Fact is, IE revisions can break things. I was working for a college teaching Cisco CCNA, and they threw out the latest IE revision as part of the summer software rollout. Long story short, the microsoft update totally fucked Cisco curriculum so a tonne of students couldn't . My contract expired shortly after so I don't know what they did to fix it, but it goes to show you why you shouldn't code for the "standard" of "works on ie right now" if you can at all help it!
If it's that horrible, just buy a big microdrive for your pda and get it to do a bunch of stuff by running different programs, really; there's a difference between being a geek and being just a tech consumer, and that difference is ingenuity.
Actually, I'm an atheist myself, but I'm respecting the beliefs of those who aren't. In this case, it's not atheists vs. christians, it's everyone vs. idiots. Because of that, there's no reason to attack the idea of god creating the universe because all that does is turn off people who would have otherwise listened to reason.
I don't think they necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.
A true religion cannot, and will not be at odds with science, because god created the world. Why would god create a world that proves he doesn't exist?
When religion and science are at odds, it means that someone has been playing god and chagned the religion. Using science to understand god is like studying the mona lisa to understand leonardo davinci. If the unofficial biography says one thing and the mona lisa says another, then then mona lisa is right every time, because it was created by the man.
Actually, they have. Bacteria in the laboratory have been seen to evolve thanks to their extremely fast breeding cycle.
Frankly, by ignoring the scientists, fundamentalists prove exactly what they are. God does not exist at odds with science -- Period. If God created the world then studying the world gives insight into God -- Period.
The fact that science threatens some theists only says that those people don't have faith in God, and they're afraid.
There's another word for people without faith in God, you know. Atheists.
In this case, that's a tangental arguement which has it's own merits, but is a barrier to what really matters in this case.
I'm suprised at the number of people who wnt only to declare total victory over theists in this case. Does it matter in the long run as long as the stuff we DO know isn't blocked by people like these people are trying to do to evolution?
It's like you read my post, then managed to completely misunderstand it.
Here goes the cliffs notes version:
-God created the universe (I know, just stay with me here)
-God uses processes to create the universe as we know it
*** Scientists ***
-Scientists study universe, try to understand said proceses.
-Scientists try to understand how god creates universe.
-Therefore, scientists are using the work of god to understand Gods work.
*** Creationists ***
-Creationist creates philosophy
-Creationist ignores universe if it conflicts with philosophy
-Therefore, creationists are using the work of creationists to "understand" Gods work
-Therefore, the creationists are "those who don't even want to look at the world God created for clues about how He did it before declaring that they know how the world works because of literalist interpetations of the bible."
I hear you, but this isn't the time to be arguing for or against the existance of God. In spite of what the fundamentalists would have you believe, this isn't some "athiest vs. christian" debate here, it's an "loud fundamentalists vs. everyone else" arguement. Rather than just point at anyone with the opinion that god created the world in the creationists sense and shout "RELGION BLOWS!", it's more productive to argue against what is really wrong here, the support of an incorrect dogma and the weakening of the credibility of one which may or may not be 100% correct, but is at least based on real-world study rather than a literal interpetation of scripture.
The problem in my eyes is that dogma overrode the world, if that makes any sense. If god created the world, then investigating the world should give insight into god, shouldn't it? If you disregard the world and speak only from dogma, aren't you disregarding the greatest work of the creator, and in doing so making your own religion not related to the one which would describe the creator?
I'm not saying ANYTHING as fact in the domain of science or God. I'm talking about why the creationists opinions are further from the reality set forth by God than the scientists. The former rely on an interpetation, a philosophy divorced from the world and created by man in an attempt millenia ago to explain what God had done, but the latter relies on examining this earth, created by God, and trying to understand the processes which lead to this moment and the processes which run the world.
If you start with the proposition that God created the world, then you cannot follow with arguements that observing and learning about world won't help you learn more about the world god created.
We at the law firms of Dewey, Beatum, and Run represent the roman catholic church in this lawsuit against you for causing a disturbance with the malicious use of the phrase "jesus tapdancing christ".:P
Actually, the theory I've read is that insects, bacterium, and vertabates evolved from three different forms of life under the sea with different cell configurations, which evolved into the different forms of life we see.
Of course, I like your theory that god created everything as it is right at this second, too. I mean, giving an omnipotent, omniscent being the small-minded shortsighted attributes of men by telling people that he wouldn't possibly have created life as an emergent system in the universe, because even though the evidence strongly points to such an occurance, a minister somewhere says it couldn't happen, that's a good theory too.
God created this world. It's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it.
I'm not talking about the evolutionists, I'm talking about those who don't even want to look at the world God created for clues about how He did it before declaring that they know how the world works because of literalist interpetations of the bible.
It's the worst waste of money since the Bill Gates scat porn special edition DVD!
This is something that would work great as a 50 dollar network appliance, but priced in the eMachines reigon, it's a waste of money, even for people who DO hurt their machines a lot. For ten bucks a month, you could get the local twelve year old to clean up your machine every once in a while, and at the same time you can burn CDs and actually use the machine for stuff they don't want you to use it for!
Seriously, I think someone needs to give their business model a solid look once more before they start shipping. "So...We're going to sell a sub PC....at PC prices? And charge per month? It's BRILLIANT! We TOTALLY won't be kicked to the curb by Dell!"
The fact that a substantial part of IBM has always been research and development makes them a bit different than the opportunists who run around patenting things like one-click shopping.
Did you know that IBM created the current method for creating ultra high capacity harddrives?
Those bastards. How *DARE* they spend huge amounts of money, make money back on royalties to their discoveries, and reinvest that capital into making new discoveries!!!
I think you're underestimating both humans and the environment.
As a canadian I can tell you that even if the temp. raises more than a few degrees, the earth will still be very inhabitable, and in places, even pleasant.
No, it's been reported in Canada. A flag was planted on canadian soil on a remote island in the arctic. All international maps show the island well within our borders.
I'm wondering where this "land grab" is coming from at all, frankly. Canada has had it's borders set for decades, and the idea of trying to change them, especially the way denmark has done, should be offensive to civilized peoples. All it's doing is giving second thoughts to those who would otherwise abhor the thought of our country having a very powerful army. This isn't the middle ages, after all, wars over land should be a thing of the past! Our borders are set, our maps written! There should be more important things to worry about, and for Russia, at least, there are. I don't know WHAT the danes are up to, but surely they have better things to do than try to snatch up arctic islands?!
Maybe that's just my Canadian jingostism talking though.
Certainly more difficult. Ignoring linux for the moment, firefox is designed in a way which makes it more difficult for websites to do undesirable things. I think you'll see more examples of this as "advertisers" try to exploit it because it's market share is increasing.
Yeah, the grandparent is a zealot - over-exagerating about "OMG, w1nd0z3 is sooo crashy and insecure". I use XP, and rather like it. Since I'm a geek in the know, I can keep Windows running safely and smoothly, when I need to run it.
You know, I've got this big monitor sitting on my desk suffering from a cold solder joint somewhere deep inside it's bowels, so sometimes it blinks out, but if I hit it just right, it works fine for another few days. The lid on my laptop won't stay up because it's gettin on in age and has seen a lot of use, but if I balance it just like so, it stays up fine, and if I use an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse, it's fine anyway. On the laptop you need to roll the headphone jack around to get a solid connection or you can't hear anything out of the speakers.
Just because I know how to make them work doesn't mean they aren't broken.
Up until Windows XP Service Pack 2, a windows machine could be hacked by a virus, infected, and turned into an attacker minutes after being placed on a network, just by being placed on the network. Even now, Internet Explorer security is poor at best, an oxymoron at worst. For a long time before the issue was finally addressed, Outlook Express would propogate viruses just by showing an e-mail in the preview plane. It's gotten to the point where rather than try to create software that isn't hacked in minutes, they'd rather just give everyone a free firewall, which is fine(personally, I think that denying access to programs that don't ask for it first is just smart design), but doesn't make the software underneath secure. After all, sticking a car with all the doors open and the keys in the ignition unsupervised behind a chain link fence doesn't change the fact that the doors are all open and the keys are in the ignition and nobody is watching.
Slashdot Mirror
You're full of shit in a very special way.
How about you go back to your corner?
Fact is, IE revisions can break things. I was working for a college teaching Cisco CCNA, and they threw out the latest IE revision as part of the summer software rollout. Long story short, the microsoft update totally fucked Cisco curriculum so a tonne of students couldn't . My contract expired shortly after so I don't know what they did to fix it, but it goes to show you why you shouldn't code for the "standard" of "works on ie right now" if you can at all help it!
If it's that horrible, just buy a big microdrive for your pda and get it to do a bunch of stuff by running different programs, really; there's a difference between being a geek and being just a tech consumer, and that difference is ingenuity.
Actually, I'm an atheist myself, but I'm respecting the beliefs of those who aren't. In this case, it's not atheists vs. christians, it's everyone vs. idiots. Because of that, there's no reason to attack the idea of god creating the universe because all that does is turn off people who would have otherwise listened to reason.
There was that one time when we wanted to see how well humans burned, but that's another story altogether!
I don't think they necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.
A true religion cannot, and will not be at odds with science, because god created the world. Why would god create a world that proves he doesn't exist?
When religion and science are at odds, it means that someone has been playing god and chagned the religion. Using science to understand god is like studying the mona lisa to understand leonardo davinci. If the unofficial biography says one thing and the mona lisa says another, then then mona lisa is right every time, because it was created by the man.
Actually, they have. Bacteria in the laboratory have been seen to evolve thanks to their extremely fast breeding cycle.
Frankly, by ignoring the scientists, fundamentalists prove exactly what they are. God does not exist at odds with science -- Period. If God created the world then studying the world gives insight into God -- Period.
The fact that science threatens some theists only says that those people don't have faith in God, and they're afraid.
There's another word for people without faith in God, you know. Atheists.
In this case, that's a tangental arguement which has it's own merits, but is a barrier to what really matters in this case.
I'm suprised at the number of people who wnt only to declare total victory over theists in this case. Does it matter in the long run as long as the stuff we DO know isn't blocked by people like these people are trying to do to evolution?
It's like you read my post, then managed to completely misunderstand it.
Here goes the cliffs notes version:
-God created the universe (I know, just stay with me here)
-God uses processes to create the universe as we know it
*** Scientists ***
-Scientists study universe, try to understand said proceses.
-Scientists try to understand how god creates universe.
-Therefore, scientists are using the work of god to understand Gods work.
*** Creationists ***
-Creationist creates philosophy
-Creationist ignores universe if it conflicts with philosophy
-Therefore, creationists are using the work of creationists to "understand" Gods work
-Therefore, the creationists are "those who don't even want to look at the world God created for clues about how He did it before declaring that they know how the world works because of literalist interpetations of the bible."
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
I hear you, but this isn't the time to be arguing for or against the existance of God. In spite of what the fundamentalists would have you believe, this isn't some "athiest vs. christian" debate here, it's an "loud fundamentalists vs. everyone else" arguement. Rather than just point at anyone with the opinion that god created the world in the creationists sense and shout "RELGION BLOWS!", it's more productive to argue against what is really wrong here, the support of an incorrect dogma and the weakening of the credibility of one which may or may not be 100% correct, but is at least based on real-world study rather than a literal interpetation of scripture.
The problem in my eyes is that dogma overrode the world, if that makes any sense. If god created the world, then investigating the world should give insight into god, shouldn't it? If you disregard the world and speak only from dogma, aren't you disregarding the greatest work of the creator, and in doing so making your own religion not related to the one which would describe the creator?
I'm not saying ANYTHING as fact in the domain of science or God. I'm talking about why the creationists opinions are further from the reality set forth by God than the scientists. The former rely on an interpetation, a philosophy divorced from the world and created by man in an attempt millenia ago to explain what God had done, but the latter relies on examining this earth, created by God, and trying to understand the processes which lead to this moment and the processes which run the world.
If you start with the proposition that God created the world, then you cannot follow with arguements that observing and learning about world won't help you learn more about the world god created.
We at the law firms of Dewey, Beatum, and Run represent the roman catholic church in this lawsuit against you for causing a disturbance with the malicious use of the phrase "jesus tapdancing christ". :P
Actually, the theory I've read is that insects, bacterium, and vertabates evolved from three different forms of life under the sea with different cell configurations, which evolved into the different forms of life we see.
Of course, I like your theory that god created everything as it is right at this second, too. I mean, giving an omnipotent, omniscent being the small-minded shortsighted attributes of men by telling people that he wouldn't possibly have created life as an emergent system in the universe, because even though the evidence strongly points to such an occurance, a minister somewhere says it couldn't happen, that's a good theory too.
God created this world. It's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it.
I'm not talking about the evolutionists, I'm talking about those who don't even want to look at the world God created for clues about how He did it before declaring that they know how the world works because of literalist interpetations of the bible.
It's the worst waste of money since the Bill Gates scat porn special edition DVD!
This is something that would work great as a 50 dollar network appliance, but priced in the eMachines reigon, it's a waste of money, even for people who DO hurt their machines a lot. For ten bucks a month, you could get the local twelve year old to clean up your machine every once in a while, and at the same time you can burn CDs and actually use the machine for stuff they don't want you to use it for!
Seriously, I think someone needs to give their business model a solid look once more before they start shipping. "So...We're going to sell a sub PC....at PC prices? And charge per month? It's BRILLIANT! We TOTALLY won't be kicked to the curb by Dell!"
The fact that a substantial part of IBM has always been research and development makes them a bit different than the opportunists who run around patenting things like one-click shopping.
Did you know that IBM created the current method for creating ultra high capacity harddrives?
Those bastards. How *DARE* they spend huge amounts of money, make money back on royalties to their discoveries, and reinvest that capital into making new discoveries!!!
I'm afraid you'll have to choose a site without the .dk at the end before I'll believe you. There wouldn't be a dispute if it was so cut and dry.
I'm sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear you over the raging -40 arctic winds.
I think you're underestimating both humans and the environment.
As a canadian I can tell you that even if the temp. raises more than a few degrees, the earth will still be very inhabitable, and in places, even pleasant.
No, it's been reported in Canada. A flag was planted on canadian soil on a remote island in the arctic. All international maps show the island well within our borders.
I'm wondering where this "land grab" is coming from at all, frankly. Canada has had it's borders set for decades, and the idea of trying to change them, especially the way denmark has done, should be offensive to civilized peoples. All it's doing is giving second thoughts to those who would otherwise abhor the thought of our country having a very powerful army. This isn't the middle ages, after all, wars over land should be a thing of the past! Our borders are set, our maps written! There should be more important things to worry about, and for Russia, at least, there are. I don't know WHAT the danes are up to, but surely they have better things to do than try to snatch up arctic islands?!
Maybe that's just my Canadian jingostism talking though.
Certainly more difficult. Ignoring linux for the moment, firefox is designed in a way which makes it more difficult for websites to do undesirable things. I think you'll see more examples of this as "advertisers" try to exploit it because it's market share is increasing.
What? I'm sorry, your point was lost amongst your nagging.
Yeah, the grandparent is a zealot - over-exagerating about "OMG, w1nd0z3 is sooo crashy and insecure". I use XP, and rather like it. Since I'm a geek in the know, I can keep Windows running safely and smoothly, when I need to run it.
You know, I've got this big monitor sitting on my desk suffering from a cold solder joint somewhere deep inside it's bowels, so sometimes it blinks out, but if I hit it just right, it works fine for another few days. The lid on my laptop won't stay up because it's gettin on in age and has seen a lot of use, but if I balance it just like so, it stays up fine, and if I use an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse, it's fine anyway. On the laptop you need to roll the headphone jack around to get a solid connection or you can't hear anything out of the speakers.
Just because I know how to make them work doesn't mean they aren't broken.
Up until Windows XP Service Pack 2, a windows machine could be hacked by a virus, infected, and turned into an attacker minutes after being placed on a network, just by being placed on the network. Even now, Internet Explorer security is poor at best, an oxymoron at worst. For a long time before the issue was finally addressed, Outlook Express would propogate viruses just by showing an e-mail in the preview plane. It's gotten to the point where rather than try to create software that isn't hacked in minutes, they'd rather just give everyone a free firewall, which is fine(personally, I think that denying access to programs that don't ask for it first is just smart design), but doesn't make the software underneath secure. After all, sticking a car with all the doors open and the keys in the ignition unsupervised behind a chain link fence doesn't change the fact that the doors are all open and the keys are in the ignition and nobody is watching.