Cell phones don't really have global reach, they only have a reach of a few miles at best where they connect to a cell tower, which connects them to a global network.
No shit sherlock. But through the infrastructure they have global reach...
Kirk's communicator had global reach without needing a cell tower or pre-existing network.
Kirk's communicator would never have worked... after all, much of the time the Enterprise would have been on the other side of whatever planet Kirk was on.
What utter garbage. Next you'll be saying that evolution is "only a theory".
BTW - we've proven natural selection plenty of times. Ever drink cows' milk? That was done by selective breeding - the same process that works in natural selection - traits that work to ensure survival long enough to breed in an environment get passed on. The particular environment for a cow is to give milk in sufficient quantities so that the farmer will breed it, and the genes get passed on to the next generation.
The fact is that Sarah Palin, after the first couple of weeks, was a continual drag on the campaign, except for - wait for it - people who were going to vote republican anyway.
If you make any donations to support your religious activities and take a tax deduction for them, it means you're paying less than someone who puts their money to other uses. IOW, your pastime|hobby|cult is being subsidized by others.
I was thinking about getting a 30" as a secondary for my laptop - it's "supposed" to be able to do up to 3k x 2k... and it's not like I need humongous video refresh rates to write code, but I was wondering about neck strain.
There are plenty of nonreligious tax-exempt nonprofits.
Most large churches run at a large enough income to cover salaries, etc. In some cases, in the millions. Then there are the TV shows, which are undeniably a business venture - they're advertising, same as any other infomercial.
The increase in assets, year to year, is profit, and should be taxed.
The buildings, etc., aren't free for everyone to use, so they should be taxed the same as any other private building.
The congregation receives a tangible benefit (a place to meet, hold their shows^sermons, etc), and people pay money for this. This is income, and should be taxed... same as income from "donation-ware" is taxable as income.
If people don't want to pay taxes on their churches, etc., let them do like the early church, meet in each others' homes (after all, the word church didn't mean a place of worship, but the body of believers).
As Jesus said, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars'" . Taxes on church property and income are part of that.
The article claims that people will steal, given the opportunity. People have the opportunity to download for free, but still choose to vote with their wallet in sufficient numbers to prove that the article is just troll-bait.
There have always been thieves. The fact is that they have always been in the minority, despite the fact that it has always been easy to steal stuff.
Religions more than carry their weight in society.
That is total and utter bullshit. There is more than adequate proof throughout the ages that religion retards society. It is the basis of many of the wars we have fought and continue to fight, it is the basis of much of the discrimination that we still see practiced, and it is the basis of many teachings that threaten the future of mankind on this planet - such as the ban on birth control by the Catholic church.
They don't pay taxes, but they do provide services to the community that more than make up for that, which would cost the state far more to provide on its own than the tax revenue it would gain.
Not true. They use the provision of these "services" as the basis for spreading their beliefs. You can't get the "services" without the propaganda. If you want that, go work for Diskeeper.
Lets see what religion brings to the table right now:
over-population
the Taliban, the whole middle east problem, etc.,
willful ignorance and disparagement of scientific teaching
intolerance towards "the different" - gays, lesbians, transgendered and transsexuals
Sarah Palin republicans, and the warping of the political process to pander to religion
rejection of medical treatment (see Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, etc)
a breeding ground for extreme cults - after all, if you can accept the craziness of mainstream religion, why not take it up a notch...
"right to life" for the brain-dead, and "execution is a just punishment"...
"you're not praying enough | you're not right with the lord | you must be suffering because you've sinned | you don't have enough faith" mentality
lack of equality for women
The Bible, like many religious texts, is hate literature writ big.
Furthermore, many of the great institutions in America were started by churches, including most hospitals and the primary school system.
And that just means that the money was there, and that it could have been just as easily raised by taxation, keeping religion out of it. So, why did religion do this? So that they could get their religious teachings as part of the system. Start class with prayer. Keep a cross in the classroom. Provide jobs for the faithful, rather than for secular teachers.
Fuck that shit. The world wil be better off once the last religion is abandoned.
Parsing out xml is slow. Anyone who says "we'll just use xml because it's fast" doesn't know what they're talking about. Also, AJAX isn't tied to xml, despite the name - it can use any data format - tab-delimited, binary, plain-text, csv, json, Heck, it isn't even tied to javascript if you have a browser that supports other scripting language interpreters.
"We essentially use a local proxy server that intercepts the html from our ERP system and ties it into the AP system and our content management systems"
Again, an html screen scraper has nothing to do with xml OR css. Additionally, it shows that xml is NOT needed for data transfer.
"Then again, we are talking about Scientology^Wreligion, which is more of a business than anything."
There, fixed it for you.
Religions don't pay their fair share of taxes on their income. Therefore, I have to pay more in taxes, to make up for their not paying. I end up subsidizing religion, which goes against my religious beliefs as an atheist. This is an obvious case of religious discrimination built into the tax practices.
Why should atheists, or followers of any particular religion, be forced to subsidize the religious practices of others?
Sorry, it was a dead-tree item. Also, they weren't predicting "Gobal Freezing" - they were predicting global warming back then as well. You may be thinking of "Nuclear Winter"...:-)
As you can see from this link, scientists wren't predicting global freezing...
1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers predicting warming.
Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of global cooling, significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science...
Rasool and Schneider's ice age "projection"
The main study cited by skeptics is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971). The paper doesn't actually predict an ice age. Instead, it projects a possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it may trigger an ice age. Historically, what happened was aerosol levels fell. While it's unclear whether Rasool's calculations re aerosol cooling were accurate, one inaccuracy was they underestimated climate's sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 3.
In the decades since their 1971 paper, many studies constraining climate sensitivity calculate that if atmospheric CO2 was doubled, global temperatures would rise around 3C. These studies employ different methods (modelling, calculations from empirical observations) looking at different time periods (the 20th century, the Holocene, past ice ages), different aspects of climate (surface temperature, mid-tropospheric temperature, ocean heat intake) and response to different forcings (volcanic, CO2, solar). More on climate sensitivity...
Or look at iTunes. Don't tell me that the stuff there isn't available via bittorent elsewher. People still end up buying from iTunes, despite the "free altrnatives".
Because it is easier to push the "Buy Now" button than it is to rig your computer up with a bunch of dubious torrent software, find a torrent, download it in either 2 seconds or 2 days (depending on the torrent) only to end up with dubious quality.
In other words, when people have the choice of free or at a reasonable price, easily obtained, they willingly pay the reasonable price. Sort of defeats the article's main proposition, that people will take the free route.
Who will be the first to post "ICodeInJavaWithClassesWithReallyReallyReallyLongNames.youIgnorantClod();" ?
80 column rule ftw.
Seriously, if you have a wide screen monitor, you *really* want the 80 column rule. It lets you put two source files side by side.
I'd rather have the preprocessor let me use shortcut macros. Oops, java doesn't HAVE a preprocessor. Guess I'll just have to keep passoing my java source through g++ with the -E option.
"People will pirate when it's overpriced. When it's right-priced, most people will gladly pay for it." What do mean right-priced? Does the saleswomen have to take you in the back and suck your dick for it to be right-priced? It is called stealing. plain and simple. I do it and i know it is stealing. i am poor so i can only afford a couple of $50 games a year. thats it. I admit it. Don't say they need a new business model, they need to keep up with todays tech, etc. You are stealing a game. it is no different if you go to gamespot and stick a game under your shirt and walk out. you just do it from your room/basement, whatever. No difference.
First, I don't steal games. I have lots of games that I bought, but I've only bought one new game in the last 5 years because I simply no longer have time to play games. I have a stack of books (and none of THOSE are pirated or stolen either) that I would like to get through for their entertainment value. Some of THOSE were bought on sale for 80% off. At that price, they were "right-priced" for me. Others, I paid cover price.
As the consumer, I get to say what price I am willing to pay, for any product. If it's not at the right price at the right time, I don't buy. I'm sure I'm not that unique.
What next? If I watch a TV program but leave the room when the advertising comes on, am I stealing? If I switch stations when listening to the radio because the talking heads between songs bore me, am I stealing?
I stand by my assertion. If something is right-priced, people will support it with their dollars. People *want* to do the right thing. They want to support things they believe in - just look at the record-breaking campaign donations in the last presidential race.
It may not be "stealing", but it is still unethical. It is wanting to get the results of someone else's labor for free.
People who use gpl'd software are unethical? People who borrow a library book are unethical? Kids who believe in Santa Clause are unethical? All charities are unethical? Taxes are unethical? GMail, Yahoo Mail, MSN-Whatever-they-call-it-this-week are unethical? People who watch TV or listen to the radio are unethical? Visitors who use city parks or streets are unethical? Free public clinics for the poor are unethical?
Methinks you've got a very strange idea of "unethical."
Or look at iTunes. Don't tell me that the stuff there isn't available via bittorent elsewher. People still end up buying from iTunes, despite the "free altrnatives".
While I admit I can't prove that they won't, can you prove that they will?
Look at the money bands have made by offering downloads on a "pay what you want to" model.
Trent Reznor has made no secret of how the Nine Inch Nails album Ghosts I-IV has sold. According to the band, 800,000 transactions generated $1.6 million in sales revenue in the first week of the album's availability, despite the fact that the 36-song version of the album is widely available on torrent sites.
People could have gotten it free, but chose to pay for it. Proof enough for you?
Dual monitors. They pay for themselves within weeks. This is a real no-brainer.
Ok, I'll bite.. what do you actually use the 2nd monitor for ?
Keep a few shells open for database, man pages, tail -f/var/log/apache2/error_log, dos2unix [filename] for code that someone else munged up, toolbars (layers, tools, etc), compilers (gcc, g++, javac), which, mc, tree, chmod [perms] [filespec], email, searching, testing, notes, etc.
You can also stretch an IDE or code editor across 2 monitors.
Slashdot Mirror
No shit sherlock. But through the infrastructure they have global reach ...
Kirk's communicator would never have worked ... after all, much of the time the Enterprise would have been on the other side of whatever planet Kirk was on.
Thanks - VERY handy.
You get a tax deduction for your donations to your church, which means your religious beliefs are being subsidized by taxpayers who don't believe.
Remember, render unto Caesar and all that ...
What utter garbage. Next you'll be saying that evolution is "only a theory".
BTW - we've proven natural selection plenty of times. Ever drink cows' milk? That was done by selective breeding - the same process that works in natural selection - traits that work to ensure survival long enough to breed in an environment get passed on. The particular environment for a cow is to give milk in sufficient quantities so that the farmer will breed it, and the genes get passed on to the next generation.
Or the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections.
The fact is that Sarah Palin, after the first couple of weeks, was a continual drag on the campaign, except for - wait for it - people who were going to vote republican anyway.
"Can your atheistic "community" say it does that? For free?"
It's not "for free." You get a tax deduction for subsidizing your religion, which means that atheists have to pay more than their fair share.
If you make any donations to support your religious activities and take a tax deduction for them, it means you're paying less than someone who puts their money to other uses. IOW, your pastime|hobby|cult is being subsidized by others.
I was thinking about getting a 30" as a secondary for my laptop - it's "supposed" to be able to do up to 3k x 2k ... and it's not like I need humongous video refresh rates to write code, but I was wondering about neck strain.
... because everyone knows pirates have only one eye, you ignorant clod!
Most large churches run at a large enough income to cover salaries, etc. In some cases, in the millions. Then there are the TV shows, which are undeniably a business venture - they're advertising, same as any other infomercial.
The increase in assets, year to year, is profit, and should be taxed.
The buildings, etc., aren't free for everyone to use, so they should be taxed the same as any other private building.
The congregation receives a tangible benefit (a place to meet, hold their shows^sermons, etc), and people pay money for this. This is income, and should be taxed ... same as income from "donation-ware" is taxable as income.
If people don't want to pay taxes on their churches, etc., let them do like the early church, meet in each others' homes (after all, the word church didn't mean a place of worship, but the body of believers).
As Jesus said, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars'" . Taxes on church property and income are part of that.
There have always been thieves. The fact is that they have always been in the minority, despite the fact that it has always been easy to steal stuff.
That is total and utter bullshit. There is more than adequate proof throughout the ages that religion retards society. It is the basis of many of the wars we have fought and continue to fight, it is the basis of much of the discrimination that we still see practiced, and it is the basis of many teachings that threaten the future of mankind on this planet - such as the ban on birth control by the Catholic church.
Not true. They use the provision of these "services" as the basis for spreading their beliefs. You can't get the "services" without the propaganda. If you want that, go work for Diskeeper.
Lets see what religion brings to the table right now:
The Bible, like many religious texts, is hate literature writ big.
And that just means that the money was there, and that it could have been just as easily raised by taxation, keeping religion out of it. So, why did religion do this? So that they could get their religious teachings as part of the system. Start class with prayer. Keep a cross in the classroom. Provide jobs for the faithful, rather than for secular teachers.
Fuck that shit. The world wil be better off once the last religion is abandoned.
Parsing out xml is slow. Anyone who says "we'll just use xml because it's fast" doesn't know what they're talking about. Also, AJAX isn't tied to xml, despite the name - it can use any data format - tab-delimited, binary, plain-text, csv, json, Heck, it isn't even tied to javascript if you have a browser that supports other scripting language interpreters.
"We essentially use a local proxy server that intercepts the html from our ERP system and ties it into the AP system and our content management systems"
Again, an html screen scraper has nothing to do with xml OR css. Additionally, it shows that xml is NOT needed for data transfer.
"Then again, we are talking about Scientology^Wreligion, which is more of a business than anything."
There, fixed it for you.
Religions don't pay their fair share of taxes on their income. Therefore, I have to pay more in taxes, to make up for their not paying. I end up subsidizing religion, which goes against my religious beliefs as an atheist. This is an obvious case of religious discrimination built into the tax practices.
Why should atheists, or followers of any particular religion, be forced to subsidize the religious practices of others?
Sorry, it was a dead-tree item. Also, they weren't predicting "Gobal Freezing" - they were predicting global warming back then as well. You may be thinking of "Nuclear Winter" ... :-)
As you can see from this link, scientists wren't predicting global freezing ...
1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers predicting warming.
Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of global cooling, significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science...
Rasool and Schneider's ice age "projection"
The main study cited by skeptics is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971). The paper doesn't actually predict an ice age. Instead, it projects a possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it may trigger an ice age. Historically, what happened was aerosol levels fell. While it's unclear whether Rasool's calculations re aerosol cooling were accurate, one inaccuracy was they underestimated climate's sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 3.
In the decades since their 1971 paper, many studies constraining climate sensitivity calculate that if atmospheric CO2 was doubled, global temperatures would rise around 3C. These studies employ different methods (modelling, calculations from empirical observations) looking at different time periods (the 20th century, the Holocene, past ice ages), different aspects of climate (surface temperature, mid-tropospheric temperature, ocean heat intake) and response to different forcings (volcanic, CO2, solar). More on climate sensitivity...
Or better yet, read this.
In other words, when people have the choice of free or at a reasonable price, easily obtained, they willingly pay the reasonable price. Sort of defeats the article's main proposition, that people will take the free route.
The article is junk.
I'd rather have the preprocessor let me use shortcut macros. Oops, java doesn't HAVE a preprocessor. Guess I'll just have to keep passoing my java source through g++ with the -E option.
Maybe the examiner is a practitioner? :-)
There's been lots of evidence of that over the last decade.
First, I don't steal games. I have lots of games that I bought, but I've only bought one new game in the last 5 years because I simply no longer have time to play games. I have a stack of books (and none of THOSE are pirated or stolen either) that I would like to get through for their entertainment value. Some of THOSE were bought on sale for 80% off. At that price, they were "right-priced" for me. Others, I paid cover price.
As the consumer, I get to say what price I am willing to pay, for any product. If it's not at the right price at the right time, I don't buy. I'm sure I'm not that unique.
What next? If I watch a TV program but leave the room when the advertising comes on, am I stealing? If I switch stations when listening to the radio because the talking heads between songs bore me, am I stealing?
I stand by my assertion. If something is right-priced, people will support it with their dollars. People *want* to do the right thing. They want to support things they believe in - just look at the record-breaking campaign donations in the last presidential race.
People who use gpl'd software are unethical? People who borrow a library book are unethical? Kids who believe in Santa Clause are unethical? All charities are unethical? Taxes are unethical? GMail, Yahoo Mail, MSN-Whatever-they-call-it-this-week are unethical? People who watch TV or listen to the radio are unethical? Visitors who use city parks or streets are unethical? Free public clinics for the poor are unethical?
Methinks you've got a very strange idea of "unethical."
[citation] Bill Gates business model for pirated Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office to reinforce monopoly and combat linux in China
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/02/digitalmedia.musicnews
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1666973,00.html
Or look at iTunes. Don't tell me that the stuff there isn't available via bittorent elsewher. People still end up buying from iTunes, despite the "free altrnatives".
Look at the money bands have made by offering downloads on a "pay what you want to" model.
Trent Reznor has made no secret of how the Nine Inch Nails album Ghosts I-IV has sold. According to the band, 800,000 transactions generated $1.6 million in sales revenue in the first week of the album's availability, despite the fact that the 36-song version of the album is widely available on torrent sites.
People could have gotten it free, but chose to pay for it. Proof enough for you?
Keep a few shells open for database, man pages, tail -f /var/log/apache2/error_log, dos2unix [filename] for code that someone else munged up, toolbars (layers, tools, etc), compilers (gcc, g++, javac), which, mc, tree, chmod [perms] [filespec], email, searching, testing, notes, etc.
You can also stretch an IDE or code editor across 2 monitors.