Your XPerience differs from mine substantially. Installing XP on random hardware is much more difficult that booting a Sarge netinst and running apt-get, if my XPerience is any guide.
No, that wasn't Slashdot that was ripping a hole in Visual Studio, it was Microsoft development luminary Charles Petzold. You know, the author of the standard texts on Windows programming, "Programming Windows", and "Programming Windows in C#".
> If they had something strange happen during an experiment they should have left it at that and write > a paper called something like "Something strange happened during blah blah blah...", then describe in > detail the setup of the experiment and the results, then wait for peer review
Nonsense. It is trivial to connect to the Internet anonymously, because there is a large software infrastructure dedicated to that purpose. Adding a hardware option does nothing to increase spam or fraud, and no evidence has been offered to the effect that it does, merely fearmongering.
Moreover, I'm hoping Bezos will let me ship my 12,000 volumes to him, and just access them online, saving me an enormous expense every time I move house, and a lot of dusting in-between.
So here's my plan: We offer to sell books by the word, and each word has a different price. For example, "the" costs $0.00040103, or $0.00040104 if it is capitalized. Then we publish a price list:
Moby Dick
word 1: $0.00022790 word 2: $0.00010781
etc., and for comparison shoppers, a per-word price list would be handy:
Our catalog would include all the published works in the world, and be available free online. For illustrations, we'll do high-res scans, and sell pixels individually, priced by hue, tint, and brightness.
I'd love to move all of my software development to China. One small American company alone could double or triple the collective income of a smallish Chinese city. But the network connectivity to the U.S. and Europe is too poor yet.
So you are not precluded by genetics from accepting reality.
> Saddam thought about destroying the evidence to make Bush look bad
And you impute crackpottery to ME?
The lead UNSCOM arms control investigator, USMC Captain Scott Ritter, clearly demonstrated and reported that there were no WMD programs in Iraq by 1998.
Hell, *I* knew there were no WMD in Iraq. You're telling me that POTUS is less informed than I am?
This criminal conspiracy, this act of treason and mass murder, is not genuously questionable as a matter of fact. It's not hidden. It's quite brazen. So you can't pull the "Oswald must have shot Kennedy because if he hadn't I would have heard about it" bullshit. All the evidence is there, in plain sight. It's just not being reported by the establishment media. Anyone who takes the time and trouble to investigate the issues without partisan blinders will quickly recognize that a longstanding plan to subvert the laws and security of the U.S. has come to fruition in the current traitor-in-chief. He is destroying the U.S. according to a documented plan.
I voted for the guy in 2000, so don't pretend I'm a engaging in partisan libel. I deeply regret it, however. I should have shot him, rather.
> Find me a job that a man can't have because he's a man.
Is this a trick question? There are plenty. Probably more than there are positions that a woman can't have because she's a woman. They break so that the one's men can get average a bit higher in compensation, but there are plenty of each.
I could care less if you're an ass. But I can't be bothered to make the effort to do so. You see, it's like having a reaction vessel at 2C. You could have less thermal energy, but it would be a lot of work/money to do so, and there's no compelling reason, so a slacker/cheapskate like me will accept a few percentage-points loss of efficiency in the reaction. Really, I don't care much at all whether or not you're an ass, so that removing that last miniscule emotion of concern would be a very costly and difficult process. I'm content to relax and be just marginally, obscurely, subliminally concered about what species of ungulate you represent.
It's worthwhile to point out that if the American people actually did support the invasion of Iraq (which I find very questionable, push-polls notwithstanding), they did so in response to a massive campaign of disinformation conducted on all media channels by a criminal conspiracy of traitors in the executive branch, and if Congress resolved in favor of war (which I find very questionable as well), then they also did so in reaction to a massive campaign of deceit by foreign agents occupying high positions in the current administration.
I can attest to that. I *never* get telemarketing calls anymore, since the do-not-call list went into effect and I have since consistently told everyone whose calls are unwelcome never to call again.
I'm sorry for Australia, in that they will still get just as many telemarketing phone calls as before. The 8pm cut-off makes the whole thing into a sorry joke at the public expense.
That's a straw man, I think. I can't name a single nominal creationist who disputes the existence of evolutionary change, adaptation, selection. Can you? Moreover, intelligent design theorists comprise both creationists and non-creationists.
What is it exactly that does not make sense? Do you mean that there is an incipient contradiction in the premises underlying Christianity as you concieve it? If so, what is it? If you are correct, then I think the only reasonable conclusion is that your conception of Christianity is a conception of an inconsistent system. On the otherhand if you merely mean to say that it does not appeal to you intellectually, it's sort of a weak statement about a doctrine that claims to represent historical truth.
Isn't it somewhat ludicrous to think that an immaterial phenomenon can be observed using exclusively material mechanisms? You might be able to infer its existence from observation, but only if you are extremely fortunate, in that your brain first has to be capable of formulating the correct model (and there's no particular reason to think that it is), you have to abstract the observations in a way that makes it feasible to combine the resulting ideas to formulate the correct theory (or some approximation thereto), and then you have to arrive at a result that is (1) communicable to your peers and (2) sufficiently viral to propagate in that community. It seems pretty hopeless to me. Now if you're content with just getting any verifiable result, you will just get those verifiable results that are easy to get, and the hard ones can be disregarded. It stretches the imagination to consider that only those theories which manage to pass through the filters of your idiosyncratic perceptive and cognitive mechanisms suffice to formulate a model to which all of reality must reducibly conform.
Slashdot Mirror
Your XPerience differs from mine substantially. Installing XP on random hardware is much more difficult that booting a Sarge netinst and running apt-get, if my XPerience is any guide.
No, that wasn't Slashdot that was ripping a hole in Visual Studio, it was Microsoft development luminary Charles Petzold. You know, the author of the standard texts on Windows programming, "Programming Windows", and "Programming Windows in C#".
http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/blr.html
n umber=27155&arnumber=1206739&count=18&index=5
v let?prog=normal&id=JAPIAU000096000006003095000001& idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
R L&_udi=B6TGS-47C8N0P-B&_coverDate=12%2F19%2F2002&_ alid=308918281&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_c di=5262&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1 &_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=82d2cdf37641d3ec848f 070de1f6a1d2
> If they had something strange happen during an experiment they should have left it at that and write
> a paper called something like "Something strange happened during blah blah blah...", then describe in
> detail the setup of the experiment and the results, then wait for peer review
Have done:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0963-0252/12/3/312
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?is
http://www.edpsciences.org/10.1051/epjap:2004168
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsSer
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleU
ok: http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/blr.html
Nonsense. It is trivial to connect to the Internet anonymously, because there is a large software infrastructure dedicated to that purpose. Adding a hardware option does nothing to increase spam or fraud, and no evidence has been offered to the effect that it does, merely fearmongering.
Comparing a firearm to a wifi hotspot is ludicrous.
Viruses are not spread by mere connectivity. If that were the case, your ISP would be responsible for any viruses you suffered.
Freedom of speech is just that, freedom. If this fine were imposed upon me, I would not pay it, preferring jail time.
Amen brother.
Moreover, I'm hoping Bezos will let me ship my 12,000 volumes to him, and just access them online,
saving me an enormous expense every time I move house, and a lot of dusting in-between.
So here's my plan: We offer to sell books by the word, and each word has a different price. For example, "the" costs $0.00040103, or $0.00040104 if it is capitalized. Then we publish a price list:
Moby Dick
word 1: $0.00022790
word 2: $0.00010781
etc., and for comparison shoppers, a per-word price list would be handy:
"Aardvark": $0.00091193
"Call": $0.00022790
"me": $0.00010781
"Zyxel": $0.00000001
Our catalog would include all the published works in the world, and be available free online.
For illustrations, we'll do high-res scans, and sell pixels individually, priced by hue, tint, and
brightness.
Or maybe (s)he was a schoolchild in Nagasaki during August 1945, you insensitive clod!
Or to go to a library.
I'd love to move all of my software development to China. One small American company alone could double or triple the collective income of a smallish Chinese city. But the network connectivity to the U.S. and Europe is too poor yet.
Because they have a massive astroturf budget, and you don't. So what's new?
Amphetamines, my son, amphetamines. They worked for Paul Erdos, and they can work for you.
Ritalin puts more people than medschool than trust funds do.
Farm of 8 mod_php web servers: $9600
Arp-table based linux load balancer: $800
Posting an ASP link on slashdot.... priceless
There are some things money just can't buy.
> My dad is in your cult
So you are not precluded by genetics from accepting reality.
> Saddam thought about destroying the evidence to make Bush look bad
And you impute crackpottery to ME?
The lead UNSCOM arms control investigator, USMC Captain Scott Ritter, clearly demonstrated
and reported that there were no WMD programs in Iraq by 1998.
Hell, *I* knew there were no WMD in Iraq. You're telling me that POTUS is less informed than
I am?
This criminal conspiracy, this act of treason and mass murder, is not genuously questionable
as a matter of fact. It's not hidden. It's quite brazen. So you can't pull the "Oswald must
have shot Kennedy because if he hadn't I would have heard about it" bullshit. All the
evidence is there, in plain sight. It's just not being reported by the establishment media.
Anyone who takes the time and trouble to investigate the issues without partisan blinders
will quickly recognize that a longstanding plan to subvert the laws and security of the U.S.
has come to fruition in the current traitor-in-chief. He is destroying the U.S. according
to a documented plan.
I voted for the guy in 2000, so don't pretend I'm a engaging in partisan libel. I deeply
regret it, however. I should have shot him, rather.
Egads no. Go with Issey Miyake, or if it's going to be at Yucca Mountain, perhaps Ralph Lauren.
Leave design to the DESIGNERS!
> Find me a job that a man can't have because he's a man.
Is this a trick question? There are plenty. Probably more than there are positions that a woman
can't have because she's a woman. They break so that the one's men can get average a bit higher
in compensation, but there are plenty of each.
I could care less if you're an ass. But I can't be bothered to make the effort to do so. You see, it's like having a reaction vessel at 2C. You could have less thermal energy, but it would be a lot of work/money to do so, and there's no compelling reason, so a slacker/cheapskate like me will accept a few percentage-points loss of efficiency in the reaction. Really, I don't care much at all whether or not you're an ass, so that removing that last miniscule emotion of concern would be a very costly and difficult process. I'm content to relax and be just marginally, obscurely, subliminally concered about what species of ungulate you represent.
It's worthwhile to point out that if the American people actually did support the invasion of Iraq (which I find very questionable, push-polls notwithstanding), they did so in response to a massive campaign of disinformation conducted on all media channels by a criminal conspiracy of traitors in the executive branch, and if Congress resolved in favor of war (which I find very questionable as well), then they also did so in reaction to a massive campaign of deceit by foreign agents occupying high positions in the current administration.
I can attest to that. I *never* get telemarketing calls anymore, since the do-not-call list went
into effect and I have since consistently told everyone whose calls are unwelcome never to call
again.
I'm sorry for Australia, in that they will still get just as many telemarketing phone calls as
before. The 8pm cut-off makes the whole thing into a sorry joke at the public expense.
But then, you deserve it, for attacking Iraq.
> Many of the features from J++ were adopted by C#, if the purpose of these features was to break
> Java compatability, why put them in C#?
Is this a trick question? One hesitates to answer: Because C# also breaks Java compatibility.
That's a straw man, I think. I can't name a single nominal creationist who disputes the existence of evolutionary change, adaptation, selection. Can you? Moreover, intelligent design theorists comprise both creationists and non-creationists.
What is it exactly that does not make sense? Do you mean that there is an incipient contradiction
in the premises underlying Christianity as you concieve it? If so, what is it? If you are
correct, then I think the only reasonable conclusion is that your conception of Christianity is
a conception of an inconsistent system. On the otherhand if you merely mean to say that it does
not appeal to you intellectually, it's sort of a weak statement about a doctrine that claims to
represent historical truth.
> I'm pretty sure omnipotent entities don't need middle men to get their message to the people.
A truly PR-aware deity with tes finger on the pulse of pop culture would deploy
an army of supa-moe japanese high school girls.
Isn't it somewhat ludicrous to think that an immaterial phenomenon can be observed using exclusively material mechanisms? You might be able to infer its existence from observation, but only if you are extremely fortunate, in that your brain first has to be capable of formulating the correct model (and there's no particular reason to think that it is), you have to abstract the observations in a way that makes it feasible to combine the resulting ideas to formulate the correct theory (or some approximation thereto), and then you have to arrive at a result that is (1) communicable to your peers and (2) sufficiently viral to propagate in that community. It seems pretty hopeless to me. Now if you're content with just getting any verifiable result, you will just get those verifiable results that are easy to get, and the hard ones can be disregarded. It stretches the imagination to consider that only those theories which manage to pass through the filters of your idiosyncratic perceptive and cognitive mechanisms suffice to formulate a model to which all of reality must reducibly conform.