Exactly the same reason Christians would want to block porn, that is to help them to establish themselves as the moral authority and demand how people live their lives.
As to prosecute Christians, or Fa Lung Gong for that matter, the Chinese government view them as competitors for authority. It's not about principles, but about who has the final say.
I meant 100% of their own tests, as it show IE passes everything.
I've only have extensive knowledge of CSS2.1. But it is written very rigorously, meaning it's not subject to interpretation, except when it points out what are not specified.
Just wanted to make sure you are still around. Most AC disappear rather quickly.
you judge Microsoft by entirely subjective measures
I didn't mention any measures unless you meant IE releases are something subject out of thin air, which could really be true.
ACID is also a collection of tests, some of the them could be the same as the W3c suite. I only said I think ACID is valid. If you don't think so, please specify exactly which one you think is not and even request it be removed from the spec. And of course I don't write code to only pass ACID. You are arguing with your own straw-man.
your own interpretations
I don't have my own interpretations. Implementations of standards are not interpretations.
You sounds like this "Microsoft" that you accuse Microsoft of being.
I don't know what you are talking about. But I am sure it's subjective.
Here we are not really disparaging the quality of some tests. We are just laughing at the fact that Microsoft found a way to show IE is 100% correct while all others are crap. And I wonder why you don't find that hilarious.
I judge Microsoft by their final releases of IE. So far IE8 and under are all subpar and IE9 won't be available under XP and it won't matter at least for me.
I agree a suite is more comprehensive. But I've tried and implemented 80% of ACID2. And I can tell you that if the code is rigorously written, passing the test is a given. So I'd say ACID is a test that requires you write the code well, and not just try to patch things together.
BTW I don't write tests because I am focusing on implement standards and improve them.
I don't know much about Obj-C, but I can understand your frustration. In my C code I use this kind of string objects/name-value dictionaries too. They can be very useful and fun. The difference is in C, it's implemented as a library and no one forces you to use it when you only need a simple primitive type.
Earth has many flaws but it doesn't have earthquakes every moment. The same is true for the human mind. Donald Knuth does very well with algorithms but I would think he might have problem with distributed systems.
In a distributed system, including human society, knowledge has to travel from mind to mind. And with communication the whole system evolves. If you believe in a creator, you'd assume there is a single consciousness that always knows everything instantly. You might not assume this all the time, but this thinking would impede you from understanding how things really are. In the worse case, refusing to believe that a self evolving system could produce a wonderful result that a single mind can appreciate might even prevent you from understanding it at all.
I think you will benefit from reading this article:
so I think the best way is to simply practice my faith and remain
Do you try to influence in any way the way your children think?
The idea of a creator is not dangerous
Yes sometimes. But the idea is not well defined. If you are a programmer you'd want everything well defined.
Perhaps the most harmful thing about your thinking is that you are willing to accept so many logical holes in believing an imaginary creator. The human mind is an integrated software system and an willingness to accepting many logical holes is a sure sign of a flawed mind.
I am not sure about this closet thing. I do know some religious people will do anything to make it look like there are more religious people than you might think. Instead of being in the closet, I think most scientists avoid the topic to not offend others, or even pay lip service to religious people.
This is why science people should to take a more active role in speaking their mind. Even fools know that children are the easiest to dupe. Don't let them get their way.
It you look at m-w.com (webster), there are a few senses for "spiritual". The one that makes "spiritual" unique is the one about being incorporeal, or about the concept of spirit.
But apparently you, or maybe wikipedia (I only read it briefly), use this word much more vaguely to just mean some feelings.
That depends on how you define it. No experience is supernatural. But does that experience makes you believe that soul exists, that something can remain when the body cease to exist? Or do you just have something in your mind that you can't describe so you just call it spiritual?
Not really. That article clearly shows spirituality involves supernatural elements. It's a belief that there is a separate thing from our physical body, something that can be found though thinking very hard.
BTW, in this discussion I am not considering religion at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly the same reason Christians would want to block porn, that is to help them to establish themselves as the moral authority and demand how people live their lives.
As to prosecute Christians, or Fa Lung Gong for that matter, the Chinese government view them as competitors for authority. It's not about principles, but about who has the final say.
This is an easy call for a redundancy mod.
I meant 100% of their own tests, as it show IE passes everything.
I've only have extensive knowledge of CSS2.1. But it is written very rigorously, meaning it's not subject to interpretation, except when it points out what are not specified.
If there is a difference, people will have to buy both.
Just wanted to make sure you are still around. Most AC disappear rather quickly.
you judge Microsoft by entirely subjective measures
I didn't mention any measures unless you meant IE releases are something subject out of thin air, which could really be true.
ACID is also a collection of tests, some of the them could be the same as the W3c suite. I only said I think ACID is valid. If you don't think so, please specify exactly which one you think is not and even request it be removed from the spec. And of course I don't write code to only pass ACID. You are arguing with your own straw-man.
your own interpretations
I don't have my own interpretations. Implementations of standards are not interpretations.
You sounds like this "Microsoft" that you accuse Microsoft of being.
I don't know what you are talking about. But I am sure it's subjective.
Here we are not really disparaging the quality of some tests. We are just laughing at the fact that Microsoft found a way to show IE is 100% correct while all others are crap. And I wonder why you don't find that hilarious.
We know it's something like that already. The real interesting part is Yahoo hasn't been able to fix such an obvious bug for all these years.
Your rant is full of logic holes. Next time please post with a name so that I can read some of your other comments and see if they are all the same.
I judge Microsoft by their final releases of IE. So far IE8 and under are all subpar and IE9 won't be available under XP and it won't matter at least for me.
I agree a suite is more comprehensive. But I've tried and implemented 80% of ACID2. And I can tell you that if the code is rigorously written, passing the test is a given. So I'd say ACID is a test that requires you write the code well, and not just try to patch things together.
BTW I don't write tests because I am focusing on implement standards and improve them.
I think someone is busy working on ACID4 at this very moment.
But a test of all specifications of the HTML5 Working Draft is not something easy. Have we ever had a test of all specifications of even CSS 2.1?
No, at least not before we have a real HTML5 spec.
Thanks for the tips, because win32 APIs feel like a real paradise now.
Objective-C is a strict superset of C, so anything that can use Ojective-C can use C as well.
How so? If the libraries you need to use are interfaced through Obj-C, like OSX's GUI APIs, can you use pure C code to call those APIs?
I don't know much about Obj-C, but I can understand your frustration. In my C code I use this kind of string objects/name-value dictionaries too. They can be very useful and fun. The difference is in C, it's implemented as a library and no one forces you to use it when you only need a simple primitive type.
Earth has many flaws but it doesn't have earthquakes every moment. The same is true for the human mind. Donald Knuth does very well with algorithms but I would think he might have problem with distributed systems.
In a distributed system, including human society, knowledge has to travel from mind to mind. And with communication the whole system evolves. If you believe in a creator, you'd assume there is a single consciousness that always knows everything instantly. You might not assume this all the time, but this thinking would impede you from understanding how things really are. In the worse case, refusing to believe that a self evolving system could produce a wonderful result that a single mind can appreciate might even prevent you from understanding it at all.
I think you will benefit from reading this article:
The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-2,00.html
so I think the best way is to simply practice my faith and remain
Do you try to influence in any way the way your children think?
The idea of a creator is not dangerous
Yes sometimes. But the idea is not well defined. If you are a programmer you'd want everything well defined.
Perhaps the most harmful thing about your thinking is that you are willing to accept so many logical holes in believing an imaginary creator. The human mind is an integrated software system and an willingness to accepting many logical holes is a sure sign of a flawed mind.
The problem is, religious people could only see what they wanted to see.
I am not sure about this closet thing. I do know some religious people will do anything to make it look like there are more religious people than you might think. Instead of being in the closet, I think most scientists avoid the topic to not offend others, or even pay lip service to religious people.
This is why science people should to take a more active role in speaking their mind. Even fools know that children are the easiest to dupe. Don't let them get their way.
Nonsense. How can you compare workers with the general population?
they try and fix a problem they didn't cause,
Apple really doing that? I hope Apple will soon be sainted so it won't be working with the devil any more.
OK, I have to say I don't know how to use the word if it's meaning is in line with mind.
BTW, I grew up in China as a total atheist, although I did use m-w.com a lot to understand English words.
It you look at m-w.com (webster), there are a few senses for "spiritual". The one that makes "spiritual" unique is the one about being incorporeal, or about the concept of spirit.
But apparently you, or maybe wikipedia (I only read it briefly), use this word much more vaguely to just mean some feelings.
That depends on how you define it. No experience is supernatural. But does that experience makes you believe that soul exists, that something can remain when the body cease to exist? Or do you just have something in your mind that you can't describe so you just call it spiritual?
He is saying atheists are not known to start a war for ideological reasons. On the other hand, wars on behalf of religions did (or do) happen.
Not really. That article clearly shows spirituality involves supernatural elements. It's a belief that there is a separate thing from our physical body, something that can be found though thinking very hard.
BTW, in this discussion I am not considering religion at all.