The bible itself tells us to continually verify to ourselves what we believe in in fact the truth.
No, no it doesn't. I think you are confused. A quote from the big man himself: Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.". The bible tells us to believe the myths, superstitions and philosophies (some with merit, some without) of, for the most part (and with all due respect for their way of life) a bunch of desert nomads.
Science itself tells us to continually verify to ourselves what we believe in in fact the truth. It is the theoretical basis behind the manufacture of everything you use in your daily life, and everything we know about the mechanisms of the world we live in, and the origins of our species.
Faith is based on knowledge.
This: 'Heb.11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."' is not knowledge. Things hoped for are insubstantial. Things unseen are not evidential.
Saw it too. It was presumably because there is a side by side picture of the iPod shuffle with a stick of gum. Either lawyerspeak, or a parody of lawyerspeak.
There was a time when people hypothisised that the world would only be able to maintain a million people tops. As the population grows, we keep finding new ways to take care of them.
Was this an instance of VMS being hacked? No, it was just a circumstance where a privileged login session was passed in plaintext over a network with 5000 mechanics, social engineers, and hackers on it.
Sure it is.
If the tool for administration (which requires a similarly insecure server running on the box) sends your password across the network in plaintext, most people would consider it as a security vulnerability.
I hate to say this, but the problem with human space travel is that there is just nowhere to go. There are no alien civilizations (or even alien plant life) within reach. There are no habitable planets within reach (unless you count Mars or Venus, but as wastelands go, Antartica is paradise in comparison with either of those in terms of human habitation). It sucks, but it's true.
But who will force you to go to court, or comply with the court's decision? I, and Apple, don't have our own police. I appreciate that apple is the one doing the suing, but the government is the one enforcing any decision.
Aren't the courts branch of the government? Isn't being required to attend court for something you published as a member of the press interference by the government in the freedom of the press? I guess it's not seen as such, but I am curious why?
Yes, and that stems from copyright law, not a natural right. People are perfectly entitled to oppose such a law if they see fit. People oppose laws they don't agree with all the time. People even vote to repeal or change them in parliaments. There is nothing strange about it.
They are useful for people who would like to have power over you. If you have broken a bunch of laws you (individually) can potentially be put in jail regardless of whether "everybody" breaks them or not.
As for revolutionizing the world, I think TFA is getting ahead of itself. I don't care about Jimbo Q Nobody's online diary (I don't use the b word because it sounds retarded), and I can safely say I don't care to listen to his CD collection.
No, but you and many others apparently do care about what is little more than CmdrTaco's online diary. It's equally likely that you(se) will subscribe in sufficient numbers to the equivalent for somebody's music selection. After all what radio is (give or take), is just a bunch of songs somebody wants to play.
Ultimately anonymizing does little more than making your activity appear more illegitimate than before. You might get away with it for a while or at even forever, but it's no way to operate in a democratic society. If you want laws to change there are ways to do that, however difficult.
Something can't exist outside the universe. There is no before the universe existed. The universe is existance. Time is a property of the universe.
We can play mind games in as much as we can imagine such a creator playing on his divine PC and calling the equivalent of create_universe (c=299792458, pi=3.1415...), and while interesting to an extent, ultimately there is no reason to imagine that it is true.
The fact that's impossible to prove that xyz exists is not interesting. You can say it for almost any value of xyz. If you apply it to "the creator" then you have so reduced the sphere of influence of this "creator" so far that it ceases to be interesting as the basis for anything in the real world. It's becomes only useful for winning an argument.
"Absence of evidence == Evidence of absence, then?"
There is no evidence that you are standing beside me. There is no evidence that your creator is standing beside me. What's the difference?
I don't know which of the various gods you believe in, but they all belong in the realm of "mythic creatures". They are just folk tales with greater than usual power to capture the imagination.
I use it at home. It's pretty good. At least I have no encountered obvious problems with an XP machine connected to a DSL line. Having a free for Home use verion is good, since it saves worrying about the the "will I or won't I pay for 6 more months antivirus" issue.
No applications for a minority architecture of an OS is bad enough, what is amazing is that there were no appliactions for |D|I|G|I|T|A|L| Unix on Alpha boxes either. Even compiling open source often meant trying to hack the build system for a vaguely similar platform.
It all depends on the framework. Web server stuff is essentially multi processs or multi threaded, but nobody claims it's particularly hard to do, because Apache, etc. provide a suitable way for it to be implemented, so the coder is only writing the interesting bit, and leaving all the multithreading to the server. If someone builds a suitable framework for a particular application domain, then everyone making apps in that domain get their multithreading essentially for free.
But, you are right, the vast majority of programmers are not suddenly going to start writing code with pthread_create calls in it, because it's wasting time solving a code problem that is better spent solving a business problem.
They don't listen because they don't compete on the benefits of their network. They don't want to sell you a cheap plan. They want to sell you a cute phone with lock in to a high revenue plan.
You need to regulation to prevent government granted limited monopolies (i.e. cellular providers) from locking in handsets to contracts, and distorting the market for their benefit.
This would force them to compete on cost and quality of their network service. The phone manufacturers would have to compete on the cost and usefulness of their phones, not how desirable it is for the cellular provider to provide as a subsidised handset.
You are joking, I know, but actually it doesn't apply to slashdot at all. The comment you replied to has been rated, but it certainly hasn't been censored. I, you and everybody else can still read the comment. It's even helpfully linked to directly via the automatic "parent" link at the end of your comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Science itself tells us to continually verify to ourselves what we believe in in fact the truth. It is the theoretical basis behind the manufacture of everything you use in your daily life, and everything we know about the mechanisms of the world we live in, and the origins of our species.
This: 'Heb.11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."' is not knowledge. Things hoped for are insubstantial. Things unseen are not evidential.
Saw it too. It was presumably because there is a side by side picture of the iPod shuffle with a stick of gum. Either lawyerspeak, or a parody of lawyerspeak.
Sure it is.
If the tool for administration (which requires a similarly insecure server running on the box) sends your password across the network in plaintext, most people would consider it as a security vulnerability.
I hate to say this, but the problem with human space travel is that there is just nowhere to go. There are no alien civilizations (or even alien plant life) within reach. There are no habitable planets within reach (unless you count Mars or Venus, but as wastelands go, Antartica is paradise in comparison with either of those in terms of human habitation). It sucks, but it's true.
But who will force you to go to court, or comply with the court's decision? I, and Apple, don't have our own police. I appreciate that apple is the one doing the suing, but the government is the one enforcing any decision.
Aren't the courts branch of the government? Isn't being required to attend court for something you published as a member of the press interference by the government in the freedom of the press? I guess it's not seen as such, but I am curious why?
So why did the company settle?
Yes, and that stems from copyright law, not a natural right. People are perfectly entitled to oppose such a law if they see fit. People oppose laws they don't agree with all the time. People even vote to repeal or change them in parliaments. There is nothing strange about it.
They are useful for people who would like to have power over you. If you have broken a bunch of laws you (individually) can potentially be put in jail regardless of whether "everybody" breaks them or not.
Ultimately anonymizing does little more than making your activity appear more illegitimate than before. You might get away with it for a while or at even forever, but it's no way to operate in a democratic society. If you want laws to change there are ways to do that, however difficult.
Something can't exist outside the universe. There is no before the universe existed. The universe is existance. Time is a property of the universe.
We can play mind games in as much as we can imagine such a creator playing on his divine PC and calling the equivalent of create_universe (c=299792458, pi=3.1415...), and while interesting to an extent, ultimately there is no reason to imagine that it is true.
The fact that's impossible to prove that xyz exists is not interesting. You can say it for almost any value of xyz. If you apply it to "the creator" then you have so reduced the sphere of influence of this "creator" so far that it ceases to be interesting as the basis for anything in the real world. It's becomes only useful for winning an argument.
"Absence of evidence == Evidence of absence, then?"
There is no evidence that you are standing beside me. There is no evidence that your creator is standing beside me. What's the difference?
I don't know which of the various gods you believe in, but they all belong in the realm of "mythic creatures". They are just folk tales with greater than usual power to capture the imagination.
There is no credible evidence for any Gods. It seems reasonable to assume that they don't exist.
It's only a matter of faith in as much as not believing in faries is a matter of faith.
Awesome, or kind of sad that someone would go to so much bother just to flame some guy on slashdot.
I use it at home. It's pretty good. At least I have no encountered obvious problems with an XP machine connected to a DSL line. Having a free for Home use verion is good, since it saves worrying about the the "will I or won't I pay for 6 more months antivirus" issue.
AVG Antivirus.
No applications for a minority architecture of an OS is bad enough, what is amazing is that there were no appliactions for |D|I|G|I|T|A|L| Unix on Alpha boxes either. Even compiling open source often meant trying to hack the build system for a vaguely similar platform.
It all depends on the framework. Web server stuff is essentially multi processs or multi threaded, but nobody claims it's particularly hard to do, because Apache, etc. provide a suitable way for it to be implemented, so the coder is only writing the interesting bit, and leaving all the multithreading to the server. If someone builds a suitable framework for a particular application domain, then everyone making apps in that domain get their multithreading essentially for free.
But, you are right, the vast majority of programmers are not suddenly going to start writing code with pthread_create calls in it, because it's wasting time solving a code problem that is better spent solving a business problem.
They don't listen because they don't compete on the benefits of their network. They don't want to sell you a cheap plan. They want to sell you a cute phone with lock in to a high revenue plan.
You need to regulation to prevent government granted limited monopolies (i.e. cellular providers) from locking in handsets to contracts, and distorting the market for their benefit.
This would force them to compete on cost and quality of their network service. The phone manufacturers would have to compete on the cost and usefulness of their phones, not how desirable it is for the cellular provider to provide as a subsidised handset.
I basically agree, however the printing subsytem of the OS should support PCL, and the appropriate conversions, not each application individually.
Informative, but why require a system level change to cover an application level shortcoming?