Oh, sure, it can be as sophisticated as you please, but we all know that the result of any request will be some naked chick bent over and looking backwards.
Aha! IAAP, and I believe the laws *do* apply. What I get out of it is this: Everyone has neglected to consider the fact that the sail is picking up thermal energy from the Sun as it gathers the wind. It will eventually come into thermal equilibrium with the incoming radiation, which means it will *radiate as much energy as it receives*. Any momentum gained by reflecting photons on one side is balanced by the emission of these "thermal" photons on the other.
Since it is natively a UNIX-based system, what about software development? I'd like to replace my linux development station with one running OSX for my scientific viz project (using OpenGL and Qt). Sounds like it should compile and run faster than just about anything out there.
I'm trying to remember a cool game I played on my Atari ST --- called something like The Sentinel or Sentry or something like that. Basically you started in a fractal landscape and had to stay out of the LOS of a robot and build a tower higher than the height of the robot. Anyone remember anything like that? Great, innovative gameplay and story. Pretty addictive, too, if memory serves. I still marvel at what that ST machine could do.
Um, no. Hey, somebody needs to send this #636773 guy to the back of the line or something. Geeks should have standards, too. One more outburst like that and you'll be looking at a 7-digit ID like all the new kiddie loosers.
Right, but remember that Apple is only tapping 3% or so of the market. Once *everyone* has access to this kind of service, the revenue could be pretty impressive.
Thank goodness there will always be an alert customer base to let Sony know about these data errors. Those engineers are just idiots. I mean, don't they even test these products or anything?
Aha! Step aside! I AM an astrophysicist, I can help. Big Bang theory makes no statements about where the Big Bang came from, only the physics describing the behavior of the Universe an instant after "creation". An accelerating, expanding universe has always been one possible future, and this seems to be what the evidence supports.
Of course not. I would never argue that it does. Only that equality of opportunity is the ideal. Whatever people do with their opportunities is their own business.
By analyzing social trends, it may become apparent *why* those trends exist. It has been the case in the past that groups of people were not able to do what they wanted as easily as others, and we could then modify or create laws to make the system in question more equitable.
For my scientific visualization project, I use Qt and its QGLWidget for OpenGL vis. It features nice communication to other widgets, easy mouse event interception, and you can share display lists across multiple views. If you intend your app to be free, then they cost you nothing. I have used wxWindows and GTK before, and Qt is vastly superior in my opinion.
Ok, I'll buy this. I am a big fan of TNG, and my breakdown is as follows: out of 179 shows, there were probably 30 or so that I would call great television and that I can watch repeatedly. There are another 40-50 that I think are awful, and the rest each have some redeeming quality. I think it is universally agreed upon that the majority of the real stinkers were in the first 2 seasons. The show really seemed to hit its stride around the middle of the 3rd season, and ran out of gas into the 7th. The plot above was all too common early on, but TNN is now showing the series in its prime (8pm show is in the 3rd season, 11pm show is in the 4th).
Thanks for the reply. Good question, and one that I'm not sure I can answer, but here goes:
I largely agree --- Genesis 1-3 (to me) is fundamentally about the relationship between Man, God, and the Universe. I view the story of Adam and Eve as the first point at which humans became self-aware, and at that point it was possible for an "animal" to commit sin. Was there death before this incarnation? Certainly. Suffering? Yes, though not in the spiritual sense. So God did create the natural processes that gave rise, after billions of years, to these self-aware organisms. It is important for me to remember that this Creator necessarily exists outside of time, so that He always was and always will be. In that sense, His Creation is deemed "good" in the fullest sense of time since He has the vision of the distant past as well as future, and these are to work out for "good".
Sin brought into the world the capability of self-awareness; the capacity for man to separate himself from the rest of Creation (and from God also, since one character of God is existence itself). Sin therefore involves the conscious choice to do evil, which "mere" animals do not posess.
As far as AiG, I am familiar with it, but I consider it to be a truly awful site for information. One wonders, for example, that they still trot out Denton's arguments against the molecular clocks when they are very simply rebutted. As an astrophysicist, I find the astronomical "information" as linked there as distressingly bad. I have read much creation science as well as intelligent design, but both seem intellectually dishonest.
The fossil records and DNA evidence will never be accurate enough to "prove" anything, as science is only in the business of assigning probabilities to certain assertions. The evidence supports the notion that the Earth is ancient, that life began soon after the crust solidified (within 300my or so), that there have been a number of mass extinctions as well as times of rapid speciation, and that the genetic makeup of offspring organisms is different from their parents. Perhaps you could retreat back and say that God seeded the world with early forms of bacteria that later evolved into complex animals, and there wouldn't really be a solid refutation to that yet.
I suppose you could believe in a 7-day creation, but then there are some large difficulties with astronomical observations. Did God also create the light coming from distant galaxies in transit to us, containing information about a rich galactic and universal history 15 billion years old that never actually happened?
Let me preface this by saying that I am a Christian and a fervent defender of evolutionary theory. I don't really understand what you mean by "God created species" --- most species that lived at one time in the past are now extinct, and most species that live today were not around in the distant past. If God creates all species, then he must be doing it continuously throughout history to account for the changing number of extant species. He must also have created new species that differ slightly from previous ones, to agree with fossil evidence. Given all that, and the demonstratable truth of "micro-"evolution, how would we distinguish between God's creation and the general evolutionary theory?
Re:Ok, been trying to figure this out for awhile..
on
Vi IMproved -- Vim
·
· Score: 1
Off the top of my head (this should approximately work) mark the selection with V, then do:perldo s/^/\t\t\t\t\t/
It is certainly establishing some form of monotheism as the ruling force of government, and a form of monotheism that most closely resembles Judeo/Christian/Muslim theology. This leaves those outside this realm, especially those who claim no religious belief, as feeling excluded from the political whole. This is *not* constitutionally kosher. How is promoting belief over unbelief a defense? What are the governmental benefits to establishing a particular belief system, especially weighed against *not* promoting those beliefs? The state should not promote *any* religious theology.
Your point about chaplain salaries is an interesting one.
I can understand you being angry, but the real issue is whether the US ought to support/establish a particular religious belief. The Pledge clearly does. I am a Christian, but I still think that as far as the constitution goes, this is a no-brainer. What could the defense possibly be?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, sure, it can be as sophisticated as you please,
but we all know that the result of any request
will be some naked chick bent over and looking
backwards.
Aha! IAAP, and I believe the laws *do* apply. What I get out of it is this: Everyone has neglected to consider the fact that the sail is picking up thermal energy from the Sun as it gathers the wind. It will eventually come into thermal equilibrium with the incoming radiation, which means it will *radiate as much energy as it receives*. Any momentum gained by reflecting photons on one side is balanced by the emission of these "thermal" photons on the other.
Since it is natively a UNIX-based system, what about software development? I'd like to replace my linux development station with one running OSX for my scientific viz project (using OpenGL and Qt). Sounds like it should compile and run faster than just about anything out there.
I'm trying to remember a cool game I played on my Atari ST --- called something like The Sentinel or Sentry or something like that. Basically you started in a fractal landscape and had to stay out of the LOS of a robot and build a tower higher than the height of the robot. Anyone remember anything like that? Great, innovative gameplay and story. Pretty addictive, too, if memory serves. I still marvel at what that ST machine could do.
Um, no. Hey, somebody needs to send this #636773 guy to the back of the line or something. Geeks should have standards, too. One more outburst like that and you'll be looking at a 7-digit ID like all the new kiddie loosers.
Right, but remember that Apple is only tapping 3% or so of the market. Once *everyone* has access to this kind of service, the revenue could be pretty impressive.
Thank goodness there will always be an alert customer base to let Sony know about these data errors. Those engineers are just idiots. I mean, don't they even test these products or anything?
Oh, great. Why don't you just say, "Tesla wasn't so great!" and get this group *really* pissed off.
Aha! Step aside! I AM an astrophysicist, I can help. Big Bang theory makes no statements about where the Big Bang came from, only the physics describing the behavior of the Universe an instant after "creation". An accelerating, expanding universe has always been one possible future, and this seems to be what the evidence supports.
You're an engineer, aren't you?
Of course not. I would never argue that it does. Only that equality of opportunity is the ideal. Whatever people do with their opportunities is their own business.
By analyzing social trends, it may become apparent *why* those trends exist. It has been the case in the past that groups of people were not able to do what they wanted as easily as others, and we could then modify or create laws to make the system in question more equitable.
For my scientific visualization project, I use Qt and its QGLWidget for OpenGL vis. It features nice communication to other widgets, easy mouse event interception, and you can share display lists across multiple views. If you intend your app to be free, then they cost you nothing. I have used wxWindows and GTK before, and Qt is vastly superior in my opinion.
Guns don't kill people, it's those darn bullets. We need bullet control.
Boomer Sooner
couldn't resist.
Ok, I'll buy this. I am a big fan of TNG, and my breakdown is as follows: out of 179 shows, there were probably 30 or so that I would call great television and that I can watch repeatedly. There are another 40-50 that I think are awful, and the rest each have some redeeming quality. I think it is universally agreed upon that the majority of the real stinkers were in the first 2 seasons. The show really seemed to hit its stride around the middle of the 3rd season, and ran out of gas into the 7th. The plot above was all too common early on, but TNN is now showing the series in its prime (8pm show is in the 3rd season, 11pm show is in the 4th).
Thanks for the reply. Good question, and one that I'm not sure I can answer, but here goes:
I largely agree --- Genesis 1-3 (to me) is fundamentally about the relationship between Man, God, and the Universe. I view the story of Adam and Eve as the first point at which humans became self-aware, and at that point it was possible for an "animal" to commit sin. Was there death before this incarnation? Certainly. Suffering? Yes, though not in the spiritual sense. So God did create the natural processes that gave rise, after billions of years, to these self-aware organisms. It is important for me to remember that this Creator necessarily exists outside of time, so that He always was and always will be. In that sense, His Creation is deemed "good" in the fullest sense of time since He has the vision of the distant past as well as future, and these are to work out for "good".
Sin brought into the world the capability of self-awareness; the capacity for man to separate himself from the rest of Creation (and from God also, since one character of God is existence itself). Sin therefore involves the conscious choice to do evil, which "mere" animals do not posess.
As far as AiG, I am familiar with it, but I consider it to be a truly awful site for information. One wonders, for example, that they still trot out Denton's arguments against the molecular clocks when they are very simply rebutted. As an astrophysicist, I find the astronomical "information" as linked there as distressingly bad. I have read much creation science as well as intelligent design, but both seem intellectually dishonest.
The fossil records and DNA evidence will never be accurate enough to "prove" anything, as science is only in the business of assigning probabilities to certain assertions. The evidence supports the notion that the Earth is ancient, that life began soon after the crust solidified (within 300my or so), that there have been a number of mass extinctions as well as times of rapid speciation, and that the genetic makeup of offspring organisms is different from their parents. Perhaps you could retreat back and say that God seeded the world with early forms of bacteria that later evolved into complex animals, and there wouldn't really be a solid refutation to that yet.
I suppose you could believe in a 7-day creation, but then there are some large difficulties with astronomical observations. Did God also create the light coming from distant galaxies in transit to us, containing information about a rich galactic and universal history 15 billion years old that never actually happened?
Let me preface this by saying that I am a Christian and a fervent defender of evolutionary theory. I don't really understand what you mean by "God created species" --- most species that lived at one time in the past are now extinct, and most species that live today were not around in the distant past. If God creates all species, then he must be doing it continuously throughout history to account for the changing number of extant species. He must also have created new species that differ slightly from previous ones, to agree with fossil evidence. Given all that, and the demonstratable truth of "micro-"evolution, how would we distinguish between God's creation and the general evolutionary theory?
Off the top of my head (this should approximately work) mark the selection with V, then do :perldo s/^/\t\t\t\t\t/
>Anyone think that Jack Valenti's hired a *cracker* to break into Declan's account and masquerade as him?
Racist
Ok, but the Lord of the Rings DVD was really cool.
It is certainly establishing some form of monotheism as the ruling force of government, and a form of monotheism that most closely resembles Judeo/Christian/Muslim theology. This leaves those outside this realm, especially those who claim no religious belief, as feeling excluded from the political whole. This is *not* constitutionally kosher. How is promoting belief over unbelief a defense? What are the governmental benefits to establishing a particular belief system, especially weighed against *not* promoting those beliefs? The state should not promote *any* religious theology.
Your point about chaplain salaries is an interesting one.
I can understand you being angry, but the real issue is whether the US ought to support/establish a particular religious belief. The Pledge clearly does. I am a Christian, but I still think that as far as the constitution goes, this is a no-brainer. What could the defense possibly be?