people still dress exactly the same as they did in the 30's, 40's and 50's
I wish. Instead, whenever I go to a mall, airport or any public place, I have to look at frickin' rednecks in white tanktops, fat women in spandex, and a host of other atrocities that never would have made it past the front door in the 1930s. People slept in more/nicer clothes back then than people wear outside (in nice weather) these days.
p.s. Redhat's updated default sendmail.cf does not accept remote incoming connections, and redhat's manual says that you must create a new one with M4 to enable this functionality. They are lying. Comment out the line containing "DaemonPortOptions" in the cf file, and sendmail will accept these connections.
Ugh, why do I respond to trolls? I know, YHBT and all that.
They are not lying. They are just telling you the standard way of doing it. It takes exactly one more command to do it the M4 way than your way. Instead of editing sendmail.cf directly, which can be daunting for someone unfamiliar with all of the cryptic sendmail crap, you comment out this line in/etc/mail/sendmail.mc (which is much easier to read and comprehend):
to produce the new sendmail.cf file, then SIGHUP sendmail. It gives you the m4 command right there at the top of the mc file. It's easy and very clean. Of course you can do it your way, and you're free to do so.
I'm not saying the m4 way is better. I'm saying Redhat isn't lying, they're just giving one way (easier for newbies) to do it.
The answer is no, and nor will one ever be. That would require geeks to actually let go of the mouse, turn away from the monitor, pick up a pen, and maybe even [gasp] leave the house to buy stamps or get to the mailbox. Nope, not going to happen.
Hi, this site is all about Powerlabs, REAL POWERLABS. This site is awesome. My name is Sam Barros and I can't stop thinking about Powerlabs. These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.
This doesn't make any sense. Why not grasp the reality that some people are addicted to nicotine and like the effects? Why not provide them with a less-dangerous alternative? Surely a nicotine pill or drink could be made at a competitive price-per-dose. Lives would be saved.
They have. It's called Nico Water. Though IIRC, this particular product is not designed to replace cigarettes altogether, but to give people fixes when they can't smoke, like on 5-hour flights. I heard about it on NPR this summer, and the linked article is from last May; not sure what's become of it.
Not necessarily. Perhaps it was a laptop user who exposed their machine to the internet at home on their residential internet access.
Good point. Though, since this is a memory-resident virus, I imagine the laptop would have had to have been suspended (not shut down) between home and work. But that's a pretty common practice.
Why does it suprise anyone that Microsoft has bad admins, the same as anyone else.
Well, the article says that the affected systems were mostly individuals' workstations running SQL server (presumably developers running SQL to simulate a production environment). So these weren't production servers that were affected. Once Slammer got onto the network via the workstations, junk traffic just overwhelmed the routers.
I can't imagine the system/network admins having so much control over developers workstations that they would be responsible for applying patches to SQL servers on those systems as well, especially at a monster software company where just about everyone probably has mini-production test environments right on their workstations. It seems like developers should be responsible for those themselves.
Of course, you have to ask how the thing got in the door in the first place. SOMEBODY that was running an unpatched SQL server must have had port 1434 open to the internet, right? And that WOULD be the admins' responsibility.
So you think that "the top 1% of wealth-holders in America don't deserve a tax break during a recession" is in the same league as "the queers are ruining the soil"?
That's a little thing I like to call "apples and oranges". One is an economic statement, the other is a slur.
So, the answer to your question is, no, he doesn't think those two things are in the same league. But he does think that saying that buying a Segway (or merely earning six figures) makes you a "pasty yuppy ass" and a "clueless dork" and a "threat to grandmothers" and "selfish, self-absorbed" and "inconsiderate of the welfare of others" is much more like saying "the queers are ruining the soil" (whatever that means).
All of those are things that the original poster actually said. He never said anything about tax breaks for the weathiest 1%. It's funny that people just stand up and cheer when people make rude generalizations about "yuppies" that work in offices and earn salaries (however true the statements may be), but call for the death of anyone who makes even the most harmless racial or other minority generalizations (however true they may be).
Actually, if you look more carefully at that table, these products aren't going to "End of Life" until June 30, 2004. They're going into a one-year "non-supported phase" after June 2003. The difference (I guess) is that during the non-supported phase online self-help support is all that is available. It's unclear whether they will still publish patches for 98 and NT during the non-supported phase.
I'm not sure who the AC was that posted a reply to this same comment, but it wasn't me. I never post AC.
This is quickly becoming the wrong forum for continuing this discussion, but I'd be happy to continue it via some other forum. You can email me at belloc@NOSPAMlatinmail.com if you're interested.
A few final thoughts, though:
Aristotle said this about education in general: "An educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgement as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability" (de Partibus Animales).
That's where I find myself in this discussion. I've not read most of the works that you're quoting here, so I can't dispute on the basis of those in particular.
But as an educated man I can judge, as Aristotle says, your "method". You seem to me to have ignored true contemporary Christian scholarship altogether.
Not even the most devout theologians assert the authenticity of much of the New and Old Testament any longer.
That's utter nonsense. I can probably name, without much research, fifty or one hundred devout theologians that "assert the authenticity" of the Old and New Testaments. The problem is that these theologians have been systematically marginalized by scholars and theology departments for the past several centuries.
So if you go to places like Notre Dame, and talk to Fr. O'Brien and his cronies, you get the sense that real Christian theologians don't accept the text of the Bible. But the truth is that that's not the place to look anymore to find "devout theologians". You have to look at smaller, truly Catholic and other Christian colleges.
The "new old boys network" of theologians at major Universities, even Catholic ones (especially Catholic ones!) has used biased and shoddy scholarship to push the devout theologians either to the fringe or out of the university altogether.
In no century has Christianity regained as much ground in scholarship as in the 20th.
When I talk about modern scholarship, I'm not just talking about the 20th century. I'm talking about all theology in the traditions of Spinoza, Hobbes, Feuerbach, and others who reinvented theology to fit their personal or political goals.
The scrolls of the Library of Alexandria: No, and neither do you. They were destroyed, probably during Theophilus' time.
Here's an example of your "method". You're being inconsistent again. Of course we can know something of the content of the Library, just the same way you claim we can know about ancient texts without the filter of the monks: by references from contemporary works. It's likely that a great deal of those scrolls were mere spiritualistic manuals on how to read innards of birds and other silliness. You can't have it both ways. We can either know about the past, or not. Which is it?
Democritus: To call it an "absolute joke" is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance.
Just to clarify: what I meant by that is that in its details, the atomic theory of Democritus is nothing like that of today. His atoms were infinitely hard, spherical bodies; nothing like our understanding of atoms. Further, it is not at all clear that all "attributes of matter are the attributes of interactoin among atoms". That is largely true, of course, in physics and chemistry, but not everything we observe is reducible to atoms and their interaction. I know you don't believe in the human soul, but a strong case can be made for its attributes being irreducible to matter. That, of course, is a long story; one I'd be happy to discuss with you.
In any event, your whole method ignores a still very strong and serious Christian scholarship that takes ancient texts (both Christian and Pagan) at face value. It's just that the anti-Christian bias is so strong in the major universities, that if that's the only place you spend your time (which I suspect is the case with you), that that's all you'll think is out there. I'd be happy to give you names and titles, but I have a feeling you'd just brush them off without taking them seriously.
we now have whole books about the extent of forgery in the Old and New Testament
Wow, whole books? I take back everything. Because as we all know, if a whole book is written about something, it must be true.
Listen, you worship modern scholarship the same way that you accuse the Christians of worshipping their scholarship. I don't really care whether you buy into Christianity at all--that's not the issue. You are just a dishonest scholar. You are clearly so heavily prejudiced against Christianity, that you'll accept any shoddy scholarship that points an accusatory finger at it. Did you know that whole books are also written about how scholarship like the pap that you're talking about is inconsistent with itself and is revisionistic to the core in its obvious attempts to refute Christianity? Whole books!
What do you think happened to the 700,000 scrolls in Alexandria? Hint: Caesar didn't destroy them.
Do you know what the majority of those scrolls were? Hint: they weren't scholarly works. A great deal of them were merely wild and goofy spiritualistic handbooks.
It's a matter of consistency....Alas, this kind of analysis is hardly done nowadays...
Except by you, you mean. If anyone is as revisionistic as you seem to think the Christians were, it's modern anti-Christian scholars.
Democritus...postulated atoms and a populated universe.
Please. Please don't tell me you're using Democritus as the paragon of modern science. Yes, he was an atomist, but his atoms were NOTHING like the atoms of modern atomic theory. Just because he called them atoms and we call them atoms doesn't mean that he was right, and anyone who rejects him is wrong. His atomic theory was an absolute joke. And a "populated universe"? Where exactly is your evidence of a populated universe? Oh, right, there is none.
Serious (non-bigoted) scholars recognize Christian scholarship as in the tradition of true modern scholarship.
Read up on Hypatia some time to find out what Christian "theology" really is about.
Hypatia? Oh, I get you now. Anyone desperate enough to play the Hypatia card is just a pure anti-Christian and nothing more. Hypatia was not a philosopher, as far as we can tell. What we know about her was that she edited and compiled mathematical works, and that she was pretty good at it. Anyway, she was murdered by fanatical monks, not even close to being representative of Christians of her day. Rule #1 of debate: never use fringe particulars to prove a universal. You only end up making yourself look silly. Hypatia doesn't help your argument one iota.
The problem with the church fathers is that they replaced a culture that was very much based on rationalism and empirical exploration...
I guess that's a fine claim to make, but if "almost all ancient writings have survived only through the hands of Christian monks," and are therefore untrustworthy (your claim), why should we be expected to believe anything you or anyone else says about the ancients?
Further, read Aristotle sometime. The Ethics and the Politics would do. Most post-Christian academics find Aristotle (especially in these works) "irrational, antisexual, and dogmatic" as well. In fact, medieval Christians based their theology largely upon the philosophy of Aristotle.
But then, what would we know? The monks are our only sources, and they're a bunch of liars.
In addition, the title of "emperor" was created long after his death; Julius Caesar was not the first Roman emperor, as the ignorant sometimes like to profess. Caesar attained the position of dictator for life, which was not the same thing.
It is also not clear that Caesar's long-term political ambitions originally centered around the dictatorship. Caesar, in his Civil Wars, argues that civil war was forced upon him by Pompey's paranoia, and that he became dictator in the end because of a political vacuum (the resulting civil war having destroyed Pompey's faction, and the power balance that went with it).
All points very well taken. I was merely being rhetorical, and in doing so, I was hasty and sloppy. I just was questioning the original poster's motives for using the word "fantasy". My general rhetorical approach was simply to take a well-established figure in history, and show that the original poster probably would disagree with him both religiously and politically (granted, I chose extreme and probably incorrect examples of the latter), and that he was therefore just being bigoted in saying Clement and Gregory were mere "fantasy".
Whatever you may say about the origins of Caesar's intentions, the facts remain that he was involved in a bloody civil war. I was thinking more of Pompey than of Sylla as Caesar's main combatant. Sylla's principal enemy was Marius, IIRC, not Caesar. There wasn't a heckuva lot of overlap between the Marius/Sylla conflict and the Caesar/Pompey conflict, right? Maybe a few years? Certainly less than a decade. I'd have to look it up.
Depends on if you consider it to be history, or fantasy.
He's talking about actual historical people here. What they believed in (religiously or politically) is another matter entirely. Surely you are not questioning the historicity of Clement of Rome or Gregory of Nyssa here? What's next, questioning the historical existence of Julius Caesar?
And if you consider them to be "great men."
Or are you just bashing them because they were Christians? Is that what you meant by "fantasy"?
If that is the case, that would bring up an interesting follow-up point: say someone made a blog out of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars". Caesar believed in Roman gods, and his political scheme included murdering his enemies and their families to become Emporer of the World. Would you make some crack about "fantasy" in that case just because you don't believe in his religion or disagree with his politics?
And perhaps undesirable. The person/organization responsible for controlling the weather must be able to demonstrate unequivocally that whatever weather change he/she/they are proposing is better for everyone in the affected region than the unchanged weather would have been. Or at least better for some vast majority, and not horribly burdensome on the rest.
Are we really ready to start making arguably uncertain changes on such a regional scale?
Silly example: Three straight days of rain in May might be good for a region's farms, but devastating to local baseball teams who depend on attendance for their revenue. That's dumb, of course, but it's the kind of thing that would have to be considered.
for those of us not steeped in the terminology of computer science
Bwuh...hate to break it to you, but a tri-corder is a Star Trek thingy. It was the do-all handheld for Bones, Kirk, Spock and the rest. Has nothing to do with CS.
Second of all, no it's not. The official name of the current point version of the OS is "Mac OS X version 10.2". It's a completely different beast than, and has a different name than, say, "Mac OS version 9.2".
One is called "Mac OS X", the other is called "Mac OS". Yeah, maybe it's partly a marketing gimmick, but really, what you find under the hood (unlike with most marketing gimmicks) is completely different. Mac OS X is an operating system in many ways totally unlike Mac OS, and the difference in naming reflects that. It's not just "one louder".
I had the same problem (FPS less than 10) trying to get Cube running on Win2K this morning. 1.2 GHz Athlon, 256 MB RAM, Voodoo3. Nothing special.
Incidentally, there has been talk in recent months about a Mac OS X port, but I can't find anything very recent about the progress. Anyone know anything?
The right tool for the job is a tape drive, if you don't use it.... That's definitly a paddling.
Bzzzt.
Mis-quotin' our old buddy Jasper? You bet that's a paddlin'.
Here you go: "Talking out of turn, that's a paddling. Staring out the window, that's a paddling. Looking at my sandals, that's a paddling. Paddling the school canoe, you bet that's a paddling."
translation...basically he wrote some new tools that are like the tools we already have but implemented in a slightly different way, except these tools were heralded by an obtuse 500-word self-aggrandizing technobabbling post on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
people still dress exactly the same as they did in the 30's, 40's and 50's
I wish. Instead, whenever I go to a mall, airport or any public place, I have to look at frickin' rednecks in white tanktops, fat women in spandex, and a host of other atrocities that never would have made it past the front door in the 1930s. People slept in more/nicer clothes back then than people wear outside (in nice weather) these days.
Belloc
Ugh, why do I respond to trolls? I know, YHBT and all that.
They are not lying. They are just telling you the standard way of doing it. It takes exactly one more command to do it the M4 way than your way. Instead of editing sendmail.cf directly, which can be daunting for someone unfamiliar with all of the cryptic sendmail crap, you comment out this line in
to produce the new sendmail.cf file, then SIGHUP sendmail. It gives you the m4 command right there at the top of the mc file. It's easy and very clean. Of course you can do it your way, and you're free to do so.
I'm not saying the m4 way is better. I'm saying Redhat isn't lying, they're just giving one way (easier for newbies) to do it.
Belloc
The answer is no, and nor will one ever be. That would require geeks to actually let go of the mouse, turn away from the monitor, pick up a pen, and maybe even [gasp] leave the house to buy stamps or get to the mailbox. Nope, not going to happen.
Belloc
You could just video tape yourself burning or shitting on your windows CD in front of a linux flag or something.
Winner, Most Disturbing Image of the Day.
Hi, this site is all about Powerlabs, REAL POWERLABS. This site is awesome. My name is Sam Barros and I can't stop thinking about Powerlabs. These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.
This doesn't make any sense. Why not grasp the reality that some people are addicted to nicotine and like the effects? Why not provide them with a less-dangerous alternative? Surely a nicotine pill or drink could be made at a competitive price-per-dose. Lives would be saved.
They have. It's called Nico Water. Though IIRC, this particular product is not designed to replace cigarettes altogether, but to give people fixes when they can't smoke, like on 5-hour flights. I heard about it on NPR this summer, and the linked article is from last May; not sure what's become of it.
Belloc
Not necessarily. Perhaps it was a laptop user who exposed their machine to the internet at home on their residential internet access.
Good point. Though, since this is a memory-resident virus, I imagine the laptop would have had to have been suspended (not shut down) between home and work. But that's a pretty common practice.
Belloc
Why does it suprise anyone that Microsoft has bad admins, the same as anyone else.
Well, the article says that the affected systems were mostly individuals' workstations running SQL server (presumably developers running SQL to simulate a production environment). So these weren't production servers that were affected. Once Slammer got onto the network via the workstations, junk traffic just overwhelmed the routers.
I can't imagine the system/network admins having so much control over developers workstations that they would be responsible for applying patches to SQL servers on those systems as well, especially at a monster software company where just about everyone probably has mini-production test environments right on their workstations. It seems like developers should be responsible for those themselves.
Of course, you have to ask how the thing got in the door in the first place. SOMEBODY that was running an unpatched SQL server must have had port 1434 open to the internet, right? And that WOULD be the admins' responsibility.
Belloc
Mmmm...Microsoftfish. I love a fillet of Microsoftfish with a little lemon butter and basil garnish.
[rereads] Oh, Microsoft-ish?
Never mind.
Belloc
So you think that "the top 1% of wealth-holders in America don't deserve a tax break during a recession" is in the same league as "the queers are ruining the soil"?
That's a little thing I like to call "apples and oranges". One is an economic statement, the other is a slur.
So, the answer to your question is, no, he doesn't think those two things are in the same league. But he does think that saying that buying a Segway (or merely earning six figures) makes you a "pasty yuppy ass" and a "clueless dork" and a "threat to grandmothers" and "selfish, self-absorbed" and "inconsiderate of the welfare of others" is much more like saying "the queers are ruining the soil" (whatever that means).
All of those are things that the original poster actually said. He never said anything about tax breaks for the weathiest 1%. It's funny that people just stand up and cheer when people make rude generalizations about "yuppies" that work in offices and earn salaries (however true the statements may be), but call for the death of anyone who makes even the most harmless racial or other minority generalizations (however true they may be).
Belloc
Win98 and NT 4.0 are going end of life on June 30, 2003.
Actually, if you look more carefully at that table, these products aren't going to "End of Life" until June 30, 2004. They're going into a one-year "non-supported phase" after June 2003. The difference (I guess) is that during the non-supported phase online self-help support is all that is available. It's unclear whether they will still publish patches for 98 and NT during the non-supported phase.
Belloc
I'm not sure who the AC was that posted a reply to this same comment, but it wasn't me. I never post AC.
This is quickly becoming the wrong forum for continuing this discussion, but I'd be happy to continue it via some other forum. You can email me at belloc@NOSPAMlatinmail.com if you're interested.
A few final thoughts, though:
Aristotle said this about education in general: "An educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgement as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability" (de Partibus Animales).
That's where I find myself in this discussion. I've not read most of the works that you're quoting here, so I can't dispute on the basis of those in particular.
But as an educated man I can judge, as Aristotle says, your "method". You seem to me to have ignored true contemporary Christian scholarship altogether.
Not even the most devout theologians assert the authenticity of much of the New and Old Testament any longer.
That's utter nonsense. I can probably name, without much research, fifty or one hundred devout theologians that "assert the authenticity" of the Old and New Testaments. The problem is that these theologians have been systematically marginalized by scholars and theology departments for the past several centuries.
So if you go to places like Notre Dame, and talk to Fr. O'Brien and his cronies, you get the sense that real Christian theologians don't accept the text of the Bible. But the truth is that that's not the place to look anymore to find "devout theologians". You have to look at smaller, truly Catholic and other Christian colleges.
The "new old boys network" of theologians at major Universities, even Catholic ones (especially Catholic ones!) has used biased and shoddy scholarship to push the devout theologians either to the fringe or out of the university altogether.
In no century has Christianity regained as much ground in scholarship as in the 20th.
When I talk about modern scholarship, I'm not just talking about the 20th century. I'm talking about all theology in the traditions of Spinoza, Hobbes, Feuerbach, and others who reinvented theology to fit their personal or political goals.
The scrolls of the Library of Alexandria: No, and neither do you. They were destroyed, probably during Theophilus' time.
Here's an example of your "method". You're being inconsistent again. Of course we can know something of the content of the Library, just the same way you claim we can know about ancient texts without the filter of the monks: by references from contemporary works. It's likely that a great deal of those scrolls were mere spiritualistic manuals on how to read innards of birds and other silliness. You can't have it both ways. We can either know about the past, or not. Which is it?
Democritus: To call it an "absolute joke" is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance.
Just to clarify: what I meant by that is that in its details, the atomic theory of Democritus is nothing like that of today. His atoms were infinitely hard, spherical bodies; nothing like our understanding of atoms. Further, it is not at all clear that all "attributes of matter are the attributes of interactoin among atoms". That is largely true, of course, in physics and chemistry, but not everything we observe is reducible to atoms and their interaction. I know you don't believe in the human soul, but a strong case can be made for its attributes being irreducible to matter. That, of course, is a long story; one I'd be happy to discuss with you.
In any event, your whole method ignores a still very strong and serious Christian scholarship that takes ancient texts (both Christian and Pagan) at face value. It's just that the anti-Christian bias is so strong in the major universities, that if that's the only place you spend your time (which I suspect is the case with you), that that's all you'll think is out there. I'd be happy to give you names and titles, but I have a feeling you'd just brush them off without taking them seriously.
Belloc
we now have whole books about the extent of forgery in the Old and New Testament
Wow, whole books? I take back everything. Because as we all know, if a whole book is written about something, it must be true.
Listen, you worship modern scholarship the same way that you accuse the Christians of worshipping their scholarship. I don't really care whether you buy into Christianity at all--that's not the issue. You are just a dishonest scholar. You are clearly so heavily prejudiced against Christianity, that you'll accept any shoddy scholarship that points an accusatory finger at it. Did you know that whole books are also written about how scholarship like the pap that you're talking about is inconsistent with itself and is revisionistic to the core in its obvious attempts to refute Christianity? Whole books!
What do you think happened to the 700,000 scrolls in Alexandria? Hint: Caesar didn't destroy them.
Do you know what the majority of those scrolls were? Hint: they weren't scholarly works. A great deal of them were merely wild and goofy spiritualistic handbooks.
It's a matter of consistency....Alas, this kind of analysis is hardly done nowadays...
Except by you, you mean. If anyone is as revisionistic as you seem to think the Christians were, it's modern anti-Christian scholars.
Democritus...postulated atoms and a populated universe.
Please. Please don't tell me you're using Democritus as the paragon of modern science. Yes, he was an atomist, but his atoms were NOTHING like the atoms of modern atomic theory. Just because he called them atoms and we call them atoms doesn't mean that he was right, and anyone who rejects him is wrong. His atomic theory was an absolute joke. And a "populated universe"? Where exactly is your evidence of a populated universe? Oh, right, there is none.
Serious (non-bigoted) scholars recognize Christian scholarship as in the tradition of true modern scholarship.
Read up on Hypatia some time to find out what Christian "theology" really is about.
Hypatia? Oh, I get you now. Anyone desperate enough to play the Hypatia card is just a pure anti-Christian and nothing more. Hypatia was not a philosopher, as far as we can tell. What we know about her was that she edited and compiled mathematical works, and that she was pretty good at it. Anyway, she was murdered by fanatical monks, not even close to being representative of Christians of her day. Rule #1 of debate: never use fringe particulars to prove a universal. You only end up making yourself look silly. Hypatia doesn't help your argument one iota.
Belloc
We're three days into the new year, and the editors had to play the "Linux on the Desktop?" card already?
If I see a "Death of the Internet" article tomorrow, I'll start planning for the apocalypse.
Belloc
The problem with the church fathers is that they replaced a culture that was very much based on rationalism and empirical exploration...
I guess that's a fine claim to make, but if "almost all ancient writings have survived only through the hands of Christian monks," and are therefore untrustworthy (your claim), why should we be expected to believe anything you or anyone else says about the ancients?
Further, read Aristotle sometime. The Ethics and the Politics would do. Most post-Christian academics find Aristotle (especially in these works) "irrational, antisexual, and dogmatic" as well. In fact, medieval Christians based their theology largely upon the philosophy of Aristotle.
But then, what would we know? The monks are our only sources, and they're a bunch of liars.
Belloc
In addition, the title of "emperor" was created long after his death; Julius Caesar was not the first Roman emperor, as the ignorant sometimes like to profess. Caesar attained the position of dictator for life, which was not the same thing.
It is also not clear that Caesar's long-term political ambitions originally centered around the dictatorship. Caesar, in his Civil Wars, argues that civil war was forced upon him by Pompey's paranoia, and that he became dictator in the end because of a political vacuum (the resulting civil war having destroyed Pompey's faction, and the power balance that went with it).
All points very well taken. I was merely being rhetorical, and in doing so, I was hasty and sloppy. I just was questioning the original poster's motives for using the word "fantasy". My general rhetorical approach was simply to take a well-established figure in history, and show that the original poster probably would disagree with him both religiously and politically (granted, I chose extreme and probably incorrect examples of the latter), and that he was therefore just being bigoted in saying Clement and Gregory were mere "fantasy".
Whatever you may say about the origins of Caesar's intentions, the facts remain that he was involved in a bloody civil war. I was thinking more of Pompey than of Sylla as Caesar's main combatant. Sylla's principal enemy was Marius, IIRC, not Caesar. There wasn't a heckuva lot of overlap between the Marius/Sylla conflict and the Caesar/Pompey conflict, right? Maybe a few years? Certainly less than a decade. I'd have to look it up.
Belloc
Depends on if you consider it to be history, or fantasy.
He's talking about actual historical people here. What they believed in (religiously or politically) is another matter entirely. Surely you are not questioning the historicity of Clement of Rome or Gregory of Nyssa here? What's next, questioning the historical existence of Julius Caesar?
And if you consider them to be "great men."
Or are you just bashing them because they were Christians? Is that what you meant by "fantasy"?
If that is the case, that would bring up an interesting follow-up point: say someone made a blog out of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars". Caesar believed in Roman gods, and his political scheme included murdering his enemies and their families to become Emporer of the World. Would you make some crack about "fantasy" in that case just because you don't believe in his religion or disagree with his politics?
Belloc
The effects could be huge...
And perhaps undesirable. The person/organization responsible for controlling the weather must be able to demonstrate unequivocally that whatever weather change he/she/they are proposing is better for everyone in the affected region than the unchanged weather would have been. Or at least better for some vast majority, and not horribly burdensome on the rest.
Are we really ready to start making arguably uncertain changes on such a regional scale?
Silly example: Three straight days of rain in May might be good for a region's farms, but devastating to local baseball teams who depend on attendance for their revenue. That's dumb, of course, but it's the kind of thing that would have to be considered.
Belloc
'Nothing good ends in "-ium". Good things end with "-mania" and "-eteria".'
-HJS
Belloc
for those of us not steeped in the terminology of computer science
Bwuh...hate to break it to you, but a tri-corder is a Star Trek thingy. It was the do-all handheld for Bones, Kirk, Spock and the rest. Has nothing to do with CS.
Belloc
OS X is OS Ten...Please remeber [sic] that
First of all, what's your point?
Second of all, no it's not. The official name of the current point version of the OS is "Mac OS X version 10.2". It's a completely different beast than, and has a different name than, say, "Mac OS version 9.2".
One is called "Mac OS X", the other is called "Mac OS". Yeah, maybe it's partly a marketing gimmick, but really, what you find under the hood (unlike with most marketing gimmicks) is completely different. Mac OS X is an operating system in many ways totally unlike Mac OS, and the difference in naming reflects that. It's not just "one louder".
Belloc
I had the same problem (FPS less than 10) trying to get Cube running on Win2K this morning. 1.2 GHz Athlon, 256 MB RAM, Voodoo3. Nothing special.
Incidentally, there has been talk in recent months about a Mac OS X port, but I can't find anything very recent about the progress. Anyone know anything?
Belloc
The right tool for the job is a tape drive, if you don't use it.... That's definitly a paddling.
Bzzzt.
Mis-quotin' our old buddy Jasper? You bet that's a paddlin'.
Here you go: "Talking out of turn, that's a paddling. Staring out the window, that's a paddling. Looking at my sandals, that's a paddling. Paddling the school canoe, you bet that's a paddling."
Belloc
Sorry, but shouldn't this be Sun instead of News?
translation...basically he wrote some new tools that are like the tools we already have but implemented in a slightly different way, except these tools were heralded by an obtuse 500-word self-aggrandizing technobabbling post on slashdot.
Can someone translate this for us?
Belloc