The way I see it, corporations are playing two different tunes to two different audiences.
They'll cry foul about not being able to price themselves highly in first world nations and price low in second and third world nations, and at the same time complain bitterly that they can't just buy all their goods and services where the market has them at their cheapest.
If they want to go the free trade route, it should be all the way, identical prices for identical goods at different locations, if the cost of living decreases at the same time as the wage and the entire global community gets to a happy standard of living, this can only be a good thing.
With the blatant unchecked hypocrisy of free trade currently in process though, it seems supremely unlikely that any such thing is liable to happen in the near future.
but best case scenario, you would get hot, though assumedly quite clean, water?
Perhaps this is what they have done?
I am not sure I completely followed you because you mentioned hydrogen ions where before you were using different terminology, free hydroxyl radicals = hydrogen ions?
My apologies, it's interesting, but I'm not very clear on it.
My resume is not attatched to this article, nor even to my personal homepage which does not specify who I even am, there is no link to this topic out of which I am likely to gain personal benefit, I simply wanted to know the answer to the question.
I'm in Australia myself, so I don't have to make USian rates, it just seems to be a better way to work, so far I've seen elance and guru and they look to be two good places. I'll be looking further into that.
Would those happen to be the same "chicks" who get engaged to men in prison?...or the ones who show up in the ER with broken bones because they "tripped"?
Are you implying that people with swords are violent by nature? The martial arts disciplines, especially the ones which use katanas are typically not the sort which welcome the type of people you're implying that the original poster may be. I certainly would never strike someone with any of my blades except in self defense.
As far as being able to *actually* kill someone, I'll take my car against your Katana any day.
All in the environment, in a typical environment, i.e. not a large flat field with no obstacles. You would be toast vs a competent katana wielder, car or no.;)
(unless you want to interpret every word of the Bible 100% literally, in which case you have chosen an impossible position to hold).
I agree with this, too, It was actually part of what I was trying to illustrate with my quotation of the KJV.
God didn't change his mind about creating the earth. The Man that God created went off and became wicked, and God cried over them as a parent cries over the bad choices of a child. (Of course, most parents don't go kill their kids and start a new family when the first one doesn't go so well, but that is another problem to explain... I would be here all night!) He had known they were going to screw up, but he let them make their own choices anyway.
I can see your point, however we are supposed to be talking about a singular being with the traits of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. When one erases a mistake, it implies that one must have made one to begin with, don't you think? And if one has indeed made a mistake, it is difficult to attribute the aforementioned traits to it.
Personally I don't like the idea of a singular being of omnipotent power watching over us like ants in an ant farm, I far prefer the idea of a benevolent force that can be manipulated to the ends of the wielder.
This fits far more in keeping with what I have observed in the real world, but then again the school of thought that each of us are living in six billion different worlds and have omnipotent power over our own if we only take it also appeals to me quite a bit.
I recommend reading this book for more of what I'm talking about.
Please don't speak for all religions when you say "only religion does [pretend to have all the answers]." Also recognize that there are many people who seem to think that science DOES have all the answers.
You're right actually, totally my fault for not thinking of this before, I was thinking nearly purely vs christian dogma. I know hinduism, shintoism, buddhism, paganism, and rosacrucianism for just a few are defined as religions. It's just that personally I define these things more as a search for truth in whichever place it may be found rather than a dogmatic religion.
Case in point, a question that Carl Sagan asked of the Dalai Lama was if science were to prove that reincarnation was not possible, what would he do? He responded that he would tell his followers to stop believing in it. I find it absolutely incomprehensible to imagine the same thing from a pope, ayatollah, or rabbi.
1. The laws of physics don't change (well, maybe a little, as mentioned in a Slashdot story a few days ago). But our understanding of them does change and grow more accurate with every new discovery. Things we thought we knew are cast aside in the face of new discoveries. And often, it takes a long time for the new discoveries to be accepted and understood. While science often answers the How, it never really explains the Why.
I think there are very strange things going on with the perceived laws of physics, three examples being quantum mechanics, the behaviour of light (particle, then wavelike once observed) and the general line that most things to do with science to a large degree seem to obey the law of schroedingers cat more than any other law. Imagination, faith, and belief can do some amazing things, even in the *real* world.
2. The core Truths of "Religion" never change. However, Man's understanding of them will always be limited, and the application of the core Truths will change according to environment. Even the prophets and apostles of the scriptures showed imperfections and even misunderstood the directions God gave them; they also progressed as they came to better understand God. Religion tends to answer the Why, and often doesn't bother too much with the How. Religion tends to be personal -- we can learn from the experiences of others, but the most important steps and the most crucial moments of understanding happen on a personal basis.
I think religion needs to be less judeo-christian muslim / dogmatic and more indeterminate spirituallity, search for truth, that appears to be what the above paragraph states, so I appear to agree with you.
Kindly name one--any one--and I'll tell you why I don't find it "inconvenient." Please limit your responses to "facts" that are proven positives, not assumed negatives like "there is no God."
I have no problem with the concept of god, the force, yahweh, allah, the mother, the godess, or whatever, in general. But since you asked, and since you specified that you're a christian, I couldn't resist the opportunity oblige you.
To quote the KJV Edition of your Bible, Book of Genesis;
6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
The christian god as outlined by modern religion is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, knows all things, sees all things, knows the past, the future and the present. An inconvenient fact in logic even if you take the bible itself as gospel with no regard whatsoever to the mortal laws of science which he have so far been able to find quite a degree of reliability in, is that in the above passage, god has regrets for his actions.
Omnipotent, omniscient, all knowing, all seeing creatures need never have regrets and need never make mistakes, this is in the earliest part of the bible, and already there are self-referencing logical inconsitencies
You may also note that you refer to an assumed negative with disdain in your post, yet in the same fashion your entire religion is based upon a great many assumed positives
The basic fact of religion is that God has stated many times that He doesn't want to be easily found--hence, no fact should be hard to accept for anyone of a religious mind.
The divine great invisible azure cow that floats on it's deified beacon of incredible lightness in the lower atmosphere has also stated the same thing.
But not really.
Convenient, no?
I will agree that "scientific creationism" is bad science. It's much more logical to simply look for "How did God create the universe" or "why did God create the universe this way?" Of course, many religious authorities have historically countered "science"'s illogical refutation of religion with equally bad logic.
Science is an empirical evaluation of the laws of the universe that we are presented with, to the best degree we are able to fathom. Religion is an organised form of spirituallity seeking to answer the most complex questions in existence with fables and bedtime stories.
Science doesn't know everything, but then a true scientist never assumes to know everything, that is the entire point of science and why it is a Good Idea (tm). Everything that is observed in science is checked and peer reviewed with no small degree of skepticism and each and every theory has it's own empirically verifiable evidence, correlating usually as to how well that theory is accepted in the minds of the scientific.
Religion proposes all the answers, justifies none of it's position, and asks it's followers for fealty and ignorance. In exchange it promises the unverifiable and when resisted it does the same, except in a far less pleasant fashion.
Don't misunderstand my meaning though, I did state that science does not have all the answers, there are things that at the moment we just don't know, and perhaps we'll never know them. The point is that it does not pretend to, only religion does.
I'm all for personalised spirituallity, personally.;)
If you think Salvatore's combat descriptions are wordy, I agree with you, but if they chose him for this task it is likely because they *wanted* the descriptions to be indepth and wordy. You couldn't have believed that they would be anything else after reading the work he did on the Dark Elf chronicles and assorted Drizzt Do'Urden stuff.
This sounds good to me because I especially liked the Dark Elf trilogy nearly entirely due to the fact that the fight scenes were so visceral and technically perfect, even though you never get to actually see them, he writes them how they really are.
Then again if you like star wars for.. all the sci fi stuff, rather than the pseudo kendo lightsaber shenanigans I can see how you'd be feeling a bit let down.
Blah blah blah, peering, blah blah blah, You don't have an argument so you're attacking me because I'm stupid and lack the ability to spell, blah blah blah, Australia isn't there yet, blah blah blah, neither is Africa or any other given continent, blah blah blah, I am an American and it's not my fault you're in the stone age, just because I'm stupid doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about, blah blah *BLAH*.
You're saying everything is fine and dandy because peering relationships cost noone anything, yet fail to give any reason why in a non peering relationship the connecting party should have to pay for traffic that the other end requested from *THEM*.
I don't care if it's ad hominem, I know it is, It is because you're an idiot, the fact that you still haven't picked up on the original statement further cements this.
Your heart is in the right place, but you're still being a little thick here.
What the citizens of the rest of the world would like is on the extremely rare occasions that one a US resident does venture outside their sheep paddock, they do not ask us to pay their virtual airfare, understand?
Everytime you go to.de, Germany pays for your visit, everytime you go look at the BBC, England pays for your visit. Even if you don't do it that often, that doesn't matter to the rest of the world, in fact due to the fact that they pay for it I'm sure they're quite glad that you don't.
It's simple fair play, we pay you for the content on your networks, so you should pay us, not a single figure just because we *have* a network, but volume based, the same way US telco's charge the rest of the world.
Am I being clear? Do all you Americans understand yet?
Is the concept of a peer to peer network really that disgracefully hard for you to understand? Here, let me lay it out in simple, clear, pre-school terms for you, so that your weak, kentucky fried chicken, mcdonalds scarfing ass can understand it.
You are in the US, You host a website, I like your website, I download content from your website, about 40mb, charged at about 20c per megabyte to me, this costs me or my ISP 8$. I probably sent about 20k worth of data as well in post and get requests, for simplicities sake, we'll call this a zero figure so as not to confuse you.
I am in Australia, I host a website, you like my website, you download content from my website, around 40mb, charged at about 20c per megabyte to *ME*, this costs me or my ISP 8$. you probably sent about 20k worth of data as well in post and get requests, for simplicities sake, we'll call this a zero figure so as not to confuse you.
Is it not clear to you from the above example how Australian people are subsidising US residents when they access content from an Australian resident still? If so, please donate your brain to science after thinning out your superdense skull with a small nuclear explosion so as to make extraction an actual possibility.
If you want to be *fair* about the arrangement, here's what should be changed, once again, in preschool level simplistic terms;
You are in the US, You host a website, I like your website, I download content from your website, about 40mb, charged at about 20c per megabyte to me, this costs me or my ISP 8$. I probably sent about 20k worth of data as well in post and get requests, for simplicities sake, we'll call this a zero figure so as not to confuse you.
This is as it should be.
I am in Australia, I host a website, you like my website, you download content from my website, around 40mb, charged at about 20c per megabyte to you or your ISP, this costs you or your isp 8$. you probably sent about 20k worth of data as well in post and get requests, for simplicities sake, we'll call this a zero figure so as not to confuse you.
It's really not that hard, and due to the fact that the vast majority of content is in fact located in server bunkers in the continental US, the US will still be significantly ahead when it comes to cost counting time.
Titanium is not necessarily stronger than steel in the sense that most people think it is, for example that movie blade, you know, with the crappy vampire hunter, etc. They thought they were being clever by having a silver edged titanium bodied double sided sword, in real life, a sword that slender made of those materials would warp incredibly easily (yeah I know I'm nitpicking on metallurgy on a film filled with vampires, sue me).
Titanium maybe as strong as steel and half as heavy but the size ratio for titanium to steel makes steel the better material where the body of the object must be reasonably compact, as is the case of swords or knives, This may not apply to that whack freak cloud from Final fantasy or any other assorted gunblade looking thing where the blade really probably *is* big enough to be made out of titanium.
I wouldn't want to try swinging one of those things though, yeagh.
There are many materials that are stronger than steel, (spectra, etc) but steel is still the creme de la creme when it comes to blades and blade like objects.
I have heard people using a titanium alloy based material getting results with smaller knives comparable to the same blades made of stainless steel alloy, but stainless steel is pretty weak comparitive to the "cutting edge" in blade level steel (Bainite katana at bugei). I would really love to know exactly what is in that steel, I own one standard katana made of swedish powdered steel and a bainite katana, the bainite is lighter, holds a better edge, and recently now that the swedish powdered steel blade is an ex-blade due to an accidental high velocity impact with a large freestanding concrete structure.. (ahem) better structural integrity too.;)
It can always be made easier, OEM Bundling of Linux platform based Desktop machines may be the death knell of windows entirely, when there is a 200$ price difference between two new machines and the technical advantage, as well as the application advantage, is actually on the linux side, that's it for windows OEM. No more cashcow.
If noone needs anything else, why is Win32 the dominant application writing API For modern commercial software vendors?
Why was Win95 a commercial success?
Why was Win98 a commercial success?
Why WinNT? Why Win200? Why WinXP?
If we followed your advice, everything would have gone into feature freeze after Windows for Workgroups and Trumpet Winsock?
I agree with your statements on ease of use and I believe that the OSS movement will grow to see that this is true, it will evolve as required and create intuitive software as soon as it realises that doing so is not pandering to the ignorant masses, it is building a better mousetrap.
I loved the earlier comments about people not being stupid because they didn't want to learn ancient egyptian heiroglyphics, they just wanted to learn what they could about ancient egyptian culture without a huge investment in terms of personal capital, this is a good example of why more intuitive tools and building the better mousetrap does not necessarily mean that we're dumbing down the platform.
You know what, Linux is going to win, period, end of story, no further debating, it is not an issue of if, it is an issue of when.
I've figured this out due to an earlier assumption I made about netscape, I thought, jeez, with the massive installed base that netscape currently enjoys in the www market, IE has no chance, no matter if it's free, especially considering that the early versions of IE, probably up until about 4.x were actually enormously worse than the comparitive time based offerings from Netscape, a lot of people at the time shared my opinion.
But, as we all know, IE won, and is probably about to be overtaken once more by gecko.
The reason IE won isn't bundling into the desktop as so many people like to think, it's because of a few things that it had going in it's favour over netscape and these few things that it had going over netscape, linux currently has going over windows, plus some.
1) Microsoft was giving away their product for free, as much as you like to blather on about TCO and crap like that, it's a simple fact that this matters, I've implemented corporate wide solutions before and seen people blanch at licensing fees for commercial software, especially the exorbitant rates which microsoft charge, and people are looking at ways to cut these costs, Microsoft could afford to give their Browser away for free because they had a whole bunch of other products still making them money and providing them with a nice fulcrum to leverage the www market.
Linux, is basically invincible, you can't kill it, you can't target the company and choke it by removing it's revenue sources, it doesn't matter if it's not a commercial success, there's nothing that you can do that will stop people from making linux a better mousetrap time after time after time, and it does get better, with every iteration, it's amazing just the difference between RH6.2 and RH7.2, what do you think will happen by the time we have RH8.2?
In this respect, Microsoft has no come back, there is nothing that they can do in the long run, short of making linux illegal (touch wood) that will stop it from eventually destroying their monopoly.
Disagree with this single point all you like, but ask yourself how much people would be willing to pay for a car with metallic paint which cost 30,000$ vs a car which they could simply get for free and was just as usable as the original option.
2) Linux, unlike MS IE, is actually coming from a technical position of strength, if you all remember the version of IE that MS first put out, you'll understand where I'm coming from here, IE 1.0 was a joke, it was completely laughable, there was nothing even remotely in it that was percievably a threat to the dominant browser.
In the modern OS market, Linux vs Windows from a purely technical standpoint without the UI issues results in a resounding win to Linux, I will grant that application, driver, and even debatably User Interface is superior under Windows, but if you think that is going to remain the truth forever, I advise you to look back at humble old IE 1.0 vs the current offering from netscape, and Windows XP vs. the latest RedHat distribution, I think you'll find the gap to be quite significantly smaller.
Judging Microsoft's recent business initiatives I am beginning to think that perhaps they're hedging their bets on the windows hegemony with the.net initiative and Xbox, etc, it leads me to believe that they have also considered the possibility that over the long haul, they just can't compete.
My bad then, this was just an assumption, I saw no reason for the insight connector client if it didn't integrate with the outlook store, Evolution would do a much better job as a vanilla IMAP client.
Not true actually, there are completely gratis clients for Solaris and Linux on the Bynari website, it would appear that the folks at Bynari are attempting to wean the kids of exchange server gradually by a two pronged attempt; 1) They provide a connector for outlook so the windows weenies can still have an outlook desktop with an IMAP linux based backend, but they charge 39$ USD per client licence to use this, a reasonable price and something that you can draw a profit from but not as nice as... 2) They also provide a free Linux and Solaris client to the same IMAP servers, giving Linux / Windows interoperability on the messaging / calendaring front, easing the pain involved with a migration.
This opens the door for a strategy like;
Company has 100% windows desktops with 100% windows architecture backend for messaging. In the cases where linux has a foot in the door, as a webserver, file server, any commodity task that linux does very well already, people will be used to the fact that the windows backend is unreliable and the unix backend is reliable, people will also be used to the fact that users are stupid and they will not abandon their userfriendly outlook so readily just for some stability.
Solution; Bynari on the weenies desktops, IMAP linux based backend, totally wipes out the 100% windows backend and puts a wedge in the desktop arena as well, This is just one less excuse for having a windows desktop, and that, any way you look at it, is a good thing.
Do us all a favor and drop the posturing - it does nothing but show frustration at your inability to sucessfully rebut my comments.
The same could, albeit more reasonably, be said of yours.
We're talking about present-day systems and not MS-DOS 6.22. Welcome to the 21st Century. Things *have* changed in Personal Computing since 1995. Keep it current or keep it to yourself.
This coming from a member of the NT Development team? Beautiful Irony how I love thee.
Your comment makes no sense in context, either, you were commenting on how linux would not run on grandma's Tandy 2000, I was commenting on how nothing from Microsoft past MS DOS 6.22 would run on said Tandy 2000 either, so your comments on modern linux viability on outdated hardware whilst trying to justify NT viability were bunk.
They still are.
It's a common tactic of people who can't successfully argue their point to resort to 3rd-party namecalling, and attempts at denigration of the previous comments.
denigrate Pronunciation Key (dn-grt)
tr.v. denigrated, denigrating, denigrates
To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
You keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
The entire point of an argument / disagreement / productive debate is to point out how your opponent is in fact, wrong.
As for third party name calling, I didn't call any third parties names, I called you assinine and foolish, basically. I guess I could've been construed as calling Microsoft names, but it turns out seeing as you're in the employ of said company, even they're not really a third party.
Additionally - as being a member of the Windows NT DevTeam (Kernel, API & Test Group), I know the MS.vs IBM debacle all too well - care to illustrate where MS was wrong?
All depends on your definition of wrong, would you care to argue that OS/2 was an inferior product to any of the windows releases at the time? Would you care to argue that MS blatantly shoving vapourware on the market was a viable and ethically acceptable tactic? (I wouldn't care to argue on the legallity of it so don't even bother to ask)
Or are you referring to some off topic MS vs IBM chapter which has nothing to do with OS/2, this being the case in point.
Offering alternatives is an extremely important oft overlooked part of the process, another is reading between the lines, The BWI only comes up with his I's for an actual reason.
Case in point BWI flies into office demanding instant blocking of all network traffic with transparent proxying and user authentication (which of course, is not actually technically possible) to the domain and a billing system so we can bill each individual business unit amount x for bytes transferred.
It's obvious to me that BWI has recieved an insanely large bill from the telco re our bandwidth usage, which does not surprise me, no need to be defensive because he knows, as do I, that I have repeatedly warned him that open slather on the bandwidth platter is just asking for high usage costs.
You make a suggestion, socks 5 proxying with iptables monitoring of all non http / ftp connections and a blocking redirect to an internal help page as to how to configure the proxy and how the authentication process will work; Yes folks, that's right, your windows logons, no new usernames or passwords required. Oh, and by the way, we are watching, so be careful where you go now. This way nothing is cut off, everything still works, and the root problem at the cause of the BWI issue has been solved and the BWI leaves office feeling pacified and happy with the result of his brilliant idea.;)
"Probably didn't" and "could have" are not that far removed from one another, until we see the respective data for both issues we can't offhand say whether it's completely impractical to judge where the projectile may have hit.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it, corporations are playing two different tunes to two different audiences.
They'll cry foul about not being able to price themselves highly in first world nations and price low in second and third world nations, and at the same time complain bitterly that they can't just buy all their goods and services where the market has them at their cheapest.
If they want to go the free trade route, it should be all the way, identical prices for identical goods at different locations, if the cost of living decreases at the same time as the wage and the entire global community gets to a happy standard of living, this can only be a good thing.
With the blatant unchecked hypocrisy of free trade currently in process though, it seems supremely unlikely that any such thing is liable to happen in the near future.
Bummer.
They don't need to understand it.
Watch what happens when they fire the admins and then a month or so later everything starts to break.
Anecdotal evidence.
On the other hand it does look like the 40k positions for adding users and clearing print queues may be gone..
Can't say I miss them.
Cheers
Genj
but best case scenario, you would get hot, though assumedly quite clean, water?
Perhaps this is what they have done?
I am not sure I completely followed you because you mentioned hydrogen ions where before you were using different terminology, free hydroxyl radicals = hydrogen ions?
My apologies, it's interesting, but I'm not very clear on it.
Cheers
Genj
Assumedly massively obvious question that just has to be asked and please excuse me if I sound like a fool for doing so, but;
free hydroxyl radicals = water without protons
free hydrogen radicals = protons
and all the gunk left behind is assumedly in solid format?
What happens when you mix pure water without protons, with protons?
(puzzled look)
Your comment, though cute, is void.
I'm in Australia myself, so I don't have to make USian rates, it just seems to be a better way to work, so far I've seen elance and guru and they look to be two good places. I'll be looking further into that.
Are you implying that people with swords are violent by nature? The martial arts disciplines, especially the ones which use katanas are typically not the sort which welcome the type of people you're implying that the original poster may be. I certainly would never strike someone with any of my blades except in self defense.
As far as being able to *actually* kill someone, I'll take my car against your Katana any day.
All in the environment, in a typical environment, i.e. not a large flat field with no obstacles. You would be toast vs a competent katana wielder, car or no.;)
I'm enjoying this discussion, but the moderators are for once, correct, it's very offtopic.
I have transferred it here
. Along with a reply to this comment.(unless you want to interpret every word of the Bible 100% literally, in which case you have chosen an impossible position to hold).
I agree with this, too, It was actually part of what I was trying to illustrate with my quotation of the KJV.
God didn't change his mind about creating the earth. The Man that God created went off and became wicked, and God cried over them as a parent cries over the bad choices of a child. (Of course, most parents don't go kill their kids and start a new family when the first one doesn't go so well, but that is another problem to explain... I would be here all night!) He had known they were going to screw up, but he let them make their own choices anyway.
I can see your point, however we are supposed to be talking about a singular being with the traits of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. When one erases a mistake, it implies that one must have made one to begin with, don't you think? And if one has indeed made a mistake, it is difficult to attribute the aforementioned traits to it.
Personally I don't like the idea of a singular being of omnipotent power watching over us like ants in an ant farm, I far prefer the idea of a benevolent force that can be manipulated to the ends of the wielder.
This fits far more in keeping with what I have observed in the real world, but then again the school of thought that each of us are living in six billion different worlds and have omnipotent power over our own if we only take it also appeals to me quite a bit.
I recommend reading this book for more of what I'm talking about.
It's good to hear from a like minded person.
Please don't speak for all religions when you say "only religion does [pretend to have all the answers]." Also recognize that there are many people who seem to think that science DOES have all the answers.
You're right actually, totally my fault for not thinking of this before, I was thinking nearly purely vs christian dogma. I know hinduism, shintoism, buddhism, paganism, and rosacrucianism for just a few are defined as religions. It's just that personally I define these things more as a search for truth in whichever place it may be found rather than a dogmatic religion.
Case in point, a question that Carl Sagan asked of the Dalai Lama was if science were to prove that reincarnation was not possible, what would he do? He responded that he would tell his followers to stop believing in it. I find it absolutely incomprehensible to imagine the same thing from a pope, ayatollah, or rabbi.
1. The laws of physics don't change (well, maybe a little, as mentioned in a Slashdot story a few days ago). But our understanding of them does change and grow more accurate with every new discovery. Things we thought we knew are cast aside in the face of new discoveries. And often, it takes a long time for the new discoveries to be accepted and understood. While science often answers the How, it never really explains the Why.
I think there are very strange things going on with the perceived laws of physics, three examples being quantum mechanics, the behaviour of light (particle, then wavelike once observed) and the general line that most things to do with science to a large degree seem to obey the law of schroedingers cat more than any other law. Imagination, faith, and belief can do some amazing things, even in the *real* world.
2. The core Truths of "Religion" never change. However, Man's understanding of them will always be limited, and the application of the core Truths will change according to environment. Even the prophets and apostles of the scriptures showed imperfections and even misunderstood the directions God gave them; they also progressed as they came to better understand God. Religion tends to answer the Why, and often doesn't bother too much with the How. Religion tends to be personal -- we can learn from the experiences of others, but the most important steps and the most crucial moments of understanding happen on a personal basis.
I think religion needs to be less judeo-christian muslim / dogmatic and more indeterminate spirituallity, search for truth, that appears to be what the above paragraph states, so I appear to agree with you.
Kindly name one--any one--and I'll tell you why I don't find it "inconvenient." Please limit your responses to "facts" that are proven positives, not assumed negatives like "there is no God."
I have no problem with the concept of god, the force, yahweh, allah, the mother, the godess, or whatever, in general. But since you asked, and since you specified that you're a christian, I couldn't resist the opportunity oblige you.
To quote the KJV Edition of your Bible, Book of Genesis;
6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
The christian god as outlined by modern religion is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, knows all things, sees all things, knows the past, the future and the present. An inconvenient fact in logic even if you take the bible itself as gospel with no regard whatsoever to the mortal laws of science which he have so far been able to find quite a degree of reliability in, is that in the above passage, god has regrets for his actions.
Omnipotent, omniscient, all knowing, all seeing creatures need never have regrets and need never make mistakes, this is in the earliest part of the bible, and already there are self-referencing logical inconsitencies
You may also note that you refer to an assumed negative with disdain in your post, yet in the same fashion your entire religion is based upon a great many assumed positives
The basic fact of religion is that God has stated many times that He doesn't want to be easily found--hence, no fact should be hard to accept for anyone of a religious mind.
The divine great invisible azure cow that floats on it's deified beacon of incredible lightness in the lower atmosphere has also stated the same thing.
But not really.
Convenient, no?
I will agree that "scientific creationism" is bad science. It's much more logical to simply look for "How did God create the universe" or "why did God create the universe this way?" Of course, many religious authorities have historically countered "science"'s illogical refutation of religion with equally bad logic.
Science is an empirical evaluation of the laws of the universe that we are presented with, to the best degree we are able to fathom. Religion is an organised form of spirituallity seeking to answer the most complex questions in existence with fables and bedtime stories.
Science doesn't know everything, but then a true scientist never assumes to know everything, that is the entire point of science and why it is a Good Idea (tm). Everything that is observed in science is checked and peer reviewed with no small degree of skepticism and each and every theory has it's own empirically verifiable evidence, correlating usually as to how well that theory is accepted in the minds of the scientific.
Religion proposes all the answers, justifies none of it's position, and asks it's followers for fealty and ignorance. In exchange it promises the unverifiable and when resisted it does the same, except in a far less pleasant fashion.
Don't misunderstand my meaning though, I did state that science does not have all the answers, there are things that at the moment we just don't know, and perhaps we'll never know them. The point is that it does not pretend to, only religion does.
I'm all for personalised spirituallity, personally. ;)
If you think Salvatore's combat descriptions are wordy, I agree with you, but if they chose him for this task it is likely because they *wanted* the descriptions to be indepth and wordy. You couldn't have believed that they would be anything else after reading the work he did on the Dark Elf chronicles and assorted Drizzt Do'Urden stuff.
This sounds good to me because I especially liked the Dark Elf trilogy nearly entirely due to the fact that the fight scenes were so visceral and technically perfect, even though you never get to actually see them, he writes them how they really are.
Then again if you like star wars for.. all the sci fi stuff, rather than the pseudo kendo lightsaber shenanigans I can see how you'd be feeling a bit let down.
To each their own.
Blah blah blah, peering, blah blah blah, You don't have an argument so you're attacking me because I'm stupid and lack the ability to spell, blah blah blah, Australia isn't there yet, blah blah blah, neither is Africa or any other given continent, blah blah blah, I am an American and it's not my fault you're in the stone age, just because I'm stupid doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about, blah blah *BLAH*.
You're saying everything is fine and dandy because peering relationships cost noone anything, yet fail to give any reason why in a non peering relationship the connecting party should have to pay for traffic that the other end requested from *THEM*.
I don't care if it's ad hominem, I know it is, It is because you're an idiot, the fact that you still haven't picked up on the original statement further cements this.
Just go away.
Your heart is in the right place, but you're still being a little thick here.
.de, Germany pays for your visit, everytime you go look at the BBC, England pays for your visit. Even if you don't do it that often, that doesn't matter to the rest of the world, in fact due to the fact that they pay for it I'm sure they're quite glad that you don't.
What the citizens of the rest of the world would like is on the extremely rare occasions that one a US resident does venture outside their sheep paddock, they do not ask us to pay their virtual airfare, understand?
Everytime you go to
It's simple fair play, we pay you for the content on your networks, so you should pay us, not a single figure just because we *have* a network, but volume based, the same way US telco's charge the rest of the world.
Am I being clear? Do all you Americans understand yet?
Regards
You sir, are an idiot.
Is the concept of a peer to peer network really that disgracefully hard for you to understand? Here, let me lay it out in simple, clear, pre-school terms for you, so that your weak, kentucky fried chicken, mcdonalds scarfing ass can understand it.
You are in the US, You host a website, I like your website, I download content from your website, about 40mb, charged at about 20c per megabyte to me, this costs me or my ISP 8$. I probably sent about 20k worth of data as well in post and get requests, for simplicities sake, we'll call this a zero figure so as not to confuse you.
I am in Australia, I host a website, you like my website, you download content from my website, around 40mb, charged at about 20c per megabyte to *ME*, this costs me or my ISP 8$. you probably sent about 20k worth of data as well in post and get requests, for simplicities sake, we'll call this a zero figure so as not to confuse you.
Is it not clear to you from the above example how Australian people are subsidising US residents when they access content from an Australian resident still? If so, please donate your brain to science after thinning out your superdense skull with a small nuclear explosion so as to make extraction an actual possibility.
If you want to be *fair* about the arrangement, here's what should be changed, once again, in preschool level simplistic terms;
You are in the US, You host a website, I like your website, I download content from your website, about 40mb, charged at about 20c per megabyte to me, this costs me or my ISP 8$. I probably sent about 20k worth of data as well in post and get requests, for simplicities sake, we'll call this a zero figure so as not to confuse you.
This is as it should be.
I am in Australia, I host a website, you like my website, you download content from my website, around 40mb, charged at about 20c per megabyte to you or your ISP, this costs you or your isp 8$. you probably sent about 20k worth of data as well in post and get requests, for simplicities sake, we'll call this a zero figure so as not to confuse you.
It's really not that hard, and due to the fact that the vast majority of content is in fact located in server bunkers in the continental US, the US will still be significantly ahead when it comes to cost counting time.
Stop being so ridiculously greedy and stupid.
Do you honestly think namco gave a damn that they said the plot for time crisis 2 was a little thin?
Have you ever actually played the game?
It's like saying the plot for quake 3 was thin, yeah, sure, it was...
So?
Titanium maybe as strong as steel and half as heavy but the size ratio for titanium to steel makes steel the better material where the body of the object must be reasonably compact, as is the case of swords or knives, This may not apply to that whack freak cloud from Final fantasy or any other assorted gunblade looking thing where the blade really probably *is* big enough to be made out of titanium.
I wouldn't want to try swinging one of those things though, yeagh.
There are many materials that are stronger than steel, (spectra, etc) but steel is still the creme de la creme when it comes to blades and blade like objects.
I have heard people using a titanium alloy based material getting results with smaller knives comparable to the same blades made of stainless steel alloy, but stainless steel is pretty weak comparitive to the "cutting edge" in blade level steel (Bainite katana at bugei). I would really love to know exactly what is in that steel, I own one standard katana made of swedish powdered steel and a bainite katana, the bainite is lighter, holds a better edge, and recently now that the swedish powdered steel blade is an ex-blade due to an accidental high velocity impact with a large freestanding concrete structure.. (ahem) better structural integrity too. ;)
It can always be made easier, OEM Bundling of Linux platform based Desktop machines may be the death knell of windows entirely, when there is a 200$ price difference between two new machines and the technical advantage, as well as the application advantage, is actually on the linux side, that's it for windows OEM. No more cashcow.
Cheers,
Genj
If noone needs anything else, why is Win32 the dominant application writing API For modern commercial software vendors?
Why was Win95 a commercial success?
Why was Win98 a commercial success?
Why WinNT? Why Win200? Why WinXP?
If we followed your advice, everything would have gone into feature freeze after Windows for Workgroups and Trumpet Winsock?
I agree with your statements on ease of use and I believe that the OSS movement will grow to see that this is true, it will evolve as required and create intuitive software as soon as it realises that doing so is not pandering to the ignorant masses, it is building a better mousetrap.
I loved the earlier comments about people not being stupid because they didn't want to learn ancient egyptian heiroglyphics, they just wanted to learn what they could about ancient egyptian culture without a huge investment in terms of personal capital, this is a good example of why more intuitive tools and building the better mousetrap does not necessarily mean that we're dumbing down the platform.
Cheers.
Genj
You know what, Linux is going to win, period, end of story, no further debating, it is not an issue of if, it is an issue of when.
.net initiative and Xbox, etc, it leads me to believe that they have also considered the possibility that over the long haul, they just can't compete.
I've figured this out due to an earlier assumption I made about netscape, I thought, jeez, with the massive installed base that netscape currently enjoys in the www market, IE has no chance, no matter if it's free, especially considering that the early versions of IE, probably up until about 4.x were actually enormously worse than the comparitive time based offerings from Netscape, a lot of people at the time shared my opinion.
But, as we all know, IE won, and is probably about to be overtaken once more by gecko.
The reason IE won isn't bundling into the desktop as so many people like to think, it's because of a few things that it had going in it's favour over netscape and these few things that it had going over netscape, linux currently has going over windows, plus some.
1) Microsoft was giving away their product for free, as much as you like to blather on about TCO and crap like that, it's a simple fact that this matters, I've implemented corporate wide solutions before and seen people blanch at licensing fees for commercial software, especially the exorbitant rates which microsoft charge, and people are looking at ways to cut these costs, Microsoft could afford to give their Browser away for free because they had a whole bunch of other products still making them money and providing them with a nice fulcrum to leverage the www market.
Linux, is basically invincible, you can't kill it, you can't target the company and choke it by removing it's revenue sources, it doesn't matter if it's not a commercial success, there's nothing that you can do that will stop people from making linux a better mousetrap time after time after time, and it does get better, with every iteration, it's amazing just the difference between RH6.2 and RH7.2, what do you think will happen by the time we have RH8.2?
In this respect, Microsoft has no come back, there is nothing that they can do in the long run, short of making linux illegal (touch wood) that will stop it from eventually destroying their monopoly.
Disagree with this single point all you like, but ask yourself how much people would be willing to pay for a car with metallic paint which cost 30,000$ vs a car which they could simply get for free and was just as usable as the original option.
2) Linux, unlike MS IE, is actually coming from a technical position of strength, if you all remember the version of IE that MS first put out, you'll understand where I'm coming from here, IE 1.0 was a joke, it was completely laughable, there was nothing even remotely in it that was percievably a threat to the dominant browser.
In the modern OS market, Linux vs Windows from a purely technical standpoint without the UI issues results in a resounding win to Linux, I will grant that application, driver, and even debatably User Interface is superior under Windows, but if you think that is going to remain the truth forever, I advise you to look back at humble old IE 1.0 vs the current offering from netscape, and Windows XP vs. the latest RedHat distribution, I think you'll find the gap to be quite significantly smaller.
Judging Microsoft's recent business initiatives I am beginning to think that perhaps they're hedging their bets on the windows hegemony with the
Anyway, the article, oh yes, the article.
Bunch of fucking hacks.
;)
Cheers
Genj
My bad then, this was just an assumption, I saw no reason for the insight connector client if it didn't integrate with the outlook store, Evolution would do a much better job as a vanilla IMAP client.
Oh well.
Not true actually, there are completely gratis clients for Solaris and Linux on the Bynari website, it would appear that the folks at Bynari are attempting to wean the kids of exchange server gradually by a two pronged attempt;
1) They provide a connector for outlook so the windows weenies can still have an outlook desktop with an IMAP linux based backend, but they charge 39$ USD per client licence to use this, a reasonable price and something that you can draw a profit from but not as nice as...
2) They also provide a free Linux and Solaris client to the same IMAP servers, giving Linux / Windows interoperability on the messaging / calendaring front, easing the pain involved with a migration.
This opens the door for a strategy like;
Company has 100% windows desktops with 100% windows architecture backend for messaging. In the cases where linux has a foot in the door, as a webserver, file server, any commodity task that linux does very well already, people will be used to the fact that the windows backend is unreliable and the unix backend is reliable, people will also be used to the fact that users are stupid and they will not abandon their userfriendly outlook so readily just for some stability.
Solution; Bynari on the weenies desktops, IMAP linux based backend, totally wipes out the 100% windows backend and puts a wedge in the desktop arena as well, This is just one less excuse for having a windows desktop, and that, any way you look at it, is a good thing.
Cheers
Genj
The same could, albeit more reasonably, be said of yours.
We're talking about present-day systems and not MS-DOS 6.22. Welcome to the 21st Century. Things *have* changed in Personal Computing since 1995. Keep it current or keep it to yourself.
This coming from a member of the NT Development team? Beautiful Irony how I love thee. Your comment makes no sense in context, either, you were commenting on how linux would not run on grandma's Tandy 2000, I was commenting on how nothing from Microsoft past MS DOS 6.22 would run on said Tandy 2000 either, so your comments on modern linux viability on outdated hardware whilst trying to justify NT viability were bunk.
They still are.
It's a common tactic of people who can't successfully argue their point to resort to 3rd-party namecalling, and attempts at denigration of the previous comments.
denigrate Pronunciation Key (dn-grt) tr.v. denigrated, denigrating, denigrates To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
You keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
The entire point of an argument / disagreement / productive debate is to point out how your opponent is in fact, wrong.
As for third party name calling, I didn't call any third parties names, I called you assinine and foolish, basically. I guess I could've been construed as calling Microsoft names, but it turns out seeing as you're in the employ of said company, even they're not really a third party.
Additionally - as being a member of the Windows NT DevTeam (Kernel, API & Test Group), I know the MSAll depends on your definition of wrong, would you care to argue that OS/2 was an inferior product to any of the windows releases at the time? Would you care to argue that MS blatantly shoving vapourware on the market was a viable and ethically acceptable tactic? (I wouldn't care to argue on the legallity of it so don't even bother to ask)
Or are you referring to some off topic MS vs IBM chapter which has nothing to do with OS/2, this being the case in point.
Just give up, you're not good at this
Offering alternatives is an extremely important oft overlooked part of the process, another is reading between the lines, The BWI only comes up with his I's for an actual reason.
Case in point BWI flies into office demanding instant blocking of all network traffic with transparent proxying and user authentication (which of course, is not actually technically possible) to the domain and a billing system so we can bill each individual business unit amount x for bytes transferred.
It's obvious to me that BWI has recieved an insanely large bill from the telco re our bandwidth usage, which does not surprise me, no need to be defensive because he knows, as do I, that I have repeatedly warned him that open slather on the bandwidth platter is just asking for high usage costs.
You make a suggestion, socks 5 proxying with iptables monitoring of all non http / ftp connections and a blocking redirect to an internal help page as to how to configure the proxy and how the authentication process will work; Yes folks, that's right, your windows logons, no new usernames or passwords required. Oh, and by the way, we are watching, so be careful where you go now. This way nothing is cut off, everything still works, and the root problem at the cause of the BWI issue has been solved and the BWI leaves office feeling pacified and happy with the result of his brilliant idea.;)
"Probably didn't" and "could have" are not that far removed from one another, until we see the respective data for both issues we can't offhand say whether it's completely impractical to judge where the projectile may have hit.