my issue with java is not so much java/opensource/gpl..., but rather speed/memory/footprint.
Open office is already huge and somewhat slow. Java will only make this worse.
I remember when Mozilla was feature rich (kitchen sink), slow and huge. I stuck with old Netscape4 until Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox came fixed the Mozilla problems.
After OO2 is released, probably someone will fork it, replacing all the java, and call it FireOffice, then OpenOffice will adopt the changes.
I am an atheist. My views more line up with "Intelligent Influence" than intelligent design. These are my own views, and little to do with I.D.
"Intelligent Influence" meaning:
- Life appearing once in the universe dramatically increases the chances of life appearing in other parts of the universe.
- Intelligent life able to launch things into space increases the chances of life (and perhaps intelligent) being sent to other parts of the universe.
- Intelligent life able to create or modify life also increase chances of life being spread through the universe.
- Humans are examples of all of the above, but likely not the first.
- It is likely the we will spread some form of life to other parts of the universe, and we were a product of this process as well.
- At some point there must have been "base cases ", where life originated from random collections of compounds. This is the most unlikely case, though.
Intelligent design does not attempt to prove (AFAIK) that the designers were supernatural, only that the designers were intelligent.
Of course our creators were likely created as well, and so on. Until the "base case", which was the less likely "random" creation.
Why is "random" less likely that "created"?
Well first, When I speak of "creation", it may be intentional or unintentional.
Here is something to consider. If NASA found life on mars, after 100 years of exploration there, what would we assume? What if it was very similar to earth life, such as bacteria or a virus? How did it get there. One likely conclusion would be that it did not naturally form there, but that NASA brought it there (intentionally or not), and it adapted. The life could even be a complete creation of ours (biological or silicon). Another possibility is that some explosion on earth or mars sent life to the other planet. The separate random creation and independent evolution would be the least likely possiblity.
The point here is that the existence of life on one planet dramatically increases chances of life occurring on nearby planet. (Similar to "life in on pond increases chance of life in nearby pond").
But the planets do not need to be close in order to affect each other. Exploding planets are not limited to one solar system. And if other intelligent lifes have mastered space travel, this also increases possible spread of life.
I don't think intelligent design even attempts to prove that something supernatural exists (that would make no sense). Rather, they are trying to prove that we were created.( and then they imply the assumptions about what thing(s) created us)
It is interesting that Creationists are adopting this Intelligent Design philosophy, as it cannot prove what they think it could.
Let us assume intelligent design is correct, and that we are very complex and have an orderly "design": so much so, that we must have been created. They often use a watch as an example, stating that we do not assume that metatillic compounds joined together, by chance, to form a watch. But note that we do not assume that the watch was created by a single, all powerful, all knowing, eternal being either. Really, the conclusion of intelligent design would only imply the following:
- We are complex, non-magical machines
- We were designed/created by intelligent beings
- Those creator beings were likely as complex or more complex than ourselves, therefore, they were created by other beings.
We are on the verge of creating intelligent machines ourselves (biological/genetic or silicon), so intelligent design should not be a crazy idea to us. Though to assume that we are a god-like creature would be somewhat crazy depending on what god means.
It is interesting that Creationists are adopting this Intelligent Design philosophy, as it could not prove what they think it could.
Let us assume they are correct, and that we are very complex. They often use a watch as an example, stating that we do not assume that metatillic compounds joined together, by chance, to form a watch. But note that we do not assume that the watch was created by a single, all powerful, all knowing, eternal being either. Really, the conclusion of intelligent design would only imply the following:
- We are complex, non-magical machines
- We were designed/created by intelligent beings
- Those beings were likely as complex or more complex than ourselves, therefore, they were created by other beings.
We are on the verge of creating intelligent machines ourselves (biological/genetic or silicon), so intelligent design should not be a crazy idea to us. Though to assume that we are a god-like creature would be somewhat crazy depending on what god means.
My 1989 CD player was my first optical drive, and as far as I know is still working.
Years after I bought it, when CD's came to the PC in the form of CDR and CDRW, there was an issue with some of the older CDROM drives playing this media, especially the CDRW. Funny thing was that I put them in my 1989 CD player, and they would play. I think I read that they used stronger lasers on the old CD players, and they could play CDRW discs without any special tuning.
Later, a few of the display led's had failed, but it still played CD's.
The CD player was still playing 5 years ago when I gave it away, but I assume it is still going.
A war against fear, and a color coded domestic propaganda department that creates it. It's perfect.
New poll:
If the neighbors are causing Terror in you, you:
1) Fence yourself in to protect yourself. 2) Move. No, sorry, can't move. 3) Throw heavy things at them to fight back. 4) Try to figure out why they are pissed and fix it. 5) Send more money to your other neighbors to do 3, and then casually do 4.(and casually steal your neighbors oil) 6) 1, then 5 then 3.
I thought you were saying that they made a blooper and had accidentally included the real Original Trilogy ( the one without the sky repainted Simpson blue, and without the added computer generated sex scenes,... )
Please, Senator Kerry, clarify this answer. The answer that you gave is ambiguous, to say the least. Mr. Bush and others have reinvented the word terrorist to mean many things and nothing.
What was your answer to the death penalty before Bush was in office?
Either give an unambiguous definition of "terrorist" or please explain what acts should be punished with the death penalty.
The moderators in the debates, should preface every question with "Without using the words terror, terrorist, or terrorism, please answer the following..."
You save as a File, you open remote File (url/location). You print the File. It's not a perfect match, and Tab and Window don't really fit, but Location is no better, and non-standard. It's silly, but it is the main reason I have not given Konq much of a look lately.
current copyright law tends to protect the corporations that collect, hoard and exploit information of any kind. This kind of protection inevitably leads to monopoly control and abuse of this power.
There must be a balance against information monopolies currently protected by government.
The reaction could be:
-complain loudly enough so the goverment changes law to greatly limit the period over which a corporation can expoit information. ha.
-throw the tea back. Don't drink the tea, or download the tea and don't pay the corporate tarrif.
-invent a new tea that the corporation does not have claim. allow free distribution of new-tea, but disallow infinite corporate exploitation.
Everyone should watch the documentary "The Corporation".
Of course most of us have seen the trend with Patents and intellectual property.
Corporations, from pressure to profit at any cost, would like to own (and rent to you) every piece of information possible: algorithms, art, science, biology. People don't own any information. Instead, unaccountable, immortal corporate entities do.
Time-Warner owns the song "Happy birthday to you". If you sing it please pay the royalty.
It's almost time to throw the tea in the harbor again.
If your eyes will naturally rest on the far right when looking a row, wouldn't it be better to read from right to left?
No, right to left buttons is not sensible at all for left to right readers.
A study that says that the right handed mouse users tend to look right of center is a wrong minded study. A sensible study would be independent of pointer device and would ultimately conclude that left-to-right readers will find it more natural to read choices... left-to-right.
A short sighted study that suggests a UI that fits around the current common pointer device, ignores finding a more universal natural UI, that would work also with: left handed people, keyboard users, right handers that mouse on the left (mouse injury), touch screens, PDAS.
I once wondered when an environment would form to allow an evolving life to replicate and spread on a large enough scale to eventually gain intelligence. Now I see that the environment itself needs to evolve (perhaps with human assistance) to protect it's survival (in this case, for the purpose of sending spam). Then the evolving life would be required to adapt to whatever changing encrypted access is used to access the zombie machines.
Slashdot Mirror
so apples is just going to sell the OS?
my issue with java is not so much java/opensource/gpl..., but rather speed/memory/footprint.
Open office is already huge and somewhat slow. Java will only make this worse.
I remember when Mozilla was feature rich (kitchen sink), slow and huge. I stuck with old Netscape4 until Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox came fixed the Mozilla problems.
After OO2 is released, probably someone will fork it, replacing all the java, and call it FireOffice, then OpenOffice will adopt the changes.
I am an atheist. My views more line up with "Intelligent Influence" than intelligent design. These are my own views, and little to do with I.D.
"Intelligent Influence" meaning:
- Life appearing once in the universe dramatically increases the chances of life appearing in other parts of the universe.
- Intelligent life able to launch things into space increases the chances of life (and perhaps intelligent) being sent to other parts of the universe.
- Intelligent life able to create or modify life also increase chances of life being spread through the universe.
- Humans are examples of all of the above, but likely not the first.
- It is likely the we will spread some form of life to other parts of the universe, and we were a product of this process as well.
- At some point there must have been "base cases ", where life originated from random collections of compounds. This is the most unlikely case, though.
Intelligent design does not attempt to prove (AFAIK) that the designers were supernatural, only that the designers were intelligent.
Of course our creators were likely created as well, and so on. Until the "base case", which was the less likely "random" creation.
Why is "random" less likely that "created"?
Well first, When I speak of "creation", it may be intentional or unintentional.
Here is something to consider. If NASA found life on mars, after 100 years of exploration there, what would we assume? What if it was very similar to earth life, such as bacteria or a virus? How did it get there. One likely conclusion would be that it did not naturally form there, but that NASA brought it there (intentionally or not), and it adapted. The life could even be a complete creation of ours (biological or silicon). Another possibility is that some explosion on earth or mars sent life to the other planet. The separate random creation and independent evolution would be the least likely possiblity.
The point here is that the existence of life on one planet dramatically increases chances of life occurring on nearby planet. (Similar to "life in on pond increases chance of life in nearby pond").
But the planets do not need to be close in order to affect each other. Exploding planets are not limited to one solar system. And if other intelligent lifes have mastered space travel, this also increases possible spread of life.
I don't think intelligent design even attempts to prove that something supernatural exists (that would make no sense). Rather, they are trying to prove that we were created.( and then they imply the assumptions about what thing(s) created us)
It is interesting that Creationists are adopting this Intelligent Design philosophy, as it cannot prove what they think it could.
Let us assume intelligent design is correct, and that we are very complex and have an orderly "design": so much so, that we must have been created. They often use a watch as an example, stating that we do not assume that metatillic compounds joined together, by chance, to form a watch. But note that we do not assume that the watch was created by a single, all powerful, all knowing, eternal being either. Really, the conclusion of intelligent design would only imply the following:
- We are complex, non-magical machines
- We were designed/created by intelligent beings
- Those creator beings were likely as complex or more complex than ourselves, therefore, they were created by other beings.
We are on the verge of creating intelligent machines ourselves (biological/genetic or silicon), so intelligent design should not be a crazy idea to us. Though to assume that we are a god-like creature would be somewhat crazy depending on what god means.
It is interesting that Creationists are adopting this Intelligent Design philosophy, as it could not prove what they think it could.
Let us assume they are correct, and that we are very complex. They often use a watch as an example, stating that we do not assume that metatillic compounds joined together, by chance, to form a watch. But note that we do not assume that the watch was created by a single, all powerful, all knowing, eternal being either. Really, the conclusion of intelligent design would only imply the following:
- We are complex, non-magical machines
- We were designed/created by intelligent beings
- Those beings were likely as complex or more complex than ourselves, therefore, they were created by other beings.
We are on the verge of creating intelligent machines ourselves (biological/genetic or silicon), so intelligent design should not be a crazy idea to us. Though to assume that we are a god-like creature would be somewhat crazy depending on what god means.
My 1989 CD player was my first optical drive,
and as far as I know is still working.
Years after I bought it, when CD's came to the PC in the form of CDR and CDRW, there was an issue with some of the older CDROM drives playing this media, especially the CDRW. Funny thing was that I put them in my 1989 CD player, and they would play. I think I read that they used stronger lasers on the old CD players, and they could play CDRW discs without any special tuning.
Later, a few of the display led's had failed, but it still played CD's.
The CD player was still playing 5 years ago when I gave it away, but I assume it is still going.
32 pages of ?? and nothing regarding compatiblity with Linux.
Actually, I only searched the conclusion....
1024x768, no. please use 16:9, and no (laptop makers), 15:9 is not good enough.
Terror == Fear
The War against Fear ?
A war against fear, and a color coded domestic propaganda department that creates it. It's perfect.
New poll:
If the neighbors are causing Terror in you, you:
1) Fence yourself in to protect yourself.
2) Move. No, sorry, can't move.
3) Throw heavy things at them to fight back.
4) Try to figure out why they are pissed and fix it.
5) Send more money to your other neighbors to do 3, and then casually do 4.(and casually steal your neighbors oil)
6) 1, then 5 then 3.
... a study says.
Aren't these studies a bit arbitrary?
So if spam stops, suddenly companies will be richer and pass that money to the employees and consumers?
The formula is a bit more complicated.
And what all the people employed to remove spam?
Yes, spam sucks and waste a lot of time.
The other the person in front of me in the grocery store cost me $10 in time, by running back and getting toilet paper with no price tag.
You had my hopes up.
I thought you were saying that they made a blooper and had accidentally included the real Original Trilogy ( the one without the sky repainted Simpson blue, and without the added computer generated sex scenes,... )
Please, Senator Kerry, clarify this answer.
..."
The answer that you gave is ambiguous, to say the least.
Mr. Bush and others have reinvented the word terrorist to mean many things and nothing.
What was your answer to the death penalty before Bush was in office?
Either give an unambiguous definition of "terrorist" or please explain what acts should be punished with the death penalty.
The moderators in the debates, should preface every question with "Without using the words terror, terrorist, or terrorism, please answer the following
Please, someone change [Location] to [File].
You save as a File, you open remote File (url/location). You print the File.
It's not a perfect match, and Tab and Window don't really fit, but Location is no better, and non-standard. It's silly, but it is the main reason I have not given Konq much of a look lately.
current copyright law tends to protect the corporations that collect, hoard and exploit information of any kind. This kind of protection inevitably leads to monopoly control and abuse of this power.
There must be a balance against information monopolies currently protected by government.
The reaction could be:
-complain loudly enough so the goverment changes law to greatly limit the period over which a corporation can expoit information. ha.
-throw the tea back. Don't drink the tea, or download the tea and don't pay the corporate tarrif.
-invent a new tea that the corporation does not have claim. allow free distribution of new-tea, but disallow infinite corporate exploitation.
What country can one escape to for freedom?
you knew it would come to this, right?
Everyone should watch the documentary "The Corporation".
Of course most of us have seen the trend with Patents and intellectual property.
Corporations, from pressure to profit at any cost, would like to own (and rent to you) every piece of information possible: algorithms, art, science, biology. People don't own any information. Instead, unaccountable, immortal corporate entities do.
Time-Warner owns the song "Happy birthday to you". If you sing it please pay the royalty.
It's almost time to throw the tea in the harbor again.
http://perllinux.sourceforge.net
T2 comes with "HD" media file in the form of WM9 with some extra DRM shit.
Of course they support this type of "HD-DVD", since it would be a lock in to their proprietary format.
If your eyes will naturally rest on the far right when looking a row, wouldn't it be better to read from right to left?
... left-to-right.
No, right to left buttons is not sensible at all for left to right readers.
A study that says that the right handed mouse users tend to look right of center is a wrong minded study. A sensible study would be independent of pointer device and would ultimately conclude that left-to-right readers will find it more natural to read choices
A short sighted study that suggests a UI that fits around the current common pointer device, ignores finding a more universal natural UI, that would work also with: left handed people, keyboard users, right handers that mouse on the left (mouse injury), touch screens, PDAS.
I once wondered when an environment would form to allow an evolving life to replicate and spread on a large enough scale to eventually gain intelligence. Now I see that the environment itself needs to evolve (perhaps with human assistance) to protect it's survival (in this case, for the purpose of sending spam). Then the evolving life would be required to adapt to whatever changing encrypted access is used to access the zombie machines.
If I was given the choice of an H-bomb hitting my town, or a nasty virus, I think I would go with the nasty virus.
First, do you notice all the Wagon's, Van's, Sport Van's (SUV's) driving buy that weigh many tons and having room for 6?
Having two vehicles would make more sense.
A one commuter car, and a family/friends car.
An electric hummer is hardly more efficient or better on the environment than a gas one. You would still be driving a giant cube vehicle around.
... is still in development