Sure. Just try owning a house and raising a family on one salary like your parents did.
I am, thanks! Mortgage, 4 kids, one salary well below the median for our town -- and debt free other than the mortgage.
You can still make it work, and I'd say you can be as or more comfortable than your parents were thanks to technological, medical, municipal, and other life improvements.
No, you can't have two iPhones with data plans, an HD DVR cable subscription, a house you can't afford, and two car payments. But comfortable and raising a family on one salary? Quite possible.
Yeah, I forgot -- the way it works is that the LICENSE.txt is automatically included when the module is packaged by the system -- that's why module authors shouldn't include it themselves.
But way to take any opportunity to rag on Drupal -- seems to be the thing to do around here.:)
Actually, Drupal modules should not include a LICENSE.txt -- the GPL is already included at the root of the Drupal install, which the module is installed under.
It's considered a module bug in the Drupal community to include a LICENSE.txt.
I realize this is for high school, but get them started on dual monitors early if possible. The expense isn't bad, especially since monitors usually out-last the computers two-fold or more.
We have dual monitors in our computer labs in our engineering labs, and our students always flock to our labs over the single-monitor ones the general university provides.
At the very bottom of this page it mentions fantastic news: the removal of the 31 style sheets limit!
In Internet Explorer 9 and earlier, there is a limit of 31 style sheets per webpage. There is also a nesting limit of four levels deep for style sheets that are linked using @import rules.
In IE10 Platform Preview, this limit has been removed.
... subscribe to this fallacy... But taking a position on an issue... inherently means that you believe... you sufficiently understand the problem
Now who's subscribing to fallacy? You say that those who oppose action X are claiming sufficient understanding of outcomes of action X in making that determination. But that's just a straw man -- it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the results of action X cannot be known due to the presence of too many unknowns.
So some people may believe that taking extinction-level actions based on what they deem to be insufficient understanding of the consequences is a bad idea. I can't say I disagree.
Back in 'Computer Science 101' we spent a lot of time doing 'internal testing' and 'external testing' of our programs. When done correctly you are 100% guaranteed that the program does exactly what it is supposed to do
Wow... just... wow. I take it you're now in upper-level management? Yes, for *very* small programs, that do *very* little, this is feasible. But when you get to real programs of real world size, this is simply not done (unless you work for NASA).
You came close to hitting the nail on the head with "just don't care enough to allocate the time" -- since I sincerely doubt their customers would care to pay $50,000+ per copy of Windows, and sacrifice the performance, features, and decade(s)-long delays that would be required to accomplish this.
I certainly don't understand the issue of "protection of marriage". How does 2 men or 2 women being married make the slightest bit of difference to your own marriage?
I understand why many have difficulty understanding this position. Relativism (no absolute right and wrongs in life -- only what is right and wrong for *me*) and utilitarianism (looking merely at consequences and ignoring moral principles) dominate current western ideologies. But I believe law should be "rooted in God's unchangeable character and derived from biblical principles of morality." If God's revealed law contradicts someones desired behavior, then I believe the former should dictate law -- not the latter.
As long as you choose the words "impose" and "force", I will agree with you (on this, at least).
While Christians are expressly commanded to evangelize and not be ashamed of the Gospel, "imposing" and "forcing" are not Biblical ideas from what I read. While on earth, Jesus preached to those who came out to hear Him or entered the synagogue He was teaching in, and He desires followers to believe in Him of their own will.
That being said, as a Christian, I support laws that may very well impose on others (without sacrificing freedom of religion -- again, followers should *freely* choose to believe) such as anti-abortion, protection of marriage, and other biblically-rooted legislation. This source says it better than I can:
Whether law is based upon moral absolutes, changing consensus, or totalitarian whim is of crucial importance. Until fairly recently, Western culture held to a notion that common law was founded upon God's revealed moral absolutes.
In a Christian view of government, law is based upon God's revealed commandments. Law is not based upon human opinion or sociological convention. Law is rooted in God's unchangeable character and derived from biblical principles of morality.
In humanism, humanity is the source of law. Law is merely the expression of human will or mind. Since ethics and morality are man-made, so also is law. Humanists' law is rooted in human opinion, and thus is relative and arbitrary.
If that's imposing and forcing, and I suppose it is, label me guilty as charged.
First, thanks for the first non-inflammatory comment of the thread (yes, mine included). Now, to be slightly rude to you and take your quote completely out of context to prove a point that you weren't even arguing (sorry!! Also, I won't bother to address your [citation needed] request, even though not addressing points when replying to posts is a personal pet-peeve of mine. Whoops. Google is your friend, though)
I have quite a few [pick a race] friends, but I don't consdier them to be [racial insult] because
This is the problem I have -- it seems many argue that it's OK to call Christians "religious nuts" since they exhibit behavior that they do not approve of. While these same people, in most cases, preach "tolerance" in every other instance (other races, homosexuality, gender equality... pick your issue), and even call Christians intolerant because they live with integrity to their believe system (yes, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Yes, the Bible says the man is the head of the household.).
But this is hypocritical in my opinion -- if I as a Christian *didn't* live according to the Bible, I expect many of these "same people" (now it's getting vague as to whom I'm referring to -- oh well) would condemn me similarly as they do *because* I believe what the Bible says. So why do these (who??) tolerance preachers have no tolerance themselves?
(wow -- not my best-worded or best-argued comment ever.. oh well, gotta run to a meeting -- flame on.)
anyone that thinks the world is 6000 year old and that a big man in the sky planted fossils to test our faith is nuts. it's about as fesible as the flat earth believers, and since they REFUSE to listen to any of the 10000000's of peices of evidence one can only conclude they are in fact crazy
While I understand that many do not believe that God exists, that hardly excuses treating those who do without respect.
There are "10000000's of peices [sic] of evidence" that God exists, and I'm guessing you "REFUSE to listen to any of" them -- so may I conclude that you are in fact crazy?
Wow, that's weird -- I just got my developer account today and have been playing with the interface. As I was reading your post, I saw something I wanted to comment on, and I instinctively tried to write my comment inside of yours as I might in Google Wave. Spooky.
Yes, there's something you're missing. You've given an engineer's view of a subset of the possible low-level failings of the drive. But this tells us nothing of the user's likely real-life experiences.
That thought has perpetuated the breakage of the Web.
HTML (combined with CSS, etc) and decent design should not be mutually exclusive. It should be possible to specify that, if the client renderer supports it, an exact rendering. Why do we have to resort to flash or PDF to get content to look the way a designer intended?
We're getting closer with CSS3, and while I can't stand the jumbled mess that has become HTML/CSS/Javascript, I believe we can have the best of both worlds (pixel-perfect renderings where supported, complete flexibility of pure content where needed) if we continue refining our protocols and rendering engines.
But since it has yet to have ANY predictive successes, it doesn't seem a particularly fruitful avenue of research.
I was mostly following you up until this point. The Bible, the source of creationism, is full of predictive successes -- they're called prophesies, and many have provably happened many years after being prophesied (although here you will see the hypocritical side of many scientists -- rather than researching these things, proving ages of biblical manuscripts and events through the study of archeology and history, many simply deny these events on "faith").
In fact, it is partially on the basis of such prior predictive successes that some Christians such as myself base their "hypothesis", if you will, of creationism and other Biblically-founded beliefs.
Oh no, a Christian on/. -- let the flame war begin.
You can't go after a judge for anything he does in court, except to impeach him. He could declare you guilty, pull out a gun, and shoot you mid-session and the only remedy would be impeachment.
Is this true? I can see how it could be, but I'd like to mark this comment: [citation needed]
> If we sent them a PDF, they cant play that game...
Just don't think that PDFs cannot be modified. The full version of Adobe Acrobat has plenty of editing abilities, not to mention more sophisticated manual shuffling of the bits.
However it doesn't exactly say that they get caught 9 times out of 10 either. Honestly the grammar is pretty bad, so it's a bit ambiguous. I mean, "nine times out of 10 we usually get caught..." WTF? Ron Burgundy anyone? "60% of the time it works all of the time."
Lol -- good catch on the "usually", I missed that. Makes the whole sentence meaningless. I'd interpret it as "9 times out of 10 we get caught, usually by that one person...", but it's completely ambiguous.
If, as the article claims, these attempts succeed 9 times out of 10...
Here's the actual quote from the article:
Over the years and after doing several security assessments using social engineering techniques, nine times out of 10 we usually get caught when that one person says "I need to call someone about what you're doing."
It says that 9/10ths of the time they do get caught. But I agree, it might be better for morale to tell the employees they succeeded in catching the guy -- perhaps repeat the test until he gets caught:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Just try owning a house and raising a family on one salary like your parents did.
I am, thanks! Mortgage, 4 kids, one salary well below the median for our town -- and debt free other than the mortgage.
You can still make it work, and I'd say you can be as or more comfortable than your parents were thanks to technological, medical, municipal, and other life improvements.
No, you can't have two iPhones with data plans, an HD DVR cable subscription, a house you can't afford, and two car payments. But comfortable and raising a family on one salary? Quite possible.
I remember a year or two ago, it was a colder-than-normal year, and of course there was a global-warming Slashdot story about it.
Many were quick to laugh at those using this colder year as evidence against global warming, shouting "Weather isn't climate, stupid!".
Oh wait, this year supports the popular side, I'm supposed to be quiet. Nevermind -- plow on, hivemind!
Yeah, I forgot -- the way it works is that the LICENSE.txt is automatically included when the module is packaged by the system -- that's why module authors shouldn't include it themselves.
But way to take any opportunity to rag on Drupal -- seems to be the thing to do around here. :)
Actually, Drupal modules should not include a LICENSE.txt -- the GPL is already included at the root of the Drupal install, which the module is installed under.
It's considered a module bug in the Drupal community to include a LICENSE.txt.
I realize this is for high school, but get them started on dual monitors early if possible. The expense isn't bad, especially since monitors usually out-last the computers two-fold or more.
We have dual monitors in our computer labs in our engineering labs, and our students always flock to our labs over the single-monitor ones the general university provides.
Bug fix in the lyrics for you.. "Col. Torvalds' Linux" in the first two lines of the chorus should be "Col. Torvalds' Linux kernel".
Open source forever!
At the very bottom of this page it mentions fantastic news: the removal of the 31 style sheets limit!
... subscribe to this fallacy... But taking a position on an issue ... inherently means that you believe ... you sufficiently understand the problem
Now who's subscribing to fallacy? You say that those who oppose action X are claiming sufficient understanding of outcomes of action X in making that determination. But that's just a straw man -- it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the results of action X cannot be known due to the presence of too many unknowns.
So some people may believe that taking extinction-level actions based on what they deem to be insufficient understanding of the consequences is a bad idea. I can't say I disagree.
Back in 'Computer Science 101' we spent a lot of time doing 'internal testing' and 'external testing' of our programs. When done correctly you are 100% guaranteed that the program does exactly what it is supposed to do
Wow... just... wow. I take it you're now in upper-level management? Yes, for *very* small programs, that do *very* little, this is feasible. But when you get to real programs of real world size, this is simply not done (unless you work for NASA).
You came close to hitting the nail on the head with "just don't care enough to allocate the time" -- since I sincerely doubt their customers would care to pay $50,000+ per copy of Windows, and sacrifice the performance, features, and decade(s)-long delays that would be required to accomplish this.
I certainly don't understand the issue of "protection of marriage". How does 2 men or 2 women being married make the slightest bit of difference to your own marriage?
I understand why many have difficulty understanding this position. Relativism (no absolute right and wrongs in life -- only what is right and wrong for *me*) and utilitarianism (looking merely at consequences and ignoring moral principles) dominate current western ideologies. But I believe law should be "rooted in God's unchangeable character and derived from biblical principles of morality." If God's revealed law contradicts someones desired behavior, then I believe the former should dictate law -- not the latter.
As long as you choose the words "impose" and "force", I will agree with you (on this, at least).
While Christians are expressly commanded to evangelize and not be ashamed of the Gospel, "imposing" and "forcing" are not Biblical ideas from what I read. While on earth, Jesus preached to those who came out to hear Him or entered the synagogue He was teaching in, and He desires followers to believe in Him of their own will.
That being said, as a Christian, I support laws that may very well impose on others (without sacrificing freedom of religion -- again, followers should *freely* choose to believe) such as anti-abortion, protection of marriage, and other biblically-rooted legislation. This source says it better than I can:
Whether law is based upon moral absolutes, changing consensus, or totalitarian whim is of crucial importance. Until fairly recently, Western culture held to a notion that common law was founded upon God's revealed moral absolutes.
In a Christian view of government, law is based upon God's revealed commandments. Law is not based upon human opinion or sociological convention. Law is rooted in God's unchangeable character and derived from biblical principles of morality.
In humanism, humanity is the source of law. Law is merely the expression of human will or mind. Since ethics and morality are man-made, so also is law. Humanists' law is rooted in human opinion, and thus is relative and arbitrary.
If that's imposing and forcing, and I suppose it is, label me guilty as charged.
First, thanks for the first non-inflammatory comment of the thread (yes, mine included). Now, to be slightly rude to you and take your quote completely out of context to prove a point that you weren't even arguing (sorry!! Also, I won't bother to address your [citation needed] request, even though not addressing points when replying to posts is a personal pet-peeve of mine. Whoops. Google is your friend, though)
I have quite a few [pick a race] friends, but I don't consdier them to be [racial insult] because
This is the problem I have -- it seems many argue that it's OK to call Christians "religious nuts" since they exhibit behavior that they do not approve of. While these same people, in most cases, preach "tolerance" in every other instance (other races, homosexuality, gender equality... pick your issue), and even call Christians intolerant because they live with integrity to their believe system (yes, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Yes, the Bible says the man is the head of the household.).
But this is hypocritical in my opinion -- if I as a Christian *didn't* live according to the Bible, I expect many of these "same people" (now it's getting vague as to whom I'm referring to -- oh well) would condemn me similarly as they do *because* I believe what the Bible says. So why do these (who??) tolerance preachers have no tolerance themselves?
(wow -- not my best-worded or best-argued comment ever.. oh well, gotta run to a meeting -- flame on.)
anyone that thinks the world is 6000 year old and that a big man in the sky planted fossils to test our faith is nuts. it's about as fesible as the flat earth believers, and since they REFUSE to listen to any of the 10000000's of peices of evidence one can only conclude they are in fact crazy
While I understand that many do not believe that God exists, that hardly excuses treating those who do without respect.
There are "10000000's of peices [sic] of evidence" that God exists, and I'm guessing you "REFUSE to listen to any of" them -- so may I conclude that you are in fact crazy?
the religious nuts
Completely unnecessary. While I may personally be a bit nutty, I never cease to be amazed at how the "tolerant left" is anything but.
I don't know what's sadder... that I google'd tan(sqrt(2.4555))^e, or that it actually did equal ~3811170..
Wow, that's weird -- I just got my developer account today and have been playing with the interface. As I was reading your post, I saw something I wanted to comment on, and I instinctively tried to write my comment inside of yours as I might in Google Wave. Spooky.
For anyone else that wants to look up this Skylab 4 (not 3) incident, Google skylab mutiny
Yes, there's something you're missing. You've given an engineer's view of a subset of the possible low-level failings of the drive. But this tells us nothing of the user's likely real-life experiences.
-Ben
No no no no no.
That thought has perpetuated the breakage of the Web.
HTML (combined with CSS, etc) and decent design should not be mutually exclusive. It should be possible to specify that, if the client renderer supports it, an exact rendering. Why do we have to resort to flash or PDF to get content to look the way a designer intended?
We're getting closer with CSS3, and while I can't stand the jumbled mess that has become HTML/CSS/Javascript, I believe we can have the best of both worlds (pixel-perfect renderings where supported, complete flexibility of pure content where needed) if we continue refining our protocols and rendering engines.
But since it has yet to have ANY predictive successes, it doesn't seem a particularly fruitful avenue of research.
I was mostly following you up until this point. The Bible, the source of creationism, is full of predictive successes -- they're called prophesies, and many have provably happened many years after being prophesied (although here you will see the hypocritical side of many scientists -- rather than researching these things, proving ages of biblical manuscripts and events through the study of archeology and history, many simply deny these events on "faith").
In fact, it is partially on the basis of such prior predictive successes that some Christians such as myself base their "hypothesis", if you will, of creationism and other Biblically-founded beliefs.
Oh no, a Christian on /. -- let the flame war begin.
You can't go after a judge for anything he does in court, except to impeach him. He could declare you guilty, pull out a gun, and shoot you mid-session and the only remedy would be impeachment.
Is this true? I can see how it could be, but I'd like to mark this comment: [citation needed]
> If we sent them a PDF, they cant play that game ...
Just don't think that PDFs cannot be modified. The full version of Adobe Acrobat has plenty of editing abilities, not to mention more sophisticated manual shuffling of the bits.
What does come across thoroughly is IE7's inability to use IMG-based form controls
I don't think that's really true -- I presume you're referring to the earlier story IE7 Compatibility a Developer Nightmare . I think this comment best summarizes the nonsense that was that article.
However it doesn't exactly say that they get caught 9 times out of 10 either. Honestly the grammar is pretty bad, so it's a bit ambiguous. I mean, "nine times out of 10 we usually get caught..." WTF? Ron Burgundy anyone? "60% of the time it works all of the time."
Lol -- good catch on the "usually", I missed that. Makes the whole sentence meaningless. I'd interpret it as "9 times out of 10 we get caught, usually by that one person...", but it's completely ambiguous.
-Claar
Here's the actual quote from the article:
It says that 9/10ths of the time they do get caught. But I agree, it might be better for morale to tell the employees they succeeded in catching the guy -- perhaps repeat the test until he gets caught
-Claar