Yes, and one is enough. Seeing that they added two-finger scrolling functionality to the Trackpad, the #1 reason for using SideTrack or an external mouse is gone. You simply don't need the right button. And if you do, well, the Command key is right next to it.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
Does it? An Islamist would say otherwise. In a world where Islamists see Islam under attack by unbelievers, it means fighting said unbelievers. I'm not talking off the top of my head; I've read Sayyid Qutb's "Social Justice in Islam" this weekend as exam preparation, and he is quite explicit here.
If you want a verse that states it literally, read 9:29 instead:
"Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
It doesn't get much more explicit than that in the Qur'an; there are hadith that are even more straightforward. At least we unbelievers get to pay Jizya if we're among the People of the Book;)
"Chinese" is entirely appropriate when referring to the Chinese language in general.
So is "Dutch" when referring to the Dutch language in general. When speaking English, it's appropriate to use the English names for foreign languages.
Mandarin means "royal tongue", something the communists couldn't abide, so they changed the name to Putonghua, which means "common tongue".
I dimly recall that the change refers to a change in writing; too. IIRC until well into the 20th century it was very common to write the classical peihua instead of putonghua, so that reading required much more skill and experience in classical and chancery language. I'm not a Chinese language expert, though.
"how is the rest of the non-muslim world supposed to co-exist with a religion that commands the destruction of non-beleivers (infidels)."
What you and the other bro said is false. Islam does NOT what so ever command the destruction of human beings no matter what religion, race or sex they are. Show me a quote in the Quran which implies what you are saying, then I will believe you.
The classical passage from the Qur'an is verse 2:190 through 2:193. In Bell's translation:
[190]
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not provoke hostility; verily Allah loveth not those who provoke hostility. [191] Slay them wherever you come upon them and expel them from whence they have expelled you; persecution is worse than slaughter. Do not fight them, however, in the precincts of the Sacred Mosque, until they fight you therein, but if they fight you slay them; such is the recompence of the unbelievers. [192] But if they refrain (from fighting) then Allah is forgiving, compassionate. [193] Fight them until there is no persecution, and religion becomes Allah's; then if they refrain, let there be no enmity, except against the wrong-doers."
As with every sacred text, taking it literally is a little bit difficult. There's quite a number of conflicting interpretations of the passage. One position considers this passage to refer only to the lifetime of Muhammad. However, modern Islamists (among them Sayyid Qutb and most modern Islamist and neofundamentalist ideologues) interpret the passage as referring to unbelievers in general. As far as the bit about provoking hostility is concerned: these people think that Islam is currently being under threat and that the initial provocation has been made by the West (colonialism, the British Empire, the founding of Israel, the second and third Gulf Wars, whatever).
I don't appreciate this radical Islamist interpretation myself (I'm no Muslim, either), but unfortunately my opinion doesn't count a lot in the world;)
The word Islam comes from Salam, which means peace. That is pretty self explanatory I think.
To be pedantic, the word Islam comes from a verb "aslama" which means "to submit oneself". This verb is indirectly related to the word "salaam" (peace).
Is this a serious question? Probably because being Iranian (as in: from Iran) doesn't equate to being a Persian native speaker. I know quite a lot of Azeris, Gilakis or Lors who would say they're Iranian (as in: from Iran), yet their native language is not Persian.
All of the Iranians I know say they speak "Farsi".
Hardly surprising, seeing that they're all Iranian. It's actually a rather strange thing. I am German; yet when I'm speaking English I don't refer to myself as a "Deutsch native speaker". I don't know why it's common among Iranians in English-speaking countries to stick to the name "Farsi". Iranians over here don't do that.
BTW with the Iranian and Aryan stuff: I had a couple of rather awkward discussions in Iran with Iranians. On learning that I'm German, they told me rather often that we were of the same "Aryan race". Seeing how completely different we looked, I guess this kind of race designation doesn't really mean anything.
I think you mean "Farsi" instead of "Persian", and yes Farsi is not the same language as Arabic. Knowing one does not help you understand the other.
Yes, it does. I learned Arabic before I learned Persian, and it was way easier for me than for others in my class. I taught Persian courses myself for the Army over here; in my class there was one guy who had learned Arabic beforehand, and he learned the language way quicker than everybody else. And no, this wasn't because they use the same script, it was because some thirty percent of Persian vocabulary is Arabic in origin.
And BTW I think in English it's quite OK to call the language by the English name, which happens to be Persian, instead of by the self-designation. I guess you say "Arabic" instead of Arabi, "Russian" instead of Russki, "Dutch" instead of Nederlands and "Chinese" or "Mandarin" instead of Putonghua yourself. With Persian vs. Farsi it's the same thing.
Here in Germany, on my Fernsprechtischapparat 611 that I've hooked up to my ISDN line, one pulse is 1 and ten pulses are 10, just like the US. It's been like this in every EU country I've ever been to.
"Apple's attempt to silence a small publication's news reporting presents a troubling affront to the protections of the First Amendment..."
NOOOO! Boy, you've got a lot to learn.... This is 2005! Referring to the Constitution is so 20th century! Big no-no! "First amendment" sounds like a hippie to begin with!
Next try, back to square one: greenbacks ready, spot the pockets!
I do, however, agree that Quark is more appropriate for some tasks... mostly graphical design-heavy stuff, whereas (La)TeX rules the maths-heavy stuff.
This is correct. However, I guess there's a lot more design-heavy stuff published in the world than maths-heavy stuff. If you look outside university CS, maths and physics departments, LaTeX users are a small minority mostly. (La)TeX doesn't rule the typesetting world, it rules the math typesetting part of it, while being more of a fringe phenomenon in the rest.
Except that an Adobe employee confirmed my statement that InDesign's H&J is based on TeX's by way of URW's HZ algorithm --- you really don't think Adobe licensed HZ from URW to not use it?
The main component in URW's HZ that is borrowed from TeX is the paragraph layout algorithm (partly because Knuth's is good and more or less freely available). Adobe licensed HZ mainly for the microtypography extensions (optical scaling), for its better hyphenation and for its kerning. In these respects, HZ is not only different from TeX, but also way better. Adobe wouldn't have had to license HZ if they were interested in the paragraph layout algorithm only; they were interested specifically in the non-TeX, the better-than-TeX parts of HZ.
As regards Unicode --- while it's true Omega has gone dormant there're two viable successors: Aleph - a direct combination of Omega and e-TeX; XeTeX - a Mac OS X-specific variant able to use OpenType and AAT fonts.
Aleph is Omega. It's the Omega WEB changefiles applied to eTeX, by a developer (Guiseppe Bilotta) who has repeatedly stated that he does not understand how Omega really works. Actually, Omega is so poorly documented that I don't think there's more than twenty people in the world who understand it, and the same applies to Aleph. It's good to see that some development is done, however, and it was a pity that Omega was open-sourced so late and so half-heartedly.
XeTeX is very interesting and a good project. However, it is extremely limited to the Macintosh due to being hardwired to the OS X font engine (making it somewhat useless to most of the world). Also, it suffers from the TeX problem that there is no consistent approach to development at all that would encompass larger parts of the toolchain beyond the mere engine. If you need Unicode and additional tools, even similar ones like BibTeX, you'll quickly find out that they are either 8-bit, that the non-8-bit versions are quick undocumented hacks done by persons who are now unavailable, or that it's hell of a lot of work to get sensible output. It's possible, but the way there is long and thorny, and it feel like being in the 1980's again. While the TeX world is certainly better off with XeTeX than without it, it is really quite a limited solution.
TeX is a shining example of how not to do a large open-source software project; the complete lack of coordination has made development somewhat difficult and frustrating. If you look at those parts of TeX where coordination is taking place (ConTeXt, for example), it's evident that it could have been different. With LaTeX, the only reasons that keep it alive are inertia, the relatively large user base and the somewhat futile development efforts of some uncompromising developers (whom I admire for their commitment) that are struggling against fifteen years of uncoordinated development. Myself, I'm using ConTeXt now, it simply has less compatibility problems, is less frustrating and gives better layout.
Well, except for the fact that TeX is about three million years behind the state of the art in typography.
And if you think QuarkXPress is worth using, no offense, but you're about three million years behind the state of the art, too. It's InDesign or nothing today.
You do realize that InDesign's typesetting engine is based on TeX, don't you?
No, it's not. That's a rumour that creeps up every now and then. What is true is that InDesign's paragraph layout algorithm is somewhat similar to TeX's in that it solves the line break problem by mapping it to a spanning-tree problem. This was an ingenious idea by Knuth that has been used in some typesetting systems since.
However, that's about where it ends. InDesign is not designed for long documents, TeX is. InDesign is based on Unicode, TeX is still an 8-bit system at the core (even partly 7-bit, and don't even mention Omega, that's pretty much a dead system). TeX has math layout features, InDesign does not. InDesign knows about complex text layout features in fonts, TeX does not. TeX is a macro programming language, InDesign's layout engine is not.
The main similarity is only that both produce good paragraph layout by using a related approach. InDesign probably borrowed from TeX in this respect, but the method is pretty much public domain now. And yes, TeX is light years behind, or at least LaTeX is; if you look at ConTeXt's features with regard to register or XML typesetting, LaTeX starts to look like the 80's piece of software it is.
Qt apps simply look like they've been poorly ported from Windows.
Well, at present OOo on OS X looks like it's been poorly ported from Hell. It really doesn't get worse than that.
NeoOffice is slightly better, but not a lot, and I have no clue why they chose Java for the implementation. Platform independence can't be the reason.
At least a Qt version would provide native widgets, a native menubar and Dock integration as well as better copy/paste at all, as opposed to X11. You could still tell the difference (toolbars, no printing, probably some right mouse button quirks), but a Qt version would be way better than what we have now, including NeoOffice.
It's possible to compile OpenOffice using Qt for the interface (e.g. in OpenOffice/KDE). Since Qt is available with an Aqua frontend, why not use that?
It wouldn't provide overly tight integration with the MacOS X user interface, but it would be way better than today's X11-based OpenOffice.
Yes. The reason is that the amount of energy we're getting from the Sun is the same (more or less).
According to this model, the percentage of sunlight that actually reaches the surface is getting smaller, while the increasing rest is heating the atmosphere (due to heat buildup on dust particles). That's why the model predicts an increase in temperature.
Actually, there are 4 units in morse code, the dash, the dot, the space between letters, and a longer space between words.
Make that three: interletter space is precisely what delimits dashes and dots, so technically it's a part of the sign (if it comes sooner, it's a dot, otherwise it's a dash). Listing interletter space separately is redundant. Or if you want to consider space a unit of its own, then a longer space is just two or more spaces in a row, so again you're down to three. Longer space between transmissions is the same thing.
I recall years ago having a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 LINUX box with 128 MB of RAM consistently beating out a 900 MHz Athlon with 768 MB of RAM (running Windows) when it came to downloads over my broadband connection.
What network cards did you have in the two machines? That's probably the most important factor here, more important than the amount of RAM anyway.
Debian on my Acer TM C100 - works fine... i would be better off if i stuck with a 2.4 kernel or a debian/stable... the incompatibility between the drivers and X... ACPI is not properly recognised... if you press the "flip" button, forget it - reboot time to get networking back... and the hard drive has about one head-crash per three months... but other than that, it's still serviceable
I hope you aren't serious... What's your definition of "works fine", again?
all other laptops you are bloody stupid to have bought, if you ask me: buy one of these
Thanks, after your praise I'll go for an X-series Thinkpad instead...
So the German government has created an additional fee for practicing fair use of already purchased content? If that's the case, then WTF do they think fair use means, then? I thought it meant that 'because you have paid for it, you have the rights to this good for your personal use'?
Well, according to the German law in question, it means "because you have paid for it, you are allowed to copy it for private or academic purposes. However, since you're creating a copy and not buying another original, the author gets a [small] compensation, which is collected through fees on media [in the case of audio and video material] or on reproduction equipment [in the case of written material]".
They should have a similar fee on all printers, copiers and scanners, since using one of those may also be practicing fair use.
Surprise surprise: this is the fee on copiers, actually; the whole court decision was about wether it should apply to PCs as well. You don't have to agree with this viewpoint (I don't), but it's not a new fee.
Not to mention CD and DVD players, televisions, and radios. Thos machines are also essential elements in fair use of purchased media.
Actually, there is a fee on empty tapes as well as CD-R media for precisely this reason. It makes a lot more sense to raise this fee on empty media in the case of audio and video material. With written material, it would have been difficult to raise a fee on empty paper, so they're raising it on reproduction equipment instead.
Slashdot Mirror
DYWYPI?
If you want a verse that states it literally, read 9:29 instead:
It doesn't get much more explicit than that in the Qur'an; there are hadith that are even more straightforward. At least we unbelievers get to pay Jizya if we're among the People of the BookI don't appreciate this radical Islamist interpretation myself (I'm no Muslim, either), but unfortunately my opinion doesn't count a lot in the world
BTW with the Iranian and Aryan stuff: I had a couple of rather awkward discussions in Iran with Iranians. On learning that I'm German, they told me rather often that we were of the same "Aryan race". Seeing how completely different we looked, I guess this kind of race designation doesn't really mean anything.
And BTW I think in English it's quite OK to call the language by the English name, which happens to be Persian, instead of by the self-designation. I guess you say "Arabic" instead of Arabi, "Russian" instead of Russki, "Dutch" instead of Nederlands and "Chinese" or "Mandarin" instead of Putonghua yourself. With Persian vs. Farsi it's the same thing.
Such as carefull, poring, broadcasted? ;)
Here in Germany, on my Fernsprechtischapparat 611 that I've hooked up to my ISDN line, one pulse is 1 and ten pulses are 10, just like the US. It's been like this in every EU country I've ever been to.
Next try, back to square one: greenbacks ready, spot the pockets!
No, it isn't. Actually, there is no commercial typesetting system whose math typesetting is as good as TeX's.
If you want WYSIWYG (more or less) typesetting with a good math editor, LyX is the tool of choice.
XeTeX is very interesting and a good project. However, it is extremely limited to the Macintosh due to being hardwired to the OS X font engine (making it somewhat useless to most of the world). Also, it suffers from the TeX problem that there is no consistent approach to development at all that would encompass larger parts of the toolchain beyond the mere engine. If you need Unicode and additional tools, even similar ones like BibTeX, you'll quickly find out that they are either 8-bit, that the non-8-bit versions are quick undocumented hacks done by persons who are now unavailable, or that it's hell of a lot of work to get sensible output. It's possible, but the way there is long and thorny, and it feel like being in the 1980's again. While the TeX world is certainly better off with XeTeX than without it, it is really quite a limited solution.
TeX is a shining example of how not to do a large open-source software project; the complete lack of coordination has made development somewhat difficult and frustrating. If you look at those parts of TeX where coordination is taking place (ConTeXt, for example), it's evident that it could have been different. With LaTeX, the only reasons that keep it alive are inertia, the relatively large user base and the somewhat futile development efforts of some uncompromising developers (whom I admire for their commitment) that are struggling against fifteen years of uncoordinated development. Myself, I'm using ConTeXt now, it simply has less compatibility problems, is less frustrating and gives better layout.
However, that's about where it ends. InDesign is not designed for long documents, TeX is. InDesign is based on Unicode, TeX is still an 8-bit system at the core (even partly 7-bit, and don't even mention Omega, that's pretty much a dead system). TeX has math layout features, InDesign does not. InDesign knows about complex text layout features in fonts, TeX does not. TeX is a macro programming language, InDesign's layout engine is not.
The main similarity is only that both produce good paragraph layout by using a related approach. InDesign probably borrowed from TeX in this respect, but the method is pretty much public domain now. And yes, TeX is light years behind, or at least LaTeX is; if you look at ConTeXt's features with regard to register or XML typesetting, LaTeX starts to look like the 80's piece of software it is.
NeoOffice is slightly better, but not a lot, and I have no clue why they chose Java for the implementation. Platform independence can't be the reason.
At least a Qt version would provide native widgets, a native menubar and Dock integration as well as better copy/paste at all, as opposed to X11. You could still tell the difference (toolbars, no printing, probably some right mouse button quirks), but a Qt version would be way better than what we have now, including NeoOffice.
It's possible to compile OpenOffice using Qt for the interface (e.g. in OpenOffice/KDE). Since Qt is available with an Aqua frontend, why not use that?
It wouldn't provide overly tight integration with the MacOS X user interface, but it would be way better than today's X11-based OpenOffice.
Yes. The reason is that the amount of energy we're getting from the Sun is the same (more or less).
According to this model, the percentage of sunlight that actually reaches the surface is getting smaller, while the increasing rest is heating the atmosphere (due to heat buildup on dust particles). That's why the model predicts an increase in temperature.
Say goodbye to FM radio stations at 100+x MHz, too.
Yes. "dot" would actually be the sequence dot space, "dash" the sequence dot dot space, and so on.
:)
Technically, we've got two units anyway, signal and no signal, it's the time distribution that makes it interesting