Very true. Hence my comment about frame of reference.
However, ancient Hebrew is definitely not my strength, so I had to look it up. Turns out, the original Hebrew translates to "Let there be atmosphere in the midst of the waters."
How about that? There's atmosphere in between the oceans and the clouds.
The linked page I responded to has a bunch of stuff from the Bible about the earth being a circle. Which, looked at from space, is exactly as it appears.
The misreadings and misunderstandings are incredible. I find it hard to believe that someone apparently intelligent could unintentionally be that obtuse.
The writer goes so far as to incorrectly define words to prove his point. There's also the bizarre frame of reference which seems to fluctuate between someone reading 2500 years ago, and someone reading now, depending on which point of view best supports his arguments.
Then there's making claims that the Bible says something it simply doesn't.
Let me give you an example from his page: "And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament."
The writer uses this to claim that the Bible states that the sky is some sort of solid dam, holding back incalculable amounts of water. This is what he claims a firmament is.
Google for "define:firmament" and you'll find five definitions, only one of which mentions anything about it being solid, and even then, it only "seems" that it what firmament meant.
The firmament is simply an arbitrary space above the earth.
Now, Genesis is widely accepted to have been written approximately 3500 years ago. Do you think an uneducated commoner in those times realized that clouds were made of water? I doubt it. However, somehow the author wrote about water over the firmament. Clouds. Wow. Such horrible science.
So regardless of what you take the "firmament" to mean - unless you take the "solid sphere" meaning, which is in no way indicated Biblically - then there's water above it.
Similarly, he complains about the phrasing "corners of the earth", and "ends of the earth" as if they show an earth that is some flat shape. We still use these phrases today, in lots of conversations. Does that mean we all think that the earth is a flat square? No. It's a metaphor. "Going to the ends of the earth" means you'll do virtually anything to accomplish a task. Since there is no end to the earth, due to it being a sphere and all, then this makes perfect sense.
The problem a lot of people have with this kind of stuff is that they either read the Bible totally literally, completely out of context, or both.
It was written using language and metaphors that common people of 2000 to 3000 years ago would understand, in a culture where community was incredibly important. Read it from that point of view - instead of thinking "The earth doesn't wear a skirt! This is pink unicorn bullshit!" - and you'll find it makes a lot more sense.
Also I don't like this elitist "purist" thing that people pretend to of "Oh I don't even like the graphics, I just want good gameplay." Guess what? The graphics and sound can well be a part of that. When games are visually appealing it can add to the immersivness. It is easier to lose yourself in a convincing world.
I agree with this completely. I've recently been playing a fair amount of STALKER -Shadow of Chernobyl, and -Clear Sky lately.
The realism of the gameplay is partly due to realism in graphics and sound. Although at the same time, the world you are in is so open, and you are free to explore as you want/need to. You are, after all, in a real place that actually exists. If you've seen pictures of the area around Chernobyl since the accident, then you'll recognize a lot of places as you play through the game. You'll be walking around, stop to chat to someone, hear a dog bark in the distance, a crack of thunder and it will start raining...then a radioactive mutant will be trying to rip your head off.
Many FPS games guide - or force - you to the next objective, so you don't have the opportunity to look around, find interesting places, and interact with many different characters in the game world. This game is completely different. You can spend days walking, exploring, collecting goodies, not do a single mission, and it doesn't leave you thinking "I've not progressed any in this game."
I guess what I'm getting at is, good graphics and sound can certainly enhance a good game. But at the same time, no matter how good the graphics are, a crappy game is still going to be crappy.
But crappy drivers are less likely to cause accidents that lead to death and injury if we impose and enforce a law that restricts the speed at which they can travel.
And they'd be even less likely to cause accidents if we didn't let them drive in the first place. But we can't have that, because the state makes lots of money through traffic tickets and sales tax on high-risk insurance premiums, as well as licence fees for all those crappy drivers and the frequent cars they go through.
This guy is probably just trying to get attention..
I think this might be a mistake. Not a mistake to allow higher speeds, but a mistake in the "speed kills" propaganda wall that has been perpetrated on the North American public for decades.
The government refuses to raise speed limits because it's deadly/unsafe/irresponsible/pick-your-negative-adjective to do so. At least, that's what they've said for ages.
Now, however, we've got this guy saying "pay us money and you can drive faster." Which is basically a speeding fine in reverse.
So it's an indirect admission by the government that speed limits are in fact not about safety, but revenue.
Funny. The way I read that wording - mangled translation though it is - is that ISPs cannot make distinction based on source of origin. There's nothing there that will stop them from prioritizing _all_ VOIP traffic. They just can't prioritize their own VOIP service, but leave Skype at the bottom of the heap.
able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet
"legal services" does not mean "things that lawyers provide".
It means "services that are legal to provide".
Spamming and hacking are not legal, therefore will not have safe haven. Porn and gambling depend on the jurisdiction, but I don't see an issue with either of these, really.
The confusion is that most regular people are only marginally aware of an AMD/Intel distinction, although don't know what it means, and don't know at all ATI or nVidia.
With a 3 GHz clock, a signal at the speed of light travels 10 cm during one clock cycle. This means that if a chip needs data from another and there's a distance of five centimeters or more between both chips the data will not arrive in the same clock cycle.
Really? So when did we all get to using optical interconnects?
Electricity doesn't travel at the speed of light.
And even if it did, for your random, uninformed postulation to be true, we would need evidence that chips could not practically run faster than 3GHz. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.
1. It still requires a server, which your ISP says is a no-no. 2. It could potentially require logging into your machine from a - possibly infected - client machine, depending on the availability of CD-Rs, local networks, or flash drives.
Meaning, if I have a laptop, I can log in to my ssh server, put the mbam-setup.exe file in public_html, then download it from the customer machine, which cannot access malwarebytes.org, due to 27 different virus infections.
With your solution, if I had no way to easily transfer from my laptop to client machine, I'd have to scp into my computer from the infected client machine. Not a good solution.
Depends whether you're talking about long shittons, or short shittons. A long shitton is 1.12 short shittons, and a long shitton is also close enough to a Shittonne that it makes no appreciable difference.
The real question is, how many Shittonnes in a MetricFuckload?
One Shittonne equals 10 MetricFuckloads, or a decaMetricFuckload. Or, more readable, a deciShittonne equals a metric fuckload.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. Hence my comment about frame of reference.
However, ancient Hebrew is definitely not my strength, so I had to look it up.
Turns out, the original Hebrew translates to "Let there be atmosphere in the midst of the waters."
How about that? There's atmosphere in between the oceans and the clouds.
Well, that's not scientific AT ALL!!!11!
Really? Where?
The linked page I responded to has a bunch of stuff from the Bible about the earth being a circle. Which, looked at from space, is exactly as it appears.
My neighbour says he'll go to the ends of the earth to protect his wife and kids, too. I guess that means he thinks the earth is flat, right?
Maybe they have a good gun shop at one of those four corners or something.... :-/
Funny. I always thought most of the laws revolved around how you should treat each other....
I've read a lot of that.
The misreadings and misunderstandings are incredible. I find it hard to believe that someone apparently intelligent could unintentionally be that obtuse.
The writer goes so far as to incorrectly define words to prove his point. There's also the bizarre frame of reference which seems to fluctuate between someone reading 2500 years ago, and someone reading now, depending on which point of view best supports his arguments.
Then there's making claims that the Bible says something it simply doesn't.
Let me give you an example from his page:
"And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament."
The writer uses this to claim that the Bible states that the sky is some sort of solid dam, holding back incalculable amounts of water. This is what he claims a firmament is.
Google for "define:firmament" and you'll find five definitions, only one of which mentions anything about it being solid, and even then, it only "seems" that it what firmament meant.
The firmament is simply an arbitrary space above the earth.
Now, Genesis is widely accepted to have been written approximately 3500 years ago. Do you think an uneducated commoner in those times realized that clouds were made of water? I doubt it.
However, somehow the author wrote about water over the firmament. Clouds. Wow. Such horrible science.
There's also water in space. Quite a bit of it, actually. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/milkyway_water_010412.html
So regardless of what you take the "firmament" to mean - unless you take the "solid sphere" meaning, which is in no way indicated Biblically - then there's water above it.
Similarly, he complains about the phrasing "corners of the earth", and "ends of the earth" as if they show an earth that is some flat shape.
We still use these phrases today, in lots of conversations. Does that mean we all think that the earth is a flat square? No. It's a metaphor.
"Going to the ends of the earth" means you'll do virtually anything to accomplish a task. Since there is no end to the earth, due to it being a sphere and all, then this makes perfect sense.
The problem a lot of people have with this kind of stuff is that they either read the Bible totally literally, completely out of context, or both.
It was written using language and metaphors that common people of 2000 to 3000 years ago would understand, in a culture where community was incredibly important.
Read it from that point of view - instead of thinking "The earth doesn't wear a skirt! This is pink unicorn bullshit!" - and you'll find it makes a lot more sense.
That's how it's done. That's how it's been done since I don't know when. What makes you think the Internet should be any different?
Stealing a wallet is a criminal offense.
Downloading an MP3 and infringing copyright is a civil offense.
The Internet isn't any different, and nobody ever claimed it was. It's the offense that's different.
I don't know....a couple of weeks of programming, followed by six months of game playing sounds like a great job, if you ask me....
"It's compatibility testing, boss. Honest!"
Also I don't like this elitist "purist" thing that people pretend to of "Oh I don't even like the graphics, I just want good gameplay." Guess what? The graphics and sound can well be a part of that. When games are visually appealing it can add to the immersivness. It is easier to lose yourself in a convincing world.
I agree with this completely. I've recently been playing a fair amount of STALKER -Shadow of Chernobyl, and -Clear Sky lately.
The realism of the gameplay is partly due to realism in graphics and sound. Although at the same time, the world you are in is so open, and you are free to explore as you want/need to.
You are, after all, in a real place that actually exists. If you've seen pictures of the area around Chernobyl since the accident, then you'll recognize a lot of places as you play through the game. You'll be walking around, stop to chat to someone, hear a dog bark in the distance, a crack of thunder and it will start raining...then a radioactive mutant will be trying to rip your head off.
Many FPS games guide - or force - you to the next objective, so you don't have the opportunity to look around, find interesting places, and interact with many different characters in the game world.
This game is completely different. You can spend days walking, exploring, collecting goodies, not do a single mission, and it doesn't leave you thinking "I've not progressed any in this game."
I guess what I'm getting at is, good graphics and sound can certainly enhance a good game. But at the same time, no matter how good the graphics are, a crappy game is still going to be crappy.
Not these ones. They're zombies!!
But crappy drivers are less likely to cause accidents that lead to death and injury if we impose and enforce a law that restricts the speed at which they can travel.
And they'd be even less likely to cause accidents if we didn't let them drive in the first place. But we can't have that, because the state makes lots of money through traffic tickets and sales tax on high-risk insurance premiums, as well as licence fees for all those crappy drivers and the frequent cars they go through.
This guy is probably just trying to get attention..
I think this might be a mistake. Not a mistake to allow higher speeds, but a mistake in the "speed kills" propaganda wall that has been perpetrated on the North American public for decades.
The government refuses to raise speed limits because it's deadly/unsafe/irresponsible/pick-your-negative-adjective to do so. At least, that's what they've said for ages.
Now, however, we've got this guy saying "pay us money and you can drive faster." Which is basically a speeding fine in reverse.
So it's an indirect admission by the government that speed limits are in fact not about safety, but revenue.
Funny. The way I read that wording - mangled translation though it is - is that ISPs cannot make distinction based on source of origin. There's nothing there that will stop them from prioritizing _all_ VOIP traffic. They just can't prioritize their own VOIP service, but leave Skype at the bottom of the heap.
able to use, send, receive or offer any content, applications or legal services over the Internet
"legal services" does not mean "things that lawyers provide".
It means "services that are legal to provide".
Spamming and hacking are not legal, therefore will not have safe haven.
Porn and gambling depend on the jurisdiction, but I don't see an issue with either of these, really.
For some definitions of the word "surviving"... :-/
The confusion is that most regular people are only marginally aware of an AMD/Intel distinction, although don't know what it means, and don't know at all ATI or nVidia.
Fixed that for you.
The electricity that runs through my processor is not made of photons, making this comment, although interesting, 100% irrelevant.
With a 3 GHz clock, a signal at the speed of light travels 10 cm during one clock cycle. This means that if a chip needs data from another and there's a distance of five centimeters or more between both chips the data will not arrive in the same clock cycle.
Really? So when did we all get to using optical interconnects?
Electricity doesn't travel at the speed of light.
And even if it did, for your random, uninformed postulation to be true, we would need evidence that chips could not practically run faster than 3GHz. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.
We're not capable of being creative enough to think of original jokes.
What? I thought Commander Taco was an original joke!
HAAAAAHAHAAAHAAHARROFLLALALAOLOLOL!!11!!eleventy!!!
Church rock band here.
I'll get my guys on it.
I can beat that.
My own private 40GB, 160GB, or 500GB server for $1.50 a month in hydro costs, and grandfathered unlimited bandwidth.
Not to mention, some moron who hasn't been beaten with a security cluestick enough doesn't get the option to mismanage my server for me.
That may be true but most people with a webserver are botnets/open proxies/etc.
Strong generalizations with no citation offers little worth to the discussion at hand.
I agree with the AC. Most people with webservers are botnets/open proxies/etc.
Although, this applies equally to businesses, so I also agree with you that it's worthless to the discussion......
Two reasons.
1. It still requires a server, which your ISP says is a no-no.
2. It could potentially require logging into your machine from a - possibly infected - client machine, depending on the availability of CD-Rs, local networks, or flash drives.
Meaning, if I have a laptop, I can log in to my ssh server, put the mbam-setup.exe file in public_html, then download it from the customer machine, which cannot access malwarebytes.org, due to 27 different virus infections.
With your solution, if I had no way to easily transfer from my laptop to client machine, I'd have to scp into my computer from the infected client machine. Not a good solution.
counterfeit v.t. Imitate (an action, thing, etc.) with intent to deceive; make a fraudulent imitation of (money etc.).
Counterfeit covers money but it also covers fake Rolex watches, fake medicines, fake DVDs, etc.
....fake copyright treaties....
And if your solution is to ban them from driving, well public transportation will be busy.
You say that like it's a bad thing....
Depends whether you're talking about long shittons, or short shittons.
A long shitton is 1.12 short shittons, and a long shitton is also close enough to a Shittonne that it makes no appreciable difference.
The real question is, how many Shittonnes in a MetricFuckload?
One Shittonne equals 10 MetricFuckloads, or a decaMetricFuckload. Or, more readable, a deciShittonne equals a metric fuckload.