You can still make the calls to the Leviticus module, but dont expect them to be supported anymore.
Unfortunately, all mainstream Christian denominations still do call those deprecated APIs, which is why Christian processes keep corrupting memory and storage, dying and even killing other processes.
Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so).
Mainstream Christianity teaches that all the "unrepentant sinners" go to hell, a place of eternal suffering and without hope, frequently depicted as a place in which people are tortured by fire for all eternity. This is supposedly the judgment of the ultimate good and merciful moral authority, God.
How much more hateful can you get than to say "you are so evil that even the most merciful being in the whole universe decides to make you suffer horribly for all eternity"? And it is not like Christians have been peaceful. In fact, it is this attitude towards others that has been used by Christians for two millennia to justify violence against others.
Christian theology is intrinsically hateful and discriminatory, and Christian theology has caused some of the worst hate crimes in human history.
Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.
Christianity wouldn't have survived this long without having mastered PR, FUD, and target marketing. A few nice-sounding quotes from Christ don't change 2000 years of intolerance and hatred actually preached and practiced by Christians.
"That's interesting as a blanket statement. I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination"
You think that statements like "Group X is so evil and morally depraved that they will be tortured by fire for all eternity by the ultimate moral authority." isn't hate speech? It is precisely those kinds of hateful messages that allow people to say "Well, if these people are so depraved and if they suffer for all eternity anyway, it's legitimate to just hurt them right now already."
Christian churches used to insert "Jews" for "Group X". Anti-semitism in Europe was a product of Christianity and Christian teaching. Fortunately, that is now considered hate speech and would probably run afoul of hate speech laws.
But there are plenty of other groups you can insert for "Group X" where those kinds of statements are considered perfectly legitimate and are a regular part of Christian teaching. And Christians used to act on this: Jews, Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, scientists, people engaging in premarital sex, illegitimate children, and other people they didn't like were discriminated against, tortured, and even killed. It's only civil, secular society that finally put a stop to these kinds of abuses.
Christianity is an intrinsically hateful and intolerant religion, and, if not restrained, acts out its hatred of others.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that "kill the queers" and "string up the niggers" is how we work out our differences peaceably. Peace only comes when we stop using such language.
I agree, but you're still wrong. Peace doesn't come when people stop using such language because of government oppression, it only comes when people stop using such language voluntarily.
First, hate speech is NOT outlawed in most of the world. It's only outlawed in a few western democracies... The violence below the surface has existed for centuries before there were any laws about such things.
Nonsense. Historically and around the world, "hate speech laws" are nearly universal. Of course, in the more backwards countries and times, "hate speech" just means "anything that opposes the government or the preferred religion". And restrictions on speech are one of the primary causes of unrest and revolution.
A liberal (in the proper sense of the word, i.e. not authoritarian) democracy must first of all agree on tolerance. Without tolerance there is no hope for peace and good governance.
You're confusing tolerance and acquiescence. I tolerate lots of religions and defend people's right to practice them, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell them that I think Christ or Mohammed were frauds or draw them with bombs in their turbans if I so choose.
Besides, have you seen the vitriol that many conservatives and Catholics are heaping on liberals? Why should they have all the fun?
In many parts of the world violence is always just below the surface, and it only takes one or two unwise remarks in public to trigger rioting.
Exactly: these people aren't used to "unwise remarks" and think they are entitled to being protected from it or anything else that challenges their beliefs. You cannot build a stable democracy that way. At best, you can build an unstable, temporary cease-fire.
Their web site is called heretical.com. They apparently hate me, too.
But their writing is so discombobulated that I'd be much more concerned about the threat to my life and liberty from a government that thinks it needs to throw people in jail over this drivel than about these two nuts or their readers.
You're making the assumption that overt hate speech actually increases violence, and that suppressing hate speech reduces violence. I don't think there's much evidence for that. Quite to the contrary, I think talking (or screaming) these things out openly helps.
(Of course, since many European nations have outlawed hate speech, I wonder when people start suing Christian churches, given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination.)
In the 1970's, the big breakthrough was supposedly tunnel diodes, a simpler and smaller circuit element than the transistor. Do our gadgets now run on tunnel diodes? Doesn't look like it to me.
The UNIX designers were adamant about process-based isolation, to the degree that UNIX for a long time did not have kernel threads (early versions of Java had to emulate threads even in the mid-90's). Macintosh and Windows were much quicker to adopt threads.
It's kind of ironic that Microsoft now is pushing for process-based isolation. Their window system, of course, has also moved to a client/server architecture and asynchronous calls now, like X11 already did 20 years ago. Why don't they just go all the way and adopt UNIX or Linux? And if they really want to be cutting edge, they might switch to Plan 9.:-)
The name "Lancaster" (PA) is pre-revolutionary, so blame the British for it. Other US cities were often named after it.
And if it's any consolations, many US cities chose native American names, French names, or entirely new names out of opposition to British rule and oppression.
Well, you don't need to read any further than this:
But there is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of the recent global warming.
That's how religious types reason about the world, but it's not the way science works. The question to ask is whether anybody has been able to disprove the hypothesis convincingly. Since nobody has been able to, the hypothesis remains valid.
Not only does this appear to be scientifically and logistically improbable, but have they ever considered the issues with screwing with global weather patterns?
No more than "they" considered screwing with our software, security, privacy, and communications infrastructure when they replaced systems that actually some semblance of security and sanity with software created by a college dropout (DOS and Windows).
People should be required to document and demonstrate a working prototype. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be allowed to file a patent on something, because it simply prevents others from exploiting the idea for the next 20 years.
Fact is: Java and.NET can do pretty much the same things and it mostly comes down to prefference
C# and the CLR are a superset of Java and some of the extra features are essential to many people: value types, multidimensional arrays, real templates, unsafe modules, better multi-language support, direct calls to C, and excellent bindings to native libraries. And the fact that C# encourages use of platform specific libraries is a big advantage to many.
So, I think in many cases, it's not preference, it's driven by requirements. I can't imagine doing another big project in Java because on every project, one or another of Java's limitations has ended up causing lots of trouble.
All my Linux systems I ran the last years had a full fledged Sun Java distro (either included or installed later) no idea what your point is.
The GP was complaining that Java packaging on Linux sucked. If you don't think it has ever sucked, then move right along. But Sun really has caused a lot of problems with packaging Java on Linux in the past. Now that it's GPL'ed, that's less of a problem.
P.S. yes....Net (and Mono included) is more than 10 yeas behind state of the art. Java probably is only 3 to 5 years behind.
Sorry, you got it backwards. Both C#/CLR and Java are pretty pedestrian platforms, but Microsoft fixed a lot of technical problems with Java when they embraced and extended it. Many of the problems Microsoft fixed with Java were problems that Sun itself had promised to fix but never delivered.
It only shows that Linux is making ground and students use it instead of Windows.
Good. That's the only way Sun got big: people got introduced to it at university and then picked it in their jobs, despite resistance. That's why Sun and Solaris got in trouble. Java is still widely used for teaching, but it's turning into the 21st century Pascal: used for teaching but loathed for real work by people who have a choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Google Apps emulates an Exchange server. That's also how the iPhone and Nokia phones synchronize.
So, you don't have to give up Outlook in order to use Google.
You can still make the calls to the Leviticus module, but dont expect them to be supported anymore.
Unfortunately, all mainstream Christian denominations still do call those deprecated APIs, which is why Christian processes keep corrupting memory and storage, dying and even killing other processes.
Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so).
Mainstream Christianity teaches that all the "unrepentant sinners" go to hell, a place of eternal suffering and without hope, frequently depicted as a place in which people are tortured by fire for all eternity. This is supposedly the judgment of the ultimate good and merciful moral authority, God.
How much more hateful can you get than to say "you are so evil that even the most merciful being in the whole universe decides to make you suffer horribly for all eternity"? And it is not like Christians have been peaceful. In fact, it is this attitude towards others that has been used by Christians for two millennia to justify violence against others.
Christian theology is intrinsically hateful and discriminatory, and Christian theology has caused some of the worst hate crimes in human history.
Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.
Christianity wouldn't have survived this long without having mastered PR, FUD, and target marketing. A few nice-sounding quotes from Christ don't change 2000 years of intolerance and hatred actually preached and practiced by Christians.
"That's interesting as a blanket statement. I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination"
You think that statements like "Group X is so evil and morally depraved that they will be tortured by fire for all eternity by the ultimate moral authority." isn't hate speech? It is precisely those kinds of hateful messages that allow people to say "Well, if these people are so depraved and if they suffer for all eternity anyway, it's legitimate to just hurt them right now already."
Christian churches used to insert "Jews" for "Group X". Anti-semitism in Europe was a product of Christianity and Christian teaching. Fortunately, that is now considered hate speech and would probably run afoul of hate speech laws.
But there are plenty of other groups you can insert for "Group X" where those kinds of statements are considered perfectly legitimate and are a regular part of Christian teaching. And Christians used to act on this: Jews, Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, scientists, people engaging in premarital sex, illegitimate children, and other people they didn't like were discriminated against, tortured, and even killed. It's only civil, secular society that finally put a stop to these kinds of abuses.
Christianity is an intrinsically hateful and intolerant religion, and, if not restrained, acts out its hatred of others.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that "kill the queers" and "string up the niggers" is how we work out our differences peaceably. Peace only comes when we stop using such language.
I agree, but you're still wrong. Peace doesn't come when people stop using such language because of government oppression, it only comes when people stop using such language voluntarily.
First, hate speech is NOT outlawed in most of the world. It's only outlawed in a few western democracies ... The violence below the surface has existed for centuries before there were any laws about such things.
Nonsense. Historically and around the world, "hate speech laws" are nearly universal. Of course, in the more backwards countries and times, "hate speech" just means "anything that opposes the government or the preferred religion". And restrictions on speech are one of the primary causes of unrest and revolution.
A liberal (in the proper sense of the word, i.e. not authoritarian) democracy must first of all agree on tolerance. Without tolerance there is no hope for peace and good governance.
You're confusing tolerance and acquiescence. I tolerate lots of religions and defend people's right to practice them, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell them that I think Christ or Mohammed were frauds or draw them with bombs in their turbans if I so choose.
Besides, have you seen the vitriol that many conservatives and Catholics are heaping on liberals? Why should they have all the fun?
In many parts of the world violence is always just below the surface, and it only takes one or two unwise remarks in public to trigger rioting.
Exactly: these people aren't used to "unwise remarks" and think they are entitled to being protected from it or anything else that challenges their beliefs. You cannot build a stable democracy that way. At best, you can build an unstable, temporary cease-fire.
Their web site is called heretical.com. They apparently hate me, too.
But their writing is so discombobulated that I'd be much more concerned about the threat to my life and liberty from a government that thinks it needs to throw people in jail over this drivel than about these two nuts or their readers.
You're making the assumption that overt hate speech actually increases violence, and that suppressing hate speech reduces violence. I don't think there's much evidence for that. Quite to the contrary, I think talking (or screaming) these things out openly helps.
(Of course, since many European nations have outlawed hate speech, I wonder when people start suing Christian churches, given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination.)
Great going, Britain! As Yugoslavia has shown us, trying to suppress racial hatred through government oppression works really well!
In the 1970's, the big breakthrough was supposedly tunnel diodes, a simpler and smaller circuit element than the transistor. Do our gadgets now run on tunnel diodes? Doesn't look like it to me.
The UNIX designers were adamant about process-based isolation, to the degree that UNIX for a long time did not have kernel threads (early versions of Java had to emulate threads even in the mid-90's). Macintosh and Windows were much quicker to adopt threads.
It's kind of ironic that Microsoft now is pushing for process-based isolation. Their window system, of course, has also moved to a client/server architecture and asynchronous calls now, like X11 already did 20 years ago. Why don't they just go all the way and adopt UNIX or Linux? And if they really want to be cutting edge, they might switch to Plan 9. :-)
The name "Lancaster" (PA) is pre-revolutionary, so blame the British for it. Other US cities were often named after it.
And if it's any consolations, many US cities chose native American names, French names, or entirely new names out of opposition to British rule and oppression.
Basically, the idea is to use pressure and temperature differences to "pump" the warm surface water to the bottom.
RTFA. That is not his idea (his idea isn't very plausible).
Well, you don't need to read any further than this:
But there is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of the recent
global warming.
That's how religious types reason about the world, but it's not the way science works. The question to ask is whether anybody has been able to disprove the hypothesis convincingly. Since nobody has been able to, the hypothesis remains valid.
Not only does this appear to be scientifically and logistically improbable, but have they ever considered the issues with screwing with global weather patterns?
No more than "they" considered screwing with our software, security, privacy, and communications infrastructure when they replaced systems that actually some semblance of security and sanity with software created by a college dropout (DOS and Windows).
Ballmer is pretty close to an evil pet. And his nerd glasses... well, look, he's a villain from the 1970's, not the 1960's.
People should be required to document and demonstrate a working prototype. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be allowed to file a patent on something, because it simply prevents others from exploiting the idea for the next 20 years.
So care to enlighten me which other 8 applications get removed if you remove Mono?
Here are a bunch of them: Tomboy, Banshee, F-Spot, Gnome Do, Beagle, Blam, Muine, Tangerine, Hipo, gTwitter, Last Exit, Graphmonkey, Giver, Drapes, Cowbell, Bless, gBrainy, autopano-sift.
Removing the Java runtime engines on my Ubuntu Linux machine results in only one application being uninstalled: azureus.
Removing the Mono runtime results in about a dozen Gnome desktop application being uninstalled.
Java really has little significance on the Linux desktop, and for good reason: Java applications don't look and feel right on Linux.
Fact is: Java and .NET can do pretty much the same things and it mostly comes down to prefference
C# and the CLR are a superset of Java and some of the extra features are essential to many people: value types, multidimensional arrays, real templates, unsafe modules, better multi-language support, direct calls to C, and excellent bindings to native libraries. And the fact that C# encourages use of platform specific libraries is a big advantage to many.
So, I think in many cases, it's not preference, it's driven by requirements. I can't imagine doing another big project in Java because on every project, one or another of Java's limitations has ended up causing lots of trouble.
All my Linux systems I ran the last years had a full fledged Sun Java distro (either included or installed later) no idea what your point is.
The GP was complaining that Java packaging on Linux sucked. If you don't think it has ever sucked, then move right along. But Sun really has caused a lot of problems with packaging Java on Linux in the past. Now that it's GPL'ed, that's less of a problem.
P.S. yes ... .Net (and Mono included) is more than 10 yeas behind state of the art. Java probably is only 3 to 5 years behind.
Sorry, you got it backwards. Both C#/CLR and Java are pretty pedestrian platforms, but Microsoft fixed a lot of technical problems with Java when they embraced and extended it. Many of the problems Microsoft fixed with Java were problems that Sun itself had promised to fix but never delivered.
It only shows that Linux is making ground and students use it instead of Windows.
Good. That's the only way Sun got big: people got introduced to it at university and then picked it in their jobs, despite resistance. That's why Sun and Solaris got in trouble. Java is still widely used for teaching, but it's turning into the 21st century Pascal: used for teaching but loathed for real work by people who have a choice.
I think the problem is that while Java is cross-platform, it's apps have always been treated like second-class citizens on Windows and Mac platforms.
It's even worse on Linux. Java's cross-platform features are a failure on all platforms.
To this, [Linux] zealots will defend the status quo saying choice is working for Linux as if there are no draw backs.
The problem with Java packaging on Linux has been Sun and their insane requirements, not Linux.
we in the Linux world still command a very small percentage of active users of desktop Linux
And you know this... how? As far as I can tell, there are probably as many Linux desktop users as there are OS X users. Is OS X irrelevant, too?
Mono is becoming popular for Linux development because it does not try to be cross platform. It feels much more natural than Java programming.
But the main driving force behind network transparency was the particular ecosystem that X was developed for:
All major window systems are client/server architectures now: OS X, Windows, X11. X11 simply was designed that way from the ground up.
Once computing power is decentralized, you're left with a system that unnecessarily couples networking and windowing.
Just like Windows and OS X, X11 uses IPC, not networking, when the client and server are running on the same machine.