In general, I don't like processed foods because they don't seem to be as healthy. But I believe that these premade sandwiches should save people a lot of money, because they don't need to throw out food as much, and also, we don't have to waste time making our own sandwiches.
We apparently like the instant foods a lot, and can't be as bad as some make it out to be. As mentioned in the article, they invented freeze dried coffee, and that cheese.
Pizza pockets are cool, but I for the average person popping a frozen pizza pop into the microwave isn't that hard.
I have experience in VisualBasic. I truly believe that once this kernel is ported over to Visual Basic, Aunt Tilly won't need autoconf anymore. What do you guys think? Who should I speak to?
I hear that he is pretty good at kernel maintenance.
Read the instructions and get rid of some of it.
on
Cable Chaos
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but usually the instructions should give you an idea of some alternate configurations.
You could ask yourself what you need, and when you use each system.
For the game system, I would keep it packed away in a box. This way it would be harder to get distracted. When you do decide to play it, you just have to unpack it and plug it in to a usual spot.
I must admit, that I don't keep abreast of the latest technology, but you shouldn't need the CD player and minidisk player.
I own a few compact flouressant bulbs which use 1/3 the electricity and last at least 3 times as long. These lights pat for themselves at least twice over. Unfortunatley not many people have adopted them because they cost more than their incandecent cousins.
I heard that flouressant light gives some people headaches, and doesn't feel as warm as incandecent light.
I thought that all light bulbs are designed to die after a certain amount of use.
If so, then it seems kind of odd that they would promote something to be better than what there is now. Why not just improve on what they have now? For instance a regular bulb that last 1,000,000 hours instead of just 1,000, would be nice. If the light bulb lasted 1,000,000 hours, and charged more for them, they could still allow the customer to save on the total number of bulbs in the long run, yet still make a little extra per bulb. I'm sure that there are a few ways that they can improve what we have now.
Don't get me wrong. I think this new technology is cool.
Just when I was looking for more reasons to hate the girls that dumped me in high school, this article at NewScientist explains how studies have shown that rejection actualy makes you dumb.
If I was a rejected nerd and geek in highschool, with I become as dumb and rich as Bill Gates?
Perhaps each email company should charge their new users for each email they receive plus a certain amount per kilobyte. This will discourage the new users from giving out their email addresses so quickly, and also to learn to cut out what isn't necessary.
Once they learn to quote properly, and prove that they can be responsible with email addresses, then the companies can give them a better rate.
I personally would also recommend that new user start out with a new user name such as myname_newuser@myserver.com Once they prove themselves by not posting their email addresses unecessarily, then they can get myname@myserver.com
The companies have an incentive to do this now, just as they have an incentive to use a firewall--for defensive measures.
I think that what it does show is that, although science in very reliable, it's the people who misuse the tool to promote their own selfish ambition, or misuse the tool by not being thorough in their work.
People seem to get this idea that physicians, and scientists are reliable because of the nature of their jobs. They won't say that, but I'm sure that many do believe it. Physicians and doctors should be reliable because of the people occupying the scientific and medical jobs, not the nature of their jobs!
...then he will be forced to believe...I would have no choice but to believe...
What makes you think that you can't rationalize things away? Even after being presented with absolute facts?
I could just picture you saying, "Yeah, but how do we know that that is one inch? Yeah, but how do we know that that ruler is accurate? Yeah, but how do know that the standard hasn't changed? Yeah, but how do know...", and on, and on, and on.
In your defense however, to a certain degree, this kind of scepticism helps. I could just hear the following conversation.
"How do we know that there was a brontasaurus [correct sp?]?" "Because the fosils are so close together?" "But that doesn't guarantee anything." "I'm a paleantological expert. It's obvious that you are being closed minded."
Yet, we can see that there was *never* any brontasaurus, and those who were sceptical, were rightfully so. The paleontologists abused their status and taught false ideas. Logic is very frail, and it doesn't help nearly as much as universities may indoctrinate their followers to believe.
To paraphrase my earlier reply: the original post was a joke for those who aren't humor-impaired.
After what appears to be an inflamatory trolling towards me in another thread, you come into this thread and *joke* around? Oh, okay. I'm humour-impared then. Whoever doesn't get your joke is impared.
I said: "It's not nonsense. Anytime that anybody has a view that's different from the Linux community and/. community, they are automatically wrong and legalistic./. tells you about your rights online, and *YOU* *MUST* *OBEY*.
;-p"
You said: "Jeez, and people keep telling me that's what the Christian god demands. Are you saying that Slashdot is a tool of god? Perhaps an addendum to the New Testament?"
I don't understand what your problem is. Maybe I'm out to lunch, but don't you think that I'm just joking when I use ";-p "? Why else would I do that? I'm just joking around. Maybe it isn't funny to you, and that's fine, but it just implies to me that you're doing this for the sake of trolling. Give me a break.
No, I don't have a hard time understanding the seperation between church and state. I was basically trying to point out that the constitution wasn't *only* about the rights of students.
Not trying to be rude, but you misunderstand me. Yes, you bring up a good point, but it's not related to my specific post.
I'm tired of this thread. You can conclude, if you want.
I replied to this already, but it never showed up. It was probably 1 - 2 times as long as yours. The reason I point this out, is because I don't want you to think that you are going ignored.
Perhaps it's just as well. You probably aren't intending to change your view anytime soon and we both presented our views several times already, so it would be wasteful for both of us to continue this thread.
I do appreciate your time in bringing up your side of the arguement.
Maybe I pressed "Preview" thinking that I pressed "Submit", never bothering to check. Oh well.
Now why are *you* insisting the government *force* its anti-religous view on the schools?
Anti != Non.
Uhm, what? You are *against* religion being taught in schools. In this debate you are *opposed* *any* religions being taught in school. That does pretty much make it "anti".
How would a school decide? By vote? So if there were 30 Catholics, 20 Baptists, and 20 Jews, then the school should teach Catholic dogma?
No. Just to take the worse case scenario, if *all* of us are taught Judaism, we would still become better people because all of these religions are based on the Old Testament.
Remember, when local schools have control over ciriculum, then the local citizens also have control over the schools. When there is tax money from a wide variety of people, there will be compromises.
You could keep coming up with worse case scenarios. None of them, even if true, would justify the rest of us being trampled by you, the minority.
It's much better if the parents and religious leaders teach religion during services/sunday school/home sessions/etc.
No it isn't. It's always better to have larger groups being served by a few. Please don't take that to extremes. What I'm trying to say is that when one person can specialize in teaching then we all profit, because other people can specialize at what they are good at. Are all people good teachers? No. They shouldn't be forced to become good teachers in order for them to pass on their beliefs and/or the truth.
This is complex. Let the communities and courts decide on a case by case basis.
*But* what the government teaches *isn't* neutral. Who watches the watchmen?
If the schools decide to teach Christianity, the government isn't forcing religion on schools, the schools are considered part of the government and are forcing religion on the students.
I think that you'd be surprised at how bigoted you really are. Most, if not all people these days are surprisingly tolerant. No, they won't force you to believe, or else fail you. Yes, there may be cultural pressures to do this or that, but has the government *ever* stopped any type of cultural pressure?
My friend came out of a Catholic School, and *didn't* believe in Roman Catholicism [wrong spelling?], yet she is much more "Christian" than many people I know, *and* she did well academically. They never forced her to participate in Catholic practises.
Sorry, your worse case scenario doesn't work for the rest of us.
The school board, or even the parents in general, should NOT be allowed to decide, because you will likely end up with the majority trampling the rights of the minority.
Sorry, but they are not more moronic than you. As if they don't have common sense. Come on.
This isn't about rights. It's about beliefs and the freedoms for a community to invest in its young people things that they believe are true.
You are legally correct in that the schools are a part of the government. However, that doesn't mean that it should be this way, anymore than they should be patrolling/. for guys like me. Nope. Sorry.
Once again, this is a hypothetical situation, but I'll try to answer.
Whether or not they would forbid someone from moving in is a slightly off-topic, but relavent issue. You can't make laws based on the worst case scenarios. That's why we have a free market. People get ripped off all the time, yet the government doesn't *have* to intervene in *every* situation, as if they are *automatically* the *only* people who can decide what is best.
You've got to remember, religions want to convert people; often times for the genuine interest of others. So it's not as if the average school like our hypothetical one would *strictly* *forbid* anyone else from coming in. *And* it's not as if the non-religous community is immune from discrimination.
To sum things up in answer to your literal question: I don't know what they would do. That's why I want to give them the freedom to decide for themselves.
However, what you probably really want to know is whether or not there is a way for someone to come into the community and not believe in the same religion, and still have a voice in the decision making. The answer is yes. Just as *you* can post on/. and have influence over me, that 1 family can have influence. It only takes one. Remember, just because they have a religous belief, doesn't mean they are morons. People learn. People change for better or for worse. Many people go to church while they are young [and *oh-so-influential* and *brainwashable*] and yet they *still* have the capacity to decide for themselves. I know this, because many people leave the church *all* *the* *time*.
Also, it's not as if I'm giving the school the legal right to forbid someone from going to public schools. Your question is completely out of context. It's like asking, "So, will this black family be able to go to the school controlled by the KKK?". No matter how I answer, I'll probably be percieved as guilty. It's obvious that you ran your eyes across the page and only tried to understand enough so that you could argue.
My only point in that context was whether or not a community could have the right to decide for themselves, under the condition that they all agree. This has nothing to do with a real life situation. *NOTHING*. As impossible as this situation is, you still won't even grant me a "yes". Always forcing the belief that nobody can get along. However, you would never allow that. Always assuming the worst, you bring in concepts of forbidding and antagonism. You simply refused to even answer my question. It just goes to show that you insist on controlling *everybody* even a large body agrees *among* *themselves*, but disagrees with *you*.
The desire to have the government control the schools is only a desire by evil people who insist on keeping the status quo, because it already suits them.
The particle/wave duality of light is like that. Saying "light is a wave" and "light is a particle" are both true is only a contradiction if we add "a particle cannot be a wave" and "a wave cannot be a particle" to the mix. In fact, physics tells us that all particles can be described as waves, so there is no real contradiction here.
I would go so far as to say that waves of *any* energy form, require matter. But alas! I'm not a scientist, and I don't have evidence, so Eagle7 won't let me be *right*, without answering to him. *Sigh*
Eagle7 is basically saying that no school is smart enough to decide what to do for themselves.
Also, have you noticed that there's lots of truth from every religion, when he's trying to make his point, but when we try to make ours, we are complete imbiliciles who can't learn and evaluate the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe that this is happening! I hope that there will be Linux alternatives.
I feel so violated!
;^))
In general, I don't like processed foods because they don't seem to be as healthy. But I believe that these premade sandwiches should save people a lot of money, because they don't need to throw out food as much, and also, we don't have to waste time making our own sandwiches.
We apparently like the instant foods a lot, and can't be as bad as some make it out to be. As mentioned in the article, they invented freeze dried coffee, and that cheese.
Pizza pockets are cool, but I for the average person popping a frozen pizza pop into the microwave isn't that hard.
Hi.
I have experience in VisualBasic. I truly believe that once this kernel is ported over to Visual Basic, Aunt Tilly won't need autoconf anymore. What do you guys think? Who should I speak to?
I hear that he is pretty good at kernel maintenance.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but usually the instructions should give you an idea of some alternate configurations.
You could ask yourself what you need, and when you use each system.
For the game system, I would keep it packed away in a box. This way it would be harder to get distracted. When you do decide to play it, you just have to unpack it and plug it in to a usual spot.
I must admit, that I don't keep abreast of the latest technology, but you shouldn't need the CD player and minidisk player.
I tried hacking around with the heliwm code. In general I like the ideas of the window manager.
Here's the link: http://www.cc.rim.or.jp/~hok/heliwm/
The thing that I like about it, is that all of the standard window functions are easy to control with different key combinations.
The creators of ratpoison spoke at our lug [VanLUG], and I found it to be very impressive.
Here's the URL: http://ratpoison.sourceforge.net/
Anybody ever watch that anime movie, "Galaxy Express"?
I heard that flouressant light gives some people headaches, and doesn't feel as warm as incandecent light.
I thought that all light bulbs are designed to die after a certain amount of use.
If so, then it seems kind of odd that they would promote something to be better than what there is now. Why not just improve on what they have now? For instance a regular bulb that last 1,000,000 hours instead of just 1,000, would be nice. If the light bulb lasted 1,000,000 hours, and charged more for them, they could still allow the customer to save on the total number of bulbs in the long run, yet still make a little extra per bulb. I'm sure that there are a few ways that they can improve what we have now.
Don't get me wrong. I think this new technology is cool.
If I was a rejected nerd and geek in highschool, with I become as dumb and rich as Bill Gates?
Okay, good.
Perhaps each email company should charge their new users for each email they receive plus a certain amount per kilobyte. This will discourage the new users from giving out their email addresses so quickly, and also to learn to cut out what isn't necessary.
Once they learn to quote properly, and prove that they can be responsible with email addresses, then the companies can give them a better rate.
I personally would also recommend that new user start out with a new user name such as myname_newuser@myserver.com Once they prove themselves by not posting their email addresses unecessarily, then they can get myname@myserver.com
The companies have an incentive to do this now, just as they have an incentive to use a firewall--for defensive measures.
I think that what it does show is that, although science in very reliable, it's the people who misuse the tool to promote their own selfish ambition, or misuse the tool by not being thorough in their work.
People seem to get this idea that physicians, and scientists are reliable because of the nature of their jobs. They won't say that, but I'm sure that many do believe it. Physicians and doctors should be reliable because of the people occupying the scientific and medical jobs, not the nature of their jobs!
What makes you think that you can't rationalize things away? Even after being presented with absolute facts?
I could just picture you saying, "Yeah, but how do we know that that is one inch? Yeah, but how do we know that that ruler is accurate? Yeah, but how do know that the standard hasn't changed? Yeah, but how do know...", and on, and on, and on.
In your defense however, to a certain degree, this kind of scepticism helps. I could just hear the following conversation.
"How do we know that there was a brontasaurus [correct sp?]?"
"Because the fosils are so close together?"
"But that doesn't guarantee anything."
"I'm a paleantological expert. It's obvious that you are being closed minded."
Yet, we can see that there was *never* any brontasaurus, and those who were sceptical, were rightfully so. The paleontologists abused their status and taught false ideas. Logic is very frail, and it doesn't help nearly as much as universities may indoctrinate their followers to believe.
If it were "Star Wars: the Scalability of Linux in the Death Star's Mainframes", then the other half of
After what appears to be an inflamatory trolling towards me in another thread, you come into this thread and *joke* around? Oh, okay. I'm humour-impared then. Whoever doesn't get your joke is impared.
...take Teddy Ruxpin and replace the cassette deck with dvd player, and install a 4 port ethernet hub. Being bored and going to MIT helps also.
I said: "It's not nonsense. Anytime that anybody has a view that's different from the Linux community and /. community, they are automatically wrong and legalistic. /. tells you about your rights online, and *YOU* *MUST* *OBEY*.
;-p "? Why else would I do that? I'm just joking around. Maybe it isn't funny to you, and that's fine, but it just implies to me that you're doing this for the sake of trolling. Give me a break.
;-p"
You said: "Jeez, and people keep telling me that's what the Christian god demands. Are you saying that Slashdot is a tool of god? Perhaps an addendum to the New Testament?"
I don't understand what your problem is. Maybe I'm out to lunch, but don't you think that I'm just joking when I use "
No, I don't have a hard time understanding the seperation between church and state. I was basically trying to point out that the constitution wasn't *only* about the rights of students.
Not trying to be rude, but you misunderstand me. Yes, you bring up a good point, but it's not related to my specific post.
I'm tired of this thread. You can conclude, if you want.
I replied to this already, but it never showed up. It was probably 1 - 2 times as long as yours. The reason I point this out, is because I don't want you to think that you are going ignored.
Perhaps it's just as well. You probably aren't intending to change your view anytime soon and we both presented our views several times already, so it would be wasteful for both of us to continue this thread.
I do appreciate your time in bringing up your side of the arguement.
Maybe I pressed "Preview" thinking that I pressed "Submit", never bothering to check. Oh well.
Anti != Non.
Uhm, what? You are *against* religion being taught in schools. In this debate you are *opposed* *any* religions being taught in school. That does pretty much make it "anti".
How would a school decide? By vote? So if there were 30 Catholics, 20 Baptists, and 20 Jews, then the school should teach Catholic dogma?
No. Just to take the worse case scenario, if *all* of us are taught Judaism, we would still become better people because all of these religions are based on the Old Testament.
Remember, when local schools have control over ciriculum, then the local citizens also have control over the schools. When there is tax money from a wide variety of people, there will be compromises.
You could keep coming up with worse case scenarios. None of them, even if true, would justify the rest of us being trampled by you, the minority.
It's much better if the parents and religious leaders teach religion during services/sunday school/home sessions/etc.
No it isn't. It's always better to have larger groups being served by a few. Please don't take that to extremes. What I'm trying to say is that when one person can specialize in teaching then we all profit, because other people can specialize at what they are good at. Are all people good teachers? No. They shouldn't be forced to become good teachers in order for them to pass on their beliefs and/or the truth.
This is complex. Let the communities and courts decide on a case by case basis.
*But* what the government teaches *isn't* neutral. Who watches the watchmen?
I think that you'd be surprised at how bigoted you really are. Most, if not all people these days are surprisingly tolerant. No, they won't force you to believe, or else fail you. Yes, there may be cultural pressures to do this or that, but has the government *ever* stopped any type of cultural pressure?
My friend came out of a Catholic School, and *didn't* believe in Roman Catholicism [wrong spelling?], yet she is much more "Christian" than many people I know, *and* she did well academically. They never forced her to participate in Catholic practises.
Sorry, your worse case scenario doesn't work for the rest of us.
Sorry, but they are not more moronic than you. As if they don't have common sense. Come on.
This isn't about rights. It's about beliefs and the freedoms for a community to invest in its young people things that they believe are true.
You are legally correct in that the schools are a part of the government. However, that doesn't mean that it should be this way, anymore than they should be patrolling
Once again, this is a hypothetical situation, but I'll try to answer.
/. and have influence over me, that 1 family can have influence. It only takes one. Remember, just because they have a religous belief, doesn't mean they are morons. People learn. People change for better or for worse. Many people go to church while they are young [and *oh-so-influential* and *brainwashable*] and yet they *still* have the capacity to decide for themselves. I know this, because many people leave the church *all* *the* *time*.
Whether or not they would forbid someone from moving in is a slightly off-topic, but relavent issue. You can't make laws based on the worst case scenarios. That's why we have a free market. People get ripped off all the time, yet the government doesn't *have* to intervene in *every* situation, as if they are *automatically* the *only* people who can decide what is best.
You've got to remember, religions want to convert people; often times for the genuine interest of others. So it's not as if the average school like our hypothetical one would *strictly* *forbid* anyone else from coming in. *And* it's not as if the non-religous community is immune from discrimination.
To sum things up in answer to your literal question: I don't know what they would do. That's why I want to give them the freedom to decide for themselves.
However, what you probably really want to know is whether or not there is a way for someone to come into the community and not believe in the same religion, and still have a voice in the decision making. The answer is yes. Just as *you* can post on
Also, it's not as if I'm giving the school the legal right to forbid someone from going to public schools. Your question is completely out of context. It's like asking, "So, will this black family be able to go to the school controlled by the KKK?". No matter how I answer, I'll probably be percieved as guilty. It's obvious that you ran your eyes across the page and only tried to understand enough so that you could argue.
My only point in that context was whether or not a community could have the right to decide for themselves, under the condition that they all agree. This has nothing to do with a real life situation. *NOTHING*. As impossible as this situation is, you still won't even grant me a "yes". Always forcing the belief that nobody can get along. However, you would never allow that. Always assuming the worst, you bring in concepts of forbidding and antagonism. You simply refused to even answer my question. It just goes to show that you insist on controlling *everybody* even a large body agrees *among* *themselves*, but disagrees with *you*.
The desire to have the government control the schools is only a desire by evil people who insist on keeping the status quo, because it already suits them.
I would go so far as to say that waves of *any* energy form, require matter. But alas! I'm not a scientist, and I don't have evidence, so Eagle7 won't let me be *right*, without answering to him. *Sigh*
Eagle7 is basically saying that no school is smart enough to decide what to do for themselves.
Also, have you noticed that there's lots of truth from every religion, when he's trying to make his point, but when we try to make ours, we are complete imbiliciles who can't learn and evaluate the facts.
Come on, Eagle7. This is ridiculous!