OK, so "the calendar is not in the binary builds of 1.0, or in your own builds unless you specifically enable the option" is a more clear statement of the truth. But "the calendar is not in 1.0" says almost exactly the same thing and is less typing.
And it's not a "plugin", in the Flash or Java sense. It's an XPI (cross-platform installable component.)
Gerv (gerv@mozilla.org, and one of the initiators of the Mozilla Calendar project)
Morality is when you do good because there's a logical reason for it,
No. That's self-interest.
Also, define "morally good", without reference to a deity of any kind. Then, say why my alternative definition of "morally good" is wrong and yours is right.
Now, christianity says that IF I live my life in a certain way and believe in certain things THEN I get everlasting life. I have looked hard and can't seem to find the actual grace in that statement which actually seems more like an ultimatum. With the christian God being benevolent and omnipotent how can He in good conscience let me go hell b/c I didn't follow a particular rule?
There seem to be a lot of people on Slashdot who don't get how this works:-)
The Christian message is not "IF you live like this and believe that THEN you'll get eternal life" - like a donkey with a carrot. It's hard to sum the message up meaningfully in a sentence, so I hope you'll permit me a paragraph or two.
We all, by our nature, choose to "sin" against God - do stuff which doesn't match up to his perfect standards. Therefore, by our own actions, we deserve punishment. God would be perfectly justified in smiting us all from here to Thursday. However, because He cares about us, he sent Jesus to live the perfect life we never could; he was then the only person who did not deserve God's punishment. This made him able to take ours, by dying on the cross. For Jesus to die for your sins, and God to show you grace, all you have to do is accept his offer and trust in Him to save you.
So, a Christian is someone who's accepted Jesus's offer of forgiveness, and all that this entails. Saying "God will smite you if you don't do what he says" has it backwards. The message is that "Jesus will save you from your own sin if you trust in him as your Saviour and Lord."
Most atheists I know are thoroughly convinced that after death, the lights just...go out. No eternal damnation involved.
Is this not "strong atheism"? This thread started out with an atheist rejecting "strong atheism" as untenable...
Besides which, I personally believe that God would rather have an honest follower that examined the facts, than a sycophantic follower that "believes" because s/he's afraid of Hell.
I happen to agree with you, because God knows the heart, but on what basis do you personally make this characterisation of God?
A lot of other folks believe in these other-worldly characters, some of whom (they say) have sentenced me to an eternity of torment because I don't believe in them.
That's somewhat of a mischaracterisation. Speaking here about the God of Christianity (being the one which actually exists, so I can speak of no other;-), it's not that God has condemned you to Hell because you refuse to believe in Him. It's more that no human (including you and me) lives up to God's perfect standard for entering his heaven. So, by our actions where we rebel against God, the principles of justice demand that we be punished.
Fortunately, we're not left in that hopeless state. The only way we can reach that standard is for someone else (Jesus) to take the punishment in our place; he did that, once for all, by dying on the Cross and being separated from God (which is what Hell really is; forget this whole "fire" thing.)
So it's down to everyone's personal choice - accept Jesus' offer of rescue and forgiveness, or reject it. This means you;-)
Second, as always, Microsoft will have a patch out fairly quickly, which is more that can be said for mozilla half of the time...
I'm amazed at how you split one security hole (XMLHTTPRequest) in two to make a "half the time"...:-)
Incidentally, the patch for XMLHTTPRequest was in nightly builds within 48 hours of the bug report, and in the next milestone within about a week. In contrast, there are currently 17 unpatched holes in IE. What was that you were saying about "quickly"?
I worked at a radio station in Oxford, UK, for a couple of years. We had Minidisk gear, and we found that all of it (but particularly portable players) was fragile, and prone to breakdown and failure at awkward moments.
We used it because there was nothing better; but in the environment you are talking about, this is definitely not appropriate technology.
Evolutionary theory does not try to explain the origins of life.
But those who wish to deny God must do so in order for their denials to have any shred of credibility. If evolutionary theory does not explain the origins of life, why is it used by atheists as a counter to "God made the world"?
B.T.W. these hard-core christians don't try to explain anything, they just say it's so because the bible says so (if you interpret it this or that way)
You speak as if Biblical interpretation is like reading tea leaves - totally arbitrary. This is not at all the case; to take a trivial example, it would be somewhat difficult, in good conscience, to "interpret" the Bible to say that adultery was perfectly reasonable.
"Observed Instances of Speciation" indicates examples of microevolution only.
"Five Major Misconceptions..." just points to "Observed Instances of Speciation".
"29 Evidences for Macroevolution" says, at the beginning: "Whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open." In other words, they are theorising about macroevolution without a scientific mechanistic basis to support the theories.
It also cops out by saying "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." But that's the hard bit - if you can't explain the first self-replicating life form, then the argument that life appeared from nothing (as opposed to being created) doesn't hold water.
Yes, you can - normally, you'd create a version of the file without their code and tell someone who'd never seen it: "It needs to do X", where X is what the code used to do.
Thanks for your concern - actually, we've had such a good response from the close Mozilla community that front-page Slashdot exposure now would be serious overkill.
Maybe this will make some people consider using a simpler, freer license
Those are very loaded words. Not everyone can have maximum freedom.
For example, a user's freedom to do anything they like with the code (a BSD-style license) means they can take away another user's freedom to do the same (close the source.)
On the other hand, a programmer's freedom to keep the code open (GPL license) takes away the user's freedom to close the source.
There is no way everyone can have all possible freedoms, because they are mutually exclusive. Whether you release your stuff under the GPL license or the BSD license depends on whether you think the initial user's freedom, all user's freedoms, or the programmer's freedom should be paramount. All viewpoints are valid.
Mozilla.org wishes to make Mozilla code available to GPLed apps while still keeping copyleft protections at MPL level or better. Hence the relicensing project.
Whether they are copyright holders or not may be fuzzy legally, but morally, we think it's only fair to make a good effort to find them before we assess whether we can use their contributions regardless or not.
Whether we can go ahead without their permission does depend on the magnitude of the contribution, but there is no clear delimiter between "allowed" and "not allowed".
This isn't really true. The license is disjunctive - so you can use it under any one of the MPL, GPL and LGPL. Therefore, a company can use the source under MPL terms and make a partly-closed product (as Netscape does with NS6.)
Sitting on the shelf behind me is a colour portrait of yours truly taken with a Foveon prototype at the Telecosm Conference in San Francisco late last year. It's a head-and-shoulders shot about 8 inches by 6 which rolled out of their high-end photo printer about thirty seconds after they took it.
I didn't brush my hair very well that day, and you can see every individual sticking-out hair reflecting the light. You can see the worry lines on my forehead, despite the fact that I'm only 23, and you can see the rest of the room reflected in my eyes.
A quick plug for a useful LDAP-related tool I wrote: it's an LDAP to DSML (version 1.0) gateway, which allows you to read DSML (which is an XML-based language) out of, and write it to, any LDAP-enabled directory server.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so "the calendar is not in the binary builds of 1.0, or in your own builds unless you specifically enable the option" is a more clear statement of the truth. But "the calendar is not in 1.0" says almost exactly the same thing and is less typing.
And it's not a "plugin", in the Flash or Java sense. It's an XPI (cross-platform installable component.)
Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org, and one of the initiators of the Mozilla Calendar project)
Morality is when you do good because there's a logical reason for it,
No. That's self-interest.
Also, define "morally good", without reference to a deity of any kind. Then, say why my alternative definition of "morally good" is wrong and yours is right.
Gerv
Now, christianity says that IF I live my life in a certain way and believe in certain things THEN I get everlasting life. I have looked hard and can't seem to find the actual grace in that statement which actually seems more like an ultimatum. With the christian God being benevolent and omnipotent how can He in good conscience let me go hell b/c I didn't follow a particular rule?
:-)
There seem to be a lot of people on Slashdot who don't get how this works
The Christian message is not "IF you live like this and believe that THEN you'll get eternal life" - like a donkey with a carrot. It's hard to sum the message up meaningfully in a sentence, so I hope you'll permit me a paragraph or two.
We all, by our nature, choose to "sin" against God - do stuff which doesn't match up to his perfect standards. Therefore, by our own actions, we deserve punishment. God would be perfectly justified in smiting us all from here to Thursday. However, because He cares about us, he sent Jesus to live the perfect life we never could; he was then the only person who did not deserve God's punishment. This made him able to take ours, by dying on the cross. For Jesus to die for your sins, and God to show you grace, all you have to do is accept his offer and trust in Him to save you.
So, a Christian is someone who's accepted Jesus's offer of forgiveness, and all that this entails. Saying "God will smite you if you don't do what he says" has it backwards. The message is that "Jesus will save you from your own sin if you trust in him as your Saviour and Lord."
Gerv
Most atheists I know are thoroughly convinced that after death, the lights just...go out. No eternal damnation involved.
Is this not "strong atheism"? This thread started out with an atheist rejecting "strong atheism" as untenable...
Besides which, I personally believe that God would rather have an honest follower that examined the facts, than a sycophantic follower that "believes" because s/he's afraid of Hell.
I happen to agree with you, because God knows the heart, but on what basis do you personally make this characterisation of God?
Gerv
A lot of other folks believe in these other-worldly characters, some of whom (they say) have sentenced me to an eternity of torment because I don't believe in them.
;-), it's not that God has condemned you to Hell because you refuse to believe in Him. It's more that no human (including you and me) lives up to God's perfect standard for entering his heaven. So, by our actions where we rebel against God, the principles of justice demand that we be punished.
;-)
That's somewhat of a mischaracterisation. Speaking here about the God of Christianity (being the one which actually exists, so I can speak of no other
Fortunately, we're not left in that hopeless state. The only way we can reach that standard is for someone else (Jesus) to take the punishment in our place; he did that, once for all, by dying on the Cross and being separated from God (which is what Hell really is; forget this whole "fire" thing.)
So it's down to everyone's personal choice - accept Jesus' offer of rescue and forgiveness, or reject it. This means you
Gerv
(usually spacing in tables where there should be none).
t ml
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.h
Question 2.
Gerv
Yeah, OK - but "it's not there" is true for anyone who downloads any sort of binary, or who does a standard build - so 99.99% of people.
Gerv
Note: calendar is not in 1.0.
Gerv
It's completely new; we put it together in the last few weeks. Kudos to all those in the credits list for their hard work.
Gerv
most imporatant of these that gopher is absolutly archaic.
v il.gopherser ver.com:7000/buffer_overflow/");
:-)
<script>
document.location.replace("gopher://e
</script>
Second, as always, Microsoft will have a patch out fairly quickly, which is more that can be said for mozilla half of the time...
I'm amazed at how you split one security hole (XMLHTTPRequest) in two to make a "half the time"...
Incidentally, the patch for XMLHTTPRequest was in nightly builds within 48 hours of the bug report, and in the next milestone within about a week. In contrast, there are currently 17 unpatched holes in IE. What was that you were saying about "quickly"?
Gerv
Then start your own :-)
http://www.schnitzer.at/mozparty/
21 already in progress...
Gerv
I worked at a radio station in Oxford, UK, for a couple of years. We had Minidisk gear, and we found that all of it (but particularly portable players) was fragile, and prone to breakdown and failure at awkward moments.
We used it because there was nothing better; but in the environment you are talking about, this is definitely not appropriate technology.
Gerv
Evolutionary theory does not try to explain the origins of life.
But those who wish to deny God must do so in order for their denials to have any shred of credibility. If evolutionary theory does not explain the origins of life, why is it used by atheists as a counter to "God made the world"?
B.T.W. these hard-core christians don't try to explain anything, they just say it's so because the bible says so (if you interpret it this or that way)
You speak as if Biblical interpretation is like reading tea leaves - totally arbitrary. This is not at all the case; to take a trivial example, it would be somewhat difficult, in good conscience, to "interpret" the Bible to say that adultery was perfectly reasonable.
Gerv
"Observed Instances of Speciation" indicates examples of microevolution only.
"Five Major Misconceptions..." just points to "Observed Instances of Speciation".
"29 Evidences for Macroevolution" says, at the beginning: "Whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open." In other words, they are theorising about macroevolution without a scientific mechanistic basis to support the theories.
It also cops out by saying "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." But that's the hard bit - if you can't explain the first self-replicating life form, then the argument that life appeared from nothing (as opposed to being created) doesn't hold water.
Gerv
Chimera is, according to these tests, the fastest MacOS Web browser by a factor of 2.
Chimera is, of course, based on Gecko, the Mozilla rendering engine. It's mainly the work of Mozilla uber-hacker Dave Hyatt.
Gerv
Zac Kingston of Adelaide folk duo Linus, which is about to record its second album, said the new machines threatened to destroy smaller acts.
Wow! Linus has a tribute band...
Gerv
Yes, you can - normally, you'd create a version of the file without their code and tell someone who'd never seen it: "It needs to do X", where X is what the code used to do.
Gerv
Thanks for your concern - actually, we've had such a good response from the close Mozilla community that front-page Slashdot exposure now would be serious overkill.
Gerv
Maybe this will make some people consider using a simpler, freer license
Those are very loaded words. Not everyone can have maximum freedom.
For example, a user's freedom to do anything they like with the code (a BSD-style license) means they can take away another user's freedom to do the same (close the source.)
On the other hand, a programmer's freedom to keep the code open (GPL license) takes away the user's freedom to close the source.
There is no way everyone can have all possible freedoms, because they are mutually exclusive. Whether you release your stuff under the GPL license or the BSD license depends on whether you think the initial user's freedom, all user's freedoms, or the programmer's freedom should be paramount. All viewpoints are valid.
Mozilla.org wishes to make Mozilla code available to GPLed apps while still keeping copyleft protections at MPL level or better. Hence the relicensing project.
Gerv
Whether they are copyright holders or not may be fuzzy legally, but morally, we think it's only fair to make a good effort to find them before we assess whether we can use their contributions regardless or not.
Whether we can go ahead without their permission does depend on the magnitude of the contribution, but there is no clear delimiter between "allowed" and "not allowed".
Gerv
You can get an (alpha) spell-checker - it's one of the projects on Mozdev.
Gerv
This isn't really true. The license is disjunctive - so you can use it under any one of the MPL, GPL and LGPL. Therefore, a company can use the source under MPL terms and make a partly-closed product (as Netscape does with NS6.)
Gerv
Sitting on the shelf behind me is a colour portrait of yours truly taken with a Foveon prototype at the Telecosm Conference in San Francisco late last year. It's a head-and-shoulders shot about 8 inches by 6 which rolled out of their high-end photo printer about thirty seconds after they took it.
:-)
I didn't brush my hair very well that day, and you can see every individual sticking-out hair reflecting the light. You can see the worry lines on my forehead, despite the fact that I'm only 23, and you can see the rest of the room reflected in my eyes.
It's amazing.
Gerv
XML is a file format (or metaformat), not a directory service like LDAP. The two technologies are orthogonal.
They are related via DSML, and there's an open source suite of software that I wrote for working with directory information as XML here.
Gerv
A quick plug for a useful LDAP-related tool I wrote: it's an LDAP to DSML (version 1.0) gateway, which allows you to read DSML (which is an XML-based language) out of, and write it to, any LDAP-enabled directory server.
:-)
It's not graphical, though
Find it here.
Gerv