it will only take one piece of protectionist legislation in the US to tumble the whole house of cards
Or for Pakistan to threaten to nuke them again, as they were doing just a few years ago. The first time a deadline is missed, and money is lost, because of instability in the region, I think we'll see lots of this work come back. Businesses don't appreciate uncertainty.
OTOH, if outsourcing becomes entrenched enough for long enough, then it becomes in America's interest to protect their stability with our own military force projection; witness Taiwan, or military protection of oil interests in the Middle East. How long until we turn this cusp I don't know--it has to be a factor of how much of their capital investment tax-paying-and-Congress-lobbying American Corps have to lose, and if the cumulative amount is enough to risk sending US boys to die for.
But that is the final result of India gaining outsourcing dollars--they are liable to become another Taiwan, which means that US boys might well be sent to defend India against China or Pakistan, to protect US Corp's right to unemploy those soldiers when they get home. India must appreciate having another friend in the world, considering China's expansionism and Pakistan's recent threats--so they'll be sure to play this for all it's worth, as soon as US Corps are extended there enough.
One of the earliest litigations of software IP, I think; or at least one that had the largest impact. A synopsis. Even more briefly: "look-and-feel" isn't a legal term. Furthermore, you can no more protect an interface for a software application than you can "protect the operating interface to a motor vehicle."
There won't be a single virus or worm that attacks the Mac OSX operating system.
I don't use the Mac, but I can't imagine that to be true: document and email macro viruses?
Hasn't happened yet, after three years of OS X, and there's no reason to think that'll change in 04. Document macro viruses are technically possible, as IIRC the macros that work on Office for Win also work on Office for Mac. But it seems as if virus writers prefer to hit the low-hanging fruit, which is email and/or auto-propagating worms that exploit a hole in an Internet facing service.
And, email viruses don't exist on the Mac for this one simple reason: email clients on the Mac don't auto-execute attachments, ever; they don't have that "feature" available, let alone on by default. In fact, if Microsoft turned off this feature by default, wouldn't that stop cold most infection attempts?
I find it an aberration that a software publishing industry grew, organized as if it were selling automobiles
In short, that is the essence of Microsoft's genius--they developed the ability to manufacture demand for a product that they can sell millions of times for the same cost-of-product as selling it once. No one else in the industry believed this possible at the time, including the heaviest thinkers, such as IBM.
I see the growth of Linux adoption as a return to those roots, in fact, in a triumph of the original philosophy; indeed, I think that Microsoft should be grateful for the run that they had, as it was unnatural and counter to history. Of course, they see it differently:)
A non-technically interesting length of time (such as 20 years) from the date the Macintosh was first introduced would also be noteworthy, and that's later this month I believe.
That is indeed later this month, dated from the SuperBowl 1984 when the Apple SuperBowl commercial aired. And there are some rumors that Apple will air it again, during the 2004 SuperBowl, to get some of that old time feeling back.
The real question is: can you still open those files? They were created with whatever Word application was on the Mac in 91 (Word? WordPerfect? Simpletext?) but would have to be opened with what's available for OS X.
Good points. The reason that FPS sucks on consoles is that they don't have mouse controls; they don't have mouse controls because the developers can't count on the users having mice, since the consoles don't ship with mice.
I love FPS. However, I also am a Mac-guy, so, frankly, my choices for FPS are limited--I had hoped that a console would give me options that the Mac lacks. While true for many genres of games (RPGs and Fighters), my favorite genre of FPS sucks balls on a console. How people can play Halo and MechWarrior on an Xbox with two joysticks is beyond me--maybe it takes brain re-wiring that I just haven't done yet, but it's like patting your stomach and your head at the same time in different directions.
That all boils down to: I'll give my left nut for a console that ships with a mouse/keypad equivalent, so the FPS console-game developers can count on it being there and develop for it. I would sooner buy a new console than a PC just for gaming, and I don't care from which side of the Pacific it comes from: if either XBox 2 or PS3 come with a mouse, they can consider my dollars theirs.
You're assuming that the GPS satellites don't orbit at the exact same speed of the spin speed of the Earth; you're assuming that they in fact orbit a little faster than the Earth--that they orbit at a speed that is the exact same as the length of an ideal day.
I don't know which speed they orbit at, but it's not hard to think that they orbit exactly as fast as the Earth spins, so they don't need to be corrected as you mention. I would be interested to know which is true.
First, how much catching up Mac OS X still has to do in some respects to Linux.
Agreed. But sometimes it's about knowing where to look--naturally, the favorite haunts of the Mac community aren't well known outside of the community itself. Versiontracker is the sourceforge of the Mac community--but much of it is indeed shareware, not freeware. Mac OS X Hints serves up nice digestible bits of HOWTO for us; especially appreciated is when a Unix LongBeard chimes in with his experience.
For example, one article in the German magazine "MacWelt" talks about defragmenting the harddisk (!) with Panther.
I don't know what they were talking about specifically, but defragging isn't necessary under Panther--apps self-optimize at launch ("Hot-File-Adaptive-Clustering"?). More from Apple on the topic of defragging in 10.2-.3. I don't know how that compares to Linux.
multiple desktops
It would be nice to see good multiple desktop support in OS X; the community feeling is that Apple doesn't implement it out of fear of confusing the grannies. However, Versiontrackerlists a number of Virtual Desktop managers; folks like CodeTek's (if you're paying) and I've used DesktopManager and liked it (for free). Not quite as robust as the options under Linux, but closer.
As for your other points: yeah, lots of shareware and not freeware. That's changing, some, as more and more Linux folks try OS X and re-implement what they liked in Linux on OS X; there's a fair few free projects for OS X (Fink is a good example). And yeah, the One Apple Way: that's rather the point. Jobs, right or wrong, thinks that the ability to chose breeds confusion in the consumer and is more difficult to support; look up the history of theming in OS 9 if you're interested. I don't know if I agree, personally--I think The One Way has it's points, but I think that alienated developers and tinkerers in the process, and I don't know which is better on balance.
Finally, But when you get past the cool design and ignore the far, far superior multimedia tools, Tux can hold its beak high and proud. Apple is going to have to peddle really hard if they want to continue to want money for their OS: Apple doesn't, really, want to charge for the OS. They want to sell hardware, and the OS is a loss leader for that. How many stand-alone boxes of the OS do you think that they sell? Here's a clue: besides a EULA, each install has no DRM, not a serial number, nothing. They ask you to please not install a single copy on more than one machine, but take no action to prevent it. And don't forget about the Open Source Darwin; this gives smarter minds than mine the opportunity to bring what they love about Linux to OS X.
Apple makes this trivial to do with OS X; it includes switch-on-the fly fonts, writing direction, and system languages. Applications that have that language included also switch along (language support is application specific, but if included with the app, will switch when the system does). No reboot required.
I really don't know if this is handled better or worse than in Linux or Windows. Keyboards remain an issue, of course.
Why do so many linux guys ignore "best tool for the job" and just force linux into a solution?
Because he has zero dollars to implement a solution, and not only does Microsoft cost more than Linux, it costs more than it used to--the cost to use Microsoft keeps increasing. So while I'll agree that Linux is not an end-all be-all, if you don't have any money to spend it's really the only solution available.
Or it means they are lying to us about the possible transmission vectors for Mad Cow Disease and that BSE can possibly be transmitted through vectors besides brain tissue.
That's exactly what I'm worried about as well. And from your link:
We know that Mad Cow Disease can be transmitted to humans. Chornic Wasting Disease is similar to Mad Cow Disease; however, there has been NO documented evidence to date that it can be transmitted to humans by ingestion of infected meat.
That unfortunately makes it as clear as mud. The quotes says 1) some potential for transmission of CWD to humans via meat; 2) CWD is similar to Mad Cow, but 3) don't panic, because you can't get Mad Cow from eating the meat of an infected animal.
Fucking christ, it sounds like we're being lied to, to protect the ass-stupid ranchers who made herbivores into cannibals. I don't think I'm eating beef until we get some straight answers, and I don't care what the FDA chief served for Xmas dinner.
The fact that John Titor warned about this very thing doesn't help, either. Although that's tinfoil hat time.
Maybe if your company hired people with an IQ of over 50, things would have gone a lot smoother for the folks in line behind of you.
I'm sorry that this is going to sound like flamebait, but you knowingly bring complicated electronics that don't work in a normal environment, and expect them to look at the product manuals to verify that they're not a bomb? What exactly does a printed manual verify, besides the fact that you have access to a laser printer?
Next time, try carrying on nothing besides a clue. Don't bring anything that your mother wouldn't understand after 30 seconds. They have to default on the side of caution, as they should.
I had understood that "Mad Cow" is only transmitted by eating the brains of an infected animal. Ranched cattle would acquire it as they are sometimes feed the brains of previously slaughtered cattle, but how exactly do deer and other wildlife transmit it?
Is there another transmission vector, or do deer etc in fact eat the brains of their own dead?
So why is space expensive? Almost every spacecraft (as opposed to satellites or launch vehicle) is essentially designed for 1 or 2 time use
I think that's an interesting point, and begs the question: why don't they uber-test a modular lander, and then amortize the cost of the initial testing by reusing the design many many times? Certainly each mission is going to have different goals, including different landing sites, but why does it seem like they reinvent the wheel every time they make an attempt?
You actually gave "rocks wrapped in paper" as a present? While a larger/heavier box that actually has an item of less value is kind of funny, I can imagine his reaction when he found actual rocks. I don't doubt he learned something, but I think it's not what you hoped it would be so much as that I love playing mind games with influential youngsters. A penchant for which you will no doubt be cherished for, when these kids grow up to be men in their own right.
This is a very interesting insight to the methodology in use by this agency
I believe that you failed to account for the fact that these pictures, and the methodology used to analyze them, were scrubbed of sensitive data for public consumption. They may well have obfuscated some information in order to protect their methodology or even their technical ability. I wouldn't be too quick to jump to conclusions based on what they chose to release, realizing that they may well have kept the most interesting and productive bits back.
If the movie leaves out Lewis' Christian theme, then why bother? The interleaving of Christian morality, how it motivates the characters and drives the story, is fundamental to what makes the series interesting, whether recognized or not.
Maybe it wasn't clear from my post, but I absolutely agree.
Every person has a god.
I don't agree with this, and I don't know why you think so. I rather think it is a circular argument that you use to set up your next point.
In your case, it is "no-god". You give honor to no-god
I don't honor a god, no. Rather, I fail to honor any god. I don't worship the absence of a belief system--I don't celebrate my non-belief. Frankly, I don't consider it much, but mentioned it in this thread simply because it was relevant to the discussion.
and disdain all who believe otherwise. You disparage them and call their beliefs crap.
I apologize if it seemed that way to you, as it wasn't my intent. I think it's a misreading of my phrasing: I was attempting to speculate on what another viewer of a movie would perceive, not my personal perspective. My own perspective is different than that of my hypothetical adult who goes to the movie without reacquainting himself with the books first.
But this no-god is formed in your own image. no-god is really me-god. The term self-righteous is intended solely for the me-god worshippers. You love this god and honor him above all others.
Um, whatever. Just saying "no-god=me-god" doesn't make it so, anymore than if I said "apples=oranges" would do for turning apples into a citrus. As I said above, I don't think your premise holds. I think it's more likely that you can't conceive of existence without the belief of some god, so you project that belief onto me, but change it to match the definition of "atheist" as you understand it.
Think about what you believe. Do you really think the universe exists so that you can exploit it?
No. I think I exist as a byproduct of the operation of the universe. I don't believe that the universe serves me, or that I serve it.
How can you think beyond yourself?
I don't follow that; I think sentients are connected to each other through a web of dependence. I think that web is interesting in the extreme, that we have no ability to fully comprehend it, and that it is vitally necessary to life. Some have called it Gaia, but I don't believe it has a sentience.
Or will you continue to be blinded by your own magnificence?
Speaking for myself, I believe rather in my insignificance in the scope of the universe--a byproduct of an accidental chemical reaction in an obscure ecosphere.
That there is something besides me-god is what these books mean to convey.
I agree.
Think past yourself. If you believe there is nothing, what keeps you from just ending it all? The ectasy of your crusade?
Habit, mostly. Also a strong instinctual desire, which I cannot rationally describe, but I can reason that those without this desire did not survive to pass said desire on to their offspring. I acquired this desire, because those without it died long ago. But beyond that--no, I don't believe my life has any lasting significance. In fact, you mention that I must believe in my own magnificence--rather, I think that you believe in your own magnificence, to think that a being of unlimited power and intelligence would deign to care what you did on a day-to-day basis. What makes you so important? Do you need to believe that a being greater than yourself shows an interest in you, to keep you from "ending it all"? Isn't that a self-satisfied delusion?
I agree with you on one thing, the religious overtones of the Chronicles of Narnia are far from minimal...they are essential.
To be clear, I do as well. I think that the presentation of the Chronicles of Narnia without Lewis' Xian overto
I, a student of history and politics, predict that you'll be invaded and conquered as soon as you have anything worth taking. Your students won't know what hit them because they won't have seen it coming. And I think you mis-read the Tlulaxu and Ixians--they knew their politics pretty well themselves. Do you think that they created gholas just for the scientific appeal of it?
However, as to our opposition to building this thing in France to punish them over Iraq: that is an undeniably stupid way to do science. However, the administration isn't looking at this like from a science perspective, but rather a "pork barrel" perspective, which dictates that you reward your friends and starve your enemies. You especially help those that are just leaning towards becoming friends--I wouldn't be surprised if Japan's recent commitment of some troops and money to Iraq was explicitly tied to our endorsement of this project on their soil.
1) For the first thing, I over-spoke when I said "propaganda"; it's really more of a recasting of some of the tenets and ideas of Christianity. "Propaganda" is those "comics" handed out at bus-stops; whereas I don't think that the Narnia stories really proselytize so much as "re-imagine". At least I can't remember the Narnia stories putting pressure on me to redeem myself; that they recast Christian ideology in an interesting and appealing new light I dunno can be really called propaganda--it's more like a long advertisement, actually. 2) I haven't read the Pullman you mention, so I unfortunately can't comment. 3) Point taken about "Xian" vs. "Xtian"; it was before coffee.
But I did know that X was a shorthand for Jesus; I even know that "Christ" isn't Jesus' last name, but is rather the title of "messiah", so it's more appropriately "Jesus the Christ". Not only Xians take Greek!
Apple's security-announce mailing list helps answer this question: "Directory Services: Fixes CAN-2003-1009. The default settings are changed to prevent an inadvertent connection in the event of a malicious DHCP server on the computer's local subnet. Further information is provided in Apple's Knowledge Base article: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=324 78 Credit to William A. Carrel for reporting this issue."
Certainly not everybody is thrilled by an underlying Christian theme, but removing it would make the story anemic.
Hmm...Hollywood can either a) risk their profit by encouraging a religious controversy around a child-oriented movie series, or b) make something anemic, and a pale imitation of the original. I wonder which they'll decide to do!
and is planning 'revised' Cristianity-free versions of the books as well
You must be kidding. They're going to write Aslan out of the series? CS Lewis didn't include this stuff in an off-handed way--Xtian elements are critical to his story-line. I sure as hell won't buy those books, even as an atheist. An author has the right to say what he intends to say, without being sterilized for later generations.
Kind of reminds me of some warnings from Bradbury, as a matter of fact. Who's next? Take the Raven from Poe? Take the Cthulhu from Lovecraft? Will Dracula be beaten by group hugs, in a "modernized" version?
I would like to see links to these rumors, actually, so I can lend my voice to the protest. Removing the Xtian elements in CS Lewis is like removing the logic from Sherlock stories.
I read some of these books when I was younger and thought they had a good story and plot. I wasn't concerned with the religious connotations.
They do indeed have a nice story and plot; I thoroughly enjoyed them when I was a younger reader. However, I also re-read them as a college student--and was frankly astonished at the religious allegory my young mind didn't see the first time. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing--and I'm a longtime atheist--but it seemed a lot less like "fantasy" and a lot more like "religious propaganda." I think that you'll find these books to have a different focus depending on your religious awareness--and if you went to the movie as an adult after only have read the books as a young child, you would be pretty appallled at the Christian overtones, even if faithfully adapted.
I think, for this reason, that these movies will not escape religious criticism as the LOTR series did. Either the director will adapt the books faithful to a young-child's perspective, heavy on the fantasy and light on the Xtian, which will piss of the Xtians and CS Lewis scholars--or the director will maintain the Xtian overlay in fact in the books, and adult viewers will wonder where all the Xtian crap came from, and wonder why their cherished childhood memories were perverted to serve some Xtian purpose.
It'll be interesting to see how this goes down--but before you say that the religious overtones are minimal, read these books again, as an adult.
Slashdot Mirror
it will only take one piece of protectionist legislation in the US to tumble the whole house of cards
Or for Pakistan to threaten to nuke them again, as they were doing just a few years ago. The first time a deadline is missed, and money is lost, because of instability in the region, I think we'll see lots of this work come back. Businesses don't appreciate uncertainty.
OTOH, if outsourcing becomes entrenched enough for long enough, then it becomes in America's interest to protect their stability with our own military force projection; witness Taiwan, or military protection of oil interests in the Middle East. How long until we turn this cusp I don't know--it has to be a factor of how much of their capital investment tax-paying-and-Congress-lobbying American Corps have to lose, and if the cumulative amount is enough to risk sending US boys to die for.
But that is the final result of India gaining outsourcing dollars--they are liable to become another Taiwan, which means that US boys might well be sent to defend India against China or Pakistan, to protect US Corp's right to unemploy those soldiers when they get home. India must appreciate having another friend in the world, considering China's expansionism and Pakistan's recent threats--so they'll be sure to play this for all it's worth, as soon as US Corps are extended there enough.
One of the earliest litigations of software IP, I think; or at least one that had the largest impact. A synopsis. Even more briefly: "look-and-feel" isn't a legal term. Furthermore, you can no more protect an interface for a software application than you can "protect the operating interface to a motor vehicle."
There won't be a single virus or worm that attacks the Mac OSX operating system.
I don't use the Mac, but I can't imagine that to be true: document and email macro viruses?
Hasn't happened yet, after three years of OS X, and there's no reason to think that'll change in 04. Document macro viruses are technically possible, as IIRC the macros that work on Office for Win also work on Office for Mac. But it seems as if virus writers prefer to hit the low-hanging fruit, which is email and/or auto-propagating worms that exploit a hole in an Internet facing service.
And, email viruses don't exist on the Mac for this one simple reason: email clients on the Mac don't auto-execute attachments, ever; they don't have that "feature" available, let alone on by default. In fact, if Microsoft turned off this feature by default, wouldn't that stop cold most infection attempts?
I find it an aberration that a software publishing industry grew, organized as if it were selling automobiles
In short, that is the essence of Microsoft's genius--they developed the ability to manufacture demand for a product that they can sell millions of times for the same cost-of-product as selling it once. No one else in the industry believed this possible at the time, including the heaviest thinkers, such as IBM.
I see the growth of Linux adoption as a return to those roots, in fact, in a triumph of the original philosophy; indeed, I think that Microsoft should be grateful for the run that they had, as it was unnatural and counter to history. Of course, they see it differently
A non-technically interesting length of time (such as 20 years) from the date the Macintosh was first introduced would also be noteworthy, and that's later this month I believe.
That is indeed later this month, dated from the SuperBowl 1984 when the Apple SuperBowl commercial aired. And there are some rumors that Apple will air it again, during the 2004 SuperBowl, to get some of that old time feeling back.
The real question is: can you still open those files? They were created with whatever Word application was on the Mac in 91 (Word? WordPerfect? Simpletext?) but would have to be opened with what's available for OS X.
Good points. The reason that FPS sucks on consoles is that they don't have mouse controls; they don't have mouse controls because the developers can't count on the users having mice, since the consoles don't ship with mice.
I love FPS. However, I also am a Mac-guy, so, frankly, my choices for FPS are limited--I had hoped that a console would give me options that the Mac lacks. While true for many genres of games (RPGs and Fighters), my favorite genre of FPS sucks balls on a console. How people can play Halo and MechWarrior on an Xbox with two joysticks is beyond me--maybe it takes brain re-wiring that I just haven't done yet, but it's like patting your stomach and your head at the same time in different directions.
That all boils down to: I'll give my left nut for a console that ships with a mouse/keypad equivalent, so the FPS console-game developers can count on it being there and develop for it. I would sooner buy a new console than a PC just for gaming, and I don't care from which side of the Pacific it comes from: if either XBox 2 or PS3 come with a mouse, they can consider my dollars theirs.
You're assuming that the GPS satellites don't orbit at the exact same speed of the spin speed of the Earth; you're assuming that they in fact orbit a little faster than the Earth--that they orbit at a speed that is the exact same as the length of an ideal day.
I don't know which speed they orbit at, but it's not hard to think that they orbit exactly as fast as the Earth spins, so they don't need to be corrected as you mention. I would be interested to know which is true.
First, how much catching up Mac OS X still has to do in some respects to Linux.
Agreed. But sometimes it's about knowing where to look--naturally, the favorite haunts of the Mac community aren't well known outside of the community itself. Versiontracker is the sourceforge of the Mac community--but much of it is indeed shareware, not freeware. Mac OS X Hints serves up nice digestible bits of HOWTO for us; especially appreciated is when a Unix LongBeard chimes in with his experience.
For example, one article in the German magazine "MacWelt" talks about defragmenting the harddisk (!) with Panther.
I don't know what they were talking about specifically, but defragging isn't necessary under Panther--apps self-optimize at launch ("Hot-File-Adaptive-Clustering"?). More from Apple on the topic of defragging in 10.2-.3. I don't know how that compares to Linux.
multiple desktops
It would be nice to see good multiple desktop support in OS X; the community feeling is that Apple doesn't implement it out of fear of confusing the grannies. However, Versiontracker lists a number of Virtual Desktop managers; folks like CodeTek's (if you're paying) and I've used DesktopManager and liked it (for free). Not quite as robust as the options under Linux, but closer.
As for your other points: yeah, lots of shareware and not freeware. That's changing, some, as more and more Linux folks try OS X and re-implement what they liked in Linux on OS X; there's a fair few free projects for OS X (Fink is a good example). And yeah, the One Apple Way: that's rather the point. Jobs, right or wrong, thinks that the ability to chose breeds confusion in the consumer and is more difficult to support; look up the history of theming in OS 9 if you're interested. I don't know if I agree, personally--I think The One Way has it's points, but I think that alienated developers and tinkerers in the process, and I don't know which is better on balance.
Finally, But when you get past the cool design and ignore the far, far superior multimedia tools, Tux can hold its beak high and proud. Apple is going to have to peddle really hard if they want to continue to want money for their OS: Apple doesn't, really, want to charge for the OS. They want to sell hardware, and the OS is a loss leader for that. How many stand-alone boxes of the OS do you think that they sell? Here's a clue: besides a EULA, each install has no DRM, not a serial number, nothing. They ask you to please not install a single copy on more than one machine, but take no action to prevent it. And don't forget about the Open Source Darwin; this gives smarter minds than mine the opportunity to bring what they love about Linux to OS X.
Apple makes this trivial to do with OS X; it includes switch-on-the fly fonts, writing direction, and system languages. Applications that have that language included also switch along (language support is application specific, but if included with the app, will switch when the system does). No reboot required.
I really don't know if this is handled better or worse than in Linux or Windows. Keyboards remain an issue, of course.
Why do so many linux guys ignore "best tool for the job" and just force linux into a solution?
Because he has zero dollars to implement a solution, and not only does Microsoft cost more than Linux, it costs more than it used to--the cost to use Microsoft keeps increasing. So while I'll agree that Linux is not an end-all be-all, if you don't have any money to spend it's really the only solution available.
Or it means they are lying to us about the possible transmission vectors for Mad Cow Disease and that BSE can possibly be transmitted through vectors besides brain tissue.
That's exactly what I'm worried about as well. And from your link:
We know that Mad Cow Disease can be transmitted to humans. Chornic Wasting Disease is similar to Mad Cow Disease; however, there has been NO documented evidence to date that it can be transmitted to humans by ingestion of infected meat.
That unfortunately makes it as clear as mud. The quotes says 1) some potential for transmission of CWD to humans via meat; 2) CWD is similar to Mad Cow, but 3) don't panic, because you can't get Mad Cow from eating the meat of an infected animal.
Fucking christ, it sounds like we're being lied to, to protect the ass-stupid ranchers who made herbivores into cannibals. I don't think I'm eating beef until we get some straight answers, and I don't care what the FDA chief served for Xmas dinner.
The fact that John Titor warned about this very thing doesn't help, either. Although that's tinfoil hat time.
Maybe if your company hired people with an IQ of over 50, things would have gone a lot smoother for the folks in line behind of you.
I'm sorry that this is going to sound like flamebait, but you knowingly bring complicated electronics that don't work in a normal environment, and expect them to look at the product manuals to verify that they're not a bomb? What exactly does a printed manual verify, besides the fact that you have access to a laser printer?
Next time, try carrying on nothing besides a clue. Don't bring anything that your mother wouldn't understand after 30 seconds. They have to default on the side of caution, as they should.
I had understood that "Mad Cow" is only transmitted by eating the brains of an infected animal. Ranched cattle would acquire it as they are sometimes feed the brains of previously slaughtered cattle, but how exactly do deer and other wildlife transmit it?
Is there another transmission vector, or do deer etc in fact eat the brains of their own dead?
So why is space expensive? Almost every spacecraft (as opposed to satellites or launch vehicle) is essentially designed for 1 or 2 time use
I think that's an interesting point, and begs the question: why don't they uber-test a modular lander, and then amortize the cost of the initial testing by reusing the design many many times? Certainly each mission is going to have different goals, including different landing sites, but why does it seem like they reinvent the wheel every time they make an attempt?
though I suppose if you could shoot two neutrons at each other with enough force you just might get them to form a mini-black-hole for a nanosecond
I believe that they plan to do exactly that at CERN when it comes online.
You actually gave "rocks wrapped in paper" as a present? While a larger/heavier box that actually has an item of less value is kind of funny, I can imagine his reaction when he found actual rocks. I don't doubt he learned something, but I think it's not what you hoped it would be so much as that I love playing mind games with influential youngsters. A penchant for which you will no doubt be cherished for, when these kids grow up to be men in their own right.
This is a very interesting insight to the methodology in use by this agency
I believe that you failed to account for the fact that these pictures, and the methodology used to analyze them, were scrubbed of sensitive data for public consumption. They may well have obfuscated some information in order to protect their methodology or even their technical ability. I wouldn't be too quick to jump to conclusions based on what they chose to release, realizing that they may well have kept the most interesting and productive bits back.
If the movie leaves out Lewis' Christian theme, then why bother? The interleaving of Christian morality, how it motivates the characters and drives the story, is fundamental to what makes the series interesting, whether recognized or not.
Maybe it wasn't clear from my post, but I absolutely agree.
Every person has a god.
I don't agree with this, and I don't know why you think so. I rather think it is a circular argument that you use to set up your next point.
In your case, it is "no-god". You give honor to no-god
I don't honor a god, no. Rather, I fail to honor any god. I don't worship the absence of a belief system--I don't celebrate my non-belief. Frankly, I don't consider it much, but mentioned it in this thread simply because it was relevant to the discussion.
and disdain all who believe otherwise. You disparage them and call their beliefs crap.
I apologize if it seemed that way to you, as it wasn't my intent. I think it's a misreading of my phrasing: I was attempting to speculate on what another viewer of a movie would perceive, not my personal perspective. My own perspective is different than that of my hypothetical adult who goes to the movie without reacquainting himself with the books first.
But this no-god is formed in your own image. no-god is really me-god. The term self-righteous is intended solely for the me-god worshippers. You love this god and honor him above all others.
Um, whatever. Just saying "no-god=me-god" doesn't make it so, anymore than if I said "apples=oranges" would do for turning apples into a citrus. As I said above, I don't think your premise holds. I think it's more likely that you can't conceive of existence without the belief of some god, so you project that belief onto me, but change it to match the definition of "atheist" as you understand it.
Think about what you believe. Do you really think the universe exists so that you can exploit it?
No. I think I exist as a byproduct of the operation of the universe. I don't believe that the universe serves me, or that I serve it.
How can you think beyond yourself?
I don't follow that; I think sentients are connected to each other through a web of dependence. I think that web is interesting in the extreme, that we have no ability to fully comprehend it, and that it is vitally necessary to life. Some have called it Gaia, but I don't believe it has a sentience.
Or will you continue to be blinded by your own magnificence?
Speaking for myself, I believe rather in my insignificance in the scope of the universe--a byproduct of an accidental chemical reaction in an obscure ecosphere.
That there is something besides me-god is what these books mean to convey.
I agree.
Think past yourself. If you believe there is nothing, what keeps you from just ending it all? The ectasy of your crusade?
Habit, mostly. Also a strong instinctual desire, which I cannot rationally describe, but I can reason that those without this desire did not survive to pass said desire on to their offspring. I acquired this desire, because those without it died long ago. But beyond that--no, I don't believe my life has any lasting significance. In fact, you mention that I must believe in my own magnificence--rather, I think that you believe in your own magnificence, to think that a being of unlimited power and intelligence would deign to care what you did on a day-to-day basis. What makes you so important? Do you need to believe that a being greater than yourself shows an interest in you, to keep you from "ending it all"? Isn't that a self-satisfied delusion?
I agree with you on one thing, the religious overtones of the Chronicles of Narnia are far from minimal...they are essential.
To be clear, I do as well. I think that the presentation of the Chronicles of Narnia without Lewis' Xian overto
I, a student of history and politics, predict that you'll be invaded and conquered as soon as you have anything worth taking. Your students won't know what hit them because they won't have seen it coming. And I think you mis-read the Tlulaxu and Ixians--they knew their politics pretty well themselves. Do you think that they created gholas just for the scientific appeal of it?
However, as to our opposition to building this thing in France to punish them over Iraq: that is an undeniably stupid way to do science. However, the administration isn't looking at this like from a science perspective, but rather a "pork barrel" perspective, which dictates that you reward your friends and starve your enemies. You especially help those that are just leaning towards becoming friends--I wouldn't be surprised if Japan's recent commitment of some troops and money to Iraq was explicitly tied to our endorsement of this project on their soil.
1) For the first thing, I over-spoke when I said "propaganda"; it's really more of a recasting of some of the tenets and ideas of Christianity. "Propaganda" is those "comics" handed out at bus-stops; whereas I don't think that the Narnia stories really proselytize so much as "re-imagine". At least I can't remember the Narnia stories putting pressure on me to redeem myself; that they recast Christian ideology in an interesting and appealing new light I dunno can be really called propaganda--it's more like a long advertisement, actually. 2) I haven't read the Pullman you mention, so I unfortunately can't comment. 3) Point taken about "Xian" vs. "Xtian"; it was before coffee.
But I did know that X was a shorthand for Jesus; I even know that "Christ" isn't Jesus' last name, but is rather the title of "messiah", so it's more appropriately "Jesus the Christ". Not only Xians take Greek!
Apple's security-announce mailing list helps answer this question: "Directory Services: Fixes CAN-2003-1009. The default settings are changed to prevent an inadvertent connection in the event of a malicious DHCP server on the computer's local subnet. Further information is provided in Apple's Knowledge Base article: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32
For more on these updates: Jaguar; Panther.
Certainly not everybody is thrilled by an underlying Christian theme, but removing it would make the story anemic.
Hmm...Hollywood can either a) risk their profit by encouraging a religious controversy around a child-oriented movie series, or b) make something anemic, and a pale imitation of the original. I wonder which they'll decide to do!
and is planning 'revised' Cristianity-free versions of the books as well
You must be kidding. They're going to write Aslan out of the series? CS Lewis didn't include this stuff in an off-handed way--Xtian elements are critical to his story-line. I sure as hell won't buy those books, even as an atheist. An author has the right to say what he intends to say, without being sterilized for later generations.
Kind of reminds me of some warnings from Bradbury, as a matter of fact. Who's next? Take the Raven from Poe? Take the Cthulhu from Lovecraft? Will Dracula be beaten by group hugs, in a "modernized" version?
I would like to see links to these rumors, actually, so I can lend my voice to the protest. Removing the Xtian elements in CS Lewis is like removing the logic from Sherlock stories.
I read some of these books when I was younger and thought they had a good story and plot. I wasn't concerned with the religious connotations.
They do indeed have a nice story and plot; I thoroughly enjoyed them when I was a younger reader. However, I also re-read them as a college student--and was frankly astonished at the religious allegory my young mind didn't see the first time. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing--and I'm a longtime atheist--but it seemed a lot less like "fantasy" and a lot more like "religious propaganda." I think that you'll find these books to have a different focus depending on your religious awareness--and if you went to the movie as an adult after only have read the books as a young child, you would be pretty appallled at the Christian overtones, even if faithfully adapted.
I think, for this reason, that these movies will not escape religious criticism as the LOTR series did. Either the director will adapt the books faithful to a young-child's perspective, heavy on the fantasy and light on the Xtian, which will piss of the Xtians and CS Lewis scholars--or the director will maintain the Xtian overlay in fact in the books, and adult viewers will wonder where all the Xtian crap came from, and wonder why their cherished childhood memories were perverted to serve some Xtian purpose.
It'll be interesting to see how this goes down--but before you say that the religious overtones are minimal, read these books again, as an adult.