be taken literally, it was all some kind of big fat metaphor for something else.
We don't have to observe it to postulate its existence.
We do have to observe it to state its existence.
Hence the search for things like the Higgs particle.
There is math that hints at its existence. Hence the search. No real scientist states its existence, because it hasn't been observed yet.
I and many others have observed God indirectly by the effects of His actions; therefore, by that same scientific principle, I can postulate that He exists.
Sorry, anecdotical "evidence" doesn't belong to science.
That's how science works, you see.
You're obviously not qualified to explain anyone how science works.
Slashdot Mirror
And how do you stop a copy of a copyrighted work from circulating illegally all over the Internet?
If it sold more than zero copies, that qualifies as "incredibly well" for me too.
Do you realize how laughable the above comment will sound in 200 years?
With the only insignificant difference that it tells all the other body parts what to do.
Not to mention lots of other deadly stuff.
That's for sure, you're preaching to the choir there. But I suggest you re-read the quote from TFA very carefully.
Well, I really hope that isn't the case, given the respective market share.
I dunno. Distro hopping seems to be a hobby in and of itself, especially for the newbies who can't really tweak their system to make it do what they want.
If all distros end up being similar, that would take away the Linux newbie's #1 form of entertainment.
Wouldn't that be security through obscurity?
He wasn't trained in the philosophy of Mickey Mouse either.
You know, some people might prefer to stay at home and help improve their own country.
Also, some might feel indebted to their own country for the free education they received, thanks to taxpayer money.
That's exactly what they did since day 1. They chose to support IBM's PC architecture.
Man, that's totally upside down!
0.067 persons sounds a bit low to me...
It also had the ESC key near the "Q", which must have made vi much more comfortable to use than it is on today's keyboards.
True if you don't use the -C flag. A fair comparison would be apt-cache vs. yum -C.
For me, nothing beats orange phosphors.
I'll repeat my question, since you never answered: how do you reconcile Adam and Eve with science?
Sorry, that's just not true: Jesus says "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". That's the very definition of "faith" in the Christian sense: faith is believing without seeing. What's more, Jesus says this as a "reprimenda" to disciple Thomas, who - according to the story - had wanted to perform an "experiment" (touching Jesus to prove to himself that he was real). Moral of the story: according to Jesus, true faith doesn't need evidence. So faith is the exact opposite of science. And since religion is based on faith, science and religion cannot coexist in a coherent mind.
OK: "revelation", as you called it.
Upon the fact that you believe that when your favorite holy book is wrong, it's due to misinterpretation.
Not according to every dictionary in the world.
I simply stated that "the holy spirit" doesn't exist until it is observed, just like everything else. You call this "attacking your opinions"? I call it "stating the obvious".
If you think it is possible for science and religion to coexist, you do not understand science.
OK, I'll take back my insults. What I'm not retracting is the fact that religion is unscientific.
How do you "reconcile" Adam and Eve with science?
Sorry, no. Faith never enters the scientific method, at any stage. There are even methods designed to avoid that the experimenter's own opinions will skew the results. Double-blind tests come to mind as an example.
Sorry, this proves nothing. What's more, if the "prophecy" had turned out to be wrong, today you would be "reasoning" that "alcohol, tobacco and hot coffee" were not to be taken literally, it was all some kind of big fat metaphor for something else.
We do have to observe it to state its existence.
There is math that hints at its existence. Hence the search. No real scientist states its existence, because it hasn't been observed yet.
Sorry, anecdotical "evidence" doesn't belong to science.
You're obviously not qualified to explain anyone how science works.
When "the holy spirit" is found, I'll listen to what it's got to say. Until then, "the holy spirit" simply does not exist.
How do you know which one is?
$THING doesn't exist until it's observed. That's how science works, you see.