Hmm, interesting. Alright, bad example; try this one:
"The atmosphere in which we live swarms with the germs of those microscopic creatures, which are always ready to multiply in dead matter wherever it presents itself, and thus to fulfill the mission of destruction which is correlative to their life. And if God had not so arranged things that, under normal conditions of life and health, the laws governing the changes in tissues and fluids of animal's bodies did not impede the proliferation of these microscopic creatures, we should always be vulnerable to their inroads." - Louis Pasteur
Reference cited for this quote is: Cuny, H. Louis Pasteur, The Man and His Theories. New York: Paul S. Eriksson, Inc., 1966.
As to weather rabbis are frequently described as charismatic, or whether there are some who exert a controlling influence over the thoughts of their congregation I can not say. I'm pretty sure there are more than a few extremist Jewish sects...
Onto brainwaishing - the crux of the matter for me is whether active questioning of the subject matter is encouraged. That is, whether the subject is being taught dogmatically or not. I've never attended a religious class or church where anything is questioned. Indeed questioning is actively discouraged from my experience.
And you're upset that you were accused of being unable or unwilling to understand something?
Many important scientific discoveries have been made by men who were seeking to better understand God's creation.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." - Sir Isaac Newton
"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." - Albert Einstein
Why is this seen as a problem? The open source community doesn't really try that hard to encourage *anyone* to participate regardless of gender or race or nationality.
The more people involved in open source development, the better. Slightly over half the population are women. It would be nice to have more women involved in open source development, simply because it would be nice to have more people involved in open source development.
It just is what it is. Those who participate decide to do so on their own and there's virtually no barriers to doing so.
Are you sure about that? Perhaps girls are being pressured by their peers, parents, the media, etc. that doing geeky computer things isn't cool, and they should look down on geeks with disdain instead of aspiring to become one themselves. Perhaps boys aren't being pushed away from it as much. Or perhaps because girls just naturally learn differently, the things that get boys interested in programming don't work for girls, and we need to figure out a different way to welcome girls into the fold. Or perhaps girls just aren't interested and we should forget about it. I think it's an issue worth looking at.
The way that question is phrased it is almost as if there should be some kind of OSS organized effort to specifically attract women to the community. What would be gained by such a movement and why is it even implied to be necessary?
Same reason there should be an organized effort to attract men to the community. The more skilled coders with itches to scratch, the better software we all get.
It was explained to me that Apple will not port iTunes to Linux because Linux is Apple's direct competition, and Apple considers Linux to be a bigger threat to their business than Windows. Of course there are also cost/benefit factors as well; porting iTunes would be a pain in the ass (they'd have to port QuickTime first, and that wouldn't be fun at all).
A lease expires. Apple has been advertising that you DO own the song, and any attempts on their part to change this (for songs that have already been purchased) will result in a nasty class-action suit against the company, massive piles of bad press, etc. Apple's contracts with the record labels do not allow the record labels to do what you have described.
As you might imagine, the record labels are rather uncomfortable about this arrangement, since Apple has monopoly power to strong-arm the labels and dictate terms. Personally, I just find it ridiculously amusing that Apple has monopoly power, and I hope they have fun with it while it lasts.
She's just a normal, inquisitive kid with parents that provide her with plenty of resources. Hell, resources that a lot of kids in America don't have.
And yet we call Pakistan a third-world country, and America a world leader. Yes, it shouldn't be surprising that this girl's accomplishments are possible, but I'm still impressed that she was given the opportunity and support, and it saddens me that so many bright young children are denied the same.
But of course, the user might notice that the machine is unusable, and therefore have the problem fixed. As it is now, there are no real negative aspects to having a zombie. If they became unusable, then that would be a negative aspect.
You would think that, wouldn't you? But no, most people just put up with it, because they're too busy to worry about their computer, and too cheap to pay somebody, so they just leave it alone.
- Password wallets: it's been done; they're a horrible idea and have fortunately never caught on
They're a brilliant idea and have never been implemented properly or fully suppported outside of the Mac OS. Almost every application on Mac OS X uses Keychain except Mozilla/Firefox, Opera, and AIM (the official one from AOL) - I can't think of any others off the top of my head.
Erm, I suppose XChat doesn't use Keychain to remember my NickServ passwords. And of course command-line apps like ssh and ftp don't use it. But seriously, Keychain is used by almost everything (including Microsoft applications such as MSN Messenger and Remote Desktop).
FWIW, the Mac OS introduced the KeyChain in Mac OS 9 around 2000 or so... I don't know the history of passwd wallets on Linux.
Yep, I was gonna say this. I know *nix has something similar that works only for SSH (and requires a bit of hacking to get it to work) which has been around for awhile, but I'm pretty sure the OS-level implementations the previous poster was talking about were inspired by Apple's Keychain.
Mozilla's master password is exactly the same idea. I don't use Opera much, but their Wand looks like it might be the same idea as well. But these are only application-wide. Keychain is system-wide, and used by almost every application. The database is encrypted with a master password, so nobody else can access my passwords; I am prompted whenever a new application wants to access my Keychain (and I could have it prompt me every time); I can select how often the OS should require my master password (e.g. every time, after 30 minutes of idle time, after waking up from the screen saver, etc. etc.). My passwords to log on to web sites, e-mail, FTP servers, AIM... even my passwords for MSN Messenger and Microsoft's Remote Desktop client are stored in my keychain, and if I need to view one of them for some reason (and of course I've forgotten what it was, because I never have to type it), I just have to open the Keychain Access application, find what I need (the UI for this is much improved in OSX 10.4), click a button and enter my master password, and it shows me my password.
We called to tell them never to do this again (or they would no longer have us as customers), and their reply was "tough luck." I wonder at what point the telecom industry will alienate their client base, to the point that people stop using their service?
1) People won't completely stop using cell phones.
2) It's a hassle to switch carriers, because you've signed up with at least a 1-year contract (possibly more), you'll have to buy a new phone from the new company, and you'll have to get a new phone number, which you'll have to give out to everyone who had the old one.
3) The new company is just as bad as the old one.
Congress is interested in fixing this, but I don't think they're quite sure how.
I'm interested to see whether the original XBox can be made into an XBox 360 with a simple mod, or not. Frankly I don't see why it should be hard, and it'll open the floodgates for modding.
Sure, all you'd have to do is take apart an XBox, take apart an XBox 360, throw away the innards of the XBox, stuff the innards of the XBox 360 into the empty XBox case somehow, and throw away the empty XBox 360 case. Voilà!
I was disturbed by Kerry's total failure to explain how he opposed that version of the war appropriation bill, after it was changed from a version he supported.
Yeah, I was pretty disturbed by his total failure to explain a lot of things, but I was even more disturbed by the way when he did clearly explain his positions on various issues, his explanations fell on deaf ears - for example, most Republican voters believed Kerry supported gay marriage and wanted to leave the Iraq war unfinished, both of which he clearly denied.
I didn't vote for Kerry because I thought he would have made a good President, or that he would actually be able to accomplish his stated intentions. I voted for him because I don't think he would have caused any serious long-term damage to this country.
On the bright side, I suppose the chances of a Republican being elected in 2008 are lower now because Bush is still in office and losing popularity, than if Kerry had been making an ass of himself and people wanted to get rid of him.
As you say, there's nowhere for them to go in our two-party system, so they're being weeded out... which is why there aren't enough left to make a fuss.
It is for that reason that I don't think we'll have a President Hillary Clinton; I think our next president is much more likely to be a governor--who isn't confronted with these kinds of dilemmas, as they are Executives and not Legislators.
An interesting point I hadn't considered. You're probably right. I was just thinking that the people who would vote against her simply because she's a woman probably outnumber the people who would vote for her simply because she's a woman (whose husband cheated on her), and I'm sure these two categories dwarf the group of people who would consider voting for or against her based on her positions on actual issues.
I just hope the Democrats figure out a way to convince Christian voters that it's not a sin to vote for a Democrat. Nominating a Catholic who opposes gay marriage clearly didn't do the trick. It'd be amusing if they nominated somebody who was outspoken against abortion; do you suppose they'd lose the pro-choice vote?
"I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." - John Kerry
Bush used that quote to accuse Kerry of flip-flopping on issues, but Kerry didn't actually change his mind - the version of the bill he voted for, Bush threatened to veto because Bush wasn't happy with where the money was going to come from. The bill was changed so the money would come from somewhere else, and Kerry voted against it, not because he opposed the whole bill, but because he opposed one part of it.
Most bills that go through Congress have so much unrelated crap tacked onto them that no matter which way you vote, you're almost guaranteed to be voting for or against something people like and something people dislike at the same time, and whichever part of that was unpopular, your opponent will use against you during your reelection campaign. Of course, since you're the incumbent and they're not, you can't use the same trick against them, because they weren't in office at the time!
Why don't I ever hear stories about conservatives/libertarians sneaking laissez-faire clauses into appropriations bills? Someone should have sneakily repealed DMCA by now.
Wait, what conservatives? Do you mean Republicans? Don't they generally support anything that helps big corporations and screws individuals who aren't rich? Why would they oppose the DMCA?
Democrats should oppose the DMCA, but they're too pansy-ass to actually do ANYTHING.
Slashdot Mirror
Safari 2.0 works fine for me, although I'd appreciate a PDF toolbar.
Hmm, interesting. Alright, bad example; try this one:
"The atmosphere in which we live swarms with the germs of those microscopic creatures, which are always ready to multiply in dead matter wherever it presents itself, and thus to fulfill the mission of destruction which is correlative to their life. And if God had not so arranged things that, under normal conditions of life and health, the laws governing the changes in tissues and fluids of animal's bodies did not impede the proliferation of these microscopic creatures, we should always be vulnerable to their inroads." - Louis Pasteur
Reference cited for this quote is:
Cuny, H. Louis Pasteur, The Man and His Theories. New York: Paul S. Eriksson, Inc., 1966.
You did all that work, but admitted to driving faster than the posted speed by 2 MPH?!?
Heh, I hadn't noticed that.
Remind me again why anyone should give a fuck what any religious person thinks?
:-)
Because "anyone" includes religious people.
If it makes you feel better, I don't respect your beliefs either.
As to weather rabbis are frequently described as charismatic, or whether there are some who exert a controlling influence over the thoughts of their congregation I can not say. I'm pretty sure there are more than a few extremist Jewish sects...
Onto brainwaishing - the crux of the matter for me is whether active questioning of the subject matter is encouraged. That is, whether the subject is being taught dogmatically or not. I've never attended a religious class or church where anything is questioned. Indeed questioning is actively discouraged from my experience.
And you're upset that you were accused of being unable or unwilling to understand something?
Many important scientific discoveries have been made by men who were seeking to better understand God's creation.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." - Sir Isaac Newton
"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." - Albert Einstein
Still, that's a nontrivial amount of logic that can be avoided just by using a less sucktastic audio format.
Out of curiosity, would AAC fit the bill, or does it have the same issue?
Why is this seen as a problem? The open source community doesn't really try that hard to encourage *anyone* to participate regardless of gender or race or nationality.
The more people involved in open source development, the better. Slightly over half the population are women. It would be nice to have more women involved in open source development, simply because it would be nice to have more people involved in open source development.
It just is what it is. Those who participate decide to do so on their own and there's virtually no barriers to doing so.
Are you sure about that? Perhaps girls are being pressured by their peers, parents, the media, etc. that doing geeky computer things isn't cool, and they should look down on geeks with disdain instead of aspiring to become one themselves. Perhaps boys aren't being pushed away from it as much. Or perhaps because girls just naturally learn differently, the things that get boys interested in programming don't work for girls, and we need to figure out a different way to welcome girls into the fold. Or perhaps girls just aren't interested and we should forget about it. I think it's an issue worth looking at.
The way that question is phrased it is almost as if there should be some kind of OSS organized effort to specifically attract women to the community. What would be gained by such a movement and why is it even implied to be necessary?
Same reason there should be an organized effort to attract men to the community. The more skilled coders with itches to scratch, the better software we all get.
It was explained to me that Apple will not port iTunes to Linux because Linux is Apple's direct competition, and Apple considers Linux to be a bigger threat to their business than Windows. Of course there are also cost/benefit factors as well; porting iTunes would be a pain in the ass (they'd have to port QuickTime first, and that wouldn't be fun at all).
A lease expires. Apple has been advertising that you DO own the song, and any attempts on their part to change this (for songs that have already been purchased) will result in a nasty class-action suit against the company, massive piles of bad press, etc. Apple's contracts with the record labels do not allow the record labels to do what you have described.
As you might imagine, the record labels are rather uncomfortable about this arrangement, since Apple has monopoly power to strong-arm the labels and dictate terms. Personally, I just find it ridiculously amusing that Apple has monopoly power, and I hope they have fun with it while it lasts.
You're obviously not a web developer. Writing valid code is no guarantee that your site will render the way you wanted, in any browser.
She's just a normal, inquisitive kid with parents that provide her with plenty of resources. Hell, resources that a lot of kids in America don't have.
And yet we call Pakistan a third-world country, and America a world leader. Yes, it shouldn't be surprising that this girl's accomplishments are possible, but I'm still impressed that she was given the opportunity and support, and it saddens me that so many bright young children are denied the same.
But of course, the user might notice that the machine is unusable, and therefore have the problem fixed. As it is now, there are no real negative aspects to having a zombie. If they became unusable, then that would be a negative aspect.
You would think that, wouldn't you? But no, most people just put up with it, because they're too busy to worry about their computer, and too cheap to pay somebody, so they just leave it alone.
- Password wallets: it's been done; they're a horrible idea and have fortunately never caught on
They're a brilliant idea and have never been implemented properly or fully suppported outside of the Mac OS. Almost every application on Mac OS X uses Keychain except Mozilla/Firefox, Opera, and AIM (the official one from AOL) - I can't think of any others off the top of my head.
Erm, I suppose XChat doesn't use Keychain to remember my NickServ passwords. And of course command-line apps like ssh and ftp don't use it. But seriously, Keychain is used by almost everything (including Microsoft applications such as MSN Messenger and Remote Desktop).
FWIW, the Mac OS introduced the KeyChain in Mac OS 9 around 2000 or so... I don't know the history of passwd wallets on Linux.
Yep, I was gonna say this. I know *nix has something similar that works only for SSH (and requires a bit of hacking to get it to work) which has been around for awhile, but I'm pretty sure the OS-level implementations the previous poster was talking about were inspired by Apple's Keychain.
Mozilla's master password is exactly the same idea. I don't use Opera much, but their Wand looks like it might be the same idea as well. But these are only application-wide. Keychain is system-wide, and used by almost every application. The database is encrypted with a master password, so nobody else can access my passwords; I am prompted whenever a new application wants to access my Keychain (and I could have it prompt me every time); I can select how often the OS should require my master password (e.g. every time, after 30 minutes of idle time, after waking up from the screen saver, etc. etc.). My passwords to log on to web sites, e-mail, FTP servers, AIM... even my passwords for MSN Messenger and Microsoft's Remote Desktop client are stored in my keychain, and if I need to view one of them for some reason (and of course I've forgotten what it was, because I never have to type it), I just have to open the Keychain Access application, find what I need (the UI for this is much improved in OSX 10.4), click a button and enter my master password, and it shows me my password.
We called to tell them never to do this again (or they would no longer have us as customers), and their reply was "tough luck." I wonder at what point the telecom industry will alienate their client base, to the point that people stop using their service?
1) People won't completely stop using cell phones.
2) It's a hassle to switch carriers, because you've signed up with at least a 1-year contract (possibly more), you'll have to buy a new phone from the new company, and you'll have to get a new phone number, which you'll have to give out to everyone who had the old one.
3) The new company is just as bad as the old one.
Congress is interested in fixing this, but I don't think they're quite sure how.
You're thinking of Paris Hilton, perhaps?
I just got mine last week, and boy, it's really something. You're missing out, man!
Both the phones and the infrastructure are set up to throw out all rules when the user keys in 911 (or 119 depending on where you are).
999 in the UK I think...
I'm interested to see whether the original XBox can be made into an XBox 360 with a simple mod, or not. Frankly I don't see why it should be hard, and it'll open the floodgates for modding.
Sure, all you'd have to do is take apart an XBox, take apart an XBox 360, throw away the innards of the XBox, stuff the innards of the XBox 360 into the empty XBox case somehow, and throw away the empty XBox 360 case. Voilà!
I was disturbed by Kerry's total failure to explain how he opposed that version of the war appropriation bill, after it was changed from a version he supported.
Yeah, I was pretty disturbed by his total failure to explain a lot of things, but I was even more disturbed by the way when he did clearly explain his positions on various issues, his explanations fell on deaf ears - for example, most Republican voters believed Kerry supported gay marriage and wanted to leave the Iraq war unfinished, both of which he clearly denied.
I didn't vote for Kerry because I thought he would have made a good President, or that he would actually be able to accomplish his stated intentions. I voted for him because I don't think he would have caused any serious long-term damage to this country.
On the bright side, I suppose the chances of a Republican being elected in 2008 are lower now because Bush is still in office and losing popularity, than if Kerry had been making an ass of himself and people wanted to get rid of him.
No, I think he means "paleo-conservatives"
Ahhh, I wondered what they were called.
As you say, there's nowhere for them to go in our two-party system, so they're being weeded out... which is why there aren't enough left to make a fuss.
It is for that reason that I don't think we'll have a President Hillary Clinton; I think our next president is much more likely to be a governor--who isn't confronted with these kinds of dilemmas, as they are Executives and not Legislators.
An interesting point I hadn't considered. You're probably right. I was just thinking that the people who would vote against her simply because she's a woman probably outnumber the people who would vote for her simply because she's a woman (whose husband cheated on her), and I'm sure these two categories dwarf the group of people who would consider voting for or against her based on her positions on actual issues.
I just hope the Democrats figure out a way to convince Christian voters that it's not a sin to vote for a Democrat. Nominating a Catholic who opposes gay marriage clearly didn't do the trick. It'd be amusing if they nominated somebody who was outspoken against abortion; do you suppose they'd lose the pro-choice vote?
Why that won't solve anything:
"I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." - John Kerry
Bush used that quote to accuse Kerry of flip-flopping on issues, but Kerry didn't actually change his mind - the version of the bill he voted for, Bush threatened to veto because Bush wasn't happy with where the money was going to come from. The bill was changed so the money would come from somewhere else, and Kerry voted against it, not because he opposed the whole bill, but because he opposed one part of it.
Most bills that go through Congress have so much unrelated crap tacked onto them that no matter which way you vote, you're almost guaranteed to be voting for or against something people like and something people dislike at the same time, and whichever part of that was unpopular, your opponent will use against you during your reelection campaign. Of course, since you're the incumbent and they're not, you can't use the same trick against them, because they weren't in office at the time!
Why don't I ever hear stories about conservatives/libertarians sneaking laissez-faire clauses into appropriations bills? Someone should have sneakily repealed DMCA by now.
Wait, what conservatives? Do you mean Republicans? Don't they generally support anything that helps big corporations and screws individuals who aren't rich? Why would they oppose the DMCA?
Democrats should oppose the DMCA, but they're too pansy-ass to actually do ANYTHING.