Further experimentation with and investigation of it seems to me an extraordinary waste of money.
you obviously have never actually done anything related to science, history, or government.
We had this thing that we thought something about. We ran a test, that told us we were wrong. Someone looked at our test, and said "you may have done that wrong." So, the logical thing is to *do another test.*
I know, let's patent something not so we can profit off it, but so no one else can!
Patents are a public record. The legal requirement to file a patent is that you furnish sufficient explanation and examples that, when the patent expires, all someone proficient in the art needs to do in order to duplicate your design is use the patent form.
Now cut it in half, cut one of its halfs in half, and cut one of those quarters in half.
How big are the smallest two sections you have? Infinitly big. Or, to be precise, 1/8 infinity.
Similar math is what keeps wormholes from happening all over the place. With infinite space then, yes, we would have an infinite number of wormholes. But their ratio wouldn't necessarily change from the effect if we had, oh, a finite space.
Going after content-neutral P2P systems is akin to going after Federal Express for delivering CDs that some customer of FedEx had copied illegally.
Let's get FedEx out of the picture, and say that you start up a new company called "SneakerNet." Your main claim to fame is that you ask no questions, move anything, and disavow all knowledge or responsiblity for what happens.
Are you saying that you shouldn't be the one the cops go after when Sneakernet is found to be transporting nuclear weapons?
If I call someone on my Verizon phone and harass them, the police will go to Verizon and happily hand over my details. If Verizon and its industrial peers *didn't* do this, that whole common carrier exception would go away in a matter of DAYS.
God was and instead to throw their attentions upon a cow cast in gold a mere matter of weeks after having revealed himself to the Hebrews and giving them the ten commandments.
Wrong.
The golden cow was created as a font to focus their worship of God to. They didn't create a new god and say "let's forget about Him, and worship this one!"
And it was AFTER the cow that God chose to dwell with the Hebrews for, oh, some forty-odd years. And they never really forgot Him again.
Not to mention that you're talking about a body of people that never didn't believe in "a" god, and whose lowest point of belief was "God isn't coming back", not "God doesn't exist."
There are some insconsistencies in the bible and Chritisian theology, but the core is logically sound. (And whomever wrote Acts knew it--there are clear admonishments to keep the message simple.)
The way to go around subjectively interpreted messages is not to alter humanity. Rather, it's to have an extended dialogue with humanity -- exactly what God did with Moses after that whole Ten Commandments thing.
You're trying to argue that a wet paper bag isn't wet. If God exists, He can make himself known -- so, if He isn't proven, the only answers are either that He doesn't exist or two variets of Him not having revealed himself. (in one, we could find Him without His help. In the other, we can't.)
If God wanted to prove His existance, He could alter the quantum states of all the pain molecules on my wall and say "Planesdragon, I exist." I'd do a bit of disbeliving checking, including looking for a screen and asking someone nearby if I see what I see. But if He really wanted to prove that He existed, He would be able to.
To use a different paradigm: it'd be like one of the Root computers in The Matrix deciding to tell the people that It exists. Easy enough: just rewrite part of the Matrix in such a way that only its existance could be.
A burning bush that carves tablets out of stone is a good start.
Either God exists or He doesn't. And if He does exist, then obviously He is able to influence this world -- or else we'd be talking about some other cosmic entity entirely.
The problem with many modern belief systems is that those who sin, repent, and sin again.
There is nothing in Christianity that argues against karma. In fact, the seperation between Heaven and Earth seems to argue that you WILL suffer karmaklly while on Earth, and the popular interpretation of the crucifixion is that you get into heaven because someone with infinite positive karma aborgates your sin.
And most christian denominations hold that someone who sins again did not truly repent the first time, and so often take extra action for repeat offenders.
Unfortunately for the faithful this means no miracles. Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it was 'God.'
Wrong. Quantum Mechanics wrong.
Not, "as wrong as QM." But "wrong because of QM."
QM; God's backdoor into the universe.
Re:Discarding too many people
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
For example, you have no way of knowing if and how often software on Google's server farms crash requiring a reboot because of their extreme redundancy.
ok. Point taken.
But they do. And they're not hiring "high stability" programmers. So, they either ARE getting stable code, or they're confident in their ability to adapt for the shortcomings of their code quality.
Or they're making a big mistake -- but that's only one possibility out of three.
Re:Discarding too many people
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
How well it works or how well it's presented to you has no correlation to how "good" the code running it all actually is. You can't tell by looking from the outside.
that's like saying that how well a car works is no measure of how good the engineering is.
You probably mean a different word, like "maintainable" or "standardized".
Re:Discarding too many people
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
While such people certainly are smart and possess insight and intuition, there's no correlation to being a good programmer.
Google may believe that they can teach good programming methods, but they can't teach insight or intuition.
Considering that what they have avaliable works as well or better than anything else on the web, I think they've got "code quality" down pat.
That's not what he said. He said vendor neutral file formats.
This may result in dropping MS Office entirely -- or it may just result in changing the default "save as" settings for every install of Word, or the creation of an "archive and share" custom function that takes DOCs or WPSs or whatever and turns them into the new neutral format.
Slashdot Mirror
Further experimentation with and investigation of it seems to me an extraordinary waste of money.
you obviously have never actually done anything related to science, history, or government.
We had this thing that we thought something about. We ran a test, that told us we were wrong. Someone looked at our test, and said "you may have done that wrong." So, the logical thing is to *do another test.*
That's not blind faith -- that's science.
I know, let's patent something not so we can profit off it, but so no one else can!
Patents are a public record. The legal requirement to file a patent is that you furnish sufficient explanation and examples that, when the patent expires, all someone proficient in the art needs to do in order to duplicate your design is use the patent form.
I would like to understand what Sun is hoping to achieve through this investment.
A virtual elmination of software piracy as a concern, and serious respect from the high-skill section of the current and potential userbase.
Not to mention an apple-like refocusing of their company.
Imagine a circle infinitely large.
Now cut it in half, cut one of its halfs in half, and cut one of those quarters in half.
How big are the smallest two sections you have? Infinitly big. Or, to be precise, 1/8 infinity.
Similar math is what keeps wormholes from happening all over the place. With infinite space then, yes, we would have an infinite number of wormholes. But their ratio wouldn't necessarily change from the effect if we had, oh, a finite space.
Use a text box.
In Word 2003, if you highlight a picture and then click "insert -> text box", it will draw a text box around the picture.
I'll agree that this is far more annoying that it should be. There should be an option to make this the default item for captions.
OTOH, it's no more annoying that OOo slapping text boxes around all of my floating tables.
*sigh*
It's not a pyramid scheme. It's distributed / multi-level marketing.
the former are illegal and wind you up in jail. The latter qualify as ethical business practices.
True. But I didn't say they were.
I said that you could cook a burger inside. And, for the sort of thing that you do with a forman grill, a broiler works just fine.
Wrong.
EVERY oven in the united states can fit a broiler pan. Which does almost if not exactly the same thing as the george forman grill.
Going after content-neutral P2P systems is akin to going after Federal Express for delivering CDs that some customer of FedEx had copied illegally.
Let's get FedEx out of the picture, and say that you start up a new company called "SneakerNet." Your main claim to fame is that you ask no questions, move anything, and disavow all knowledge or responsiblity for what happens.
Are you saying that you shouldn't be the one the cops go after when Sneakernet is found to be transporting nuclear weapons?
If I call someone on my Verizon phone and harass them, the police will go to Verizon and happily hand over my details. If Verizon and its industrial peers *didn't* do this, that whole common carrier exception would go away in a matter of DAYS.
God was and instead to throw their attentions upon a cow cast in gold a mere matter of weeks after having revealed himself to the Hebrews and giving them the ten commandments.
Wrong.
The golden cow was created as a font to focus their worship of God to. They didn't create a new god and say "let's forget about Him, and worship this one!"
And it was AFTER the cow that God chose to dwell with the Hebrews for, oh, some forty-odd years. And they never really forgot Him again.
Not to mention that you're talking about a body of people that never didn't believe in "a" god, and whose lowest point of belief was "God isn't coming back", not "God doesn't exist."
There are some insconsistencies in the bible and Chritisian theology, but the core is logically sound. (And whomever wrote Acts knew it--there are clear admonishments to keep the message simple.)
The way to go around subjectively interpreted messages is not to alter humanity. Rather, it's to have an extended dialogue with humanity -- exactly what God did with Moses after that whole Ten Commandments thing.
You're trying to argue that a wet paper bag isn't wet. If God exists, He can make himself known -- so, if He isn't proven, the only answers are either that He doesn't exist or two variets of Him not having revealed himself. (in one, we could find Him without His help. In the other, we can't.)
No. Now you're using actual English.
If God wanted to prove His existance, He could alter the quantum states of all the pain molecules on my wall and say "Planesdragon, I exist." I'd do a bit of disbeliving checking, including looking for a screen and asking someone nearby if I see what I see. But if He really wanted to prove that He existed, He would be able to.
To use a different paradigm: it'd be like one of the Root computers in The Matrix deciding to tell the people that It exists. Easy enough: just rewrite part of the Matrix in such a way that only its existance could be.
A burning bush that carves tablets out of stone is a good start.
More meaningless claptrap.
God -- the focal point of a majoirty of the world's inhabitants' worship -- is a divine being that is not only able to but HAS revealed himself.
Should He wish to prove his existance, doing so would be as simple as your or I demonstrating our existance.
Meaningless claptrap.
Either God exists or He doesn't. And if He does exist, then obviously He is able to influence this world -- or else we'd be talking about some other cosmic entity entirely.
God's existance is unprovable because, assuming He exists, He doesn't want to be proven.
It's hard to get the drop on an all-powerful, all-knowing being who exists outside of time and who can and does peer into the minds of all humanity.
The problem with many modern belief systems is that those who sin, repent, and sin again.
There is nothing in Christianity that argues against karma. In fact, the seperation between Heaven and Earth seems to argue that you WILL suffer karmaklly while on Earth, and the popular interpretation of the crucifixion is that you get into heaven because someone with infinite positive karma aborgates your sin.
And most christian denominations hold that someone who sins again did not truly repent the first time, and so often take extra action for repeat offenders.
Unfortunately for the faithful this means no miracles. Just because science can't explain something doesn't mean it was 'God.'
Wrong. Quantum Mechanics wrong.
Not, "as wrong as QM." But "wrong because of QM."
QM; God's backdoor into the universe.
For example, you have no way of knowing if and how often software on Google's server farms crash requiring a reboot because of their extreme redundancy.
ok. Point taken.
But they do. And they're not hiring "high stability" programmers. So, they either ARE getting stable code, or they're confident in their ability to adapt for the shortcomings of their code quality.
Or they're making a big mistake -- but that's only one possibility out of three.
How well it works or how well it's presented to you has no correlation to how "good" the code running it all actually is. You can't tell by looking from the outside.
that's like saying that how well a car works is no measure of how good the engineering is.
You probably mean a different word, like "maintainable" or "standardized".
While such people certainly are smart and possess insight and intuition, there's no correlation to being a good programmer.
Google may believe that they can teach good programming methods, but they can't teach insight or intuition.
Considering that what they have avaliable works as well or better than anything else on the web, I think they've got "code quality" down pat.
That's not what he said. He said vendor neutral file formats.
This may result in dropping MS Office entirely -- or it may just result in changing the default "save as" settings for every install of Word, or the creation of an "archive and share" custom function that takes DOCs or WPSs or whatever and turns them into the new neutral format.
Two ways.
Number one: the office tells them. I.e., "use everything that's size 14 as Heading 1, use italics as italics, etc."
Number two: write a program to figure it out. This could be done in Office VB to apply and redefine headings for any given document.
You can turn a set font size to a header easily enough. Heck, you can do it with VB script.
Got a link for "possible"?
Show us how to move a MS Word file to LaTeX with no loss of information (yes, formatting counts as "information") or human editing.
if you can't do that, it's not worth his time.
ok, so Saddam's out of power.
Why the @#$! are we still in Iraq?