The difference is that IE is only available for Windows and the Mac, and it's a closed-source product, so if it's broke, you can't fix it.
Complaining people are building XP Apps on top of Mozilla is like complaining that they build them on Java because it's owned by Sun, or on C because you prefer Python.
If you want to help, and own a Mac, mozilla.org could really do with your services testing each daily build. This is vital, as each build must be checked for basic functionality before the tree can reopen so people can go on working. We have enough Linux and Windows people, but no Mac people. This means that some days, the reopening of the tree is delayed an hour or more while someone is found from inside Netscape.
So, if you have a Mac and the spare time (under an hour, if all goes well), please come to irc.mozilla.org at 8am PST (ish), 4pm GMT in channel #smoketest.
1. When the debugging code is taken out, will it run faster/suck less memory, etc?
Well, it's hardly likely to run slower and use more memory, is it?
2. Are they going to get rid of the ugly, glitzy and only semi-functional interface in favor of, say, something with a working multi-level back button, drop-down address list and non-rounded menus?
The current UI is really just a test one. Two new ones have already been written in XUL: see ChromeZone.
I love their anti-Slashdot mechanism... NBER Connection Full
NBER's connection to the outside world has become saturated. This is a temporary situation and we hope to have it fixed soon. Please wait 15 Minutes and then hit Reload or Refresh on your browser.
(This is a load and time based function...hitting the reload button immediately will not help.)
Thank you for your patience. If the problem persists for longer than hour please contact the system administrators through the link below.
However, I am by far more productive in Windows than I am in any other OS. This isn't because I'm an idiot, or because Windows is necessarily a great OS. Its because thats what I've learned, and thats what I'm comfortable with.
The front page should have three or four words of explanation for the different doc types, e.g.:
Guides - longer, more in depth books HOWTOS - subject-specific help FAQs - Frequently Asked Questions man pages - Help on individual commands Linux Gazette - on-line magazine
Uh, no. Not 'all Christians' believe he is alive. Most that I know believe that yes, he died on the cross, and his soul arose. Because he was the 'son of God', he was able to take a physical form and speak with his disciples before ascending to heaven. To many (in my experience) Christ is in Heaven, not alive.
How can you say "Christ is in heaven, not alive". His is in Heaven, and alive! This is not even contraversial Christian doctrine.
The bodily (not spiritual, bodily) resurrection of Jesus, the appearance of himself in his old body (remember Doubting Thomas) and the fact that he is alive today are basic qualifications for calling whatever it is you believe "Christianity".
I love the term ChristoGeeks. I have a great reverence for the Christianity as practiced and taught by Jesus Christ (see below). Were he alive today, I would be in his Church.
But He is! All Christians believe this... It seems odd to say that if He were alive today you would be in His church, when the only reason for anyone to be in His church is _because_ he is alive today!
I would agree that science and religion should be answering two seperate problems. I have a problem, however, when religion attempts to answer the scientific questions as well.
Could you elaborate?
As for your first statement, my point is that even if the probability is one out of every single possible planet in all possible universes, the fact that we exist shows that the probability is non-zero.
What I mean is, if you do the math and work out the probability of life existing on any planet in the Universe is, say, 1%, that's quite an interesting point in this debate.
If you choose to believe that life, the universe, and everything were created by a mystical triple deity, then that's your right. But for those who don't, it's perfectly reasonable to try and explain how life came to be, just as many other concepts that were previously thought by christians and other religious types to be the unknowable workings of god.
Would you not agree, though, that truth is more important than what you or I would like to believe? Therefore, "you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want" is very tolerant and all that, but it doesn't really get us anywhere because one of us is wrong.
And God certainly isn't unknowable (unless you are a Muslim, IIRC) nor are his works:-)
I apologise if you find my comments offensive. I was not taking a swipe at atheists - however, (sarcasm most definitely off) as you seem to know a fair amount about this, how do atheists respond to the following argument:
Atheism denies the existence of God. To deny God's existence demands omniscience on the part of the denyer - who would then be (by many definitions) God. So Atheism is not intellectually credible.
Atheism leads to agnosticism by this argument.
What do you think?
In more close response to your message, I would oppose your characterisation of Christians as people who let other people re-interpret the Bible for them on weekly basis. I read it for myself on a daily basis...
I would not use any of the above to argue the existence of God on their own (although I believe that argument from design has merits, as does the argument akin to Antiquity, that something must have happened in 30AD in Israel.
I do not believe the earth is 5000 years old. I also do not believe that all that many other Christians do. I do not see any conflict between an old earth and Genesis.
but the original message has most likely been muddied by thousands of years of human translations.
You speak as if each translation was based upon the one before it. Every translation of the Bible ever done has been done from the earliest manuscripts we have - around 250AD. Saying it's been changed over 1000's of years is just silly:-) You could argue it was changed between when it was written (between 50 and 110AD) and 250AD, but that's a different argument.
God did it so we don't have to think any more" is not an acceptable answer.
Indeed. I was never claiming that we don't have to think any more. Christianity is not a blind faith.
You don't know any more about it than an atheist who says life arose through processes he doesn't understand.
So saying "I think life was created this way" is not saying more than "I don't know how life was created, but it certainly wasn't in the way you suggest"?
It really doesn't matter how unlikely life is, since the proof that it is possible lies with us.
I would disagree with that - if the probability is sufficiently small compared to the estimated number of planets. And remember only a tiny, tiny percentage of planets are capable of being "earth" in the first place.
I don't use God to explain everything I don't understand. God explains many things that Science can't understand, because the two answer different questions.
Science can tell you (or make a good attempt at) how we came to be here, but not why.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that IE is only available for Windows and the Mac, and it's a closed-source product, so if it's broke, you can't fix it.
Complaining people are building XP Apps on top of Mozilla is like complaining that they build them on Java because it's owned by Sun, or on C because you prefer Python.
Gerv
If this sounds cool, add it. That's the great thing about Moz - nothing's stopping you.
Gerv
Yep. I tried about four. :-(
Try again later...
Gerv
If you want to help, and own a Mac, mozilla.org could really do with your services testing each daily build. This is vital, as each build must be checked for basic functionality before the tree can reopen so people can go on working. We have enough Linux and Windows people, but no Mac people. This means that some days, the reopening of the tree is delayed an hour or more while someone is found from inside Netscape.
So, if you have a Mac and the spare time (under an hour, if all goes well), please come to irc.mozilla.org at 8am PST (ish), 4pm GMT in channel #smoketest.
Gerv
So this would be one of those Troll things I've heard so much about?
Gerv
1. When the debugging code is taken out, will it run faster/suck less memory, etc?
Well, it's hardly likely to run slower and use more memory, is it?
2. Are they going to get rid of the ugly, glitzy and only semi-functional interface in favor of, say, something with a working multi-level back button, drop-down address list and non-rounded menus?
The current UI is really just a test one. Two new ones have already been written in XUL: see ChromeZone.
3. Is the sidebar going away, please?
View | Sidebar. Magic.
Gerv
You've been trapped by Slashdot's HTML thingie again. The correct perl line is:
perl -e 'while(<>){print pack("H32",$_)}' |
Gerv
If we did set up an organisation to collect and hold patents for the Open Source community, we could use:
;-)
http://www.opensirs.org
(Say it out loud)
Gerv
I love their anti-Slashdot mechanism...
NBER Connection Full
NBER's connection to the outside world has become saturated. This is a temporary situation and we hope to have it fixed soon.
Please wait 15 Minutes and then hit Reload or Refresh on your browser.
(This is a load and time based function...hitting the reload button immediately will not help.)
Thank you for your patience. If the problem persists for longer than hour please contact the system administrators through the link below.
Gerv
However, I am by far more productive in Windows than I am in any other OS. This isn't because I'm an idiot, or because Windows is necessarily a great OS. Its because thats what I've learned, and thats what I'm comfortable with.
<applause>
Gerv
Is this what you want?
Some Reasons To Try Out A Nightly Build
Gerv
The front page should have three or four words of explanation for the different doc types, e.g.:
Guides - longer, more in depth books
HOWTOS - subject-specific help
FAQs - Frequently Asked Questions
man pages - Help on individual commands
Linux Gazette - on-line magazine
Gerv
They sell you a DVD/movie encrypted for your monitor only.
And what happens when your monitor goes up in a cloud of smoke? Your DVD collection becomes useless?
Not good.
Gerv
Uh, no. Not 'all Christians' believe he is alive. Most that I know believe that yes, he died on the cross, and his soul arose. Because he was the 'son of God', he was able to take a physical form and speak with his disciples before ascending to heaven. To many (in my experience) Christ is in Heaven, not alive.
How can you say "Christ is in heaven, not alive". His is in Heaven, and alive! This is not even contraversial Christian doctrine.
The bodily (not spiritual, bodily) resurrection of Jesus, the appearance of himself in his old body (remember Doubting Thomas) and the fact that he is alive today are basic qualifications for calling whatever it is you believe "Christianity".
Gerv
I love the term ChristoGeeks. I have a great reverence for the Christianity as practiced and taught by Jesus Christ (see below). Were he alive today, I would be in his Church.
But He is! All Christians believe this... It seems odd to say that if He were alive today you would be in His church, when the only reason for anyone to be in His church is _because_ he is alive today!
Gerv
From http://www.concentric.net/~Jwwagner/p6oi.html :
;-)
We charged our original price of $18 [for Tesla T-shirts] from 1989 until recently...
So this news is, in fact, 11 years old.
A new Slashdot record!
Gerv
You don't see any contradictions at all in the statement "The truth is - we don't have the truth"?
Gerv
So what you are saying is: "The truth is - we don't have the truth"?
:-)
Gerv
I would agree that science and religion should be answering two seperate problems. I have a problem, however, when religion attempts to answer the scientific questions as well.
Could you elaborate?
As for your first statement, my point is that even if the probability is one out of every single possible planet in all possible universes, the fact that we exist shows that the probability is non-zero.
What I mean is, if you do the math and work out the probability of life existing on any planet in the Universe is, say, 1%, that's quite an interesting point in this debate.
Gerv
If you choose to believe that life, the universe, and everything were created by a mystical triple deity, then that's your right. But for those who don't, it's perfectly reasonable to try and explain how life came to be, just as many other concepts that were previously thought by christians and other religious types to be the unknowable workings of god.
:-)
Would you not agree, though, that truth is more important than what you or I would like to believe? Therefore, "you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want" is very tolerant and all that, but it doesn't really get us anywhere because one of us is wrong.
And God certainly isn't unknowable (unless you are a Muslim, IIRC) nor are his works
Gerv
Surely if something created God, that something would _be_ God. The only way you can have a reasonable concept of God is if He has always existed.
:-)
The fact that the human mind can't really cope with "always existed" should not be an impediment to this view
Gerv
I apologise if you find my comments offensive. I was not taking a swipe at atheists - however, (sarcasm most definitely off) as you seem to know a fair amount about this, how do atheists respond to the following argument:
Atheism denies the existence of God. To deny God's existence demands omniscience on the part of the denyer - who would then be (by many definitions) God. So Atheism is not intellectually credible.
Atheism leads to agnosticism by this argument.
What do you think?
In more close response to your message, I would oppose your characterisation of Christians as people who let other people re-interpret the Bible for them on weekly basis. I read it for myself on a daily basis...
I would not use any of the above to argue the existence of God on their own (although I believe that argument from design has merits, as does the argument akin to Antiquity, that something must have happened in 30AD in Israel.
I do not believe the earth is 5000 years old. I also do not believe that all that many other Christians do. I do not see any conflict between an old earth and Genesis.
Gerv
but the original message has most likely been muddied by thousands of years of human translations.
:-) You could argue it was changed between when it was written (between 50 and 110AD) and 250AD, but that's a different argument.
You speak as if each translation was based upon the one before it. Every translation of the Bible ever done has been done from the earliest manuscripts we have - around 250AD. Saying it's been changed over 1000's of years is just silly
Gerv
God did it so we don't have to think any more" is not an acceptable answer.
Indeed. I was never claiming that we don't have to think any more. Christianity is not a blind faith.
You don't know any more about it than an atheist who says life arose through processes he doesn't understand.
So saying "I think life was created this way" is not saying more than "I don't know how life was created, but it certainly wasn't in the way you suggest"?
Gerv
It really doesn't matter how unlikely life is, since the proof that it is possible lies with us.
I would disagree with that - if the probability is sufficiently small compared to the estimated number of planets. And remember only a tiny, tiny percentage of planets are capable of being "earth" in the first place.
I don't use God to explain everything I don't understand. God explains many things that Science can't understand, because the two answer different questions.
Science can tell you (or make a good attempt at) how we came to be here, but not why.
Gerv