1. simple majority: More votes than any of one or more other options. 2. absolute majority: More than half the total number of votes. 3. super majority: More than two-thirds of the total number of votes.
It cannot actually be both, and what you described is neither. You are confusing things even further.
[T]he Council is given the power to override Parlaiment unless a super majority (66%) chooses to oppose it.
Someone above said an absolute majority (%50 of all the votes, plus one) was required to override the council. You are saying it is a super majority. Which is it? It can't be both.
This place is not a serious discussion forum, actually sometimes it is and then it is good enough that I can overlook the rest of the time when/. is a heap of trolls.
I always tried to be in on those discussions, and hopefully even be able to contribute. AND, I would try to deflate some of the worst memes in the forum.
But when those memes reach the headline level (and this is the prompt of my complaint) I just can't stand it anymore.
It's bad enough that someone injects it into the thread of a discussion: scrolling down scrolling down looking for something that isn't just a rehash of old points, I often hit the bottom of the page. Recently. It's mostly pointless recently to look beyond the headline. By far the lion's share of the discussion is absoluter Schiesse, and reading at a higher threshold doesn't help because while the more articulate participants are usually the ones modded up, they are still about these ideas that just won't die. I'll try reading at +5 (been at +0 for years) and if I'm still getting that tired feeling, no more posts, and if I see one more stupid headline... what do you care?
The fact the "Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" meme has now reach the/. headliners says to me/. is dead.
For a long time now I've noticed most "discussion" is so far off topic and so predictably childish and pointless, that there is no reason to even come here anymore.
My point, in case you missed it, was that is the remedy usually raised as the carrot by MS and the BSA, while threatening those found to have some unlicensed software being used in their business.
Waving it over Microsoft's head seems like poetic justice.
I'm sure they'll be paying for licenses -quickly- but in the meantime even 1 idiot employee is still an employee and so therefore even if it was a miniscule portion of Microsoft, it was still legitimately labeled.
Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration. I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons.
So he wants to sit on the Bench with the other SCOTUSes and burn heretics?
NASA doesn't have a military mandate. NASA goals (from wikipedia):
To Improve life here
To extend life to there, and
To Find Life Beyond
NASA creates information for the public domain. (From the FAQ):
QUESTION: Is it okay to include information from your web site on my web page?
ANSWER: Generally, yes. NASA information is in the public domain and can be used on websites for information purposes. Use of NASA information cannot imply a NASA endorsement of any organization, person, or commercial product or service. Except for the NASA logo and seal, agency images may be used on non-NASA websites for non-commercial purposes. Please note that NASA employees, including astronauts and former astronauts, retain the legal right to control the use of their likenesses for commercial use. In addition to obtaining NASA's permission to use its images for commercial purposes, clearances may need to be obtained from individuals within those images.
I'm trying to get some meaning out of this relevant to what I said or what the conversation is about. I'm trying hard not to think they are nothing more than vague, flippant sound-bytes designed to fit well in the ear.
Well thanks for tottering my humble observation on the edge of a slippery slope. Of course humans make mistakes. In this case the mistake is failing to include the "thieves" in your notion of the collective worldview.
Ok, after looking around and thinking a bit, I have to say I don't see that there "was no death on earth," only that Adam and Eve may have been deathless.
Genesis 1:31 - What God made throughout creation was all "very good." If death existed then, it would be a part of that which was "very good." Why then does the Bible present death as an enemy which Jesus must defeat (1 Cor. 15:26)?
I think here the death of the soul in the eyes of God was meant. Jesus defeated that by offering salvation from eternal banishment. Nothing is said about earth being without death except regarding Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.
Adam's and Eve's mortality could have resulted from banishment from Eden, long after the creation event.
Hebrews 2:14,15 - The devil has the power of death. Jesus had to become a man and die and be raised to defeat the power of Satan, thereby delivering man from the fear of death. In heaven we will experience none of these problems brought on by the curse of sin (Rev. 21:4; 22:3).
But if death existed even during the days of creation as a part of the natural creative process, how can it be the power of the devil and why should it be something for men to fear? How can it be a consequence of sin, since it existed before sin occurred? Why would Jesus want to defeat it?
This says that the Devil has the power of death, not that it is his alone.
Also, evil existed before the fall of man (Lucifer fell before Adam and Eve: that's obvious since he lied to Eve while seducing her to eat the apple.) So naturally, death is not an effect of the fall of man, except insofar as it was a punishment meted out in consequence of their sin, but rather something independent.
Someone pointed out that as there was no death in Eden prior to the fall of man evolution, requiring selection (weeding out the unfits) could not have occured prior to the fall of man and is therefore incompatible with even a liberal^Wloose interpretation of the Bible.
Can you comment on that wrt your view evolution and Christianity/Creationism are not mutually exclusive events?
Wouldn't that be compatible with free will? And doesn't
[reading] Genesis as a true, but poetic, qualitative abstract of the implementation.
demand that you are taking a relativistic reading of the Bible (i.e., relative to your understanding?)
How do we differentiate between Stalin and Ghandi?
Wouldn't we do that through acceptance of justice, and a common interpretation of what is just and good?
And doesn't our common acceptance of that vary with time? Doesn't that mean that our collective perception of what is right is relative to the times?
I can't understand your confidence in your views.
As for a bulletproof attack against Christ, I don't think anyone has that. It is an unverifiable claim. It could be true, but who knows?
What has suffered erosion over the years are merely many views about the world that have been upheld as God's activities, and unchangeable. Geocentric solar systems, young-earth creationism. Stuff like that.
I'm a devout Christian and evolution is just another one of God's miracles to me.
You aren't a young-earth creationist, then. You are a religious moderate as far as scientific inquiry is concerned. I hope that also means you believe inquiry is and should remain a secular activity (or at least one in which your reasoning skills are something given by your God as a means of understanding the world.)
I don't see why Creationism and Evolution are not compatible
Creationism can allow Evolution only in the broadest of terms, stepping well outside of traditional interpretations of the Book. Creationism, in that sense, denies that man evolved via speciation through natural selective pressures. That is the argument usually at hand when Creationists lock horns with the scientific community.
It isn't a religious discussion.
Isn't that a secular point of view?
The strength of speciation through natural selection as a theory is as strong as that for a heliocentric model for the solar system, and yet there are still those creationists who would argue there is no proof. This is why the discussion takes on aspects of religiosity that, though settled to a rational mind such as yours, will simply not go away.
Offering $50K... / Code ownership map for a BSD-licensed 2.0 Linux kernel is not evil at all.
No, but it is absurd. Logistically, and given the ethics of many (most?) of the Linux kernel developers.
Note, though, that since his request for a BSD-licensed instance of the code doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive.
A BSD-style license for Linux could not possibly be exclusive, due to the nature of the GPL. You are forgetting what is known about the GPL (it is non-revokable provided the conditions of the terms are met) or even what it means to license something under a BSD-style license. Recall when Johann got the RIAA off his back (yeah right) by handing over a license to them for the code of his decss code: it didn't effect what was already in the wild because it couldn't. That doesn't even happen by intent (you can't renege on your license to a previous party without his consent.)
Making available an old version of Linux BSD-style could raise a lot of money from e.g. embedded development companies
This doesn't follow from your original claim: Offering $50K for linux is not evil". It is a non-sequitur.
Would such a procedure harm the open source/free software world?
Merkey was already found to be trying to add someone elses (i.e., Novell's) code to the Linux kernel without their permission. Giving him carte blanche to the Linux Kernel is begging for continued problems keeping Linux free of infringing code if he were to continue imposing his special reality on the world.
That is a different subject. Earlier you said it was remarkable that H. erectus outlasted H. neanderthalensis. Now you are saying it is remarkable their descendents are discovered to have survived so long after their disappearance. Either one of these is problematic.
Not to mention the fact that it is the descendents of H. erectus that are the subject under discussion and not H. erectus itself. It seems perfectly logical to me that H. erectus itself may have died out but an isolated clade continued while diverging into something altogether different. Not revolutionary (or remarkable) but merely evolutionary.
Homo Neanderthalis are believed to have disappeared about 30,000 years ago. I would find it remarkable if descendants of Homo Erectus outlasted them.
I was totally with you until that last bit. Why would that be remarkable? If their niche is preserved (or one is always found by them) free of competitive elements (think: small isolated island) there's no reason they should disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
a standard majority
Is that a phrase you just made up?
1. simple majority: More votes than any of one or more other options.
2. absolute majority: More than half the total number of votes.
3. super majority: More than two-thirds of the total number of votes.
It cannot actually be both, and what you described is neither. You are confusing things even further.
[T]he Council is given the power to override Parlaiment unless a super majority (66%) chooses to oppose it.
Someone above said an absolute majority (%50 of all the votes, plus one) was required to override the council. You are saying it is a super majority. Which is it? It can't be both.
This place is not a serious discussion forum, actually sometimes it is and then it is good enough that I can overlook the rest of the time when /. is a heap of trolls.
I always tried to be in on those discussions, and hopefully even be able to contribute. AND, I would try to deflate some of the worst memes in the forum.
But when those memes reach the headline level (and this is the prompt of my complaint) I just can't stand it anymore.
It's bad enough that someone injects it into the thread of a discussion: scrolling down scrolling down looking for something that isn't just a rehash of old points, I often hit the bottom of the page. Recently. It's mostly pointless recently to look beyond the headline. By far the lion's share of the discussion is absoluter Schiesse, and reading at a higher threshold doesn't help because while the more articulate participants are usually the ones modded up, they are still about these ideas that just won't die. I'll try reading at +5 (been at +0 for years) and if I'm still getting that tired feeling, no more posts, and if I see one more stupid headline... what do you care?
The fact the "Gore claimed to have invented the Internet" meme has now reach the /. headliners says to me /. is dead.
For a long time now I've noticed most "discussion" is so far off topic and so predictably childish and pointless, that there is no reason to even come here anymore.
Blah.
obviously a connoisseur, but not a snob.
My point, in case you missed it, was that is the remedy usually raised as the carrot by MS and the BSA, while threatening those found to have some unlicensed software being used in their business.
Waving it over Microsoft's head seems like poetic justice.
No, it's because the writer is a complete dolt and is using cute, conversational, Umgangsprache instead of proper Deutsch.
I'm sure they'll be paying for licenses -quickly- but in the meantime even 1 idiot employee is still an employee and so therefore even if it was a miniscule portion of Microsoft, it was still legitimately labeled.
One license per PC in their corporation?
In their overseas holdings as well?
Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration. I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons.
So he wants to sit on the Bench with the other SCOTUSes and burn heretics?
The Star Trek vision, if anything, was about using science and technology to enhance people's lives.
Scottie's been smoking the dilithium crystal again.
Gully Foyle is my name
Terra is my nation
Deep space is my dwelling place
The stars my destination.
Incompetence?
p ://www.equalccw.com/ElectionSupportGuide.pdfp ://www.equalccw.com/smokinggun.pdfu alccw.com/testnote.pdfe stnote2.pdff w .equalccw.com/dieboldtestnotes.htmlq ualccw.com/initialprar.htmlc om/vancouverstaff.htmlT L-TSRepair.zipa r.htmls e.pdff t tp://www.equalccw.com/alafollowup2.PDF
http://www.equalccw.com/CDDOCMENTATION.pdf
htt
htt
http://www.eq
http://www.equalccw.com/t
http://www.equalccw.com/testnote3.pd
http://www.equalccw.com/voteprar.pdf
http://ww
http://www.e
http://www.equalccw.
http://www.equalccw.com/A
http://www.equalccw.com/initialpr
http://www.equalccw.com/alamedaprarrespon
http://www.equalccw.com/alamedafollowup.pd
http://www.equalccw.com/alamedafollowup.html
h
I'm trying to get some meaning out of this relevant to what I said or what the conversation is about. I'm trying hard not to think they are nothing more than vague, flippant sound-bytes designed to fit well in the ear.
Maybe you can help me.
Well thanks for tottering my humble observation on the edge of a slippery slope. Of course humans make mistakes. In this case the mistake is failing to include the "thieves" in your notion of the collective worldview.
Ok, after looking around and thinking a bit, I have to say I don't see that there "was no death on earth," only that Adam and Eve may have been deathless.
Genesis 1:31 - What God made throughout creation was all "very good." If death existed then, it would be a part of that which was "very good." Why then does the Bible present death as an enemy which Jesus must defeat (1 Cor. 15:26)?
I think here the death of the soul in the eyes of God was meant. Jesus defeated that by offering salvation from eternal banishment. Nothing is said about earth being without death except regarding Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.
Adam's and Eve's mortality could have resulted from banishment from Eden, long after the creation event.
Hebrews 2:14,15 - The devil has the power of death. Jesus had to become a man and die and be raised to defeat the power of Satan, thereby delivering man from the fear of death. In heaven we will experience none of these problems brought on by the curse of sin (Rev. 21:4; 22:3).
But if death existed even during the days of creation as a part of the natural creative process, how can it be the power of the devil and why should it be something for men to fear? How can it be a consequence of sin, since it existed before sin occurred? Why would Jesus want to defeat it?
This says that the Devil has the power of death, not that it is his alone.
Also, evil existed before the fall of man (Lucifer fell before Adam and Eve: that's obvious since he lied to Eve while seducing her to eat the apple.) So naturally, death is not an effect of the fall of man, except insofar as it was a punishment meted out in consequence of their sin, but rather something independent.
Thanks... I learned something today.
Someone pointed out that as there was no death in Eden prior to the fall of man evolution, requiring selection (weeding out the unfits) could not have occured prior to the fall of man and is therefore incompatible with even a liberal^Wloose interpretation of the Bible.
Can you comment on that wrt your view evolution and Christianity/Creationism are not mutually exclusive events?
death was not present on Earth until Adam sinned - which is after creation
Can you cite it, and wasn't it merely in reference to Adam's descendents? And, what did lions and other carnivores eat before the fall of man?
(nb: I like the argument, just want to know how strong it is.)
All statements go relative, and subjective.
Wouldn't that be compatible with free will? And doesn't
[reading] Genesis as a true, but poetic, qualitative abstract of the implementation.
demand that you are taking a relativistic reading of the Bible (i.e., relative to your understanding?)
How do we differentiate between Stalin and Ghandi?
Wouldn't we do that through acceptance of justice, and a common interpretation of what is just and good?
And doesn't our common acceptance of that vary with time? Doesn't that mean that our collective perception of what is right is relative to the times?
I can't understand your confidence in your views.
As for a bulletproof attack against Christ, I don't think anyone has that. It is an unverifiable claim. It could be true, but who knows?
What has suffered erosion over the years are merely many views about the world that have been upheld as God's activities, and unchangeable. Geocentric solar systems, young-earth creationism. Stuff like that.
I'm a devout Christian and evolution is just another one of God's miracles to me.
You aren't a young-earth creationist, then. You are a religious moderate as far as scientific inquiry is concerned. I hope that also means you believe inquiry is and should remain a secular activity (or at least one in which your reasoning skills are something given by your God as a means of understanding the world.)
I don't see why Creationism and Evolution are not compatible
Creationism can allow Evolution only in the broadest of terms, stepping well outside of traditional interpretations of the Book. Creationism, in that sense, denies that man evolved via speciation through natural selective pressures. That is the argument usually at hand when Creationists lock horns with the scientific community.
It isn't a religious discussion.
Isn't that a secular point of view?
The strength of speciation through natural selection as a theory is as strong as that for a heliocentric model for the solar system, and yet there are still those creationists who would argue there is no proof. This is why the discussion takes on aspects of religiosity that, though settled to a rational mind such as yours, will simply not go away.
If you would like to know more about some of the (pseudo) scientific arguments made against evolution, point your browser to Frequently Encountered Criticisms In Evolution vs. Creationism.
Offering $50K... / Code ownership map for a BSD-licensed 2.0 Linux kernel is not evil at all.
No, but it is absurd. Logistically, and given the ethics of many (most?) of the Linux kernel developers.
Note, though, that since his request for a BSD-licensed instance of the code doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive.
A BSD-style license for Linux could not possibly be exclusive, due to the nature of the GPL. You are forgetting what is known about the GPL (it is non-revokable provided the conditions of the terms are met) or even what it means to license something under a BSD-style license. Recall when Johann got the RIAA off his back (yeah right) by handing over a license to them for the code of his decss code: it didn't effect what was already in the wild because it couldn't. That doesn't even happen by intent (you can't renege on your license to a previous party without his consent.)
Making available an old version of Linux BSD-style could raise a lot of money from e.g. embedded development companies
This doesn't follow from your original claim: Offering $50K for linux is not evil". It is a non-sequitur.
Would such a procedure harm the open source/free software world?
Merkey was already found to be trying to add someone elses (i.e., Novell's) code to the Linux kernel without their permission. Giving him carte blanche to the Linux Kernel is begging for continued problems keeping Linux free of infringing code if he were to continue imposing his special reality on the world.
I don't think the idea of making copies of this guy would be entirely popular.
I'm sure that if you studied him enough you could figure out where to tweak him to make him run. More stable, I mean.
That is a different subject. Earlier you said it was remarkable that H. erectus outlasted H. neanderthalensis. Now you are saying it is remarkable their descendents are discovered to have survived so long after their disappearance. Either one of these is problematic.
Not to mention the fact that it is the descendents of H. erectus that are the subject under discussion and not H. erectus itself. It seems perfectly logical to me that H. erectus itself may have died out but an isolated clade continued while diverging into something altogether different. Not revolutionary (or remarkable) but merely evolutionary.
Homo Neanderthalis are believed to have disappeared about 30,000 years ago. I would find it remarkable if descendants of Homo Erectus outlasted them.
I was totally with you until that last bit. Why would that be remarkable? If their niche is preserved (or one is always found by them) free of competitive elements (think: small isolated island) there's no reason they should disappear.
The same argument can be made for Homo baggins.