The point that your parent was trying to make is that much GPL code is passed out as "Open Source", and you have to (gasp) read the license to know if it is GPL or MozPL or whatever. This, he implies, is analogous to the situation with Creative Commons, where you have to (gasp) read the license to know if it is ByAttribution, ShareAlike, or whatever.
Selling it at normal cost (that is, the $30 a year, or whatever you paid) shouldn't cause a problem. Mike Rowe's problem was naming a higher figure to pay for the work that he put into the site, which then branded him as a domain hijacker. Or at least that's how I understand the original story. I think Microsoft even offered to pay the registration fee when they originally demanded the domain in the first place.
The "there's always something you could have done" in Nethack is a little different than the sort of thing you are facing... It's more like, you see a cockatrice coming towards you, and are playing a martial arts master. You read the description of the cockatrice, which clearly says it turns to stone. You attack it with your bare hands anyway and turn to stone. Next time you are facing a cockatrice, you will think, "Hmmm, maybe I could run away from cockatrices if I'm not wearing a pair of gloves" (and carrying a dead lizard, which is far from obvious, but in-game there is an Oracle who will tell you this if you give her enough money).
There are some real instant-death traps, that you can hardly avoid. Starting at a certain level of the dungeon, some of the pit traps have poison spikes with deadly poison -- unless you have gotten poison resistance before falling into the trap (or have been searching diligently for traps so as to avoid falling in in the first place, though I seldom spend a lot of time on that -- although the special ability of being able to cursorily search for traps automatically on every step, like dwarves, rogues and some others have is very handy). It probably takes a bit longer to learn where these start showing up and taking suitable precautions. Or you can play a barbarian and have poison resistance from the start...
If you want to give the game a chance, start out playing barbarians or valkyries, and be ready to die a lot. (These characters are a bit more durable than most. The Valkyrie also gets one of the best weapons in the game if she gets her god to like her.)
Just glancing through his website I hit a pretty glaring chemical error: "27 Elements: This is the bulk of your army... from gases like Hydrogen to metals like Iron to halogens like Phosphorus; these creatures are the ones that will bring you victory!"
Hopefully this was done by his flunky webmaster and doesn't reflect the attention paid to chemical details in the actual game...
If you are both a programmer and a musician, you will probably like Lilypond a lot (most things that it doesn't do by itself can be tweaked by writing Scheme scripts), but it probably will not be popular with the average musician. The system is much like (or better, is built out of) TeX -- you prepare a plaintext file with the appropriate commands, then run lilypond on it and get a finished MIDI and/or PDF (and DVI, if you want it) file. If you're a programmer and don't know music theory, you'll likely be bogged down by the required terminology -- you indicate the key with commands like "\key a \major", so unless you know that 3 sharps is A, you're out of luck. There are some frontends, but I haven't used them extensively. I can generate a score very quickly and with high quality in Lilypond, so haven't really looked any further.
This confused me for a long time, so perhaps you have the same misunderstanding. Most Catholics (including the last two Popes) who speak of Intelligent Design are not referring to the same thing that most Fundamentalists refer to as Intelligent Design. The Catholic Church specifically leaves it open to the believer and to science to discover the mechanism through with God's creation and design came about. I think you will find that most Catholics (who have some education) accept some amount of evolutionary theory, although they may dispute the mechanism of selection and the like. In my experience, there are very few Catholics who subscribe to the 10,000-year-old earth theory. It comes very naturally to use the term "Intelligent Design", which seems to only contain the idea of an intelligent creator and his plan for the universe in it. (I see that the article says that 41% of Catholics say that the earth is 10,000 years old and that man was created at the same time... For that I have no explanation, but would like to see the exact wording of the poll, as all the numbers strike me as high.)
Unfortunately, the term has been co-opted by the creationist movement, which was apparently seeking a term that would be more "sellable" to the general public, so that "Intelligent Design" usually includes a literal interpretation of Genesis in the final analysis. Unfortunately, the Pope's statement was also taken up by the creationist crowd, but if you look at what he actually said, there is nothing that rejects evolution per se.
But the statement from Ms Thosar-Dixit would seem to be saying that there would indeed be Internet access in the libraries and the departmental labs 24 hours a day. You were already positing doing the work in the last 12 hours before the paper is due without using any books at all (or only books that you had checked out of the library before that deadline), so what does it matter that the library doesn't have all its books on line?
In Italy, at the high end of the scale, unless you cheat on your taxes, it is relatively easy to end up paying considerably more than 50% off your income considered as a whole. Some Italians have told me that it is possible to owe more than 100% of your income, but I presume they are exaggerating. The situation is bad enough that a highly-placed Vatican official said "off the record" that it was morally licit to cheat on your taxes to bring your total bill down to 50% of your income (but not lower than that).
This was a few years ago, so maybe Berlusconi reformed things somewhat before leaving office (since he would himself be in that tax bracket)...
My university had a "miss more than three classes and you fail the course" policy on the books, but it was basically unenforced. That is until one class where the professor came into the final and exam and read a list of 10-15 names and said that there was no point in their taking the exam, as per school policy they had already failed the course. Pretty nasty, eh? The professor was a priest, which is probably the only way he was able to get away with this without suffering physical violence from the students...
The same fix was necessary for me on Fedora Core 5. Thanks. I also always have garbage on the screen when it starts. Switching to Full-Screen and back clears this up.
apt for RPM doesn't support 64-bit architectures that need both 64 and 32-bit applications. As a result Fedora has deprecated apt (much to my chagrin, since apt works with my proxy and yum doesn't....)
Most of the big class action suits end up paying the individual members of the suit a pittance once the lawyer fees are paid, and that after years of court battles. This settlement cuts the lawyers out of the equation, replaces the evil CD and gives the damaged person either 3 "free" (probably DRMed) digital albums or a small check and one download. I don't think these people were going to get more from the U.S. justice system -- the damages, while significant to the individuals ($100-150) would have been eaten up all but entirely by the lawyers. What's more, it's instant gratification.
It may not be just, and the "punishment" may not fit the "crime", but it's realistically the best to be expected.
I always tend to assume that those who are advocating "Intelligent Design" are advocating just that sort of debate, but it seems that I am wrong from reading the statements that most prominent IDers make. If they want to debate about evolution, they need to be arguing about the mechanism of evolution, not about the fact that more complicated organisms have tended to follow the more simple organisms according to the fossil record. I think that there is plenty of room for someone who believes in the Creator to debate the origins of life with atheists and they shouldn't be silenced for being religious.
Unfortunately, the fact is that most "Intelligent Design" advocates -- though not all (see this article) -- want to teach a literal belief in Genesis, which can in no way be reconciled with today's scientific knowledge, and belongs in a religion class. I suppose that this "theory" could be true nonetheless, but then they need to work out arguments about how plants can grow without sunlight and generally falsify the entire current understanding of how the world works.
I think that you're right, that the real sticking point is abiogenesis vs. creation. Unfortunately, both of these theories rest entirely on faith (at least until someone follows Julia Child's Primordial Soup video from the 60s through and produces life from non-living elements, which would at least lend some credibility -- if not falsifiability -- to abiogenesis), and so should really be left out of public schools according to this ruling...
I know that both sides like to just spew generalities at the other one. But you're distorting the case so much that I feel compelled to post...
"Intelligent Design" does not by definition mean "The creation account in Genesis is 100% literally true", in the same way that "Evolution" does not by definition mean "Belief that natural selection alone provided the diversity of species we see today". Both "camps" contain a wide variety of members, with different nuances.
A large fraction of Intelligent Design supporters are advocating "theistic evolution", that is, that the Creator had some role in directing the process of evolution. There are certainly others who posit direct creation of the existing types of animals by a creator. But don't lump them together, please.
A favorite argument on Slashdot is that "Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific". On the other hand, an intelligent design supporter might ask how evolution is falsifiable. When a gap in the fossil record is pointed to, the evolutionist simply says with great faith, "We will yet find the missing link". Thus it is impossible to disprove evolution as well. Evolutionists mock supporters of Intelligent Design saying that the eyes of squids are much better than those of vertebrates, so why didn't this Intelligent Designer keep with what worked, at the same time failing to explain why natural selection failed to choose the "better" eye form.
Here's an interesting article by an electrical engineer (but published on a Christian site, so leaning towards Intelligent Design): Supernatural Selection
I think if both sides would just listen to each other a bit (perhaps excepting the completely creationist camp and the completely natural selection camp -- if they even exist today), there would be more understanding and possibly even learning from one another.
By the way, as far as official teaching, the Catholic Church has not confirmed or denied either theory, leaving it open to the scientists. Most Catholic scholars (including John Paul II, Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, and the last I read, Benedict XVI) lean toward theistic evolution, though the director of the Vatican Observatory recently made statements more on the lines of what the parent poster said. However, the mechanism of speciation has been explicity placed outside of the realm of faith -- each Catholic may believe as the evidence convinces him, as long as he accepts God as a transcendent creator and the direct creation of the human soul.
However, the article in question says that the information had been there for 132 days. The vandalism was edited by a normal user 3 days after being posted, only to correct the spelling of "early". That is, this vandalism went completely under the radar. After being corrected personally by Jim Wales (before the op-ed actually appeared -- even the quoted article indicates that this was the case), the change took 3 weeks to propagate to the various sites that quote Wikipedia.
Obviously, he was wronged by this anonymous user, and Wikipedia's built-in checks and balances were insufficient to protect him. Certainly, once it was brought to the attention of the higher-ups in Wikipedia, the problem was solved. He is upset because the IP won't identify the user for him, but that user is very likely on a dynamic IP, so it's not like they would be able to find him either. (I presume that the IP doesn't keep detailed records of which user is using which IP at all times... But I could be wrong.)
That said, I don't think he has a lot of reasonable targets to sue. The person who committed the libel is responsible, but unidentifiable. The IP is not responsible for the content posted by people going through it. Wikipedia should hopefully catch this sort of error, but who are you going to sue if a community of thousands misses an error? I think his best solution was to contact Wikipedia -- he probably could have just changed the page and indicated in the Talk page who he was and had it changed a couple weeks before it actually was changed.
It does make you wonder how much you can trust an average Wikipedia article about a topic you don't already know pretty well....
At least on the German version of the site, there is a link "Why was this recommended to me?", and if you follow that link, you can remove the item that triggered it from your recommendation triggers.
You can hide the load time by running/usr/lib/openoffice.org2.0/program/soffice -nodefault -nologo. I have a perlscript running that restarts this after exiting OOo. This cuts the subsequent load time to almost nothing.
There are now a bunch of "subcategories" for YRO. The "gerneric man being gagged" is still there as the icon for the Censorship subcategory. This article is in the CDA subcategory.
But I feel a little stupid at the moment... What does "CDA" stand for? Constitutional Dummy Association?
Agreed. The only times I went into the UGL at UT were to give blood and to vote. I suppose there were books in there somewhere, but if you were actually researching something, you had to go to the PCL or one of the departmental libraries. This is a logical development and is not taking books away from the students in any way. If anything, it is more convenient for the students, because they are more likely to find everything they want in the same library instead of having to trapse across campus -- the two librarys are six or seven blocks apart, if I remember correctly.
The terminology and belief varies slightly from religion to religion. Summarized from Wikipedia (and here) we have the following scale.
Roman Catholic: Transubstantiation (substance changes, accidents remain)
Orthodox: True change of bread and wine into body and blood, but no attempt to explain the mechanism
Anglican: "Real presence", which ranges in interpretation from transubstantiation to consubstantiation (both the bread and wine and the body and blood are present)
Lutheran: Christ is really present "in, with and under" the bread and wine at the moment of receiving communion (no Eucharistic adoration)
Calvinist: Spiritual presence (Christ is present spiritually in the bread and wine.)
Baptist: Symbolic of Christ or simply a memorial
Quaker: Suspension (Bread and wine remind of Christ)
Methodist: "After a heavenly and spiritual manner"
I suppose I should protect my karma by saying, "You'll probably mod me down for this...", but I'll skip it.
While certain sects of Christians hold to that viewpoint, it is not true of every such sect. For instance, Catholics believe that the Bible is innerrant in the material that God wanted to reveal, not necessarily in every letter. (He used human instruments to record his word.) For these Christians the question of whether there were tidal effects from the sun stopping under Joshua (I suppose all Christians in your world are flat-earthers and believe the sun revolves around the earth as well) is simply not interesting.
Personally, I think that the fact of evolution has been adequately demonstrated -- that is, that there were once only simple organisms and that more complex organisms came into being. My argument would be about the mechanism. I have yet to hear an argument for natural selection as the only element of evolution that really dealt with its weak points. Those would be (1) point mutations -- one gene, one enzyme -- would take more generations to propagate the macroevolutionary changes we witness in the fossil record than we have and (2) a good fraction of those point mutations are negative (or neutral) mutations -- take a look at your fruit-fly catalog: there are wingless, sepia-colored, white-eyed, eyeless, etc. etc., but very few mutations you could argue as "beneficial", allowing that fly to be selected for. The net result of this is that you need even more generations to get to a positive result.
As a thought experiment, try rolling a die, giving yourself 1 point for an odd number and -1 for an even number. How many rolls do you need to get to a score of 20 (in real life, you need more than 20 good mutations and the good mutations seem less likely than the bad ones, put this is a thought experiment)? Using a Perlscript, I ran a thousand trials and got an average of 222,155.664 "generations" necessary to get a measly 20 positive "mutations" -- that's over three million years just to modify 20 genes in a positive manner. How many species are in man's immediate ancestor tree? How many years has this planet existed? (Admittedly, there are limits to this argument -- I haven't considered cases where more than one mutation takes place in the same generation, but you get the drift.)
In conclusion, speciation by natural selection does occur (at least in a few cases demonstrably -- polar gulls, etc.), but I think there has to be another mechanism in there, and the evolutionary apologists don't seem to be coming up with a hypothesis, while intelligent design apologists are routinely lambasted in the public forum, as though their arguments, which at the very least tries to provide an answer to this.
Crossover Office at least claims to have a working Active-X plugin. I have personally never had the need to turn it on (and it is turned off by default), so I can't comment as to how well it works. That might be a possibility for you. Of course, you have to pay something to use Crossover.
Just log out of Gmail. Then you will see the "joke" about the Infinity+1 Email account. Then at the end, they say "April Fool" and link to the new features mentioned in this article. Hence, the two GB is real, it will just take until tomorrow until it is there. (Or at least that's my analysis.)
The question remains of whether the submitter saw the joke, realized that it needn't be submitted, given the glut of them, and then found the new features, or just clicked on that glowing red "New Features" link at the top of his logged-in page.
Slashdot Mirror
The point that your parent was trying to make is that much GPL code is passed out as "Open Source", and you have to (gasp) read the license to know if it is GPL or MozPL or whatever. This, he implies, is analogous to the situation with Creative Commons, where you have to (gasp) read the license to know if it is ByAttribution, ShareAlike, or whatever.
Selling it at normal cost (that is, the $30 a year, or whatever you paid) shouldn't cause a problem. Mike Rowe's problem was naming a higher figure to pay for the work that he put into the site, which then branded him as a domain hijacker. Or at least that's how I understand the original story. I think Microsoft even offered to pay the registration fee when they originally demanded the domain in the first place.
The "there's always something you could have done" in Nethack is a little different than the sort of thing you are facing... It's more like, you see a cockatrice coming towards you, and are playing a martial arts master. You read the description of the cockatrice, which clearly says it turns to stone. You attack it with your bare hands anyway and turn to stone. Next time you are facing a cockatrice, you will think, "Hmmm, maybe I could run away from cockatrices if I'm not wearing a pair of gloves" (and carrying a dead lizard, which is far from obvious, but in-game there is an Oracle who will tell you this if you give her enough money).
There are some real instant-death traps, that you can hardly avoid. Starting at a certain level of the dungeon, some of the pit traps have poison spikes with deadly poison -- unless you have gotten poison resistance before falling into the trap (or have been searching diligently for traps so as to avoid falling in in the first place, though I seldom spend a lot of time on that -- although the special ability of being able to cursorily search for traps automatically on every step, like dwarves, rogues and some others have is very handy). It probably takes a bit longer to learn where these start showing up and taking suitable precautions. Or you can play a barbarian and have poison resistance from the start...
If you want to give the game a chance, start out playing barbarians or valkyries, and be ready to die a lot. (These characters are a bit more durable than most. The Valkyrie also gets one of the best weapons in the game if she gets her god to like her.)
Just glancing through his website I hit a pretty glaring chemical error: "27 Elements: This is the bulk of your army... from gases like Hydrogen to metals like Iron to halogens like Phosphorus; these creatures are the ones that will bring you victory!"
Hopefully this was done by his flunky webmaster and doesn't reflect the attention paid to chemical details in the actual game...
If you are both a programmer and a musician, you will probably like Lilypond a lot (most things that it doesn't do by itself can be tweaked by writing Scheme scripts), but it probably will not be popular with the average musician. The system is much like (or better, is built out of) TeX -- you prepare a plaintext file with the appropriate commands, then run lilypond on it and get a finished MIDI and/or PDF (and DVI, if you want it) file. If you're a programmer and don't know music theory, you'll likely be bogged down by the required terminology -- you indicate the key with commands like "\key a \major", so unless you know that 3 sharps is A, you're out of luck. There are some frontends, but I haven't used them extensively. I can generate a score very quickly and with high quality in Lilypond, so haven't really looked any further.
This confused me for a long time, so perhaps you have the same misunderstanding. Most Catholics (including the last two Popes) who speak of Intelligent Design are not referring to the same thing that most Fundamentalists refer to as Intelligent Design. The Catholic Church specifically leaves it open to the believer and to science to discover the mechanism through with God's creation and design came about. I think you will find that most Catholics (who have some education) accept some amount of evolutionary theory, although they may dispute the mechanism of selection and the like. In my experience, there are very few Catholics who subscribe to the 10,000-year-old earth theory. It comes very naturally to use the term "Intelligent Design", which seems to only contain the idea of an intelligent creator and his plan for the universe in it. (I see that the article says that 41% of Catholics say that the earth is 10,000 years old and that man was created at the same time... For that I have no explanation, but would like to see the exact wording of the poll, as all the numbers strike me as high.)
Unfortunately, the term has been co-opted by the creationist movement, which was apparently seeking a term that would be more "sellable" to the general public, so that "Intelligent Design" usually includes a literal interpretation of Genesis in the final analysis. Unfortunately, the Pope's statement was also taken up by the creationist crowd, but if you look at what he actually said, there is nothing that rejects evolution per se.
But the statement from Ms Thosar-Dixit would seem to be saying that there would indeed be Internet access in the libraries and the departmental labs 24 hours a day. You were already positing doing the work in the last 12 hours before the paper is due without using any books at all (or only books that you had checked out of the library before that deadline), so what does it matter that the library doesn't have all its books on line?
In Italy, at the high end of the scale, unless you cheat on your taxes, it is relatively easy to end up paying considerably more than 50% off your income considered as a whole. Some Italians have told me that it is possible to owe more than 100% of your income, but I presume they are exaggerating. The situation is bad enough that a highly-placed Vatican official said "off the record" that it was morally licit to cheat on your taxes to bring your total bill down to 50% of your income (but not lower than that).
This was a few years ago, so maybe Berlusconi reformed things somewhat before leaving office (since he would himself be in that tax bracket)...
Yes, Crossover Office also has an application database, although it's called a "Compatibility Center".
My university had a "miss more than three classes and you fail the course" policy on the books, but it was basically unenforced. That is until one class where the professor came into the final and exam and read a list of 10-15 names and said that there was no point in their taking the exam, as per school policy they had already failed the course. Pretty nasty, eh? The professor was a priest, which is probably the only way he was able to get away with this without suffering physical violence from the students...
The same fix was necessary for me on Fedora Core 5. Thanks. I also always have garbage on the screen when it starts. Switching to Full-Screen and back clears this up.
apt for RPM doesn't support 64-bit architectures that need both 64 and 32-bit applications. As a result Fedora has deprecated apt (much to my chagrin, since apt works with my proxy and yum doesn't....)
Most of the big class action suits end up paying the individual members of the suit a pittance once the lawyer fees are paid, and that after years of court battles. This settlement cuts the lawyers out of the equation, replaces the evil CD and gives the damaged person either 3 "free" (probably DRMed) digital albums or a small check and one download. I don't think these people were going to get more from the U.S. justice system -- the damages, while significant to the individuals ($100-150) would have been eaten up all but entirely by the lawyers. What's more, it's instant gratification.
It may not be just, and the "punishment" may not fit the "crime", but it's realistically the best to be expected.
I always tend to assume that those who are advocating "Intelligent Design" are advocating just that sort of debate, but it seems that I am wrong from reading the statements that most prominent IDers make. If they want to debate about evolution, they need to be arguing about the mechanism of evolution, not about the fact that more complicated organisms have tended to follow the more simple organisms according to the fossil record. I think that there is plenty of room for someone who believes in the Creator to debate the origins of life with atheists and they shouldn't be silenced for being religious.
Unfortunately, the fact is that most "Intelligent Design" advocates -- though not all (see this article) -- want to teach a literal belief in Genesis, which can in no way be reconciled with today's scientific knowledge, and belongs in a religion class. I suppose that this "theory" could be true nonetheless, but then they need to work out arguments about how plants can grow without sunlight and generally falsify the entire current understanding of how the world works.
I think that you're right, that the real sticking point is abiogenesis vs. creation. Unfortunately, both of these theories rest entirely on faith (at least until someone follows Julia Child's Primordial Soup video from the 60s through and produces life from non-living elements, which would at least lend some credibility -- if not falsifiability -- to abiogenesis), and so should really be left out of public schools according to this ruling...
You've forgotten the ever popular .museum TLD! To protect that, we have to require at least 7 characters. Fortunately, http://slashdot/ still makes it.
I know that both sides like to just spew generalities at the other one. But you're distorting the case so much that I feel compelled to post...
"Intelligent Design" does not by definition mean "The creation account in Genesis is 100% literally true", in the same way that "Evolution" does not by definition mean "Belief that natural selection alone provided the diversity of species we see today". Both "camps" contain a wide variety of members, with different nuances.
A large fraction of Intelligent Design supporters are advocating "theistic evolution", that is, that the Creator had some role in directing the process of evolution. There are certainly others who posit direct creation of the existing types of animals by a creator. But don't lump them together, please.
A favorite argument on Slashdot is that "Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific". On the other hand, an intelligent design supporter might ask how evolution is falsifiable. When a gap in the fossil record is pointed to, the evolutionist simply says with great faith, "We will yet find the missing link". Thus it is impossible to disprove evolution as well. Evolutionists mock supporters of Intelligent Design saying that the eyes of squids are much better than those of vertebrates, so why didn't this Intelligent Designer keep with what worked, at the same time failing to explain why natural selection failed to choose the "better" eye form.
Here's an interesting article by an electrical engineer (but published on a Christian site, so leaning towards Intelligent Design): Supernatural Selection
I think if both sides would just listen to each other a bit (perhaps excepting the completely creationist camp and the completely natural selection camp -- if they even exist today), there would be more understanding and possibly even learning from one another.
By the way, as far as official teaching, the Catholic Church has not confirmed or denied either theory, leaving it open to the scientists. Most Catholic scholars (including John Paul II, Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, and the last I read, Benedict XVI) lean toward theistic evolution, though the director of the Vatican Observatory recently made statements more on the lines of what the parent poster said. However, the mechanism of speciation has been explicity placed outside of the realm of faith -- each Catholic may believe as the evidence convinces him, as long as he accepts God as a transcendent creator and the direct creation of the human soul.
However, the article in question says that the information had been there for 132 days. The vandalism was edited by a normal user 3 days after being posted, only to correct the spelling of "early". That is, this vandalism went completely under the radar. After being corrected personally by Jim Wales (before the op-ed actually appeared -- even the quoted article indicates that this was the case), the change took 3 weeks to propagate to the various sites that quote Wikipedia.
Obviously, he was wronged by this anonymous user, and Wikipedia's built-in checks and balances were insufficient to protect him. Certainly, once it was brought to the attention of the higher-ups in Wikipedia, the problem was solved. He is upset because the IP won't identify the user for him, but that user is very likely on a dynamic IP, so it's not like they would be able to find him either. (I presume that the IP doesn't keep detailed records of which user is using which IP at all times... But I could be wrong.)
That said, I don't think he has a lot of reasonable targets to sue. The person who committed the libel is responsible, but unidentifiable. The IP is not responsible for the content posted by people going through it. Wikipedia should hopefully catch this sort of error, but who are you going to sue if a community of thousands misses an error? I think his best solution was to contact Wikipedia -- he probably could have just changed the page and indicated in the Talk page who he was and had it changed a couple weeks before it actually was changed.
It does make you wonder how much you can trust an average Wikipedia article about a topic you don't already know pretty well....
At least on the German version of the site, there is a link "Why was this recommended to me?", and if you follow that link, you can remove the item that triggered it from your recommendation triggers.
You can hide the load time by running /usr/lib/openoffice.org2.0/program/soffice -nodefault -nologo. I have a perlscript running that restarts this after exiting OOo. This cuts the subsequent load time to almost nothing.
There are now a bunch of "subcategories" for YRO. The "gerneric man being gagged" is still there as the icon for the Censorship subcategory. This article is in the CDA subcategory.
But I feel a little stupid at the moment... What does "CDA" stand for? Constitutional Dummy Association?
Agreed. The only times I went into the UGL at UT were to give blood and to vote. I suppose there were books in there somewhere, but if you were actually researching something, you had to go to the PCL or one of the departmental libraries. This is a logical development and is not taking books away from the students in any way. If anything, it is more convenient for the students, because they are more likely to find everything they want in the same library instead of having to trapse across campus -- the two librarys are six or seven blocks apart, if I remember correctly.
The terminology and belief varies slightly from religion to religion. Summarized from Wikipedia (and here) we have the following scale.
I suppose I should protect my karma by saying, "You'll probably mod me down for this...", but I'll skip it.
While certain sects of Christians hold to that viewpoint, it is not true of every such sect. For instance, Catholics believe that the Bible is innerrant in the material that God wanted to reveal, not necessarily in every letter. (He used human instruments to record his word.) For these Christians the question of whether there were tidal effects from the sun stopping under Joshua (I suppose all Christians in your world are flat-earthers and believe the sun revolves around the earth as well) is simply not interesting.
Personally, I think that the fact of evolution has been adequately demonstrated -- that is, that there were once only simple organisms and that more complex organisms came into being. My argument would be about the mechanism. I have yet to hear an argument for natural selection as the only element of evolution that really dealt with its weak points. Those would be (1) point mutations -- one gene, one enzyme -- would take more generations to propagate the macroevolutionary changes we witness in the fossil record than we have and (2) a good fraction of those point mutations are negative (or neutral) mutations -- take a look at your fruit-fly catalog: there are wingless, sepia-colored, white-eyed, eyeless, etc. etc., but very few mutations you could argue as "beneficial", allowing that fly to be selected for. The net result of this is that you need even more generations to get to a positive result.
As a thought experiment, try rolling a die, giving yourself 1 point for an odd number and -1 for an even number. How many rolls do you need to get to a score of 20 (in real life, you need more than 20 good mutations and the good mutations seem less likely than the bad ones, put this is a thought experiment)? Using a Perlscript, I ran a thousand trials and got an average of 222,155.664 "generations" necessary to get a measly 20 positive "mutations" -- that's over three million years just to modify 20 genes in a positive manner. How many species are in man's immediate ancestor tree? How many years has this planet existed? (Admittedly, there are limits to this argument -- I haven't considered cases where more than one mutation takes place in the same generation, but you get the drift.)
In conclusion, speciation by natural selection does occur (at least in a few cases demonstrably -- polar gulls, etc.), but I think there has to be another mechanism in there, and the evolutionary apologists don't seem to be coming up with a hypothesis, while intelligent design apologists are routinely lambasted in the public forum, as though their arguments, which at the very least tries to provide an answer to this.
Crossover Office at least claims to have a working Active-X plugin. I have personally never had the need to turn it on (and it is turned off by default), so I can't comment as to how well it works. That might be a possibility for you. Of course, you have to pay something to use Crossover.
Just log out of Gmail. Then you will see the "joke" about the Infinity+1 Email account. Then at the end, they say "April Fool" and link to the new features mentioned in this article. Hence, the two GB is real, it will just take until tomorrow until it is there. (Or at least that's my analysis.)
The question remains of whether the submitter saw the joke, realized that it needn't be submitted, given the glut of them, and then found the new features, or just clicked on that glowing red "New Features" link at the top of his logged-in page.