certainly things may be proven true. thats why we have the category of "law". i agree that most of the creationist babble is just that. and highly uninformed at the leaast. but i also see the circular logic used to defend the "scientific" point of view. longstanding belief in something does not make it more "true". its usefulness does not make it more "true". ive read both sides of this argument for 20 years now, and there are enough major holes in both arguments to place both on a shelf.
i would not mind at all if it were only a theory. the problem is that it's nt even that. it is a hypothesis, i read last weeks flamewar in absolute awe that the supposedly scientific viewers still dont have a handle on scientific method or terminology. neither evolution nor creationism qualify as theories, they are hypothesises. to qualify as a theory, there must be some method of both proving and disproving it. neither exists for either side in this issue. at least get your terminology correct if you plan to take the "science: high road.
i remember the incident where they handed over proprietary information from airbus to boing. while this was a foriegn company... it does show the willingness to use their resources to help those companies they are in bed with. unless you are one of them, you should consider your data up for grabs.
i have worked on alot of code from big shops, and it is always chopped up crap. they insist that each and every bit of code written is done in "modules" so that it can be used elsewhere. what results is a program consisting of call after call after call with an occasional line of original code thrown in. no matter that the functions are huge. no matter that only 2% of the function is being used. they use it anyway. it is the norm for big shops. to expect ms code to be any different is foolish. to expect their code to be anything but hard to read is also foolish. just look at the object code generated from it... the miles of extra dll calls for a nothing function. clean code does not generate trash like that. I personally would not relish the thought of a single day immersed in ms windows code. shoot me now please.
what did you expect? that linux would win? remember the phrase first they ignore you, then they laugh at you. then they fight you. then you win. well... this is the fight part. and it is war... dont expect it to end anytime soon.
One, paper-based obstacles to electronic transactions must be eliminated. Two, parties to an electronic transaction should choose the electronic authentication technology. Third, parties to a transaction should have the opportunity to prove in court that their authentication approach and transactions are valid. Fourth, the international approach to electronic signatures should take a non-discriminatory approach to electronic signature. This will allow the free market -- not a government -- to determine the type of authentication technologies used in international commerce.
Slashdot Mirror
actually darwins entire argument comes from aristotle. it was neither new nor unique.
certainly things may be proven true. thats why we have the category of "law". i agree that most of the creationist babble is just that. and highly uninformed at the leaast. but i also see the circular logic used to defend the "scientific" point of view. longstanding belief in something does not make it more "true". its usefulness does not make it more "true". ive read both sides of this argument for 20 years now, and there are enough major holes in both arguments to place both on a shelf.
i would not mind at all if it were only a theory.
the problem is that it's nt even that. it is a hypothesis, i read last weeks flamewar in absolute awe that the supposedly scientific viewers still dont have a handle on scientific method or terminology.
neither evolution nor creationism qualify as theories, they are hypothesises. to qualify as a theory, there must be some method of both proving and disproving it. neither exists for either side in this issue. at least get your terminology correct if you plan to take the "science: high road.
avid pulled away from the mac because it needs 4 pci slots for its hardware, and the current g3 m/b's only have 3. this is to be fixed in g4.
i remember the incident where they handed over proprietary information from airbus to boing.
while this was a foriegn company... it does show the willingness to use their resources to help those companies they are in bed with. unless you are one of them, you should consider your data up for grabs.
fine. make it 100 radians in milliradian steps.
i have worked on alot of code from big shops, and it is always chopped up crap. they insist that each and every bit of code written is done in "modules" so that it can be used elsewhere. what results is a program consisting of call after call after call with an occasional line of original code thrown in. no matter that the functions are huge. no matter that only 2% of the function is being used. they use it anyway. it is the norm for big shops. to expect ms code to be any different is foolish. to expect their code to be anything but hard to read is also foolish. just look at the object code generated from it... the miles of extra dll calls for a nothing function. clean code does not generate trash like that. I personally would not relish the thought of a single day immersed in ms windows code. shoot me now please.
just as soon as hotmail and msnbc do...
what did you expect? that linux would win?
remember the phrase first they ignore you, then they laugh at you. then they fight you. then you win.
well... this is the fight part. and it is war...
dont expect it to end anytime soon.
One, paper-based obstacles to electronic transactions must be eliminated.
Two, parties to an electronic transaction should choose the electronic authentication technology.
Third, parties to a transaction should have the opportunity to prove in court that their authentication approach and transactions are valid.
Fourth, the international approach to electronic signatures should take a non-discriminatory approach to electronic signature. This will
allow the free market -- not a government -- to determine the type of authentication technologies used in international commerce.
wouldnt a slackware public development tree be nice?
mmmmmmmmmmm
good.