Apple's consumer marketing isn't geared toward tech-savvy people, and unless you work in an environment like yours, you're unlikely to ever see Apple's enterprise marketing.
I've watched a girl compose a text message without taking her eyes off the road. She handed her phone to me (in the passenger seat) to proof-read it for her before sending. It was a little disturbing.
Your phrase:" if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses" proves you do not understand one iota of the scientific method and are therefore not qualified to participate.
Science always tries to disprove a hypothesis, science is what is left of all hypothesis ever proposed that no one could disprove. Science is not soft on the facts, and nothing is a fact until people agree there is no point denying it.
Picture yourself before heavens gate, Peter invites you to prove creationism to go to heaven, but if yo fail you go to hell. Would you take the challenge?
Alright, you nailed me. Of course you're right, so now that I've had a bit more sleep, let me try again:
Creation Science begins with the Biblical account of Creation, then forms a model that describes the mechanics of how the described events took place, filling in the gaps with educated guesses about how it could have happened. Falsifiable hypotheses are formed from this model, and they are tested. If these hypotheses are proven false, then the model is adjusted.
It's a good thing I'm just a computer nerd posting on Slashdot, and not actually a scientist.
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog. Those two would take the lifetimes of thousands of people, and we haven't even worked out a way to stop the lions eating the gazelles.
You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word normally translated as "kind". It doesn't mean species. There was no word for our modern concept of species, because that concept didn't exist. "Frog" and "beetle" add up to a total of... let me see here... two kinds of animal.
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
Creation Science doesn't ask whether "God did it", but rather "what happened and how?" without considering "why". Did God do it? Did the FSM do it? Was it random coincidence? These questions clearly fall outside the realm of science. Was there a global Flood 4,000 years ago? Was it really global? Where did the water come from? How did it happen? What evidence is there to support the idea of a global Flood? Is there any evidence disproving it? These are questions that science can try to answer.
Yes, I leave this stuff to scientists, rather than try to work it out myself. That's because I'm a computer nerd posting on Slashdot. I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be.
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
As a Creationist, I happen to agree with you 100%.
Creation Science is built around the idea that if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses. If the evidence instead contradicts your hypothesis, then either your evidence is flawed, your interpretation of the evidence is flawed, or your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
Intelligent Design, in contrast, does not start from the premise that the Bible is a literal historical document, because that would mean religion is involved. Instead, ID simply says that life is too complex to have evolved spontaneously on its own, therefore God must have done it. On the surface this sounds similar to Creation Science (both say God did it), but ID doesn't bring anything falsifiable to the table.
The question of whether or not God (or the FSM or space aliens) caused a particular event is not testable empirically, even if it is true. Creation Science doesn't try to test God's involvement, only the actual physical events described in the Bible (for example, that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC or so that wiped out all humans and animals that couldn't fit in a really big boat). It doesn't look at whether the events described in Genesis were really caused by God, only whether or not they occurred as described (and the mechanics behind how they occurred).
What about the right not to be aborted? Why should a human being have no rights whatsoever until they're out of the womb?
This is what's wrong with the abortion debate in this country: neither side can even understand what the other side is talking about. "Life" and "choice" are not antonyms; the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are a clear indication that we're not on the same page here. People on the left can't understand how those on the right (especially women on the right) could oppose a woman's right to make choices about her own reproductive health, while people on the right can't understand how those on the left could oppose the rights of an unborn child to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The pro-life people aren't against women, against women's health, or against a woman's right to make choices about her own body. They just don't see the life of an unborn child as having anything to do with the mother's rights. If you can't legally murder your own child after they've been born, why should you be permitted to do so before?
The pro-choice people aren't against the rights of children, they just don't believe that a fetus is a human being. It's not really alive, it's not an individual, until it's out of the womb - before then, it's just a heap of tissue and stuff that's part of the mother's body. It's not illegal to amputate your own hand, so why should aborting your pregnancy be against the law?
Are you sure the situation hasn't improved? People (especially people who haven't tried it yet, and swear they never will) complain about Vista's usability all the time, but do the usability problems Gates encountered back in 2003 still exist today? I know a lot of them don't.
FYI, although Mac OS X probably could replace 95% of the OS without rebooting, it doesn't. In 10.5 Leopard, when you install an OS update it will actually make you log out before it starts installing; in previous versions it would let you keep working but often launching certain applications would stop working (if they were already open you could keep using them, but if you tried to launch a new one it would just bounce in the Dock for awhile and then go away).
I believe Leopard will make you log out for a QuickTime upgrade, which is comparable to what Gates was trying to do.
I'm thinking "they" is referring to the department within the company that maintains the microsoft.com web site. Gates probably doesn't interact with them on a regular basis. If he wants something changed on the microsoft.com home page, he has to talk to them and ask them to take care of it. That's why they're a "they", even though they're also a "we".
These are the default quoting characters; if you omit the q, qq, qe or qr, then you can simply use 'foo', "foo", `foo` and/foo/, but if you do use q, qq, qe or qr then you can use any delimiter characters you want. A newline does NOT count; it uses the next character after the newline as the delimiter.
Reverse in this context doesn't reverse a quoted string, it reverses a list which has seven items in it. You don't get the list until you've done the split; that's why I said order of operations is significant.
You're definitely on the right track. There is no $blues, of course, and the order of operations is significant on the reverse line - in particular, EVERYTHING on that line following the "reverse" all gets reversed, which includes the result of split '',''\ ' which of course gives you two values. This all has to happen before anything can go into @_. $, is just a conveniently confusing place to put a space, but $" is a special variable that perl will use later.
Apparently the word "scalar" is redundant here; I'll remove it from future incarnations.
In any case, you've done quite well for only having your head stuck in documentation for an hour. But be honest, did you confirm what it was going to do by studying the code before you tried it to find out, or did you run it first so you had some idea of what to look for? If the latter, I could have infected you with something nasty.
This exploit is done via AppleScript and the Apple Remote Desktop Agent, which should hopefully give you some kind of hint as to why this particular issue is not going to be a problem on Linux. Dude, I could easily write a malicious Perl script that would run just fine on Linux, if I could just talk you into running it. You'd be able to see the source code, but unless you're a Perl expert, it wouldn't be at all obvious what it was doing. I wouldn't bother trying to get root access, because I don't need root access.
I wrote this a few years ago. Can you see how it works?
my $music='Art'; my($swing,$rock)=q s/hacker/performer/; # another creator of art... my $blues=~/^.(\w+).*#\s(\w+)/; my $jazz=substr((grep m($music)=>qx($^X$,-v))[$[],$?,scalar @_); my $pop=eval qq("\\@_");
Yes of course, I meant to say three types of gifts; thanks for the clarification. In fact, Matthew 2:11b says "Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh."
What's more interesting is the "facts" that can be disproved by proper analysis. For example, one event that millions take for granted and consider true, the birth of Jesus on a Dec 25th, is easily disproved since shepherds wouldn't have been out in their fields in December. Many other religious "facts", regardless of the religion, are similarly easy to dismiss, yet a sizeable portion of humanity still considers them to be true and base their belief system on them. Note that none of the millions of people who believe Jesus was born on December 25th are well versed in what the Bible actually says, since it most definitely does not say that. In fact, nothing in the Bible suggests that we should observe Christmas as any sort of holiday at all, on any date.
Millions of people also believe that three wise men appeared alongside the shepherds in Bethlehem on the night Jesus was born. On the contrary, the Bible doesn't say how many wise men there were (only that they brought three gifts), and they didn't arrive until almost two years later.
Of course you may not believe any of this actually happened, but just because the popular story is ridiculous doesn't mean the events actually recorded in the Bible are untrue.
You have to love how the left bloggers love to cry fowl at every little turn. Yet, when they attempt to rig search engine results it's somehow okay. No, it really isn't. Just because this jackass is doing it doesn't mean the rest of us think it's OK, but we can't stop him.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly, the Geneva Convention Against Torture must not apply to Prisoners Of Windows...
Apple's consumer marketing isn't geared toward tech-savvy people, and unless you work in an environment like yours, you're unlikely to ever see Apple's enterprise marketing.
I've watched a girl compose a text message without taking her eyes off the road. She handed her phone to me (in the passenger seat) to proof-read it for her before sending. It was a little disturbing.
Dear creationist,
Your phrase:" if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses" proves you do not understand one iota of the scientific method and are therefore not qualified to participate.
Science always tries to disprove a hypothesis, science is what is left of all hypothesis ever proposed that no one could disprove. Science is not soft on the facts,
and nothing is a fact until people agree there is no point denying it.
Picture yourself before heavens gate, Peter invites you to prove
creationism to go to heaven, but if yo fail you go to hell. Would
you take the challenge?
Alright, you nailed me. Of course you're right, so now that I've had a bit more sleep, let me try again:
Creation Science begins with the Biblical account of Creation, then forms a model that describes the mechanics of how the described events took place, filling in the gaps with educated guesses about how it could have happened. Falsifiable hypotheses are formed from this model, and they are tested. If these hypotheses are proven false, then the model is adjusted.
It's a good thing I'm just a computer nerd posting on Slashdot, and not actually a scientist.
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog. Those two would take the lifetimes of thousands of people, and we haven't even worked out a way to stop the lions eating the gazelles.
You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word normally translated as "kind". It doesn't mean species. There was no word for our modern concept of species, because that concept didn't exist. "Frog" and "beetle" add up to a total of... let me see here... two kinds of animal.
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
Creation Science doesn't ask whether "God did it", but rather "what happened and how?" without considering "why". Did God do it? Did the FSM do it? Was it random coincidence? These questions clearly fall outside the realm of science. Was there a global Flood 4,000 years ago? Was it really global? Where did the water come from? How did it happen? What evidence is there to support the idea of a global Flood? Is there any evidence disproving it? These are questions that science can try to answer.
Yes, I leave this stuff to scientists, rather than try to work it out myself. That's because I'm a computer nerd posting on Slashdot. I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be.
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
As a Creationist, I happen to agree with you 100%.
Creation Science is built around the idea that if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses. If the evidence instead contradicts your hypothesis, then either your evidence is flawed, your interpretation of the evidence is flawed, or your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
Intelligent Design, in contrast, does not start from the premise that the Bible is a literal historical document, because that would mean religion is involved. Instead, ID simply says that life is too complex to have evolved spontaneously on its own, therefore God must have done it. On the surface this sounds similar to Creation Science (both say God did it), but ID doesn't bring anything falsifiable to the table.
The question of whether or not God (or the FSM or space aliens) caused a particular event is not testable empirically, even if it is true. Creation Science doesn't try to test God's involvement, only the actual physical events described in the Bible (for example, that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC or so that wiped out all humans and animals that couldn't fit in a really big boat). It doesn't look at whether the events described in Genesis were really caused by God, only whether or not they occurred as described (and the mechanics behind how they occurred).
If that becomes a problem, we could always just send them another shipment of these...
A logged-in user shuddering at a bunch of ACs?
Jeez, this is the most asinine thread I've ever read.
You must be new here...
Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft, reclines on his desk in his office soon after the release of Windows 1.0. 1985 Bellevue, Washington, USA. Notice the Mac in the background, just above his shoulder.
What about the right not to be aborted? Why should a human being have no rights whatsoever until they're out of the womb?
This is what's wrong with the abortion debate in this country: neither side can even understand what the other side is talking about. "Life" and "choice" are not antonyms; the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are a clear indication that we're not on the same page here. People on the left can't understand how those on the right (especially women on the right) could oppose a woman's right to make choices about her own reproductive health, while people on the right can't understand how those on the left could oppose the rights of an unborn child to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The pro-life people aren't against women, against women's health, or against a woman's right to make choices about her own body. They just don't see the life of an unborn child as having anything to do with the mother's rights. If you can't legally murder your own child after they've been born, why should you be permitted to do so before?
The pro-choice people aren't against the rights of children, they just don't believe that a fetus is a human being. It's not really alive, it's not an individual, until it's out of the womb - before then, it's just a heap of tissue and stuff that's part of the mother's body. It's not illegal to amputate your own hand, so why should aborting your pregnancy be against the law?
Are you sure the situation hasn't improved? People (especially people who haven't tried it yet, and swear they never will) complain about Vista's usability all the time, but do the usability problems Gates encountered back in 2003 still exist today? I know a lot of them don't.
FYI, although Mac OS X probably could replace 95% of the OS without rebooting, it doesn't. In 10.5 Leopard, when you install an OS update it will actually make you log out before it starts installing; in previous versions it would let you keep working but often launching certain applications would stop working (if they were already open you could keep using them, but if you tried to launch a new one it would just bounce in the Dock for awhile and then go away).
I believe Leopard will make you log out for a QuickTime upgrade, which is comparable to what Gates was trying to do.
I'm thinking "they" is referring to the department within the company that maintains the microsoft.com web site. Gates probably doesn't interact with them on a regular basis. If he wants something changed on the microsoft.com home page, he has to talk to them and ask them to take care of it. That's why they're a "they", even though they're also a "we".
I've never tested this on ActivePerl; let me know if it behaves differently. Note the capitalization of "Art".
Look at perldoc perlop again; what is => a synonym for?
Yikes! Where I said qe there (more than once), I meant qx.
Oh come now, there's more to it than that!
(Yikes.)
q is to qq as ' is to " if that helps.
q'foo'
qq"foo"
qe`foo`
qr/foo/
These are the default quoting characters; if you omit the q, qq, qe or qr, then you can simply use 'foo', "foo", `foo` and /foo/, but if you do use q, qq, qe or qr then you can use any delimiter characters you want. A newline does NOT count; it uses the next character after the newline as the delimiter.
Reverse in this context doesn't reverse a quoted string, it reverses a list which has seven items in it. You don't get the list until you've done the split; that's why I said order of operations is significant.
There is no $blues.
You're definitely on the right track. There is no $blues, of course, and the order of operations is significant on the reverse line - in particular, EVERYTHING on that line following the "reverse" all gets reversed, which includes the result of split '',''\ ' which of course gives you two values. This all has to happen before anything can go into @_. $, is just a conveniently confusing place to put a space, but $" is a special variable that perl will use later.
Apparently the word "scalar" is redundant here; I'll remove it from future incarnations.
In any case, you've done quite well for only having your head stuck in documentation for an hour. But be honest, did you confirm what it was going to do by studying the code before you tried it to find out, or did you run it first so you had some idea of what to look for? If the latter, I could have infected you with something nasty.
I wrote this a few years ago. Can you see how it works?
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
($,,$",$_,@_)=reverse qw(164 163 165 112),",\n",split '','\ ';
my $music='Art';
my($swing,$rock)=q
s/hacker/performer/; # another creator of art...
my $blues=~/^.(\w+).*#\s(\w+)/;
my $jazz=substr((grep m($music)=>qx($^X$,-v))[$[],$?,scalar @_);
my $pop=eval qq("\\@_");
print $pop, $rock, $jazz, $swing;
print;
Yes of course, I meant to say three types of gifts; thanks for the clarification. In fact, Matthew 2:11b says "Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh."
Millions of people also believe that three wise men appeared alongside the shepherds in Bethlehem on the night Jesus was born. On the contrary, the Bible doesn't say how many wise men there were (only that they brought three gifts), and they didn't arrive until almost two years later.
Of course you may not believe any of this actually happened, but just because the popular story is ridiculous doesn't mean the events actually recorded in the Bible are untrue.
Rape is also a sin against God, in addition to being a sin against the victim. You need forgiveness from both.