Does Apple give users the option of directly ordering the CD version of Tiger via the online Apple store without the exchange bit, or the extra cost? This would seem to be a good compromise for users that have machines that Tiger is geared for but lack DVD drives.
STB (Waiting for Tiger with baited breath, shad flavored of course.)
In order to be guilty of a crime, whether a felony, or misdemeanor, one must be culpable for an act, or a failure to act.
In Texas, and I'm betting in other states, and at the federal level as well "Without capability there is no crime."
As you did not intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly, or with criminal negligence* receive the cocaine you committed no crime.
Assuming that you promptly notified the appropriate law enforcement agency of the 'suspicious substance' there ought to be no problem. You will notice that I said *ought not to be*.
There are always dumbos that are clueless, and who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag. Think of the two Chicago detectives in the movie version of "The Fugitive."
"But morally, hanging onto both shuffles would be wrong."
You sir are incorrect. There is nothing wrong about it, morally, ethically, or legally.
Corporations do ******NOT****** get to set the rules when it comes to morals, and ethics for society.
"It's not actually your property,..." By what standard, or process have you determined that? Because Apple Computer INC., or PCMall, has stated so? Again Corporations do not get to set the moral, or ethical standards for society.
Some thoughts from a 48 year old nerd, with a graduate degree in physics.
In Fig.1 you'll note that a the personal computer industry was expanding in the late seventies and early eighties the number of CS majors grew. When the PC industry reached its pre-web zenith the number of CS majors peaked. What caused the second peak in CS majors was the birth, and growth of the internet, especially the WWW.
The zenith in incoming freshmen CS majors was in 1999, just before the dotcom bust. The dotcom bust occurred in the Spring of 2000, thus the incoming freshmen of the Fall of 2000 responded to the reduced job market in CS. This should not be surprising. It is very common that incoming freshmen will tend to major in whatever major offers the best, or near best prospects for employment, in terms of jobs available, and $$$.
I would also note that Fig. 2 shows that the 'easier' the major the more students that major in that major. You'll note that the physical sciences consistently constitutes less than 5% of the majors of incoming freshmen. Why? In a word Math. The tougher the math requirements the fewer the students that major in in that discipline.
Over the last fifty years survey, after poll, after study has shown that college students consistently rank physics, math, and chemistry as the three toughest majors. Further, given that the finical rewards of majoring in these disciplines in not particularly great, students that are looking to maximize their profits from their college degree strongly tend to avoid the physical sciences, and mathematics.
You will also note that the BBA became very hot in the eighties, and peaked in 87 with 25% of incoming freshmen aiming for a BBA. That trend cooled somewhat in the ninities, but has held level for about the last dozen years at 15%.
Figure 3. is a simple reflection of the fact that nationwide the percentage of incoming freshmen that are female has been steadily rising for the past forty years.
I would also point out another phenomena. In the nineties it was difficult for some small, and medium sized universities to recruit graduate students into their physics programs. I've first hand knowledge of this as one of my best friends was a prof. at Stephen F. Austin State Univ. during this period. He's statements to me on this subject we reinforced by conversations that I had with other physicist at other universities here in Texas at fall, and spring physics conferences.
The problem with getting students to enroll into graduate programs in physics was simply that newly minted baccalaureates were offered $$$ by companies to take jobs in programing, and code design. It seems that there were/are an goodly number of corporations, and companies that believe that physics, and math majors make better programers than straight CS majors. This mainly true in the aerospace, and defense sectors, though other HIGH-tech companies share this bias.
Further, I'm personally friends with three high school graduates that were whizzes at coding that forewent college entirely. There skills were of such quality that they have been able to make *very* good livings for themselves without a college degree.
I personally suspect that many of the most talented young programers have followed this route. It is the youngsters that are not so talented, and are really just in it for the $$$ that have provided the bulk of the CS majors over the last twenty-five years. That is not to say that these folk are not competent, just that they are not generally 'coding gods.'
If you as you claim state that there is no god then you have committed a act of religion, like it or not. Only agnostic have a legitimate claim to have no religion.
First of all I used the quotes express my views, and was giving proper attribution to them. My purpose was not an appeal to authority.
Second, not all christians agree on every little ol' thing.
Get back on point, the fundamental question of religion is: Does God/gods exist?
The moment that you answer that question either in the affirmative or the negative you've engaged in a religious act. If your responce to the question is 'don't know' the position you've taken is that of agnosticism.
One more point; fundmentalism is not an issue of theology, but of epistemology.
First of all my posts are neither trolls, nor are they flame-bait.
You insist that the word religion is a belief in a supernatural power. While that may be one defination it is not the only one.
"In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
"Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards," he continued. "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
The worst case of inconvenience that I've ever experienced with this sort of thing was not at a retailer, but at the library of the Univ. of Texas at Tyler.
I was doing some research and carried my PowerMac bag with me for obvious reasons. When I was leaving the security system went off. The staff sort of freaked. I had to empty my bag and add one item at a time back into it to see if the alarm got set off by that item.
Turns out that a coiled up ethernet patch cable was the culprit. Can you say electromagnetic induction?
Your mistake is believing that atheists are not religious. They are. They just don't believe that God, or gods exist. That is the core of their religious faith. The truly non-religious are agnostic.
As I said in my original post the issue is not about privacy. The bill in question does not in any way regulate what you do in private. I mearly requires for state provided access to be limited in its scope.
As *the undisputed* expert in explaining Baptist Logic to the unwashed mass, I must comment on the parent post.
The issue with government provided services is that a person must pay taxes whether or not they want to, or not. Since ones money goes to various governmental projects one then has the right to opine to one's various state officials as to what that money is spent on, or what that money should not be spent on.
If one chooses to partake of porn in one's own home etc. with the porn payed for out of one's on pocket that's one thing, however requiring another to provide, and pay for porn is a separate issue.
What we have here[1] is a failure to differentiate between the private arena, and the public arena.
[1] here meaning the previous post, and those like it.
"Menu option to use Reverse Polish Notation (been too long since I studied CS, can't even remember what this should do or look like now - changes '=' button to 'enter', though)"
Population density is a useful metric for many things, but one must discriminate between global population density, and local population density. Using my home state of Texas as an example one finds that the global population density is 79.6 persons per square mile, but if one looks at the population density for my home county of Smith then the local density is 188.2 persons per square mile. Dallas County has a population density of 2,522.6 persons per square mile, and Brewster County has a population density of 1.4 persons per square mile. What is manifest here is that local population has a wide variance.
In physics one often uses the metrics of homogeneity isotropy and linearity, when dealing with various mediums. Let us consider the population density as the medium of interest. The question now becomes one of the homogeneity, isotropy, and linearity of the global population density.
Given the the size of the United States both in terms of both population, and geography it should come as no surprise that the global population density is not homogenous, nor isotropic, nor linear. That being said, it is the case that local population densities can be large, homogenous, isotropic, and linear. This is true for many parts of the Mid-West, and South. It is these situations that cause the problems with employing broad band in an economically efficient fashion.
If one has a county where the population density is low, but tightly clustered then the population density is both, non-homogenous, and non-isotropic. Providing the population center/s with broadband is then "cost effective," provide the total population of the center/s is of sufficient size.
Another county which has the same population density may however have a highly homogenous, and isotropic population density. In such a case the population is evenly scattered over the entire area of the county. Given that the population of the county is of sufficient size it will very well not be "cost effective" to provide that county with broadband.
One of the most prevalent fallacies that folks engage in is the 'fallacy of the single statistic.' No one statistic, nor metric gives an adequate description of a phenomenon. When an argument focuses on one statistic, or metric it is inevitable that a lot of verbiage is going to be wasted on fallacious argumentation.
In general one needs to examine 'size,' 'percentage,' 'distribution,' and 'variance' in making a statistical argument if one is to avoid spurious lines of debate.
In Texas what you've described is called a 'Terroristic Threat.'
No problem with having such statutes as this. What I object to is the use of "hatefulness" as a criteria. I'm not concerned with the motivation of the speaker, but with the "seriousness" of the threat.
Given that words like 'deconstructionism' have meanings that are not obvious, I don't think that the meaning of 'demorality' is automatically obvious. Indeed, given the "social sciences" and what is left of the humanities penchant for using unwieldy words, and convoluted phrasing rather than simple, and clear phrasing it makes good sense to check on meanings of words that one has not encountered before.
You've got me here. I've never seen this word before. Nor can I find a definition of it on Wikipedia, Merriam Webster, or Bartleby(American Heritage Dictionary).
Slashdot Mirror
Does Apple give users the option of directly ordering the CD version of Tiger via the online Apple store without the exchange bit, or the extra cost? This would seem to be a good compromise for users that have machines that Tiger is geared for but lack DVD drives.
STB
(Waiting for Tiger with baited breath, shad flavored of course.)
Nope.
In order to be guilty of a crime, whether a felony, or misdemeanor, one must be culpable for an act, or a failure to act.
In Texas, and I'm betting in other states, and at the federal level as well "Without capability there is no crime."
As you did not intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly, or with criminal negligence* receive the cocaine you committed no crime.
Assuming that you promptly notified the appropriate law enforcement agency of the 'suspicious substance' there ought to be no problem. You will notice that I said *ought not to be*.
There are always dumbos that are clueless, and who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag. Think of the two Chicago detectives in the movie version of "The Fugitive."
"But morally, hanging onto both shuffles would be wrong."
You sir are incorrect. There is nothing wrong about it, morally, ethically, or legally.
Corporations do ******NOT****** get to set the rules when it comes to morals, and ethics for society.
"It's not actually your property,..." By what standard, or process have you determined that? Because Apple Computer INC., or PCMall, has stated so? Again Corporations do not get to set the moral, or ethical standards for society.
Some thoughts from a 48 year old nerd, with a graduate degree in physics.
In Fig.1 you'll note that a the personal computer industry was expanding in the late seventies and early eighties the number of CS majors grew. When the PC industry reached its pre-web zenith the number of CS majors peaked. What caused the second peak in CS majors was the birth, and growth of the internet, especially the WWW.
The zenith in incoming freshmen CS majors was in 1999, just before the dotcom bust. The dotcom bust occurred in the Spring of 2000, thus the incoming freshmen of the Fall of 2000 responded to the reduced job market in CS. This should not be surprising. It is very common that incoming freshmen will tend to major in whatever major offers the best, or near best prospects for employment, in terms of jobs available, and $$$.
I would also note that Fig. 2 shows that the 'easier' the major the more students that major in that major. You'll note that the physical sciences consistently constitutes less than 5% of the majors of incoming freshmen. Why? In a word Math. The tougher the math requirements the fewer the students that major in in that discipline.
Over the last fifty years survey, after poll, after study has shown that college students consistently rank physics, math, and chemistry as the three toughest majors. Further, given that the finical rewards of majoring in these disciplines in not particularly great, students that are looking to maximize their profits from their college degree strongly tend to avoid the physical sciences, and mathematics.
You will also note that the BBA became very hot in the eighties, and peaked in 87 with 25% of incoming freshmen aiming for a BBA. That trend cooled somewhat in the ninities, but has held level for about the last dozen years at 15%.
Figure 3. is a simple reflection of the fact that nationwide the percentage of incoming freshmen that are female has been steadily rising for the past forty years.
I would also point out another phenomena. In the nineties it was difficult for some small, and medium sized universities to recruit graduate students into their physics programs. I've first hand knowledge of this as one of my best friends was a prof. at Stephen F. Austin State Univ. during this period. He's statements to me on this subject we reinforced by conversations that I had with other physicist at other universities here in Texas at fall, and spring physics conferences.
The problem with getting students to enroll into graduate programs in physics was simply that newly minted baccalaureates were offered $$$ by companies to take jobs in programing, and code design. It seems that there were/are an goodly number of corporations, and companies that believe that physics, and math majors make better programers than straight CS majors. This mainly true in the aerospace, and defense sectors, though other HIGH-tech companies share this bias.
Further, I'm personally friends with three high school graduates that were whizzes at coding that forewent college entirely. There skills were of such quality that they have been able to make *very* good livings for themselves without a college degree.
I personally suspect that many of the most talented young programers have followed this route. It is the youngsters that are not so talented, and are really just in it for the $$$ that have provided the bulk of the CS majors over the last twenty-five years. That is not to say that these folk are not competent, just that they are not generally 'coding gods.'
FWIW
STB
"GET OVER YOURSELF, I HAVE NO RELIGION"
I've gotten over myself a long time ago.
If you as you claim state that there is no god then you have committed a act of religion, like it or not. Only agnostic have a legitimate claim to have no religion.
First of all I used the quotes express my views, and was giving proper attribution to them. My purpose was not an appeal to authority.
Second, not all christians agree on every little ol' thing.
Get back on point, the fundamental question of religion is: Does God/gods exist?
The moment that you answer that question either in the affirmative or the negative you've engaged in a religious act. If your responce to the question is 'don't know' the position you've taken is that of agnosticism.
One more point; fundmentalism is not an issue of theology, but of epistemology.
First of all my posts are neither trolls, nor are they flame-bait.
You insist that the word religion is a belief in a supernatural power. While that may be one defination it is not the only one.
"In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
"Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards," he continued. "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
The worst case of inconvenience that I've ever experienced with this sort of thing was not at a retailer, but at the library of the Univ. of Texas at Tyler.
I was doing some research and carried my PowerMac bag with me for obvious reasons. When I was leaving the security system went off. The staff sort of freaked. I had to empty my bag and add one item at a time back into it to see if the alarm got set off by that item.
Turns out that a coiled up ethernet patch cable was the culprit. Can you say electromagnetic induction?
Your mistake is believing that atheists are not religious. They are. They just don't believe that God, or gods exist. That is the core of their religious faith. The truly non-religious are agnostic.
As I said in my original post the issue is not about privacy. The bill in question does not in any way regulate what you do in private. I mearly requires for state provided access to be limited in its scope.
Mode the above post down to negative infinity.
"Where people reply to people who haven't read the article"
/.ed.
Not reading the article is often due to the fact that the site that the article gets
Tell that to the victims Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Nuff' Said...
You're concerned about the American Taliban, whereas I'm concerned about Secular Fundamentalism.
As *the undisputed* expert in explaining Baptist Logic to the unwashed mass, I must comment on the parent post.
The issue with government provided services is that a person must pay taxes whether or not they want to, or not. Since ones money goes to various governmental projects one then has the right to opine to one's various state officials as to what that money is spent on, or what that money should not be spent on.
If one chooses to partake of porn in one's own home etc. with the porn payed for out of one's on pocket that's one thing, however requiring another to provide, and pay for porn is a separate issue.
What we have here[1] is a failure to differentiate between the private arena, and the public arena.
[1] here meaning the previous post, and those like it.
Can you say machine code?
"Menu option to use Reverse Polish Notation (been too long since I studied CS, can't even remember what this should do or look like now - changes '=' button to 'enter', though)"
Hurray!, Amen! and Hallelujah!
RPN built in to the Mac calculator!
The 'millennium' *HAS* now arrived!
Population density is a useful metric for many things, but one must discriminate between global population density, and local population density. Using my home state of Texas as an example one finds that the global population density is 79.6 persons per square mile, but if one looks at the population density for my home county of Smith then the local density is 188.2 persons per square mile. Dallas County has a population density of 2,522.6 persons per square mile, and Brewster County has a population density of 1.4 persons per square mile. What is manifest here is that local population has a wide variance.
In physics one often uses the metrics of homogeneity isotropy and linearity, when dealing with various mediums. Let us consider the population density as the medium of interest. The question now becomes one of the homogeneity, isotropy, and linearity of the global population density.
Given the the size of the United States both in terms of both population, and geography it should come as no surprise that the global population density is not homogenous, nor isotropic, nor linear. That being said, it is the case that local population densities can be large, homogenous, isotropic, and linear. This is true for many parts of the Mid-West, and South. It is these situations that cause the problems with employing broad band in an economically efficient fashion.
If one has a county where the population density is low, but tightly clustered then the population density is both, non-homogenous, and non-isotropic. Providing the population center/s with broadband is then "cost effective," provide the total population of the center/s is of sufficient size.
Another county which has the same population density may however have a highly homogenous, and isotropic population density. In such a case the population is evenly scattered over the entire area of the county. Given that the population of the county is of sufficient size it will very well not be "cost effective" to provide that county with broadband.
One of the most prevalent fallacies that folks engage in is the 'fallacy of the single statistic.' No one statistic, nor metric gives an adequate description of a phenomenon. When an argument focuses on one statistic, or metric it is inevitable that a lot of verbiage is going to be wasted on fallacious argumentation.
In general one needs to examine 'size,' 'percentage,' 'distribution,' and 'variance' in making a statistical argument if one is to avoid spurious lines of debate.
It needs a rest. At least on TV.
Are you suggesting that there is no difference between a 13 year girl, and an Incorporated firm ran by several experienced adults with lawyers?
In Texas what you've described is called a 'Terroristic Threat.'
No problem with having such statutes as this. What I object to is the use of "hatefulness" as a criteria. I'm not concerned with the motivation of the speaker, but with the "seriousness" of the threat.
Who said anything about violence? Discriminatory or not.
I advocate sterilization not violence.
Given that words like 'deconstructionism' have meanings that are not obvious, I don't think that the meaning of 'demorality' is automatically obvious. Indeed, given the "social sciences" and what is left of the humanities penchant for using unwieldy words, and convoluted phrasing rather than simple, and clear phrasing it makes good sense to check on meanings of words that one has not encountered before.
"demorality"
You've got me here. I've never seen this word before. Nor can I find a definition of it on Wikipedia, Merriam Webster, or Bartleby(American Heritage Dictionary).
If you're a gay Methodist from Canada...
OFF with your head!