condoms are NOT the only thing keeping people from unknowingly spreading a horrible, deadly disease. It can curb it, but abstinence is MUCH better
That may be true, but since people aren't going to stop fucking because the pope says it's a bad idea, I'm fairly certain the next best thing is not to tell them they will suffer eternal torment if they use a condom.
Catholics, myself included, believe that life begins at conception and so when you get rid of an embryo, anytime after fertilization, you are destroying a life.
Life begins at conception, which presumably means the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. What happens when the zygote later divides, to form identical twins? Does God intervene and inject a new soul into the womb? What happens, in those rare cases, when two zygotes merge, to form a chimera? Does God intervene and pluck a soul from the womb? Where does it go?
To quote Sam Harris, "this arithmetic of souls simply does not make sense."
GNOME isn't, and never has been, a window manager. It's a desktop environment, which has a window manager as one component. A GNOME VNC client makes perfect sense for a desktop environment.
To be atheist is to actively disbelieve in God, which still requires some degree of faith.
Many accuse atheism of dogmatism because they perceive it to require "faith" just like a belief in God. I'm an atheist, and I believe there is no god. Am I certain of this? No, because disproving god altogether is impossible, as any agnostic would agree. Is this dogmatic? Does it require faith? To say it's a matter of faith is to play a semantic game. To believe that god is a human creation requires a vastly different type of "faith" than to believe that (for example) the Christian God is the one true creator of the universe.
When one's beliefs scale with the evidence, I really would argue the word "faith" is completely inappropriate. There is certainly no compelling evidence whatsoever to suggest God exists (and an argument from ignorance is no evidence), so I'd agree that a positive belief in god is a matter of faith. However, seeing the multitude of religious beliefs and creation stories, and the expansive graveyard of the dead gods of our history, and a basic understanding of the credulity (and the necessity thereof) of children, and the long term effectiveness of indoctrination, and our innate fear of death, these things seem to me to suggest God is a human fabrication.
My disbelief in god scales with this evidence. It is simply not faith.
Their main argument is that the cell is an engine, just like a boat engine (which is designed). The cell has a tail (flagellum) that spins like a propeller to make the whole cell mobile.
It'd be nice if they'd at least make an effort to come up with some new material. The flagellum argument was so thoroughly and publicly destroyed at the Dover trial, bringing it up again is just flogging a poor, tired horse.
I was curious, so I tried this scenario with Nautilus (the file manager in GNOME). It prompted me: "A folder named 'A' already exists. Do you want to replace it?" which sounds rather much like the Mac OS behavior your described. But it goes onto explain: "The folder already exists in 'B'. Replacing it will overwrite any files in the folder that conflict with the files being copied." This suggests instead that unlike the dialog heading, B/A will not be replaced, but the two directories' files merged. Indeed this is what it does.
I'd call this a bug. (The wording of the dialog, that is.)
You apply your common sense to figure out what's metaphor and what isn't. Fair enough. But that necessarily means our understanding of scripture changes as our understanding of nature evolves. What wisdom can we hope to glean from the bible if we are continually revising it against humankind's changing standards? If it's to be taken literally, it's ridiculous and demonstrably wrong. If it's partly or entirely to be taken metaphorically then we end up applying our own meaning to the bible, rather than take meaning from it.
Until religion makes claims about the physical universe that contradicts what we have learned through science. Then suddenly coexistence isn't quite as easy.
[...] but the damned "change workspace" accelerator is a left+right hand motion which means I have to take my hand off the mouse to do it.
You can change it. I haven't used the default change workspace shortcut for years. I have 8 workspaces, 4x2, and I use ctrl-alt-1 through 4, and ctrl-alt-q through r. (Note I use Caps as another Ctrl key, which makes this shortcut much simpler.)
New shortcuts are awkward at first, but they quickly become second nature. And this one requires very little extra movement of my left hand and it carries well with different keyboard layouts.
Yeah, and the manner in which he said it reminded me painfully of "But evolution is JUST a theory!"
I realize the purpose of these videos were to present string theory to the layman, but I'd have preferred it if they stuck to the proper scientific definition of theory, because the alternative is, as you say, just dumbing people down about science and perpetuating a common ignorance of what a real scientific theory is.
It's easy to say the idea is obvious once someone else has thought of it and presented it to you - but was it "obvious" to people before Amazon did it? If so, then why was Amazon the first?
I think that's the wrong question. All obvious things are done by somebody for the first time at some point.
Not really. In some cases I'm sure that's true, but in the redhat.com case, it seems as if all devices are being served the same HTML and CSS content. The visual differences are a matter of rendering.
11 seconds on my BB 8300.
RIM's magic beads involves recompressing images in transit. But your speculation that BB doesn't get served up the graphical tabs isn't quite the right perspective. What's really happening is that the tabs are rendered using certain CSS properties that BB doesn't fully support. So BB receives the same page and css, it just processes it differently due to its incomplete CSS support, so it doesn't end up requesting the background images used to build the tabs.
For now it's US only. I emailed Amazon and asked this will be available to other countries and got the expected "we apologize for the inconvenience" non-answer from them.
"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."
Yes, and it's unfortunate that Newton gave up so easily and let Laplace get all the credit for a discovery that was very much within his intellectual capacity. We hear the concession "it is God's doing and we cannot know the mind of God" far too often. It is culturally stifling and intellectually lame.
I spent about 2 weeks trying to get Myth (MythDora) and Freevo to work at all on a pretty vanilla new Dell PC with new hardware reported to be compatible.
Speaking on behalf of Freevo, I can say we know it sucks, and we're not happy with the suckage either. Freevo 2 (whose vaporwareness admittedly approaches that of Duke Nukem Forever) will suck less in that respect, and our partnership with GeeXbox will make the distribution aspect of it much simpler.
Actually does Genesis say that man was incapable of sin, or only that man had never sinned (and therefore was in good standing with God, and all the benefits that entails)? Indeed if it does say man was incapable of sin that's an amusing contradiction, but it's not my understanding of the story.
Why does it seem like the KDE screen widgets are "flimsy"? For some reason, everything seems thin and breakable. This seems to have perpetuated into KDE4. Am I the only one that notices this?
It's not just you. I've felt this since the beginning as well. It's an interesting perception. KDE is clearly quite powerful and flexible, and I've certainly not experienced any significant instability (not at least relative to other software), but yet I definitely do get the impression that it is toyish. I can't quite put my finger on where the sense comes from.
Morality is relative to society, and society and social norms evolve. Morality therefore isn't absolute, for this reason. Theists will likely disagree. (Based on your post I suspect we probably agree here, but I just wanted to point out that morality is relative to something.)
Slashdot Mirror
That may be true, but since people aren't going to stop fucking because the pope says it's a bad idea, I'm fairly certain the next best thing is not to tell them they will suffer eternal torment if they use a condom.
Life begins at conception, which presumably means the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. What happens when the zygote later divides, to form identical twins? Does God intervene and inject a new soul into the womb? What happens, in those rare cases, when two zygotes merge, to form a chimera? Does God intervene and pluck a soul from the womb? Where does it go?
To quote Sam Harris, "this arithmetic of souls simply does not make sense."
For certain definitions of sin, right?
I start each day by worshiping and giving thanks to my trusty golden calf and I lead a perfectly happy, moral, and meaningful life.
GNOME isn't, and never has been, a window manager. It's a desktop environment, which has a window manager as one component. A GNOME VNC client makes perfect sense for a desktop environment.
Many accuse atheism of dogmatism because they perceive it to require "faith" just like a belief in God. I'm an atheist, and I believe there is no god. Am I certain of this? No, because disproving god altogether is impossible, as any agnostic would agree. Is this dogmatic? Does it require faith? To say it's a matter of faith is to play a semantic game. To believe that god is a human creation requires a vastly different type of "faith" than to believe that (for example) the Christian God is the one true creator of the universe.
When one's beliefs scale with the evidence, I really would argue the word "faith" is completely inappropriate. There is certainly no compelling evidence whatsoever to suggest God exists (and an argument from ignorance is no evidence), so I'd agree that a positive belief in god is a matter of faith. However, seeing the multitude of religious beliefs and creation stories, and the expansive graveyard of the dead gods of our history, and a basic understanding of the credulity (and the necessity thereof) of children, and the long term effectiveness of indoctrination, and our innate fear of death, these things seem to me to suggest God is a human fabrication.
My disbelief in god scales with this evidence. It is simply not faith.
Why are they suing companies that manufacture typical, non-personal-protection smartphones?
Figured I should file it: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493964
I was curious, so I tried this scenario with Nautilus (the file manager in GNOME). It prompted me: "A folder named 'A' already exists. Do you want to replace it?" which sounds rather much like the Mac OS behavior your described. But it goes onto explain: "The folder already exists in 'B'. Replacing it will overwrite any files in the folder that conflict with the files being copied." This suggests instead that unlike the dialog heading, B/A will not be replaced, but the two directories' files merged. Indeed this is what it does.
I'd call this a bug. (The wording of the dialog, that is.)
You apply your common sense to figure out what's metaphor and what isn't. Fair enough. But that necessarily means our understanding of scripture changes as our understanding of nature evolves. What wisdom can we hope to glean from the bible if we are continually revising it against humankind's changing standards? If it's to be taken literally, it's ridiculous and demonstrably wrong. If it's partly or entirely to be taken metaphorically then we end up applying our own meaning to the bible, rather than take meaning from it.
It's very fortunate for us that God included in the bible instructions on what portions to treat as metaphor and what portions to take more literally.
Until religion makes claims about the physical universe that contradicts what we have learned through science. Then suddenly coexistence isn't quite as easy.
You can change it. I haven't used the default change workspace shortcut for years. I have 8 workspaces, 4x2, and I use ctrl-alt-1 through 4, and ctrl-alt-q through r. (Note I use Caps as another Ctrl key, which makes this shortcut much simpler.)
New shortcuts are awkward at first, but they quickly become second nature. And this one requires very little extra movement of my left hand and it carries well with different keyboard layouts.
Yeah, and the manner in which he said it reminded me painfully of "But evolution is JUST a theory!"
I realize the purpose of these videos were to present string theory to the layman, but I'd have preferred it if they stuck to the proper scientific definition of theory, because the alternative is, as you say, just dumbing people down about science and perpetuating a common ignorance of what a real scientific theory is.
In fairness to the grandparent, I didn't get the sense that he was promoting this opinion from his post.
Not really. In some cases I'm sure that's true, but in the redhat.com case, it seems as if all devices are being served the same HTML and CSS content. The visual differences are a matter of rendering.
11 seconds on my BB 8300. RIM's magic beads involves recompressing images in transit. But your speculation that BB doesn't get served up the graphical tabs isn't quite the right perspective. What's really happening is that the tabs are rendered using certain CSS properties that BB doesn't fully support. So BB receives the same page and css, it just processes it differently due to its incomplete CSS support, so it doesn't end up requesting the background images used to build the tabs.
No. Dawkins explains this nicely in his book Climbing Mount Improbable.
For now it's US only. I emailed Amazon and asked this will be available to other countries and got the expected "we apologize for the inconvenience" non-answer from them.
Morality is relative to society, and society and social norms evolve. Morality therefore isn't absolute, for this reason. Theists will likely disagree. (Based on your post I suspect we probably agree here, but I just wanted to point out that morality is relative to something.)