I apologise for my indignant response, however I still disagree with your point. Personally I am also a Canadian, but I know that the dispute over evolution vs. creation still rages on all through the so-called Christian world. Australia happens to be the location of the highest number of creationists per capita, as well as the home of Answers In Genesis, however. This would indicate to me, anyhow, that it is still a hot topic there. It simply doesn't make sense to assume that because the debate is public in the US that's the only place that it exists.
The bible doesn't exactly mention anything about the americas, the bison there, or the mississippi river
No, the Bible doesn't mention these things. The book of mormon, however, does. Do we then assume (by your logic) that the mormons are correct?
It just strikes me that there is no proof of life outside of our planet, while there is obviously life in the Americas. In fact, the Bible does refer to a time when pangea (as we have come to call it) separated. This would most definitely be proof of the Americas. ('and unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.' - Genesis 10:25)
creationists don't share your "without any outside force" premise
Don't get me wrong. I've actually been a creationist for years. For me, anyhow, it explains what I need explained. It does not, however, provide a full explanation. Neither does evolution. Both theories have their ups and downs. I'm willing to recognise both, and I choose to believe creationism, until proven wrong. I was merely pointing out that I could be proven wrong if multi-celled life was found on other planets, and could be attributed to evolution due to its simplicity or visible stages of advancement.
I would beg to differ. The largest creationist organisation in the world, namely Answers In Genesis, is based out of Acacia Ridge in Australia. This would not tend to agree with your 'united states' theory. Yet another (noticeable) victim to the idea that the world revolves around america. Actually, it revolves around the sun!
I personally believe that any discovery of life larger than bacteria would lend large credence to evolutionary theory. While the majority of people are now convinced of evolution, there still remain pockets of faithful that follow creationist theory. A discover of a developed life form on another planet, however insignificant, would give undisputable proof of the ability of life to develop and adapt to the circumstances it finds. Bacteria found in this region, however, would prove very little, as bacteria can be found everywhere, including meteors that (no doubt) have crashed onto the surface of mars for years (as they have the surface of earth). The proof would be in the fact that this provides a link to the growth of multi-celled organisms that were able to adapt to conditions without any outside forces at work (i.e. man-made laboratories). This would proove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that life on earth could have stemmed from the same methods. Really, the implications are astounding.
On several different occasions a complete system reboot was required. It could have been that I was just using OSX on a slower iMac, but it had been purchased with OSX pre-installed, so I don't think that was the problem. I also checked to make sure that it wasn't faulty RAM or something foolish like that; I was simply trying to do something that OSX didn't like. I'm not sure exactly what, but I can tell you that at the time I was publishing a 24-page University newspaper in inDesign. I only had one other program running in the background, and that was a simple (read 200K) graphics conversion program, a program that was idle with no loaded files.
With any luck this will spur the government into trying to obtain the source code. Of course, we all know the truth: The government that bought the software will never again lose an election!
I quickly read over the article, and I failed to see any reference to direction of this thing. Now, it would seem to me that it could get blown into a place that it could not get out of. Without some sort of steering mechanism how do they ever plan to work this thing? And of course, since there are no GPS satellites around Mars they couldn't even determine the location, especially if it was picked up by the wind or something. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but it seems to me that the data would be nearly irellivent without positional data to accompany it.
I wonder if that's case sensitive, or if it just reacts to a certain case... I hope that they at least have it fixed by now...I know that I'd be having a problem if I were to get not e-mail with the letter p in it...then all the junk mail I'd get would be gone! What ever would I do if Babette was no longer waiting for me?
When I say that I crashed something, it's not because I intended to crash it, but because it unexpectedly quit. I think that this comes down to a basic definition of what a crash is. By my definition, it is unexpected. If I'm trying to crash something, it will crash. However, if a program suddenly quits it is quite different.
I believe that I have never crashed DOS, particularly not my all-time favourite version, DR-DOS 6.0 (the most stable and functional version of DOS I've ever used). I have, on the other hand, had a variety of different versions of Windows unexpectedly stop functioning, as well as MacOS X, as I previously mentioned. It all basically comes down to a definition. Mine includes the term unexpected.
The particular piece of software that I was referring to was tested by myself and a few friends on a variety of platforms and it failed to work properly on any of them, crashing at a variety of places during the installation process. You would think that they would at least test the INSTALL PROGRAM!
I've crashed OS X. It wasn't even that hard, really. I just did a bit of extremely intensive stuff with Adobe InDesign and it died. I found that it was also far more resource-intensive than most other Operating Systems I use. Perhaps it's just the way I use it, but I think that the only OS I haven't been able to crash is DOS.
I remmeber years ago having a conversation with an IT manager at IBM. We were talking about the inability of computer programmers to make their code foolproof. His point was that we don't see problems like this with proprietary hardware. When was the last time someone crashed their Super Nintendo? Of course, with a PC platform (or even Mac, or whatever else) there are problems of unreliability. His idea is that this is because of sloppy programming. The reason we were having this conversation is that I had a piece of software (brand new, I might add) that would not install on my computer. You would think that a reputable software company (and this was a reputable company) would test their product on at least a few systems to make sure that it would at least install! The end result was that I ended up never playing the game (not even to this day), nor have I purchased another title from that company since that time. Perhaps that is the solution to the root problem?
And with the start of the Internet, BBSes had a new venue for giving you their numbers...of course, by that time the BBSes were becoming obsolete...now all you can find is the listings for internet providers. Still useful, but not nearly as cool.
Are you saying that it's not possible to innovate AND make money? It seems to me that in the first Matrix movie they were both innovative and money-making! In addition, this movie has been compared to the Empire Strikes Back by the Wychowski bros. (sp?), another movie that both innovated and made money...seems to me that Empire is still in the top 20 all time...and do you remember the scenes with the ships and the guns and the snow and the stormtroopers...cutting edge bluescreen technology, they did things that were unheard of in the movie inudstry at the time. I believe that Matrix Reloaded will be the same...right down to the romance scenes!
Now that presupposes that the decriminalisation of cannabis will lead to increased drug exporting. On the contrary, I personally expect that it will increase tourism. Why would someone risk getting arrested for transporting pot across the border when they could simply smoke it in Canada? Walters said a flood of Canadian pot moving south becomes an American problem, meaning increased border patrols. Increased border patrols? Moreso than they already are, what with the terrorist attacks and general threats that the US always seems to be coming up with, I don't see how they could increase border patrols, or even security at border crossings!
If we were sending toxic substances to your young people, you would be and should be upset.
Now this begs the point be made of what a toxic substance is. THC bonds naturally to receptors found in the brain--a perfect fit. Other drugs (the more 'serious' drugs) do not fit perfectly with the genetic structure of the human body, but pot does.
If the American government wants to, they can certainly exert pressure on other governments into changing their laws
Again, this is untrue. When was the last time that Canada changed their laws, simply because the US wanted them to? Canada is a free country and our Government (which, unlike the Bush administration was elected) is fully able to hold their own in any battle with the US government. Right now International sentiment is against the US, particularly the Bush administration, and I don't think that the US gov't has any effect on Canadian laws, be it either digital media laws or drug laws.
The softwood lumber tariff had 100% to do with the fact that the Canadian Government was (and still is) subsidizing the lumber industry. That is entirely different. Good point, though!
many laws that stem from the United States DO carry over to other countries
I would choose to politely disagree. Look at Canada as an example: We are right next to the US, but do we see any effect from these laws? The DMCA certainly doesn't apply here, and when was the last time you heard of a Canadian being prosecuted for copyright violations?
This is not limited to technical issues either. If one were to look at the current issues (I was just reading about this on MSN last night, in fact, although I don't believe it was carried on the US msn site): The US has stated that they will impose sanctions against Canada if we decriminalise marijuana...of course, those sanctions would be in violation of NAFTA and the US would have to repeal them shortly after they were put in place. In short, US law simply does not apply in Canada. In fact, not even US moral standards apply in Canada. Should these laws be passed, I doubt that Rogers, Shaw or Cogeco (the three largest cable providers in Canada) would even consider adopting these stances. Canada is a much more liberal country and does not fall into the jurisdiction of US law.
What can I say? The only reason I have that PC is so that other members of my household won't be confused by Linux. There's only so much you can expect out of non-slashdot-type-people. Would it be possible to migrate everyone to Linux I would have tried already, but apparently the other members of my household are afraid to lose their blue screens and other miscellaneous features that MS was so kind to provide us with...Of course, it kind of pisses me off when they leave the blue screensaver on and tell me that I have to fix it...I've told them how to fix it--get Linux.
Well, it would seem that there are a number of people who would like to post regarding this bug crashing different versions of various browsers. I guess I'll post mine here: Crashed IE 5.50.4522.1800CO with SP1 on a WYSE Winterm running Win2K in a Citrix environment.
Does this really surprise anyone? I mean, geez, you'd think that with a rep like MS that people would be expecting it! After all, I'm running WinME at home (No choice, it's on an IBM NetVista...my other systems run linux) and the thing crashes on almost an hourly basis.
How difficult would it be for Microsoft to simply hire a few people to do a GOOD job of testing their software? If MS used the open source concept, think of how quickly they would have their bugs found and/or fixed? Surely they should at least allow their beta testers to use the source, if for no other reason than to find simple bugs like this one and report them!
I would just like to go on record saying that I have only ever owned Sony consoles (Aside from back in the day, before Sony was in the market), and I intend to buy a PS3 when they come out, simply because Sony does the best job of the console makers (IMO). I was only passing on the information I had garnered from my many discussions with people on the subject. I would put up a link to press releases, etc., but I'm currently at work and am unable to access many sites due to company policy. I still support Sony, I own a PS1 and a PS2, as well as several sfotware titles. I have no reason to promote other products, and I have gone on record at times saying that I would never pay money for an X-Box, although I wouldn't mind tinkering with one, should it come my way.
I take personal offence to that comment. I was not trying to slight anyone, I was merely expressing my point. I had misunderstood what you had said, and I apologize for that. You, however, accuse me of insulting you when I certainly did not intend to. If you feel slighted, I apologize, but only to the extent that I misunderstood what you had meant. I think it is incredibly rude to start calling names in a public forum.
Slashdot Mirror
I apologise for my indignant response, however I still disagree with your point. Personally I am also a Canadian, but I know that the dispute over evolution vs. creation still rages on all through the so-called Christian world. Australia happens to be the location of the highest number of creationists per capita, as well as the home of Answers In Genesis, however. This would indicate to me, anyhow, that it is still a hot topic there. It simply doesn't make sense to assume that because the debate is public in the US that's the only place that it exists.
The bible doesn't exactly mention anything about the americas, the bison there, or the mississippi river
No, the Bible doesn't mention these things. The book of mormon, however, does. Do we then assume (by your logic) that the mormons are correct?
It just strikes me that there is no proof of life outside of our planet, while there is obviously life in the Americas. In fact, the Bible does refer to a time when pangea (as we have come to call it) separated. This would most definitely be proof of the Americas. ('and unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.' - Genesis 10:25)
creationists don't share your "without any outside force" premise
Don't get me wrong. I've actually been a creationist for years. For me, anyhow, it explains what I need explained. It does not, however, provide a full explanation. Neither does evolution. Both theories have their ups and downs. I'm willing to recognise both, and I choose to believe creationism, until proven wrong. I was merely pointing out that I could be proven wrong if multi-celled life was found on other planets, and could be attributed to evolution due to its simplicity or visible stages of advancement.
I would beg to differ. The largest creationist organisation in the world, namely Answers In Genesis, is based out of Acacia Ridge in Australia. This would not tend to agree with your 'united states' theory. Yet another (noticeable) victim to the idea that the world revolves around america. Actually, it revolves around the sun!
I personally believe that any discovery of life larger than bacteria would lend large credence to evolutionary theory. While the majority of people are now convinced of evolution, there still remain pockets of faithful that follow creationist theory. A discover of a developed life form on another planet, however insignificant, would give undisputable proof of the ability of life to develop and adapt to the circumstances it finds. Bacteria found in this region, however, would prove very little, as bacteria can be found everywhere, including meteors that (no doubt) have crashed onto the surface of mars for years (as they have the surface of earth). The proof would be in the fact that this provides a link to the growth of multi-celled organisms that were able to adapt to conditions without any outside forces at work (i.e. man-made laboratories). This would proove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that life on earth could have stemmed from the same methods. Really, the implications are astounding.
On several different occasions a complete system reboot was required. It could have been that I was just using OSX on a slower iMac, but it had been purchased with OSX pre-installed, so I don't think that was the problem. I also checked to make sure that it wasn't faulty RAM or something foolish like that; I was simply trying to do something that OSX didn't like. I'm not sure exactly what, but I can tell you that at the time I was publishing a 24-page University newspaper in inDesign. I only had one other program running in the background, and that was a simple (read 200K) graphics conversion program, a program that was idle with no loaded files.
With any luck this will spur the government into trying to obtain the source code. Of course, we all know the truth: The government that bought the software will never again lose an election!
I quickly read over the article, and I failed to see any reference to direction of this thing. Now, it would seem to me that it could get blown into a place that it could not get out of. Without some sort of steering mechanism how do they ever plan to work this thing? And of course, since there are no GPS satellites around Mars they couldn't even determine the location, especially if it was picked up by the wind or something. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but it seems to me that the data would be nearly irellivent without positional data to accompany it.
Just FYI, I took that particular game back to the store not once, but twice and had the same results with all three copies!
I wonder if that's case sensitive, or if it just reacts to a certain case...
I hope that they at least have it fixed by now...I know that I'd be having a problem if I were to get not e-mail with the letter p in it...then all the junk mail I'd get would be gone! What ever would I do if Babette was no longer waiting for me?
When I say that I crashed something, it's not because I intended to crash it, but because it unexpectedly quit. I think that this comes down to a basic definition of what a crash is. By my definition, it is unexpected. If I'm trying to crash something, it will crash. However, if a program suddenly quits it is quite different.
I believe that I have never crashed DOS, particularly not my all-time favourite version, DR-DOS 6.0 (the most stable and functional version of DOS I've ever used). I have, on the other hand, had a variety of different versions of Windows unexpectedly stop functioning, as well as MacOS X, as I previously mentioned. It all basically comes down to a definition. Mine includes the term unexpected.
The particular piece of software that I was referring to was tested by myself and a few friends on a variety of platforms and it failed to work properly on any of them, crashing at a variety of places during the installation process. You would think that they would at least test the INSTALL PROGRAM!
I've crashed OS X. It wasn't even that hard, really. I just did a bit of extremely intensive stuff with Adobe InDesign and it died. I found that it was also far more resource-intensive than most other Operating Systems I use. Perhaps it's just the way I use it, but I think that the only OS I haven't been able to crash is DOS.
I remmeber years ago having a conversation with an IT manager at IBM. We were talking about the inability of computer programmers to make their code foolproof. His point was that we don't see problems like this with proprietary hardware. When was the last time someone crashed their Super Nintendo? Of course, with a PC platform (or even Mac, or whatever else) there are problems of unreliability. His idea is that this is because of sloppy programming. The reason we were having this conversation is that I had a piece of software (brand new, I might add) that would not install on my computer. You would think that a reputable software company (and this was a reputable company) would test their product on at least a few systems to make sure that it would at least install! The end result was that I ended up never playing the game (not even to this day), nor have I purchased another title from that company since that time. Perhaps that is the solution to the root problem?
And with the start of the Internet, BBSes had a new venue for giving you their numbers...of course, by that time the BBSes were becoming obsolete...now all you can find is the listings for internet providers. Still useful, but not nearly as cool.
Are you saying that it's not possible to innovate AND make money? It seems to me that in the first Matrix movie they were both innovative and money-making! In addition, this movie has been compared to the Empire Strikes Back by the Wychowski bros. (sp?), another movie that both innovated and made money...seems to me that Empire is still in the top 20 all time...and do you remember the scenes with the ships and the guns and the snow and the stormtroopers...cutting edge bluescreen technology, they did things that were unheard of in the movie inudstry at the time. I believe that Matrix Reloaded will be the same...right down to the romance scenes!
Now that presupposes that the decriminalisation of cannabis will lead to increased drug exporting. On the contrary, I personally expect that it will increase tourism. Why would someone risk getting arrested for transporting pot across the border when they could simply smoke it in Canada?
Walters said a flood of Canadian pot moving south becomes an American problem, meaning increased border patrols.
Increased border patrols? Moreso than they already are, what with the terrorist attacks and general threats that the US always seems to be coming up with, I don't see how they could increase border patrols, or even security at border crossings!
If we were sending toxic substances to your young people, you would be and should be upset.
Now this begs the point be made of what a toxic substance is. THC bonds naturally to receptors found in the brain--a perfect fit. Other drugs (the more 'serious' drugs) do not fit perfectly with the genetic structure of the human body, but pot does.
If the American government wants to, they can certainly exert pressure on other governments into changing their laws
Again, this is untrue. When was the last time that Canada changed their laws, simply because the US wanted them to? Canada is a free country and our Government (which, unlike the Bush administration was elected) is fully able to hold their own in any battle with the US government. Right now International sentiment is against the US, particularly the Bush administration, and I don't think that the US gov't has any effect on Canadian laws, be it either digital media laws or drug laws.
The softwood lumber tariff had 100% to do with the fact that the Canadian Government was (and still is) subsidizing the lumber industry. That is entirely different. Good point, though!
many laws that stem from the United States DO carry over to other countries
I would choose to politely disagree. Look at Canada as an example: We are right next to the US, but do we see any effect from these laws? The DMCA certainly doesn't apply here, and when was the last time you heard of a Canadian being prosecuted for copyright violations?
This is not limited to technical issues either. If one were to look at the current issues (I was just reading about this on MSN last night, in fact, although I don't believe it was carried on the US msn site): The US has stated that they will impose sanctions against Canada if we decriminalise marijuana...of course, those sanctions would be in violation of NAFTA and the US would have to repeal them shortly after they were put in place. In short, US law simply does not apply in Canada. In fact, not even US moral standards apply in Canada. Should these laws be passed, I doubt that Rogers, Shaw or Cogeco (the three largest cable providers in Canada) would even consider adopting these stances. Canada is a much more liberal country and does not fall into the jurisdiction of US law.
What can I say? The only reason I have that PC is so that other members of my household won't be confused by Linux. There's only so much you can expect out of non-slashdot-type-people. Would it be possible to migrate everyone to Linux I would have tried already, but apparently the other members of my household are afraid to lose their blue screens and other miscellaneous features that MS was so kind to provide us with...Of course, it kind of pisses me off when they leave the blue screensaver on and tell me that I have to fix it...I've told them how to fix it--get Linux.
Well, it would seem that there are a number of people who would like to post regarding this bug crashing different versions of various browsers. I guess I'll post mine here:
Crashed IE 5.50.4522.1800CO with SP1 on a WYSE Winterm running Win2K in a Citrix environment.
Does this really surprise anyone? I mean, geez, you'd think that with a rep like MS that people would be expecting it! After all, I'm running WinME at home (No choice, it's on an IBM NetVista...my other systems run linux) and the thing crashes on almost an hourly basis.
How difficult would it be for Microsoft to simply hire a few people to do a GOOD job of testing their software? If MS used the open source concept, think of how quickly they would have their bugs found and/or fixed? Surely they should at least allow their beta testers to use the source, if for no other reason than to find simple bugs like this one and report them!
Check out This link for more info on the PS3 Distributed processing model...it was the best I could find on short notice.
I would just like to go on record saying that I have only ever owned Sony consoles (Aside from back in the day, before Sony was in the market), and I intend to buy a PS3 when they come out, simply because Sony does the best job of the console makers (IMO). I was only passing on the information I had garnered from my many discussions with people on the subject. I would put up a link to press releases, etc., but I'm currently at work and am unable to access many sites due to company policy. I still support Sony, I own a PS1 and a PS2, as well as several sfotware titles. I have no reason to promote other products, and I have gone on record at times saying that I would never pay money for an X-Box, although I wouldn't mind tinkering with one, should it come my way.
I take personal offence to that comment. I was not trying to slight anyone, I was merely expressing my point. I had misunderstood what you had said, and I apologize for that. You, however, accuse me of insulting you when I certainly did not intend to. If you feel slighted, I apologize, but only to the extent that I misunderstood what you had meant. I think it is incredibly rude to start calling names in a public forum.