None of that has much to do with atheists making shallow arguments. If someone rejects divinity (this seems to be rather essential for an atheist), "divinity makes other people comfortable" is not going to have a great deal of relevance to them.
I would also tend to reject the notion that theologists have managed to set aside their own interests and consider the needs of humanity as a whole.
They are being pretty gregarious. As you say, an installer can just stomp in and edit whatever is necessary, but automatically running extensions based on the addition of a single registry key sets quite a lot bar.
In Mario64, the 120 stars are awarded for beating a level challenge (there are 5 or 6 challenges per level). One of the challenges (or maybe 2...) on each level is to collect a certain number of coins (there are different types of coins).
Still, for me it was always about beating the challenge, not completing the collection.
I don't think I play games like Mario64 to 'collect' all the stars, I play until I think I have finished the content, the stars track that progress. Once the game is finished, the stars don't really have any meaning or other significance.
This is very similar to filling in all the answers to a crossword, not so similar to making sure my T.V. Guide collection is complete.
Most so-called 'scripting languages' have functions as first class objects (Perl, Ruby, Javascript, etc.) which is a pretty basic requirement for programming in a functional style.
I guess Python (which is what I use most, but only for this and that) isn't wildly more or less popular than those languages (but it depends on who you ask...).
Here is a simpler statement: Most people don't have principles.
Sure, people have lots of preferences and things that they feel squeamish about, but most people don't let those things get in the way of their own gratification.
Counting characters is a lot less interesting than counting symbols. Of course, a language with too many symbols will be more obscure than one that makes somewhat repetitive use of a smaller set of symbols, so the whole thing is still pretty subjective.
They were replaced by instruments that are easier to play, or at least, that can generate a wider range of tones (a valved trumpet can play a full scale...). So they are replaced by more capable or more fashionable instruments, not necessarily because of how they sound.
You can take it in a circle; if the model doesn't account for bad information, it doesn't sufficiently manage risk.
From what I have read, the people who did the best (or maybe least worst) treated the quantitative models as information, rather than facts. When the outputs of the models stopped being reasonable, they stopped trusting them.
Slashdot Mirror
Something like FreeFileSync has lots of advantages over a batch file:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/freefilesync/
The majority in China don't even have computers.
None of that has much to do with atheists making shallow arguments. If someone rejects divinity (this seems to be rather essential for an atheist), "divinity makes other people comfortable" is not going to have a great deal of relevance to them.
I would also tend to reject the notion that theologists have managed to set aside their own interests and consider the needs of humanity as a whole.
Without divinity, I don't see how any of those things are theological (or rather, absent divinity, I don't see what theology brings to them).
They are the long hairiest, dirtiest, will take or break your shit because they, like, deserve it man, ones.
If you throw out divinity as a premise, what theological concepts demand subtlety?
You got the joke!
Attention. If I can look at and search for thousands of books in one place, I am more likely to notice your book if it is there.
One way to look at it is like this: how much are you currently making on the books that you are not selling that Amazon is not taking a share of?
They still suck for convenience bulbs that are powered on for 10 or 20 hours a year (making it sort of difficult to save much electricity).
He could ziptie her to a chair in the basement, then the knowing where she was wouldn't be a problem.
He is saying that the corporation may be better off contributing the changes. I'm not sure if he is asserting that this is always the case or not.
Twitter is merely popular. It will be successful if they start making giant stinking piles of money off of it.
They are being pretty gregarious. As you say, an installer can just stomp in and edit whatever is necessary, but automatically running extensions based on the addition of a single registry key sets quite a lot bar.
Yeah, this one is at HKLM/Mozilla/Firefox/Extensions.
I don't care about it, so I have no idea if deleting that key is sticky or not (perhaps some watchdog or another puts it back...).
Mozilla has, for some value of documented, documented this:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Uninstalling_extensions#Windows_Registry_extension
No need to be subtle, just use the full "Idiot". Or maybe something like "Poor decision making skills".
In Mario64, the 120 stars are awarded for beating a level challenge (there are 5 or 6 challenges per level). One of the challenges (or maybe 2...) on each level is to collect a certain number of coins (there are different types of coins).
Still, for me it was always about beating the challenge, not completing the collection.
'Only' is a pretty strong word there.
I don't think I play games like Mario64 to 'collect' all the stars, I play until I think I have finished the content, the stars track that progress. Once the game is finished, the stars don't really have any meaning or other significance.
This is very similar to filling in all the answers to a crossword, not so similar to making sure my T.V. Guide collection is complete.
The 'ecosystem' isn't as rich. Python, Perl and Ruby come with quite a lot of libraries and there are dozens/hundreds of third party extensions.
Most so-called 'scripting languages' have functions as first class objects (Perl, Ruby, Javascript, etc.) which is a pretty basic requirement for programming in a functional style.
I guess Python (which is what I use most, but only for this and that) isn't wildly more or less popular than those languages (but it depends on who you ask...).
Here is a simpler statement: Most people don't have principles.
Sure, people have lots of preferences and things that they feel squeamish about, but most people don't let those things get in the way of their own gratification.
Counting characters is a lot less interesting than counting symbols. Of course, a language with too many symbols will be more obscure than one that makes somewhat repetitive use of a smaller set of symbols, so the whole thing is still pretty subjective.
They were replaced by instruments that are easier to play, or at least, that can generate a wider range of tones (a valved trumpet can play a full scale...). So they are replaced by more capable or more fashionable instruments, not necessarily because of how they sound.
You can take it in a circle; if the model doesn't account for bad information, it doesn't sufficiently manage risk.
From what I have read, the people who did the best (or maybe least worst) treated the quantitative models as information, rather than facts. When the outputs of the models stopped being reasonable, they stopped trusting them.
So what if I'd rather not bother with that process?