One of the best defenses Apple has by way of security is low market share, meaning fewer targest, and being able to swipe from other developers for free by having a Unix base to their OS. But right now, what's the point in targeting Apple boxen for attacks?
First,.NET is NOT "rebranded VB"..NET isn't even a program language, rather a development platform.
Also, there is no cost to use.NET, only to use the development tools Microsoft produces. Hell, use the sdk that they give out for free.
I can't personally comment with complete confidence on php, as I have only used it sparingly. But from what I've seen, at least in terms of development time, any.NET web dev technology would be far faster to develop any decent sized site.
You might want to use the.NET technologies, and get a better understanding of what it is, before you start making comments.
In WWII the UK had many cities, including London, decimated by German bombing. There are no doubt still many living Brits who remember. That being said, it could also be the reason Britain is not supporting the war quite as much as the American population is, although the numbers there are growing as well.
Why is it so interesting that they would liberate the land closest to where they begain the invasion from? The fact that the oil wells lie not too far over the Kuwait border may have had something to do with why they were taken early on. What REALLY would have been strange is if they went all the way into the country to take Baghdad, then doubled back almost the entire distance to take what they could have taken on the way. Sorry, but this just doesn't show anything more than logical progress in taking the country. You'll have to find some other evidence to support your 'No Blood for Oil' paranoia.
As a long time fan who has read just about everything you have written, I have wondered what it is like for you when you tackle 'serious issues.' At the end of your 'Cyberspace' book you wrote a surprisingly poignant and subtly emotional look at an unsatisfied housewife experimenting with an online romance. It brought to mind, in the tone and 'feel,' some of what Louis Grizzard, the great humorist, used to write on occasion. It seems like humor columnits have some deep-seeded ability to write in a remarkably moving way at times. What is it that humorists have that can make their writing so insightful about the less humorous aspects of life?
Mad Max: The Geriatric Years
on
New Mad Max Film
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Isn't Gibson getting a bit too old for the action genre? What are they going to title the film, Mad Max Breaks a Hip? Maybe he could drive a junked Caddie going 5 mph.
No, it was religious. It was meant against hereticals, and the trials were by clerics according to canonical law.
At the request of the civil authorities without the support of the Pope.
full support from the Roman hierarchy.
not true
The threat was restricted to South-Central Europe (Balkans)
Outrageously inaccurate. Southern Spain was taken and occupied by the Turks and was in serious danger of falling completely. This was the major inroad made by the Turks into Europe.
ot target at heathens, but at reformists and heretics.
The Inquisition that most people think of happened in Spain directed at Turks long before (hundreds of years) any major reformist movment threatened the Church.
he Catholic Church itself has, throughout the years, advocated everything from slavery, to torture, to execution
Your evidence being...
And don't say the Inquisition because that was a POLITICAL phenomenon carried out by the civil authorities in response to the very serious threat the Turks were posing to Eurpoe at the time.
Man, the Church must be really terrible at being the secret organization that everyone seems to think it is since ALL OF THIS YOU MENTION IS FREELY AVAILABLE TO ANYONE.
it is truly inconceivable that Catholicism is The Answer for me
I honestly don't mean to be a jerk, but can I venture to say that "it is truly inconcievalbe that what you THINK Catholicism is is The Answer for you"? Hell, if it was anything close to what you say it is I never would have converted this past Easter. Count me as one of those who used to think much the same way you did, but when I actually began to read about it I discovered that I hated what everyone said Catholicism was, and not what it actually IS. There is a HUGE difference, as there is profound misconception out there about what the Church actually teaches.
Were they really doing Jesus' will when Constantinople was sacked for the profit of the Vatican?
The sacking of Constantinople was an action condemed by the Pope during a Crusade that was condemed by the Pope before it was even started. I hardly think that could be considered evidence against the Vatican, only that Catholic people have done horrible things, just like any other group of people.
There is a well established history of concealing their documents and actions.
Every institution does this, not just the Catholic Church. It just happens to be that you assume they are up to something sinister because of it. It's anti-Catholic bias. It doesn't incite me that you mention this fact, only that you assume evil intentions when you have no idea one way or another.
And I will repeat, if you get modded down it's not because you're 'pointing out these facts' (as if you're the only one ever to make these claims). Don't be so paranoid and be assured that everyone here is just as committed to free discussion as you are. The Pope isn't lurking/. with unlimited mod points.
Certainly you could find many sources. And I could find many counter-sources as well. No doubt you would refer to something like 'Hitler's Pope' while I would counter by pointing to all the Jewish historians and leaders who have shown their support for Pius IX. It would go on and on. But above all what the poster and most others fail to do is to distinguish between what Catholics do and what the Church teaches. No doubt there have been many individual Catholics who, in forsaking Church teachings, have brought shame to the institution as a whole. It is vitally important to make the distinction.
If I were wrong, there would be more than enough people to explain why I'm mistaken
Okay, I'll take the challenge.
Myth #1: Catholicism is the first multinational corporation dedicated to its self preservation and profit.
Fact: Catholicism is niether a corporation nor for profit. It is a widely held misconception that the Catholic church is obscenely rich, when in fact it has relatively limited liquid resources (everything is in priceless sacred art, buildings, etc). And the vast majority of what money that comes into Rome goes into making the Church the world's #1 providor of care of AIDS, and countless other charitable activities.
Myth #2: It's an entire heirarchy built around the practice of duping people into coughing up cash for rewards in a future life.
Fact: Buying indulgences was never a licit practice in the Church and has been soundly rejected over and over again.
Myth #3: The crusades were financial ventures, that much is common knowledge
Fact: Many historians would disagree (Hillare Belloc for example). In fact, the Crusades were incredibly costly, rather than profitable. And a question: While you're bashing, why not claim they just wanted to masacre Jews and Muslims? That's another common one you seemed to have missed. Most anti-Catholic historians seem to take that position.
I could go on, but frankly, there's no point. You haven't provided any support for your points, so there's really nothing to argue against rather than your opinions.
How would you being moded as flamebait in any way shape or form prove you right? Couldn't it simply be that what you have written merely incites anti-Catholic prejudice rather than adding anything useful to the conversation? Or is anyone that disagrees with you just 'damn Catholic opressors?' Way to go thinking that you're somehow in on the 'Catholic conspiracy' and the/. community is in on it.
Just as a correction, they are releasing their WWII era documents. And try to refrain from making wildly opinionated and unsupported comments about something as sensitive as religion...any religion.
Wake up, you're already a wage slave. We all are. Anyone who depends on an employer for his livelyhood is a slave to his wage. We are in indentured servitude not by law but by necessity.
Instead of saying that it is not scientific to assume God exists, isn't it MORE scientific to say that we don't know whether He exists or not? Atheism is unscientific because it assumes something which has not be proved: that God does not exist. Agnosticism is much more reasonable because it simply states something that is true: we do not KNOW if God exists or not. By the very nature of what God would be (that is, outside of the observable universe) the science is not equipped to test for the existence of God. So you may say that you have no evidence that God exists, but you cannot say that you have evidence that he does not exist. We simply do not have any scientific reason for saying either way. Science can asess specific claims about the way God interacts with the world. One example being the fundamentalist claim of Creationism. But because science can show that a claim about God that can be tested is not true, does not mean that God does not exist.
So, as you claim to be a scientist, you might want to ask yourself what scientific evidence you have shows that God does not exist. Have you developed instrumentation to test the population of the spiritual realm? Have you performed the proper experimentation to show that such a spiritual realm exists? Of course, the answer to these questions are 'No.' The fact is, science can neither claim that God does not exist, nor that He does. It is a great shame that most scientists don't seem to recognize how their atheism violates the principles they supposedly hold dear.
you don't want to give too much freedom to the robots as they will go crazy
Oh, great, crazy robots and soccer. Like there isn't enough soccer violence already. Next we'll have robot soccer players wigging out and pulling spectators out of the stands.
Think back to when there were a plethora of OS's or, your way, video game machines
Think back to when games took less than a year to produce. Then think about the present when games, and all software for that matter, are exponentially more complex. The fact of the matter is that software development is so complex it is virtually impossible to produce more than two (Mac and PC versions) versions. And even then, only the biggest development shops can do even two.
Hear hear! I was forced to listen to an entire Dion CD in my fater-in-law's car and it was truly painful. Her overly-dramatized voice on top of those indescribably awful lyrics was penance for every sin I will ever commit.
Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 2
I didn't see any of the movies involved in the best actress nomination, but...
Please disregard and NEVER mod up a comment that begins like this.
I'd venture to guess that this is because of bandwidth lockdown and most institutions. At the small, private college where I work our 6mbps guaranteed bandwidth was showing spikes up to 33mbps at peak times before they finally blocked all P2P file sharing. When your means of pirating are taken away, what else can you do but buy what you need?
As much I would not like to see or support sites that use Windows Media shite
Way to go there buddy. Kick them for using the most widely supported media format out there. How dare they ensure that the largest number of people can view their stuff!?
They in fact do not have authority, because they are merely suggesting the laws that others have to pass and implement. The power of suggestion is not the power of authority.
You are, of course, correct. But I was referring (speculating) as to what this could lead to in the future.
To make one other point, the power of suggestion can become indistinguishable from real authority. The Supreme Court, for instance, has very limited powers under the constitution, but has created for itself (with judicial review) huge power. In essense, their suggestive power (as their decisions are technically subject to Congressional approval, tacit or otherwise) has become authoritative.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the best defenses Apple has by way of security is low market share, meaning fewer targest, and being able to swipe from other developers for free by having a Unix base to their OS. But right now, what's the point in targeting Apple boxen for attacks?
So very many things wrong with this statement.
.NET is NOT "rebranded VB". .NET isn't even a program language, rather a development platform.
.NET, only to use the development tools Microsoft produces. Hell, use the sdk that they give out for free.
.NET web dev technology would be far faster to develop any decent sized site.
.NET technologies, and get a better understanding of what it is, before you start making comments.
First,
Also, there is no cost to use
I can't personally comment with complete confidence on php, as I have only used it sparingly. But from what I've seen, at least in terms of development time, any
You might want to use the
In WWII the UK had many cities, including London, decimated by German bombing. There are no doubt still many living Brits who remember. That being said, it could also be the reason Britain is not supporting the war quite as much as the American population is, although the numbers there are growing as well.
Why is it so interesting that they would liberate the land closest to where they begain the invasion from? The fact that the oil wells lie not too far over the Kuwait border may have had something to do with why they were taken early on. What REALLY would have been strange is if they went all the way into the country to take Baghdad, then doubled back almost the entire distance to take what they could have taken on the way. Sorry, but this just doesn't show anything more than logical progress in taking the country. You'll have to find some other evidence to support your 'No Blood for Oil' paranoia.
As a long time fan who has read just about everything you have written, I have wondered what it is like for you when you tackle 'serious issues.' At the end of your 'Cyberspace' book you wrote a surprisingly poignant and subtly emotional look at an unsatisfied housewife experimenting with an online romance. It brought to mind, in the tone and 'feel,' some of what Louis Grizzard, the great humorist, used to write on occasion. It seems like humor columnits have some deep-seeded ability to write in a remarkably moving way at times. What is it that humorists have that can make their writing so insightful about the less humorous aspects of life?
Isn't Gibson getting a bit too old for the action genre? What are they going to title the film, Mad Max Breaks a Hip? Maybe he could drive a junked Caddie going 5 mph.
At the request of the civil authorities without the support of the Pope.
full support from the Roman hierarchy.
not true
The threat was restricted to South-Central Europe (Balkans)
Outrageously inaccurate. Southern Spain was taken and occupied by the Turks and was in serious danger of falling completely. This was the major inroad made by the Turks into Europe.
ot target at heathens, but at reformists and heretics.
The Inquisition that most people think of happened in Spain directed at Turks long before (hundreds of years) any major reformist movment threatened the Church.
Your evidence being...
And don't say the Inquisition because that was a POLITICAL phenomenon carried out by the civil authorities in response to the very serious threat the Turks were posing to Eurpoe at the time.
Man, the Church must be really terrible at being the secret organization that everyone seems to think it is since ALL OF THIS YOU MENTION IS FREELY AVAILABLE TO ANYONE.
I honestly don't mean to be a jerk, but can I venture to say that "it is truly inconcievalbe that what you THINK Catholicism is is The Answer for you"? Hell, if it was anything close to what you say it is I never would have converted this past Easter. Count me as one of those who used to think much the same way you did, but when I actually began to read about it I discovered that I hated what everyone said Catholicism was, and not what it actually IS. There is a HUGE difference, as there is profound misconception out there about what the Church actually teaches.
The sacking of Constantinople was an action condemed by the Pope during a Crusade that was condemed by the Pope before it was even started. I hardly think that could be considered evidence against the Vatican, only that Catholic people have done horrible things, just like any other group of people.
There is a well established history of concealing their documents and actions.
Every institution does this, not just the Catholic Church. It just happens to be that you assume they are up to something sinister because of it. It's anti-Catholic bias. It doesn't incite me that you mention this fact, only that you assume evil intentions when you have no idea one way or another.
And I will repeat, if you get modded down it's not because you're 'pointing out these facts' (as if you're the only one ever to make these claims). Don't be so paranoid and be assured that everyone here is just as committed to free discussion as you are. The Pope isn't lurking
Certainly you could find many sources. And I could find many counter-sources as well. No doubt you would refer to something like 'Hitler's Pope' while I would counter by pointing to all the Jewish historians and leaders who have shown their support for Pius IX. It would go on and on. But above all what the poster and most others fail to do is to distinguish between what Catholics do and what the Church teaches. No doubt there have been many individual Catholics who, in forsaking Church teachings, have brought shame to the institution as a whole. It is vitally important to make the distinction.
Okay, I'll take the challenge.
Myth #1: Catholicism is the first multinational corporation dedicated to its self preservation and profit.
Fact: Catholicism is niether a corporation nor for profit. It is a widely held misconception that the Catholic church is obscenely rich, when in fact it has relatively limited liquid resources (everything is in priceless sacred art, buildings, etc). And the vast majority of what money that comes into Rome goes into making the Church the world's #1 providor of care of AIDS, and countless other charitable activities.
Myth #2: It's an entire heirarchy built around the practice of duping people into coughing up cash for rewards in a future life.
Fact: Buying indulgences was never a licit practice in the Church and has been soundly rejected over and over again.
Myth #3: The crusades were financial ventures, that much is common knowledge
Fact: Many historians would disagree (Hillare Belloc for example). In fact, the Crusades were incredibly costly, rather than profitable. And a question: While you're bashing, why not claim they just wanted to masacre Jews and Muslims? That's another common one you seemed to have missed. Most anti-Catholic historians seem to take that position.
I could go on, but frankly, there's no point. You haven't provided any support for your points, so there's really nothing to argue against rather than your opinions.
How would you being moded as flamebait in any way shape or form prove you right? Couldn't it simply be that what you have written merely incites anti-Catholic prejudice rather than adding anything useful to the conversation? Or is anyone that disagrees with you just 'damn Catholic opressors?' Way to go thinking that you're somehow in on the 'Catholic conspiracy' and the /. community is in on it.
Just as a correction, they are releasing their WWII era documents. And try to refrain from making wildly opinionated and unsupported comments about something as sensitive as religion...any religion.
Wake up, you're already a wage slave. We all are. Anyone who depends on an employer for his livelyhood is a slave to his wage. We are in indentured servitude not by law but by necessity.
So, as you claim to be a scientist, you might want to ask yourself what scientific evidence you have shows that God does not exist. Have you developed instrumentation to test the population of the spiritual realm? Have you performed the proper experimentation to show that such a spiritual realm exists? Of course, the answer to these questions are 'No.' The fact is, science can neither claim that God does not exist, nor that He does. It is a great shame that most scientists don't seem to recognize how their atheism violates the principles they supposedly hold dear.
Oh, great, crazy robots and soccer. Like there isn't enough soccer violence already. Next we'll have robot soccer players wigging out and pulling spectators out of the stands.
Think back to when there were a plethora of OS's or, your way, video game machines
Think back to when games took less than a year to produce. Then think about the present when games, and all software for that matter, are exponentially more complex. The fact of the matter is that software development is so complex it is virtually impossible to produce more than two (Mac and PC versions) versions. And even then, only the biggest development shops can do even two.
You SAY they are bad games, but what are their start to crate scores?
Hear hear! I was forced to listen to an entire Dion CD in my fater-in-law's car and it was truly painful. Her overly-dramatized voice on top of those indescribably awful lyrics was penance for every sin I will ever commit.
Please disregard and NEVER mod up a comment that begins like this.
I'd venture to guess that this is because of bandwidth lockdown and most institutions. At the small, private college where I work our 6mbps guaranteed bandwidth was showing spikes up to 33mbps at peak times before they finally blocked all P2P file sharing. When your means of pirating are taken away, what else can you do but buy what you need?
As much I would not like to see or support sites that use Windows Media shite
Way to go there buddy. Kick them for using the most widely supported media format out there. How dare they ensure that the largest number of people can view their stuff!?
You are, of course, correct. But I was referring (speculating) as to what this could lead to in the future.
To make one other point, the power of suggestion can become indistinguishable from real authority. The Supreme Court, for instance, has very limited powers under the constitution, but has created for itself (with judicial review) huge power. In essense, their suggestive power (as their decisions are technically subject to Congressional approval, tacit or otherwise) has become authoritative.