Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 2
Well, religions don't require you to kiss any God's ass... That's not what praying is.
SNIP
They start by arguing that since its said to be thought up by some mystery guy who dictated it, we just bring in to question his existance. Many are tricked by this.
Their thoughts follow: "Well, if he didn't exist, and I don't think he did, than all this preaching peace must be worthless--and I already know that preaching peace is deadly."
[Rant on; Bruce Campbell mode]
Well hello Mr. Fancy Pants! What is it with all this seriousness? Bang two rocks together, and listen up bucko...It's a JOKE! A joke for heathens, and, well, probably most non-Christians!
A Joke. You know..."Funny".
Ha.
Ha. ?
In the first place, I told you jar heads that religious people wouldn't like the story -- but you had to go and re-lig-ous-ly read it anyway. Like an itch that must be scratched.
Then you humorless louts come and complain -- indignant that you're part of someone else's JOKE. Well, I've had enough of it. It's like you primates have never heard of a religious joke.
Some you just had to jump in as if your favorite puppy was getting beaten...to a JOKE! No harm, no foul, no puppy!
A JOKE that you were told up-front you wouldn't like because you weren't in the 'in' crowd. Yet, you didn't believe me, and thinking there's nothing but religious people listening, you drag out tired stories as if they were gold. Gasp! Horror! Surprise!
Take this one, full of vigor, responding with a pedantic and unconvincingly humorless counter story as if I'm just going to say 'eureka' and join in with the Choir.
Just tell the ignorant heathens what they really think...as if we didn't know better. Remember: JOKE.
Be a priest, or just look like one!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Thanks! You have to love the logo that's at the top of the page.
I think that the Universial Life Church still ordains just about anyone. For a donation of $1 at one time, they'd send you an official document. If you want to be a priest without the pesky theology, this is as good a way as any.
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Cut the bullshit. You said yourself it was "Religion in a Nutshell".
Yet, I didn't mention Christianity, I mentioned religion. For example, Hank had 11 rules, not 10. Now, if you see a similarity between Christianity and Hankism, well that can be instructive...
As for the source of this classic, I got it from one of the 'best of Usenet' archives and can't find the original author's name. Do a search on 'hank john mary million town' and you should see plenty of references.
Now, I admit my response was bullshit...as was Vishak's comment. I warned people that they wouldn't like it, and that heathens would, so is it possible that 'he protests too much'?
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 2
My point is you have none.
OK. You win.
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 2
I didn't think otherwise which is why I said this has nothing to do with Christianity.
So, your point is...
(Sounds like sour grapes to me.)
Re:That's only one definition
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Agreed. I'll add to that.
If you dig back far enough in the history of the god of Abraham, you end up with descriptions of multiple gods, many of them imperfect. Lilith and Zorastrian references have been largely purged over the past severial thousand years, but were accepted dogma at one time or another.
(References available on request.)
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
This has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, much less the Intelligent Design movement which is not necessarily religious.
You're right, it doesn't mention Christianity. It's about Hank. Why do you think otherwise?
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Really? Could you explain your thoughts? domo
Here's what he'll probably say;
Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
I am also curious why you find the association of religion with morality insulting. Can you elaborate on that?
Admitedly, much of what I said is a defensive posture. Take it as that, and not as a challenge to your own conclusions.
For example, I'm not saying religon=immoral/not-spiritual. I am saying that if morals and/or spirituality are associated with a specific religion, it doesn't make that religion or any other one necessary...or even the best way to gain insight.
If someone said that thier religon has some unique claim to morals and/or spirituality, they'd have to offer some proof since I see it differently. Unfortunately, this is often turned on it's head, showing bigotry toward those who don't 'believe' or 'have faith' in exactly the same way.
I'll put it this way. Being religous or not has little to do with being moral. Yet, more then once I've had people assume that because I'm not religous I can't be moral...and some of these people have known me since childhood and have relied on me without question. Thankfully, what they know of me is enough for them to get over it and accept that I haven't taking up raping and pillaging as a profession!
In one case, I had a girlfriend who -- months into the relationship -- found out that I wasn't religous. It took weeks for her to realize that I wasn't going to go on a rampage and start killing people.
She was deeply confused, since she had been told all her life that to be moral/spiritual, you had to be religous. She even went as far as to insist that I was indeed religous for a while...but finally and without argument said that she understood. That I was 'one of the nicest people' she had ever met (newsgroups not included!) only added to her confusion. The implication that not being religous=immoral is what's insulting. It is biggotry taken as fact by most people raised in a religon.
In summary: The reasons why you don't do immoral things are exactly the same as my reasons. These are automatic, and are part of our characters. Books -- even religous texts -- can be instructive, but they don't make us moral.
Sidebar: Asian philosophy: Art of War & the Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing) are two examples that have been highly instructive. Note that in some of the translations there are references to a capital G God, while in others there aren't. Guess which one is more likely to be an accurate translation?
WARNING: The story below is a classic. Even though it is, it will still be moderated down because it's not PC and will probably insult the religously minded of/. or be seen as some sort of bigotry.
So be it, it's still on topic, and the heathens here who will still get it.
Religion in a nutshell
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the desk of Karl
Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Not to be rude, but aren't you missing the whole point of religion/spirituality?
spirituality =! religion
Are you going to tell me that morals/religon are linked too? Please. This type of thinking is deeply insulting. As a former Christian, I've become more spiritual after dropping the religion and any pretext to it.
Awe, wonder, facination -- even a spiritual 'experience' -- can most definately come from logic, science, and rigorous thought. Religion and faith is a poor way to get there, as it involves the un-necessary step of believing a fiction. I'll stick to what I know, as reality tends to be more inspiring and reliable.
The most severe problem I've seen with rockets isn't deciding on the most efficient, safest fuels, but rather making sure they burn; expand; heat; react.... in a completely symmetrical way - so you can avoid pressure buildups and eventual explosions (or immediate explosions).
Could a change in the tank design elimnate the danger of this? I vaugely remember a technique where the fuel tank was divided by a honeycomb lattice from top to bottom -- effectively spliting the main tank into many (dozens...thousands) of small storage cells.
An inert plastic bag could possibly be used instead of metal to reduce the weight and distribute the pressure.
Dropping the religion and dropping the trappings of the religion are two different things. As contemptible as people like the Bakkers were, who dropped the religion but kept up the act, there are still folks like Billy Graham out there.
While what you say is correct in a general way, it doesn't cover this situation. (I'm not a fan of Billy Graham, even after reading one of his books in my teens...but that has nothing to do with the price of PCs in Tokyo.)
By being a member of a religous ritual -- even promoting it -- that religon is not being discarded, thus;
Perhaps this should be interpreted as "Televangelist who dropped the religion"
Is an almost humorous way to smooth over religous differences. Unfortunately, it's not true in this instance. A religion was used when he was a preacher, and it looks like he still uses it. That he might not be ernest is an unrelated issue.
To address your main point, it's still unproven that he, the Bakkers, Billy Graham, the Pope, Dali Lama, or other religous leaders are or aren't religous. Only they can answer that. If you want to pass judgement on who has "real" beliefs, you might want to start another thread.
I find the formatting on pre-formatted disks just isn't up to spec anymore - they seem to be using some sort of high-speed formatter that doesn't leave a "deep" enough impression on the disk. Since I realised this and started doing a fresh low-level format on any "preformatted" disks I got, my error rate has gone down to the old levels....
Who sells pre-formatted EXT2 diskettes? What? How else would you format them?:/
Are you using automated testing across an entire project? If so, and you find it benificial, tell me how. I've only found limited application of it, and it required quite a bit of maintenance to get those results.
Scripts do not "break" as they are updated with the new changes before testing the next release.
This doesn't sound like the earlier posts. Script changes after the specifications are created isn't the same as scripts that are made once and run throughout the project. Making updates can suck up an amazing amount of time.
Are you talking about testing at the end of a cycle, ongoing, or both? The projects I tend to do usually have a GUI-intensive part covers a few hundread forms plus related specialty screens. That part doesn't work well with automated tests. The backend parts do, though, since the interface to them tends to change very little.
For me, testing starts with a formal test plan (from the spec), occurs constantly, and the remaining time is used to plan for the milestone releases and do documentation. Automated testing is time consuming and isn't worth setting up for most rapidly changing projects. In limited parts, yes, across the whole project noooo.
However, if you're talking about coders testing their own project, then I agree.
Yes, definately. Each group talking as early as possible and hashing out the details is definately benificial.
I wouldn't dare create a script for something that's changing on a regular basis unless it were small or I had a big staff (about ~1/2 size of development group).
If you get away with this kind of thing and don't drive yourself mad, I'd like to know how!
I think you responded to something that wasn't in my original message. Take a look below and feel free to hit me with a clue stick if you have a legitimate gripe not voiced in your reply.
Yes, things should be properly designed prior to coding. Yes, testing should be an early consideration prior to coding. Manual -- and implementation independent -- test scripts will be created before any code on good projects.
Sidebar: Are you talking about mixing testing and design with coding? That's a bad idea.
Theoretically an automated test could be created prior to coding. In practice, nobody does that unless they have a very limited scope for the tests they want to perform...or if they want to waste an amazing amount of time!
Each automated test script I've created using over a half dozen different tools all have the same problem;
Scripts are highly dependent on the actual code -- the implementation. Change anything, and the test scripts I've created in the past have almost always required modification just to get them to push data through the system. Checking the results at each step is an entirely different level of complexity.
I haven't been able to create scripts prior to code being delivered unless _I_ wrote the code. Mixing coders and testers in the same group is just a bad idea on multiple levels. If you don't know the objections, I'm not going to tell you...ask a few people you respect.
Remember, you're validating the spec not how the spec is implemented. How do you, in an automated fashon, track deviations unless you limit yourself to IO?
The only exceptions are when you focus on data and protocols; does the input x always result in the specified output y? Works for files and data regaurdless of volume, though how long a test takes can result in different results.
"People, XML is just a syntax. Unless the DTDs and schemas they use for.NET are fully documented, only Microsoft's own.NET-enabled products will be able to anything useful with the data."
Yeah, and the XML tags will all end up looking like this;
Slashdot Mirror
SNIP
They start by arguing that since its said to be thought up by some mystery guy who dictated it, we just bring in to question his existance. Many are tricked by this.
Their thoughts follow: "Well, if he didn't exist, and I don't think he did, than all this preaching peace must be worthless--and I already know that preaching peace is deadly."
[Rant on; Bruce Campbell mode]
Well hello Mr. Fancy Pants! What is it with all this seriousness? Bang two rocks together, and listen up bucko...It's a JOKE! A joke for heathens, and, well, probably most non-Christians!
A Joke. You know..."Funny".
Ha.
Ha. ?
In the first place, I told you jar heads that religious people wouldn't like the story -- but you had to go and re-lig-ous-ly read it anyway. Like an itch that must be scratched.
Then you humorless louts come and complain -- indignant that you're part of someone else's JOKE. Well, I've had enough of it. It's like you primates have never heard of a religious joke.
Some you just had to jump in as if your favorite puppy was getting beaten...to a JOKE! No harm, no foul, no puppy!
A JOKE that you were told up-front you wouldn't like because you weren't in the 'in' crowd. Yet, you didn't believe me, and thinking there's nothing but religious people listening, you drag out tired stories as if they were gold. Gasp! Horror! Surprise!
Take this one, full of vigor, responding with a pedantic and unconvincingly humorless counter story as if I'm just going to say 'eureka' and join in with the Choir.
Just tell the ignorant heathens what they really think...as if we didn't know better. Remember: JOKE.
[Rant off]
If you want a serious response, take a look here
I think that the Universial Life Church still ordains just about anyone. For a donation of $1 at one time, they'd send you an official document. If you want to be a priest without the pesky theology, this is as good a way as any.
Yet, I didn't mention Christianity, I mentioned religion. For example, Hank had 11 rules, not 10. Now, if you see a similarity between Christianity and Hankism, well that can be instructive...
As for the source of this classic, I got it from one of the 'best of Usenet' archives and can't find the original author's name. Do a search on 'hank john mary million town' and you should see plenty of references.
Now, I admit my response was bullshit...as was Vishak's comment. I warned people that they wouldn't like it, and that heathens would, so is it possible that 'he protests too much'?
OK. You win.
So, your point is ...
(Sounds like sour grapes to me.)
If you dig back far enough in the history of the god of Abraham, you end up with descriptions of multiple gods, many of them imperfect. Lilith and Zorastrian references have been largely purged over the past severial thousand years, but were accepted dogma at one time or another.
(References available on request.)
You're right, it doesn't mention Christianity. It's about Hank. Why do you think otherwise?
Here's what he'll probably say;
Admitedly, much of what I said is a defensive posture. Take it as that, and not as a challenge to your own conclusions.
For example, I'm not saying religon=immoral/not-spiritual. I am saying that if morals and/or spirituality are associated with a specific religion, it doesn't make that religion or any other one necessary...or even the best way to gain insight.
If someone said that thier religon has some unique claim to morals and/or spirituality, they'd have to offer some proof since I see it differently. Unfortunately, this is often turned on it's head, showing bigotry toward those who don't 'believe' or 'have faith' in exactly the same way.
I'll put it this way. Being religous or not has little to do with being moral. Yet, more then once I've had people assume that because I'm not religous I can't be moral...and some of these people have known me since childhood and have relied on me without question. Thankfully, what they know of me is enough for them to get over it and accept that I haven't taking up raping and pillaging as a profession!
In one case, I had a girlfriend who -- months into the relationship -- found out that I wasn't religous. It took weeks for her to realize that I wasn't going to go on a rampage and start killing people.
She was deeply confused, since she had been told all her life that to be moral/spiritual, you had to be religous. She even went as far as to insist that I was indeed religous for a while...but finally and without argument said that she understood. That I was 'one of the nicest people' she had ever met (newsgroups not included!) only added to her confusion. The implication that not being religous=immoral is what's insulting. It is biggotry taken as fact by most people raised in a religon.
In summary: The reasons why you don't do immoral things are exactly the same as my reasons. These are automatic, and are part of our characters. Books -- even religous texts -- can be instructive, but they don't make us moral.
Sidebar: Asian philosophy: Art of War & the Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing) are two examples that have been highly instructive. Note that in some of the translations there are references to a capital G God, while in others there aren't. Guess which one is more likely to be an accurate translation?
So be it, it's still on topic, and the heathens here who will still get it.
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Label that being as "God."
Imagine a actual conscious aardvark who is so green that you cannot imagine a being any more green than Him existing.
Label that being as "Gunther."
spirituality =! religion
Are you going to tell me that morals/religon are linked too? Please. This type of thinking is deeply insulting. As a former Christian, I've become more spiritual after dropping the religion and any pretext to it.
Awe, wonder, facination -- even a spiritual 'experience' -- can most definately come from logic, science, and rigorous thought. Religion and faith is a poor way to get there, as it involves the un-necessary step of believing a fiction. I'll stick to what I know, as reality tends to be more inspiring and reliable.
Could a change in the tank design elimnate the danger of this? I vaugely remember a technique where the fuel tank was divided by a honeycomb lattice from top to bottom -- effectively spliting the main tank into many (dozens...thousands) of small storage cells.
An inert plastic bag could possibly be used instead of metal to reduce the weight and distribute the pressure.
While what you say is correct in a general way, it doesn't cover this situation. (I'm not a fan of Billy Graham, even after reading one of his books in my teens...but that has nothing to do with the price of PCs in Tokyo.)
By being a member of a religous ritual -- even promoting it -- that religon is not being discarded, thus;
Perhaps this should be interpreted as "Televangelist who dropped the religion"
Is an almost humorous way to smooth over religous differences. Unfortunately, it's not true in this instance. A religion was used when he was a preacher, and it looks like he still uses it. That he might not be ernest is an unrelated issue.
To address your main point, it's still unproven that he, the Bakkers, Billy Graham, the Pope, Dali Lama, or other religous leaders are or aren't religous. Only they can answer that. If you want to pass judgement on who has "real" beliefs, you might want to start another thread.
The Heaven's Gate religous group did web pages.
Dropped? Didn't the article mention prayer meetings?
OK, I feel bad about that. Not much, but I do feel bad.
Yeah, it's a shame. I hear people mention this all the time about Mozilla, and it has some merit.
I just wish they'd release the source code so someone, somewhere, could do something about it. Wouldn't that be nice?
Who sells pre-formatted EXT2 diskettes? What? How else would you format them? :/
This doesn't sound like the earlier posts. Script changes after the specifications are created isn't the same as scripts that are made once and run throughout the project. Making updates can suck up an amazing amount of time.
Are you talking about testing at the end of a cycle, ongoing, or both? The projects I tend to do usually have a GUI-intensive part covers a few hundread forms plus related specialty screens. That part doesn't work well with automated tests. The backend parts do, though, since the interface to them tends to change very little.
For me, testing starts with a formal test plan (from the spec), occurs constantly, and the remaining time is used to plan for the milestone releases and do documentation. Automated testing is time consuming and isn't worth setting up for most rapidly changing projects. In limited parts, yes, across the whole project noooo.
Yes, definately. Each group talking as early as possible and hashing out the details is definately benificial.
I wouldn't dare create a script for something that's changing on a regular basis unless it were small or I had a big staff (about ~1/2 size of development group).
If you get away with this kind of thing and don't drive yourself mad, I'd like to know how!
If it's like Office now, they'll be XML-ized binaries with hidden or tweaked DTDs that nobody will be able to use anywhere else.
Agreed, though Koffice is fairly peppy, including the gzip/unzip stage when saving/loading documents.
I think you responded to something that wasn't in my original message. Take a look below and feel free to hit me with a clue stick if you have a legitimate gripe not voiced in your reply.
Yes, things should be properly designed prior to coding. Yes, testing should be an early consideration prior to coding. Manual -- and implementation independent -- test scripts will be created before any code on good projects.
- Sidebar: Are you talking about mixing testing and design with coding? That's a bad idea.
Theoretically an automated test could be created prior to coding. In practice, nobody does that unless they have a very limited scope for the tests they want to perform...or if they want to waste an amazing amount of time!Each automated test script I've created using over a half dozen different tools all have the same problem;
I haven't been able to create scripts prior to code being delivered unless _I_ wrote the code. Mixing coders and testers in the same group is just a bad idea on multiple levels. If you don't know the objections, I'm not going to tell you...ask a few people you respect.
Remember, you're validating the spec not how the spec is implemented. How do you, in an automated fashon, track deviations unless you limit yourself to IO?
The only exceptions are when you focus on data and protocols; does the input x always result in the specified output y? Works for files and data regaurdless of volume, though how long a test takes can result in different results.
"People, XML is just a syntax. Unless the DTDs and schemas they use for .NET are fully documented, only Microsoft's own .NET-enabled products will be able to anything useful with the data."
% !1141234<binary>
Yeah, and the XML tags will all end up looking like this;
<binary>!%!@#!1234@#14%%1551%!!!#$%!$!#%SAF@#!#
'Formal testing is borring': Yes. It is.
"Good chance for some company to make some bucks.": Yes, it can be!