"Cracker," the old standby of Anglo insults was first noted in the mid 18th century, making it older than the United States itself. It was used to refer to poor whites, particularly those inhabiting the frontier regions of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia. It is suspected that it was a shortened version of "whip-cracker," since the manual labor they did involved driving livestock with a whip (not to mention the other brutal arenas where those skills were employed.) Over the course of time it came to represent a person of lower caste or criminal disposition, (in some instances, was used in reference to bandits and other lawless folk.)
Calling someone a bandit or lawless because of their skin color is disparaging. Or do you think all white people worked in manual labor?
India may be a bad example. Considering the religious notions in play with skin shade. Dark skinned meant you were lower on the karmic reincarnation ladder.
I guess one way to tackle some of these questions is instead to make the doll different colors and different shades of those colors. Test a group with dark green and light green. Another with dark purple and light purple.
I'd like to tie in a new development too. Which was from a trend about blacks turning more to homeschooling. One of the reasons? Black students should be taught by black people so that they can learn self-confidence. It's crazy, but just find the the Atlantic article on it. Basically, we're back to separate but equal with that argument. It's sickening honestly.
I would be inclined to agree with you except I've heard the arguments made my PC folks about this stuff. They'd take this study as proof of white racism. They'd either a) deny that other races would do this because no study has shown that other races are like whites; or b) be ignorant to the fact that the study only tested white people, so they'd use it as prove of white privilege.
Have you seen the demos? Win10 on PC will look more like 7, but have some metro stuff. The start menu will have a metro-like layout on it's right side. And I think you can still pull up the full metro view (if you REALLY wanted to). The 2 in 1 laptops/tablets will allow devices to switch easily and intuitively (if the program takes advantage of the api) between the desktop view and metro view. The phones will have the metro view that you see on Win7/Win8 phones.
So TL;DR to answer your question, it looks like you'll default to the old desktop view on PCs. And if you really want to can work with the metro interfaces.
No, under federal law, all those communications must be retained and archived.
From the NY Times article:
Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.
This isn't a milk argument. And you're completely misinterpreting my counter argument. I have no need, or desire, at this point to argue that discoveries were made because of religion or religious people. I'm countering arth1's argument that religion suppressed or prevented in general scientific advancement.
Galileo was more done in by his fellow academics then the Pope. But even Galileo the poster child for religious abuse of science is not as clear cut as many would like people to think.
The man was not killed because of scientific theories. He was killed because he said Jesus wasn't the Son of God. That Satan would be forgiven for his sins. That Mary wasn't a virgin, etc etc etc.
Stop there bro. You're projecting and conflating historical events. I never said scientific advancement wouldn't have happened without religious people. If you are arguing this point then you are moving the goal posts and this discussion is an exercise in futility.
Your argument is that religion repressed scientific advancement. This is patently false.
The ancient knowledge of the earth circling the sun, medical knowledge that thought and feelings originated in the brain, and the mathematical concept of zero were all suppressed
Heliocentrism was not repressed by religion. Ironically, academics of the day repressed it. They all followed Ptolemy's Geocentrism.
The number zero was never repressed, and honestly that is ridiculous. For two reason actually. First, the Greeks and Romans didn't have a number for 0 so they did little to no math with it. It was an unsure notion for them questioning, "how can nothing be something." Second, the number zero came to Europe via the Muslim Moors. Where do you think the word Arabic Numerals comes from? Hell the first mention of 0 as a number in Europe comes from the Codex Vigilanus in 976, which is a compilation of historical texts done by, hey guess what, Christian monks. You may know the mathematician Fibonocci who pushed for the number's introduction into Europe. Hell, the adoption of 0 really kicked off in Europe due to the printing press. If you think religion stopped the advancement of this, please do tell. Because Islam and Hinduism sure doesn't seem to have stopped the numbers usage.
Medical knowledge has had other factors than religion repressing it. The Romans stopped it because they viewed it as taboo to cut open a human body. They forbade dissection. Ethical considerations have always been the restriction of medical advancement. Needless to say, please educate yourself on the medical advances of the middle ages. The only reason they're not spoken of much today is because they are obsolete.
The rapid increase in science coincides nicely with the loss of control of the religions.
Correlation does not equal causation. Why did the Muslim Middle-East surpass Europe during the middle-ages? Because Europe was economically depressed. The collapse of the Roman Empire devastated trade and economic movement in the region. You may note, if you bothered to study even a little history, that during Charlemagne's rule (start of the Holy Roman Empire) that economic activity increased and with it scientific advancements. Historians dubbed this time as the "little renaissance." But what happened right after Charlemagne? Viking raids and invasions that devastated much of Europe (barbarian raids which I'll remind also were part of the fall of the Roman Empire). Followed by multiple outbreaks of the Black Death throughout Europe. These things WRECKED the European economy. And most tragically, devastated academic communities as they were forming and growing; because they all formed in population dense areas where the plague did the most damage.
No, you see any historian worth their salt will tell you that the rapid advance of science has been due to the economic boom that the Western world has experienced. The stupendous rate being attributed to critical scientific advances in communication and manufacturing.
...advances in medicine, physics, etc. happened despite of religion...
I'm sorry you're wrong. Many (most are obsolete) medical advances came from cleric scientists. A lot of advances in physics or rather astronomy came from them as well. When it comes to advances in science dealing with nature, there's a lot of work from them. They did it because they were trying to understand God's universe. Understand how the universe works and you can understand God a little more. At least, that was their thinking.
Considering that the scientific method was created as a philosophical methodology, I don't find that odd at all. As long as the philosophers keep themselves from going into religious or theological thought then it should be okay (as I wobble my hand and grimace). Remember, there were no scientists prior to the modern concepts of science. Everyone before that was pretty much a philosopher or alchemist of some kind. Heck, even during the Enlightenment period, those who delved into scientific research often spoke on or from philosophical matters.
Slashdot Mirror
Geography has more do with it than anything else...
How is cracker not a disparaging remark?
"Cracker," the old standby of Anglo insults was first noted in the mid 18th century, making it older than the United States itself. It was used to refer to poor whites, particularly those inhabiting the frontier regions of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia. It is suspected that it was a shortened version of "whip-cracker," since the manual labor they did involved driving livestock with a whip (not to mention the other brutal arenas where those skills were employed.) Over the course of time it came to represent a person of lower caste or criminal disposition, (in some instances, was used in reference to bandits and other lawless folk.)
Calling someone a bandit or lawless because of their skin color is disparaging. Or do you think all white people worked in manual labor?
India may be a bad example. Considering the religious notions in play with skin shade. Dark skinned meant you were lower on the karmic reincarnation ladder.
I guess one way to tackle some of these questions is instead to make the doll different colors and different shades of those colors. Test a group with dark green and light green. Another with dark purple and light purple.
The argument I've always heard for it is. If it's done by a group not in power then it's not racism or discrimination.
I'd like to tie in a new development too. Which was from a trend about blacks turning more to homeschooling. One of the reasons? Black students should be taught by black people so that they can learn self-confidence. It's crazy, but just find the the Atlantic article on it. Basically, we're back to separate but equal with that argument. It's sickening honestly.
I would be inclined to agree with you except I've heard the arguments made my PC folks about this stuff. They'd take this study as proof of white racism. They'd either a) deny that other races would do this because no study has shown that other races are like whites; or b) be ignorant to the fact that the study only tested white people, so they'd use it as prove of white privilege.
If this works out well they can then do The Cat Who Walks Through Walls! :D
Have you seen the demos? Win10 on PC will look more like 7, but have some metro stuff. The start menu will have a metro-like layout on it's right side. And I think you can still pull up the full metro view (if you REALLY wanted to). The 2 in 1 laptops/tablets will allow devices to switch easily and intuitively (if the program takes advantage of the api) between the desktop view and metro view. The phones will have the metro view that you see on Win7/Win8 phones.
So TL;DR to answer your question, it looks like you'll default to the old desktop view on PCs. And if you really want to can work with the metro interfaces.
I think you're focusing on the UI too much. They've already said the UIs will be different between the devices(pc, tablet, phone).
Bluetooth keyboard mouse and an HDMI jack. Am I missing something for using your phone as a computer?
No, under federal law, all those communications must be retained and archived.
From the NY Times article:
Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.
This is a high quality short that I could see the originator being pissed about because it's not what they want power rangers to be.
Interestingly enough, there was a video response by the actor who played Jason. He said he didn't approve of it and doubts Saban would either.
This isn't a milk argument. And you're completely misinterpreting my counter argument. I have no need, or desire, at this point to argue that discoveries were made because of religion or religious people. I'm countering arth1's argument that religion suppressed or prevented in general scientific advancement.
Galileo was more done in by his fellow academics then the Pope. But even Galileo the poster child for religious abuse of science is not as clear cut as many would like people to think.
Go read up on Giordano Bruno ...please...
http://motherboard.vice.com/bl...
The man was not killed because of scientific theories. He was killed because he said Jesus wasn't the Son of God. That Satan would be forgiven for his sins. That Mary wasn't a virgin, etc etc etc.
Stop there bro. You're projecting and conflating historical events. I never said scientific advancement wouldn't have happened without religious people. If you are arguing this point then you are moving the goal posts and this discussion is an exercise in futility.
Your argument is that religion repressed scientific advancement. This is patently false.
The ancient knowledge of the earth circling the sun, medical knowledge that thought and feelings originated in the brain, and the mathematical concept of zero were all suppressed
Heliocentrism was not repressed by religion. Ironically, academics of the day repressed it. They all followed Ptolemy's Geocentrism.
The number zero was never repressed, and honestly that is ridiculous. For two reason actually. First, the Greeks and Romans didn't have a number for 0 so they did little to no math with it. It was an unsure notion for them questioning, "how can nothing be something." Second, the number zero came to Europe via the Muslim Moors. Where do you think the word Arabic Numerals comes from? Hell the first mention of 0 as a number in Europe comes from the Codex Vigilanus in 976, which is a compilation of historical texts done by, hey guess what, Christian monks. You may know the mathematician Fibonocci who pushed for the number's introduction into Europe. Hell, the adoption of 0 really kicked off in Europe due to the printing press. If you think religion stopped the advancement of this, please do tell. Because Islam and Hinduism sure doesn't seem to have stopped the numbers usage.
Medical knowledge has had other factors than religion repressing it. The Romans stopped it because they viewed it as taboo to cut open a human body. They forbade dissection. Ethical considerations have always been the restriction of medical advancement. Needless to say, please educate yourself on the medical advances of the middle ages. The only reason they're not spoken of much today is because they are obsolete.
The rapid increase in science coincides nicely with the loss of control of the religions.
Correlation does not equal causation. Why did the Muslim Middle-East surpass Europe during the middle-ages? Because Europe was economically depressed. The collapse of the Roman Empire devastated trade and economic movement in the region. You may note, if you bothered to study even a little history, that during Charlemagne's rule (start of the Holy Roman Empire) that economic activity increased and with it scientific advancements. Historians dubbed this time as the "little renaissance." But what happened right after Charlemagne? Viking raids and invasions that devastated much of Europe (barbarian raids which I'll remind also were part of the fall of the Roman Empire). Followed by multiple outbreaks of the Black Death throughout Europe. These things WRECKED the European economy. And most tragically, devastated academic communities as they were forming and growing; because they all formed in population dense areas where the plague did the most damage.
No, you see any historian worth their salt will tell you that the rapid advance of science has been due to the economic boom that the Western world has experienced. The stupendous rate being attributed to critical scientific advances in communication and manufacturing.
Tell us how you really feel.
...advances in medicine, physics, etc. happened despite of religion...
I'm sorry you're wrong. Many (most are obsolete) medical advances came from cleric scientists. A lot of advances in physics or rather astronomy came from them as well. When it comes to advances in science dealing with nature, there's a lot of work from them. They did it because they were trying to understand God's universe. Understand how the universe works and you can understand God a little more. At least, that was their thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Isaac Asimov's books and stories were about why his laws were bad. The three laws are bad, wrong, and do not work. As illustrated by the man himself.
I only dabbled in 3E before 3.5 came out, but I have a few friends that swear by 5E right now. They say it's better, and definitely better than 4E.
Did you write that while sipping tea with your pinky finger extended? lol.
I'm sorry, I see the word "milieu" and that's all I can picture. Some high society bore. :P
Yep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Even so, business process. Don't check out crud if someone else has it checked out. SP tells you if the document is checked out.
Considering that the scientific method was created as a philosophical methodology, I don't find that odd at all. As long as the philosophers keep themselves from going into religious or theological thought then it should be okay (as I wobble my hand and grimace). Remember, there were no scientists prior to the modern concepts of science. Everyone before that was pretty much a philosopher or alchemist of some kind. Heck, even during the Enlightenment period, those who delved into scientific research often spoke on or from philosophical matters.