I don't think Microsoft is killing.net or even silverlight. At some point there will be some more merging movements between.net, wpf, silverlight, html5/javascript, svg, etc. Silverlight is the current Windows Phone 7 development environment, so it isn't going anywhere. The advantage of writing in Silverlight is that it is a subset of WPF. So phone apps can be windows apps pretty easily. They won't throw that all away. There maybe some modifications to add html5/javascript for lighter weight applications, but there will always be a need for more power than html5/javascript can provide.
...Naturally.
Seems like whenever Microsoft gets close to anything Linux, the Linux community rails against Microsoft. It is a wonder Microsoft does anything with open source and Linux.
I'm interested in seeing where Skype will go now that Microsoft controls it. They might improve it enough to make video calls a standard experience across the world. If only telecoms could get with the program and provide decent Internet connections with less restrictions.
I take this more as, if I'm lending money that actually need, then I shouldn't lend money. If I have extra money I can give to people, then I'll give it.
As far as dealing with the point system, I can control myself most days, so I purchase points and keep a good amount of points in my account rather than letting it go to zero. I just treat them like I do money. This is better than credit.
I think you really hit the head of the nail on this. I like getting the facts myself and drawing my own conclusions, rather than relying on others conclusions.
Why is the whitehouse.gov using a black & white pdf version of a scanned jpeg from snopes.com? http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg
They could certainly scan the original themselves and post that. I would normally think that whitehouse.gov would be the source rather than snopes.com.
You can easily add the print button to the quick launch bar above the ribbon via the customize dropdown.
Re:Sorry but it does not meet the criteria
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
you don't need fructose to live, and the amount of glucose needed is also low. So sugar and HFCS are not needed. they are not food in that they don't provide nutrition and energy isn't nutrition.
Actually, not exactly. Some religion and some science assume it is true even in the face of counter facts. Others rely on evidence, test and confirmation.
So the formula is:
Religion (X OR Y OR...) OR Science (Z OR...) = Faith
Science (A OR B OR...) OR Religion (G OR...) = Trust
--
Continuing to believe that any part of life is an either or without considering what lies between or beyond means you are living less than a full life.
It is also the loss of strength of the truth in science when studying things with no reproducible, testable methods: such as the origin of the universe or origin of life.
Have fun. Anyone believing in a big bearded man in the sky could be right considering the number of planes flying with big bearded men. Those that believe in a god that created time, space, and the whole universe are believing in something more than a mere bearded man in a definable location. Those that think they actually KNOW what happened at the beginning of the Universe are in the same group as those that believe in God or in flying bearded men.
This is true for the testable parts of Science. It crumbles to nothing when evaluating the origin of life or even the origin of the universe. So some parts of Science require the same faith that most religions do, though some religions require more faith.
I don't see the difference. Your preconception is that faith is bad and blind at best, mine is that faith can be good and doesn't have to be blind. For most people, they have faith that computers will work. The whole networking, computer science stuff underneath is foreign to them. I understand all the principles at work and can even make adjustments to make it work correctly if it doesn't work at first. You might need to reconsider your worldview, too.
The system is testable, just not reproducible. You die and then you know (or don't). You can't come back, make adjustments, and then repeat the test. So even religious faith is open (you can always change religion, at least here in the US where you are free to do so) and you don't have to believe what is taught exactly.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Microsoft is killing .net or even silverlight. At some point there will be some more merging movements between .net, wpf, silverlight, html5/javascript, svg, etc. Silverlight is the current Windows Phone 7 development environment, so it isn't going anywhere. The advantage of writing in Silverlight is that it is a subset of WPF. So phone apps can be windows apps pretty easily. They won't throw that all away. There maybe some modifications to add html5/javascript for lighter weight applications, but there will always be a need for more power than html5/javascript can provide.
the self-righteous and religious nut jobs will still be here. it would be the nice, sane ones that'll be raptured.
...Naturally. Seems like whenever Microsoft gets close to anything Linux, the Linux community rails against Microsoft. It is a wonder Microsoft does anything with open source and Linux. I'm interested in seeing where Skype will go now that Microsoft controls it. They might improve it enough to make video calls a standard experience across the world. If only telecoms could get with the program and provide decent Internet connections with less restrictions.
you can get a usb to video (vga/dvi) adapter. I use that for my third monitor.
obviously they were busy drinking a freshly opened bottle of beer when they came up with the analogy with their thoughts on freshly opened beer.
which is why having more points now, or buying when the price per point is low, is a good idea.
I take this more as, if I'm lending money that actually need, then I shouldn't lend money. If I have extra money I can give to people, then I'll give it. As far as dealing with the point system, I can control myself most days, so I purchase points and keep a good amount of points in my account rather than letting it go to zero. I just treat them like I do money. This is better than credit.
I think you really hit the head of the nail on this. I like getting the facts myself and drawing my own conclusions, rather than relying on others conclusions.
Why is the whitehouse.gov using a black & white pdf version of a scanned jpeg from snopes.com? http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg They could certainly scan the original themselves and post that. I would normally think that whitehouse.gov would be the source rather than snopes.com.
Nothing is ever simple, particularily when it comes to human behavior.
If all things are relative, then your statement holds no meaning.
+1 ninja analogy
Communication failure is fairly common, so finding other ways of communicating is beneficial. I'd rather be at a lunch than a meeting any day.
You can easily add the print button to the quick launch bar above the ribbon via the customize dropdown.
you don't need fructose to live, and the amount of glucose needed is also low. So sugar and HFCS are not needed. they are not food in that they don't provide nutrition and energy isn't nutrition.
huh, did you watch the video? yes it is a picture with perspective, but the perspective changes as you move your head.
that seems reasonable, they are also UFO as in they are unidentified flying obects.
In most science, yes. In the origin side of science, no, here science has faith since it can't prove, reproduce, or test anything.
Actually, not exactly. Some religion and some science assume it is true even in the face of counter facts. Others rely on evidence, test and confirmation. So the formula is: Religion (X OR Y OR ...) OR Science (Z OR ...) = Faith
Science (A OR B OR ...) OR Religion (G OR ...) = Trust
--
Continuing to believe that any part of life is an either or without considering what lies between or beyond means you are living less than a full life.
It is also the loss of strength of the truth in science when studying things with no reproducible, testable methods: such as the origin of the universe or origin of life.
Have fun. Anyone believing in a big bearded man in the sky could be right considering the number of planes flying with big bearded men. Those that believe in a god that created time, space, and the whole universe are believing in something more than a mere bearded man in a definable location. Those that think they actually KNOW what happened at the beginning of the Universe are in the same group as those that believe in God or in flying bearded men.
This is true for the testable parts of Science. It crumbles to nothing when evaluating the origin of life or even the origin of the universe. So some parts of Science require the same faith that most religions do, though some religions require more faith.
I don't see the difference. Your preconception is that faith is bad and blind at best, mine is that faith can be good and doesn't have to be blind. For most people, they have faith that computers will work. The whole networking, computer science stuff underneath is foreign to them. I understand all the principles at work and can even make adjustments to make it work correctly if it doesn't work at first. You might need to reconsider your worldview, too.
The system is testable, just not reproducible. You die and then you know (or don't). You can't come back, make adjustments, and then repeat the test. So even religious faith is open (you can always change religion, at least here in the US where you are free to do so) and you don't have to believe what is taught exactly.
No, you still want to figure out why, so at the very least you'll know what to do for other projects with similar problems.