Which you then wire into samba, which you then connect to with a Windows 8 box, which half the time just doesn't print anything. And then, when it doesn't, are there any clear error messages in the cups log? in the samba log? No. When a job starts but does not complete, it stands to reason that I don't want either no error message or a thousand unit debug messages, but something tracing the path of a failure up the call stack from where it's first found. It is annoying when developers cater only for 1) themselves; 2) the user whose system works perfectly first time.
I've never understood why print software has become so universally awful. Printing is *not* a particularly complex thing. It's the lack of transaction robustness which really grates me.
P.sure that evolution is about retention of particular traits more suited to the environment.
Whether that environment is dominated by non-organic or organic processes, and whether those organic processes are floral, bestial or human, is irrelevant.
So, a breeding programme is an excellent demonstration of evolution at a fast pace.
It will still be small, non-ergonomic screen with a primitive interface running on an under-powered CPU.
Tablets are popular because most people just dick around on their PC all day and never did any work. Those workers who walked around with mobile kit since the Psion days might move to tablets, but that was for walking around the shop floor, not as a replacement for general office PC work.
One of the sillier things that the culture of individualism has brought is heroism: the idea that one person or a very small group of people are supermen, able to challenge all perceived evil and win the day. But it's bullshit. There are only two ways to make a system secure:
1) Have everyone on your side;
2) Have no one use it.
2 is approached by an awful lot of firms: why release an exploit for system X, when you get 100x the exposure with an exploit on system Y? 1 is approached another way: many eyes. Three guys in a room aren't going to find shit, no matter how much porn they watch (well, unless it's *that* sort of porn). There will always be hundreds among the 7 billion odd people who will spot something you've missed. So, a security team comprising only three people is merely there for show, and the only reason you haven't been broken into is because you've approached close enough to 1 or 2.
This. They want $32 million in a month to build 40,000 units of yet-another-phone? Why?
I don't really understand the crowdfunding craze. The idea with capitalism is that people risk their capital to make bank. With this method - like with peer-to-peer lending - the wealthy investor is merely a middleman, setting up a crowdfunding platform from which it collects commission, but risking none of its own money in the businesses/loans themselves. For crowdfunding, the "investors" are the dwindling middle classes, who give up their money and might at best receive a trinket - certainly not even repayment of capital, let alone interest or shares.
Yeah, ok, "risk capital to make bank" hasn't been capitalism since the first limited liability corporation was set up, but at least there was some semblance of risk.
From an investor wisdom PoV, it's exactly the same bullshit banks went through in the last decade, moving from know-your-borrower loans to computer-says-yes. I guess the only plus point is that then the average citizen was surprised that they had to pay for bailouts, whereas now the citizen is still getting fleeced, but it happens more quickly.
If the last five years of Ballmer are anything to go by, he doesn't actually want Microsoft to succeed. So, he's probably pleased to hear how badly he's doing.
But what I don't understand is: why? Why is Microsoft deciding to jump on the cloud/tablet bandwagon and turn itself from leader into second rate Apple+Google copycat? What does he stand to gain? Maybe he's bored and has made enough money as a winner, and now he just wants to dick about with this huge plaything he's inherited from Bill. Isn't that a problem with corporate capitalism? once you have enough money to sort you and your children and your grandchildren, you don't need to worry about the future - even if people rely on your business lasting a long time.
...because they will incidentally provide access to porn. See where this is going?
Still, three cheers for the first enterprising foreign VPN company to offer free VPN services (ad-supported?). I anticipate approximately every single teen male in the UK becoming aware of it within a week of its launch.
There is no such thing. You've made a claim. Back it.
You're assuming that Adam&Eve existed. You prove your assumption of flying teapots. I don't have to disprove a thing.
There is never enough evidence for something false,
You're telling me...
and you are suggesting that the entirety of Judaism failed to notice text that invalidated their religion a few paragraphs apart.
There is nothing I have said which "invalidates" Judaism, being just another of many religions based upon some arbitrary axioms and wilfully contorted interpretations (but not this one, as Jewish scholars aren't quite as dumb as you).
And an assertion that the Bible is inspired by God is, of course, unfalsifiable.
rather than handwaving claims about literary analysis you don't cite much less defend,
You're talking like some sort of theologist, so I'm assuming you're familiar with the literature and are being wilfully obtuse. Pleading ignorance to the thesis that there are at least two distinct creation stories in Christian theology is like pleading ignorance to heliocentricity in planetary physics.
In truth, you're just another Slashdot poster who lacks the intelligence to be heard somewhere relevant, so you spout your crackpot theories here. Kooks on the Internet - who'd have thought it?
and will only reference as important in the effort to establish none of it is important?
Eh? It's important to refute one of man's biggest burdens against progress.
"Caught lying"... did no such thing, no such thing is logically derivable.
"Worthy of". dignus -a -um. You have particularly poor reading comprehension.
I made an argument about Adam and Eve, and you responded with "that argument can't be true unless all the other arguments I can associate with it should be argued in the same way".
Logic is applicable everywhere.
"Adam and Eve didn't exist"... sheer empty assertion. Formally, a Bare Assertion Fallacy if you like. Show your proof they didn't exist.
Flying teapot fallacy. Pretty embarrassing to get involved in a discussion about credibility of the creation stories with an a priori assumption that A&E exist, isn't it?
You are "twisting" it to claim it says what it does not, because you utterly lack intellectual honesty either in your statements or in your standard method of mental processing which produces them.
You're still trying to re-order paragraphs.
The reason they do not flow is because they are distinct accounts which happen to have been pasted one after the other. There's enough evidence of this from literary-critical analysis. You are presenting an occasionally still heard and refuted theory about the two creation stories.
No, you're re-ordering paragraphs, ignoring the re-creation of all beasts, ignoring the different presentations of the two genders, ignoring the entirely different styles between the two Chapters (switching at 2:4) in the original text which suggests that they're written hundreds of years apart, ignoring the fact that the original text differentiates man's "creation" in Genesis 1 vs "formation" in Genesis 2, &c. &c.
As far as I can see, you think you've uniquely and cleverly found some way of unifying the accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis, even though this has been attempted and refuted dozens of times over the last few hundred years. Telling me to trust you, or that your arguments are "valid" merely because you have asserted them, gets you nowhere. I don't know whether you're a True Believer or are trying to demonstrate your debate prowess to... yourself? but it's kinda weird.
The basic issues here are that you want to 1) re-order paragraphs; 2) ignore the other stuff about aaaallll the beasts and plants being re-created; 3) ignore the different roles assigned for the genders in the two accounts; 4) disregard the supporting mound of literature which establishes the existence of multiple creation stories in light of 1-3, likely written hundreds of years apart.
As noted in the footnote, "earth" is alternately (and accurately) translated as "land", and not incompatibly that this particular land had not been rained upon, nor had plants grown here.
The discussion of the garden begins in verse 8. You're still on verse 5, dude.
Read through the whole of Genesis 2. It's repeating several events which have already occurred in Genesis 1. Likely two different adaptations of the same fairytale. Perhaps the authors had a disagreement?
My model is quite literally that of a garden on the surface of the Earth, taking up a subset of the Earth's surface, as common sense and science would naturally dictate, though not dictated by your effort to interpret as whatever is -least- likely.
And better students of the book than you have decided time and time again that Genesis contains multiple creation stories.
Most likely, then, is that the Bible is an often vague set of fairytales ("allegories") with no real concern for consistency or clarity - clarity's a dangerous thing in religion. Least likely is that the Bible is a perfect, divine word which happens to require contorted interpretations in order to make perfectly connected sense.
2) Bringing up sets isn't going to convince anyone.
3) OK, what do Genesis 1&2 symbolise, please?
4) Having reviewed your language a second time, and compared it with the advice given in your special book, I'm pretty sure you're going to Hell.
You are forcing a particular chronological narrative on the overall allegorical presentation.
Ahahaha, worthy of a politician who's just been caught lying.
There is no "scientific reason" to explain a falsehood. Adam and Eve didn't exist, therefore any stance you have about their chronology is whimsical, not scientific. I don't use science to contort Harry Potter - why are you using it to justify your interpretation of Genesis?
And the only "scriptural reason" you've supplied is that you have to twist the interpretation so it isn't inconsistent, an indication that it is written by fallible men rather than a mythical god.
1) Instead of telling me that it's "directly written", give me evidence. Where in Genesis Chapter 2 does it say, "And this time, when it says that God created man and woman and every beast for the second time, and those plants which hadn't yet sprouted but which were mentioned just a few lines ago, it's just talking about those in a particular place"?
2) Fairytales can be allegorical, ya filthy strawmanner.
3) But Genesis doesn't really symbolise anything, so it'd be a stretch to call it allegorical anyway. It's just a nice story made by old dudes who didn't really know what was going on - which is fair enough, as you have to start with a guess.
4) Your tone isn't very Christian, bro.
Dude, give it up: Genesis 1 and 2 are already blatantly contradictory. You can insert unspoken context to change any fairytale into something vaguely consistent if you want, and tell me that God's just testing me because I refuse to re-interpret so it makes sense, but the fact is that it's just a playful fantasy written by someone was probably too high to review their notes.
Slashdot Mirror
Which you then wire into samba, which you then connect to with a Windows 8 box, which half the time just doesn't print anything. And then, when it doesn't, are there any clear error messages in the cups log? in the samba log? No. When a job starts but does not complete, it stands to reason that I don't want either no error message or a thousand unit debug messages, but something tracing the path of a failure up the call stack from where it's first found. It is annoying when developers cater only for 1) themselves; 2) the user whose system works perfectly first time.
I've never understood why print software has become so universally awful. Printing is *not* a particularly complex thing. It's the lack of transaction robustness which really grates me.
Does this include the ability to repeat a single act 10 minutes later? Genuinely curious, as I've never spent time around parrots(*).
(*) Unless you include Daily Mail readers.
P.sure that evolution is about retention of particular traits more suited to the environment. Whether that environment is dominated by non-organic or organic processes, and whether those organic processes are floral, bestial or human, is irrelevant. So, a breeding programme is an excellent demonstration of evolution at a fast pace.
It will still be small, non-ergonomic screen with a primitive interface running on an under-powered CPU. Tablets are popular because most people just dick around on their PC all day and never did any work. Those workers who walked around with mobile kit since the Psion days might move to tablets, but that was for walking around the shop floor, not as a replacement for general office PC work.
One of the sillier things that the culture of individualism has brought is heroism: the idea that one person or a very small group of people are supermen, able to challenge all perceived evil and win the day. But it's bullshit. There are only two ways to make a system secure: 1) Have everyone on your side; 2) Have no one use it. 2 is approached by an awful lot of firms: why release an exploit for system X, when you get 100x the exposure with an exploit on system Y? 1 is approached another way: many eyes. Three guys in a room aren't going to find shit, no matter how much porn they watch (well, unless it's *that* sort of porn). There will always be hundreds among the 7 billion odd people who will spot something you've missed. So, a security team comprising only three people is merely there for show, and the only reason you haven't been broken into is because you've approached close enough to 1 or 2.
I don't really understand the crowdfunding craze. The idea with capitalism is that people risk their capital to make bank. With this method - like with peer-to-peer lending - the wealthy investor is merely a middleman, setting up a crowdfunding platform from which it collects commission, but risking none of its own money in the businesses/loans themselves. For crowdfunding, the "investors" are the dwindling middle classes, who give up their money and might at best receive a trinket - certainly not even repayment of capital, let alone interest or shares.
Yeah, ok, "risk capital to make bank" hasn't been capitalism since the first limited liability corporation was set up, but at least there was some semblance of risk.
From an investor wisdom PoV, it's exactly the same bullshit banks went through in the last decade, moving from know-your-borrower loans to computer-says-yes. I guess the only plus point is that then the average citizen was surprised that they had to pay for bailouts, whereas now the citizen is still getting fleeced, but it happens more quickly.
If the last five years of Ballmer are anything to go by, he doesn't actually want Microsoft to succeed. So, he's probably pleased to hear how badly he's doing. But what I don't understand is: why? Why is Microsoft deciding to jump on the cloud/tablet bandwagon and turn itself from leader into second rate Apple+Google copycat? What does he stand to gain? Maybe he's bored and has made enough money as a winner, and now he just wants to dick about with this huge plaything he's inherited from Bill. Isn't that a problem with corporate capitalism? once you have enough money to sort you and your children and your grandchildren, you don't need to worry about the future - even if people rely on your business lasting a long time.
In that sentence there were thousands of victims: people who have been murdered.
Still, three cheers for the first enterprising foreign VPN company to offer free VPN services (ad-supported?). I anticipate approximately every single teen male in the UK becoming aware of it within a week of its launch.
Also, the earlier Firehose articles were more complete (but that's Slashdot editors for ya): BBC News giving a good amount of political commentary, and technological implementation of the blocking by Twitter.
There is no such thing. You've made a claim. Back it.
You're assuming that Adam&Eve existed. You prove your assumption of flying teapots. I don't have to disprove a thing.
There is never enough evidence for something false,
You're telling me...
and you are suggesting that the entirety of Judaism failed to notice text that invalidated their religion a few paragraphs apart.
There is nothing I have said which "invalidates" Judaism, being just another of many religions based upon some arbitrary axioms and wilfully contorted interpretations (but not this one, as Jewish scholars aren't quite as dumb as you).
And an assertion that the Bible is inspired by God is, of course, unfalsifiable.
rather than handwaving claims about literary analysis you don't cite much less defend,
You're talking like some sort of theologist, so I'm assuming you're familiar with the literature and are being wilfully obtuse. Pleading ignorance to the thesis that there are at least two distinct creation stories in Christian theology is like pleading ignorance to heliocentricity in planetary physics.
In truth, you're just another Slashdot poster who lacks the intelligence to be heard somewhere relevant, so you spout your crackpot theories here. Kooks on the Internet - who'd have thought it?
and will only reference as important in the effort to establish none of it is important?
Eh? It's important to refute one of man's biggest burdens against progress.
"Caught lying"... did no such thing, no such thing is logically derivable.
"Worthy of". dignus -a -um. You have particularly poor reading comprehension.
I made an argument about Adam and Eve, and you responded with "that argument can't be true unless all the other arguments I can associate with it should be argued in the same way".
Logic is applicable everywhere.
"Adam and Eve didn't exist"... sheer empty assertion. Formally, a Bare Assertion Fallacy if you like. Show your proof they didn't exist.
Flying teapot fallacy. Pretty embarrassing to get involved in a discussion about credibility of the creation stories with an a priori assumption that A&E exist, isn't it?
You are "twisting" it to claim it says what it does not, because you utterly lack intellectual honesty either in your statements or in your standard method of mental processing which produces them.
You're still trying to re-order paragraphs. The reason they do not flow is because they are distinct accounts which happen to have been pasted one after the other. There's enough evidence of this from literary-critical analysis. You are presenting an occasionally still heard and refuted theory about the two creation stories.
As far as I can see, you think you've uniquely and cleverly found some way of unifying the accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis, even though this has been attempted and refuted dozens of times over the last few hundred years. Telling me to trust you, or that your arguments are "valid" merely because you have asserted them, gets you nowhere. I don't know whether you're a True Believer or are trying to demonstrate your debate prowess to... yourself? but it's kinda weird.
The basic issues here are that you want to 1) re-order paragraphs; 2) ignore the other stuff about aaaallll the beasts and plants being re-created; 3) ignore the different roles assigned for the genders in the two accounts; 4) disregard the supporting mound of literature which establishes the existence of multiple creation stories in light of 1-3, likely written hundreds of years apart.
As noted in the footnote, "earth" is alternately (and accurately) translated as "land", and not incompatibly that this particular land had not been rained upon, nor had plants grown here.
The discussion of the garden begins in verse 8. You're still on verse 5, dude. Read through the whole of Genesis 2. It's repeating several events which have already occurred in Genesis 1. Likely two different adaptations of the same fairytale. Perhaps the authors had a disagreement?
My model is quite literally that of a garden on the surface of the Earth, taking up a subset of the Earth's surface, as common sense and science would naturally dictate, though not dictated by your effort to interpret as whatever is -least- likely.
And better students of the book than you have decided time and time again that Genesis contains multiple creation stories. Most likely, then, is that the Bible is an often vague set of fairytales ("allegories") with no real concern for consistency or clarity - clarity's a dangerous thing in religion. Least likely is that the Bible is a perfect, divine word which happens to require contorted interpretations in order to make perfectly connected sense.
2) Bringing up sets isn't going to convince anyone.
3) OK, what do Genesis 1&2 symbolise, please?
4) Having reviewed your language a second time, and compared it with the advice given in your special book, I'm pretty sure you're going to Hell.
You are forcing a particular chronological narrative on the overall allegorical presentation.
Ahahaha, worthy of a politician who's just been caught lying.
There is no "scientific reason" to explain a falsehood. Adam and Eve didn't exist, therefore any stance you have about their chronology is whimsical, not scientific. I don't use science to contort Harry Potter - why are you using it to justify your interpretation of Genesis?
And the only "scriptural reason" you've supplied is that you have to twist the interpretation so it isn't inconsistent, an indication that it is written by fallible men rather than a mythical god.
1) Instead of telling me that it's "directly written", give me evidence. Where in Genesis Chapter 2 does it say, "And this time, when it says that God created man and woman and every beast for the second time, and those plants which hadn't yet sprouted but which were mentioned just a few lines ago, it's just talking about those in a particular place"? 2) Fairytales can be allegorical, ya filthy strawmanner. 3) But Genesis doesn't really symbolise anything, so it'd be a stretch to call it allegorical anyway. It's just a nice story made by old dudes who didn't really know what was going on - which is fair enough, as you have to start with a guess. 4) Your tone isn't very Christian, bro.
Dude, give it up: Genesis 1 and 2 are already blatantly contradictory. You can insert unspoken context to change any fairytale into something vaguely consistent if you want, and tell me that God's just testing me because I refuse to re-interpret so it makes sense, but the fact is that it's just a playful fantasy written by someone was probably too high to review their notes.
The rhino asked him on a date, but he insisted he would only accept ISO 8601 dates.