It depends what you've got at hand, and what you're dealing with. If I was stuck somewheres with no dvd/cd burner or external media, had no space, and needed to store something important (email, school work, etc) I'd dump enough of the media I'd downloaded to have enough space to store the thing. The movie I can always get again, or I can always rip the CD a second time. It's all about priorities.
"Moron"... can you see now who's the moron who's making a foll of themself
You state the problem of "who created the creator?"
No, I stated the problem of who created the creator. This of course, necessitates belief in a creator, and comes from claims to the existance of G-d as being the necessary "first cause" that caused the universe (which is based on the tenent that 'everything has a cause'. If one believes this, then one is eventually led to the question of who created the creator. I'll stop repeating myself now....
However, the scientific theories of the creation of the universe cannot explain how something (matter/energy) came from nothing, either. Where did the singularity that started the Big Bang come from? Some would answer that there was a Big Crunch that created it. This devolves into a discussion of a "cycle" of Big Bangs and Crunches. But isn't this almost exactly the view of the woman in the intro to Hawking's book who declares that the universe is "elephants all the way down"?
I'll sidestep now, and pull out something I once heard: "When everything in the universe is compacted into a point of infinite density, the laws of physics no longer apply". I haven't had time to elaborate on it, but if true it provides an interesting answer: what happened before t=0 is irrelevent if this is the case.
And the existentialists come out of the woodwork too...
anyways, if you believe X is true and that eventually leads you to a conclusion that means that X is not true, then what does that say about X? That's what I was talking about. That's the only thing you can rely on. Anything else is an abstraction.
So what you're saying is that Faith and Science are equal in what they provide as truth? Well if that's the case that I'll have faith that the universe was created a mere 6000 years ago by an all-powerful man who will smite us if we don't obey 10 rules... and he needs money....
Um, no... DDOS = Distributed Denial of Service Attack. Focus on the "Denial of Service" part of that. In no way are the spammers being denied service. Instead, they get gigabytes of useless traffic from images being slowly downloaded. Bandwidth costs go up, spammers' profit margins go down.
Just because something is considered scientific doesn't make it fact. Think Columbus. In the world of science theories are continually being disproven. If you look in a physics book from 30 years ago you will find many theories, once belied to be true, that have today been disproved.
Nope, wrong again... I happen to have quite a few old books on physics, electromagnetics from 30 years ago or more (some dating back to WWI) and access to quite a few more. The vast majority of the material in those books is the same as in similar books today. Fact of the matter is, the standard of proof for physics and mathematical equations are much higher than you believe them to be.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are holes in the theory of evolution, big ones. When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution he looked at small genetic variances among species (micro evolution). He then, from his discoveries, hypothesized that all life evolved from a common ancestor (macro evolution). Darwin assumed that the fossil records would soon fill out as people discovered new bones and that one could trace the path of evolution through skeletal evidence. Well that never happened, in fact there are enormous gaps in the fossil record. There is also statistical evidence that contradicts evolution. Assuming that one mutation takes place every second (a generous estimate) the Earth would have to be trillions of times older than scientists speculate it is for the variety of life with complex DNA to have evolved from a single-cell organism.
I don't think you understand timescales. A billion years is a long time. In a population with short lifespans and short reproductive cycles (think bacteria or fruit flies) change happens at a ridiculous pace compared to what you've posted here. One of the problems with what you've posted is that you've assumed only one mutation occurs at one time in any population: in fact there are many, all going on at once.
Now this evidence may not out-right refute evolution, but it does raise some serious questions that should not be glossed over. Holding the theory of evolution up as some infallible pillar of science and criticizing people who point out its flaws as religious zealots only furthers ignorance in this country. If we look to drown out opposition to the theory of evolution rather than allow it to defend itself, we are no better than the Church that tried to suppress Galileo's claims that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Um, no. Replacing a scientific theory with one based on religion is not science, in case you hadn't noticed. All this "intelligent design" BS is exactly that: BS. We can see evolution on a smaller scale in viral and bacterial populations as they adapt in a matter of years to some of the medications we've been using against them.
And you know what else is BS? Intelligent design itself. The existance of the universe does not require G-d: if life as we know it required intelligent design, then who designed the designer? If G-d was the first cause and everything must have a cause, then who caused G-d? Unfortunately attempting to answer these questions results in an infinite regress fallacy
The idea is to make constant requests to the websites ( so that their bandwidth bills will go up and thus drive them out of business or at the very least make it harder for them to make money. *NOT* to DDOS them.
Then do what I ended up doing to my ingrate uncle who dropped off his machine at my house and didn't want to pay anything: Say "you'll get it back when I've fixed the problem" followed closely by "I'm really busy and might not be able to get it fixed for a while, unless I have another incentive". My rationale was that he would either pay up to have it fixed in a decent timeframe, or come and want it back: either way it would be out of my hair.
For family, I at least request that they bring it over so I can work on it where I can have all my resources available (and isolate the machine from the world so it can't infect my network or anyone else).
It was a spyware case, and I settled with him for $20 (half of what I'd usually charge) and he got the machine back in a couple of days rather than months.
This is the cycle of all things, or at least is what happens to most RPG's that start out simple (1..3 books). They start out great, but become crap as expansionitis takes over. Kind of what happens to software as it reaches EOL: bloat and featurism take over....
Re:So why the US don't follow Canada's steps...
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
Here's the best solution to the matter:
USA introduces price controls similar to those in Canada.
Drug companies have two choices: 1. Deal with reduced profits 2. Pack up and go home.
Keep in mind people that these are corporations. They're not going to have zero profits over >0 profits.
If you ask me, if you aren't willing to show solidarity you deserve to suffer.
But then again, this is the Corporate States of America we're talking about.
I'm not so sure about that. I think it would fall to the license. There are all those "Not for distribution" self-extracting archives that software is distributed in, but where in law is this mentioned?
You draw your own conclusions as to what that will mean.
I already have. The majority of the clueless users will migrate to the "new" internet, and all the commercially-minded crackers, spammers and scammers will follow them there and pollute it, leaving the rest of us in peace....
Take a second to compare IE's track record for security/stability when compared to Firefox/Mozilla. Also consider that the vast majority of the serious bugs in Moz have been fixed within *hours*. What has MS' response been to several critical vulnerabilities in IE: "Um.... we may get around to fixing it" or "No, we're never fixing that".
Compare this to: "Oh, X has a security bug.... therefore publisher(X) makes crappy software".
I don't want to need to roll 4d6 for every attack.
Using one kind of die == lacks versatility.
Besides, d10's, d12's etc are are hardly "obscure"... d1000's yes, but when you can get the damned things for under a buck, I'd hardly call them obscure.
Also, you can use them to fascinate non-gamers ("wow, a dice that doesn't have six sides...")
so now we can get a windows-based mac clone that not only is more expensive, but also uglier than that which it copies. Figures.
Apple got it right with the clean, white interface rather than clunky looking beige boxes. This thing just looks cluttered and is about as pretty as a pink-and neon-yellow classic mustang.....
What you're railing against *is*. In a truely "free" market, companies would be free to pull this kind of fraud whenever they wanted, including labelling inferior cheap knockoffs "duracell".
If you leave the R&D to corps, then yes. I was thinking more along the lines of the research being funded by government grants and done at universities sort of thing.
But since I don't live in the corporate states of america, I might have a skewed view of things....
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that sigfnigficant and how does it imply BSD sogftware in the guts?
Because microsoft has a history of making their APIs and front-ends different from everything else on the market, for god knows whatever reason...
Linux is a kernel. The problem is that this is comparing the linux kernel to all of windows XP
It depends what you've got at hand, and what you're dealing with. If I was stuck somewheres with no dvd/cd burner or external media, had no space, and needed to store something important (email, school work, etc) I'd dump enough of the media I'd downloaded to have enough space to store the thing. The movie I can always get again, or I can always rip the CD a second time. It's all about priorities.
"Moron"... can you see now who's the moron who's making a foll of themself
Yes, Yes I can...
I tend to lean this way myself. It's not really faith that I dislike, but religion, and they way religionists act.
You state the problem of "who created the creator?"
No, I stated the problem of who created the creator. This of course, necessitates belief in a creator, and comes from claims to the existance of G-d as being the necessary "first cause" that caused the universe (which is based on the tenent that 'everything has a cause'. If one believes this, then one is eventually led to the question of who created the creator. I'll stop repeating myself now....
However, the scientific theories of the creation of the universe cannot explain how something (matter/energy) came from nothing, either. Where did the singularity that started the Big Bang come from? Some would answer that there was a Big Crunch that created it. This devolves into a discussion of a "cycle" of Big Bangs and Crunches. But isn't this almost exactly the view of the woman in the intro to Hawking's book who declares that the universe is "elephants all the way down"?
I'll sidestep now, and pull out something I once heard: "When everything in the universe is compacted into a point of infinite density, the laws of physics no longer apply". I haven't had time to elaborate on it, but if true it provides an interesting answer: what happened before t=0 is irrelevent if this is the case.
And the existentialists come out of the woodwork too...
anyways, if you believe X is true and that eventually leads you to a conclusion that means that X is not true, then what does that say about X? That's what I was talking about. That's the only thing you can rely on. Anything else is an abstraction.
So what you're saying is that Faith and Science are equal in what they provide as truth? Well if that's the case that I'll have faith that the universe was created a mere 6000 years ago by an all-powerful man who will smite us if we don't obey 10 rules... and he needs money....
Um, no... DDOS = Distributed Denial of Service Attack. Focus on the "Denial of Service" part of that. In no way are the spammers being denied service. Instead, they get gigabytes of useless traffic from images being slowly downloaded. Bandwidth costs go up, spammers' profit margins go down.
Just because something is considered scientific doesn't make it fact. Think Columbus. In the world of science theories are continually being disproven. If you look in a physics book from 30 years ago you will find many theories, once belied to be true, that have today been disproved.
Nope, wrong again... I happen to have quite a few old books on physics, electromagnetics from 30 years ago or more (some dating back to WWI) and access to quite a few more. The vast majority of the material in those books is the same as in similar books today. Fact of the matter is, the standard of proof for physics and mathematical equations are much higher than you believe them to be.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are holes in the theory of evolution, big ones. When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution he looked at small genetic variances among species (micro evolution). He then, from his discoveries, hypothesized that all life evolved from a common ancestor (macro evolution). Darwin assumed that the fossil records would soon fill out as people discovered new bones and that one could trace the path of evolution through skeletal evidence. Well that never happened, in fact there are enormous gaps in the fossil record. There is also statistical evidence that contradicts evolution. Assuming that one mutation takes place every second (a generous estimate) the Earth would have to be trillions of times older than scientists speculate it is for the variety of life with complex DNA to have evolved from a single-cell organism.
I don't think you understand timescales. A billion years is a long time. In a population with short lifespans and short reproductive cycles (think bacteria or fruit flies) change happens at a ridiculous pace compared to what you've posted here. One of the problems with what you've posted is that you've assumed only one mutation occurs at one time in any population: in fact there are many, all going on at once.Now this evidence may not out-right refute evolution, but it does raise some serious questions that should not be glossed over. Holding the theory of evolution up as some infallible pillar of science and criticizing people who point out its flaws as religious zealots only furthers ignorance in this country. If we look to drown out opposition to the theory of evolution rather than allow it to defend itself, we are no better than the Church that tried to suppress Galileo's claims that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Um, no. Replacing a scientific theory with one based on religion is not science, in case you hadn't noticed. All this "intelligent design" BS is exactly that: BS. We can see evolution on a smaller scale in viral and bacterial populations as they adapt in a matter of years to some of the medications we've been using against them.
And you know what else is BS? Intelligent design itself. The existance of the universe does not require G-d: if life as we know it required intelligent design, then who designed the designer? If G-d was the first cause and everything must have a cause, then who caused G-d? Unfortunately attempting to answer these questions results in an infinite regress fallacy
Why is this modded insightful???
The idea is to make constant requests to the websites ( so that their bandwidth bills will go up and thus drive them out of business or at the very least make it harder for them to make money. *NOT* to DDOS them.
Then do what I ended up doing to my ingrate uncle who dropped off his machine at my house and didn't want to pay anything: Say "you'll get it back when I've fixed the problem" followed closely by "I'm really busy and might not be able to get it fixed for a while, unless I have another incentive". My rationale was that he would either pay up to have it fixed in a decent timeframe, or come and want it back: either way it would be out of my hair.
For family, I at least request that they bring it over so I can work on it where I can have all my resources available (and isolate the machine from the world so it can't infect my network or anyone else).
It was a spyware case, and I settled with him for $20 (half of what I'd usually charge) and he got the machine back in a couple of days rather than months.
This is the cycle of all things, or at least is what happens to most RPG's that start out simple (1..3 books). They start out great, but become crap as expansionitis takes over. Kind of what happens to software as it reaches EOL: bloat and featurism take over....
Here's the best solution to the matter:
USA introduces price controls similar to those in Canada.
Drug companies have two choices:
1. Deal with reduced profits
2. Pack up and go home.
Keep in mind people that these are corporations. They're not going to have zero profits over >0 profits.
If you ask me, if you aren't willing to show solidarity you deserve to suffer.
But then again, this is the Corporate States of America we're talking about.
I'm not so sure about that. I think it would fall to the license. There are all those "Not for distribution" self-extracting archives that software is distributed in, but where in law is this mentioned?
maybe not 2k, but xp?
http://torch.cs.dal.ca/~rernst/mspirate.jpg
A better question might be: is it illegal to distribute files created by pirated software?
Offhand I'd say no, and that if so it'd be a bit ridiculous. But still, it makes microsoft rather hypocritical
I already have. The majority of the clueless users will migrate to the "new" internet, and all the commercially-minded crackers, spammers and scammers will follow them there and pollute it, leaving the rest of us in peace....
erm, The kind of person who is being satirical??
But of course, I could be wrong since I'm not a PhD student....
Take a second to compare IE's track record for security/stability when compared to Firefox/Mozilla. Also consider that the vast majority of the serious bugs in Moz have been fixed within *hours*. What has MS' response been to several critical vulnerabilities in IE: "Um.... we may get around to fixing it" or "No, we're never fixing that".
Compare this to: "Oh, X has a security bug.... therefore publisher(X) makes crappy software".
Next?
Boring....
I don't want to need to roll 4d6 for every attack.
Using one kind of die == lacks versatility.
Besides, d10's, d12's etc are are hardly "obscure"... d1000's yes, but when you can get the damned things for under a buck, I'd hardly call them obscure.
Also, you can use them to fascinate non-gamers ("wow, a dice that doesn't have six sides...")
If that's the case, then the guys at M3 Design have been dipping into the LSD a bit too much.... how else would they come up with this design?
so now we can get a windows-based mac clone that not only is more expensive, but also uglier than that which it copies. Figures.
Apple got it right with the clean, white interface rather than clunky looking beige boxes. This thing just looks cluttered and is about as pretty as a pink-and neon-yellow classic mustang.....
Who said anything about Libertarianism?
And well, that's rampant, uncontrolled capitalism for you.....
What you're railing against *is*. In a truely "free" market, companies would be free to pull this kind of fraud whenever they wanted, including labelling inferior cheap knockoffs "duracell".
Win95 original... no
But OSR2.1 had IE 4 tightly integrated
If you leave the R&D to corps, then yes. I was thinking more along the lines of the research being funded by government grants and done at universities sort of thing.
But since I don't live in the corporate states of america, I might have a skewed view of things....