Even if Jesus did perform miracles... Uri Geller has performed miracles too, on television. Does this imply that we should believe everything that Geller says? Of course not.
So you might say Jesus' miracles are impossible to explain scientifically. Even then, the argument is bogus.
"(1) X performed miracles. (2) X said he was empowered to do so by God. (3) Therefore God exists." is not a valid argument. X could have been mistaken. That's a logical possibility, isn't it? Your argument needs to be fleshed out some more if it is to be logical.
I don't see the point of sending the same individual 6 times. The point is to use different people to check out what kind of people will be treated as harmless.
Hmmm... I can't help suspecting something dodgy here. If there was no consulation done, on what grounds is this being done? Believing MS's flashy marketing efforts? Those in charge of IT being clueless? Or some kind of dodgy deal in a smoke-filled room?
MS has a lot to gain by snagging an entire department (it does have real effects in terms of future projects, no matter how many waivers existing projects get), and I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to use unethical inducements.
Your post is a bit hard to make sense out of. Government/market conspiracy to burst the bubble, to raise unemployment? Now that's a bit way out there. I'm well aware that interest rates etc. are used as a tool to increase unemployment - but I don't think they would intentionally set out to create a recession, which is what you seem to be implying. Anyways, downturns are part of the business cycle, and no matter what any arrogant politician says (like the UK's chancellor Gordon Brown in the late '90s) the business cycle ain't going away anytime soon.
And your link is encouraging people to spam Slashdot - I'm sure you just forgot to fill in the href.
How can you even begin to compare the cost of spam with the cost of slashdot posts? The cost of reading a post on slashdot is a reasonable cost - a very low one.
So it looks like we have here is a start-up featuring really smart people whose efforts to do world-changing programming tool/language research did not get anywhere in the large companies they previously worked for.
Well, AspectJ is doing pretty well, and a new 1.1 version with badly-needed incremental compilation is in the works - it just so happens that, yes, the Xerox PARC research center was spun off as a separate company by Xerox to cut costs. But AspectJ is certainly still alive!
You can get rid of that repitition in that example in any decent language. Just define a procedure which takes an object and a list of argument pairs and calls glock repeatedly on that.
Of course that can be generalised further...
For some examples which can't easily be solved with traditional programming languages, check out aspectj.org. AspectJ is a preview of what intentional programming will be like, and the project was founded by Gregor Kiczales, cofounder of this new company.
IIRC, OpenGL has many non-standard extensions which aren't supported everywhere. You might have to write one, two, three separate versions of your own rendering code - create your own abstraction layer - to take advantage of these extensions while degrading gracefully where they're not available. Or just require a specific graphics card, and watch your marketshare shrink.
With a specific version of DirectX, you write to an abstract hardware layer, once, and it runs everywhere (in theory).
Re:Guardian Interview with Christopher Reeve
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2
Your post is a mountain of lies, half-truths and sheer irrationality.
The real question is: Is it moral and upright to take a growing child and pervert them in a way that doesn't allow them to live a normal life or not?
What are you talking about?
If you mean "teaching that masturbation is evil" or "homosexuality is evil", then I'd have to say, I agree - it's not moral or upright. Hence, fundamentalist Christianity is not moral or upright.
Are you some kind of industry astroturfer, or are you actually that stupid?
Some sources suggested the committee had angered the pharmaceutical industry or other research enterprises because of its recommendations to tighten up conflict-of-interest rules and impose new restrictions on research involving the mentally ill.
"It's very frustrating," said Paul Gelsinger, who became a member of the committee after his son, Jesse, died in a Pennsylvania gene therapy experiment that was later found to have broken basic safety rules. "It's always been my view that money is running the research show," he said. "So with this administration's ties to industry, I'm not surprised" to see the committee killed.
Please, give it up. The article does talk about "careless elimination of life-saving safety regulations in gene-therapy". This entire thread was caused by lack of reading comprehension. Next!
They wanted to blame the asthma on industrial particulates, when in truth, the leading cause of asthma in the inner cities has been clearly shown to be Roach droppings.
Really? Is this the scientific concensus? That's news to me.
Some of them are things like sales order documents, out in the field the sales rep punches in the order to a form in his outlook client. When he connects to the corp mail system the form is translated into an email and routed through rules on the exchange server that do things like if order $100,000 send to billing else send to manager/vp for aproval.
Uh, you can do form->email in HTML. No DHTML, not one line of Javascript. You do not need a scriptable email client for that kind of task.
Of course, Javascript helps for validation, but you still don't need a scriptable email client for that.
<straight-face>
So since all this was already available - are you saying M$'s customers that bought into this are completely clueless?
</straight-face>
That could equally well be a reply to the sarcasm or a reply which missed the sarcasm. Think about it. Although, I'd guess it's a reply to the sarcasm - you'd have to be pretty doped up on crack to take "Please, Slashdot, tell me how I'm supposed to think!" as a literal request - wouldn't you say?
Exactly. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. It's completely absurd. It was obviously dreamt up by a lawyer with no clue about how email, Usenet etc. work.
Hussein could end the sanctions any time he wants by complying with the UN resolutions.
You're a fool. The US has stated over and over they want "regime change", nothing less. Yes, they are contradictory about it - but this is the real message. UN resolutions are an excuse.
The US does not attack other nations unless the US or one of it's allies is attacked.
That's a steaming pile of bullshit. You are thoroughly ignorant of post-WWII history.
in modern history, has the US attacked unprovoked,
Yes.
executed civillians
Yes.
and occupied it's territory?
In Yugoslavia they forced an "agreement" on Milosevic which they knew he would not sign by asking him to countenance a total NATO occupation.
The US does not deploy poison gas on it's own people.
Um, I think you should know, he was our ally then. We didn't condemn him - in fact, we supplied the materials he used to make those chemical weapons. This was in the news recently - did you miss it?
The US does not consistently violate every single UN resolution concerning it
Not every one, no. It merely vetoes every single UN resolution it or Israel doesn't like.
including no-fly zones and weapons inspections.
The US has refused weapons inspections from the United Nations, and interfered with its internal politics to get the internationally-respected head of their Chemical Weapons disarmament programme fired.
The US did not deliberately set fire to thousands of oil wells causing the greatest ecological disaster in human history.
True - but it did deploy Agent Orange in Vietnam.
The US does not give $25,000 as an incentive to families of suicide bombers.
Ha! The US has given far more than $25,000 to terrorist states and terrorist paramilitaries.
The US did not send intelligence agents to meet with 9/11 hijackers.
A CIA intelligence agent met Osama fucking Bin Laden in hospital shortly before 9/11.
The US does not send civilians to shelter in military command posts it knows will be bombed.
No, but it does bomb the Red Cross in Afghanistan - twice.
Face it - you can not defend Hussein rationally.
I'm not trying to defend him. He's an evil man. But placing the blame on him for sanctions is simply incorrect and ignores the US's culpability.
Slashdot Mirror
So you might say Jesus' miracles are impossible to explain scientifically. Even then, the argument is bogus.
"(1) X performed miracles. (2) X said he was empowered to do so by God. (3) Therefore God exists." is not a valid argument. X could have been mistaken. That's a logical possibility, isn't it? Your argument needs to be fleshed out some more if it is to be logical.
MS has a lot to gain by snagging an entire department (it does have real effects in terms of future projects, no matter how many waivers existing projects get), and I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to use unethical inducements.
And your link is encouraging people to spam Slashdot - I'm sure you just forgot to fill in the href.
Do you really think we're that stupid?
Well, AspectJ is doing pretty well, and a new 1.1 version with badly-needed incremental compilation is in the works - it just so happens that, yes, the Xerox PARC research center was spun off as a separate company by Xerox to cut costs. But AspectJ is certainly still alive!
Of course that can be generalised further...
For some examples which can't easily be solved with traditional programming languages, check out aspectj.org. AspectJ is a preview of what intentional programming will be like, and the project was founded by Gregor Kiczales, cofounder of this new company.
With a specific version of DirectX, you write to an abstract hardware layer, once, and it runs everywhere (in theory).
The real question is: Is it moral and upright to take a growing child and pervert them in a way that doesn't allow them to live a normal life or not?
What are you talking about?
If you mean "teaching that masturbation is evil" or "homosexuality is evil", then I'd have to say, I agree - it's not moral or upright. Hence, fundamentalist Christianity is not moral or upright.
Really? Is this the scientific concensus? That's news to me.
Uh, you can do form->email in HTML. No DHTML, not one line of Javascript. You do not need a scriptable email client for that kind of task.
Of course, Javascript helps for validation, but you still don't need a scriptable email client for that.
<straight-face>
So since all this was already available - are you saying M$'s customers that bought into this are completely clueless?
</straight-face>
No, really, it's no trouble!
Because none of those words have precisely the same meaning as incentivize? It's more specific than encourage.
I'm sure there are many vapid and near-vapid words out there from the management lexicon, but this is not one of them.
Because it was a passable analogy, perhaps?
If you don't like the MS-bashing here, either rebut it or leave.
That could equally well be a reply to the sarcasm or a reply which missed the sarcasm. Think about it. Although, I'd guess it's a reply to the sarcasm - you'd have to be pretty doped up on crack to take "Please, Slashdot, tell me how I'm supposed to think!" as a literal request - wouldn't you say?
You're a fool. The US has stated over and over they want "regime change", nothing less. Yes, they are contradictory about it - but this is the real message. UN resolutions are an excuse.
The US does not attack other nations unless the US or one of it's allies is attacked.
That's a steaming pile of bullshit. You are thoroughly ignorant of post-WWII history.
in modern history, has the US attacked unprovoked,
Yes.
executed civillians
Yes.
and occupied it's territory?
In Yugoslavia they forced an "agreement" on Milosevic which they knew he would not sign by asking him to countenance a total NATO occupation.
The US does not deploy poison gas on it's own people.
Um, I think you should know, he was our ally then. We didn't condemn him - in fact, we supplied the materials he used to make those chemical weapons. This was in the news recently - did you miss it?
The US does not consistently violate every single UN resolution concerning it
Not every one, no. It merely vetoes every single UN resolution it or Israel doesn't like.
including no-fly zones and weapons inspections.
The US has refused weapons inspections from the United Nations, and interfered with its internal politics to get the internationally-respected head of their Chemical Weapons disarmament programme fired.
The US did not deliberately set fire to thousands of oil wells causing the greatest ecological disaster in human history.
True - but it did deploy Agent Orange in Vietnam.
The US does not give $25,000 as an incentive to families of suicide bombers.
Ha! The US has given far more than $25,000 to terrorist states and terrorist paramilitaries.
The US did not send intelligence agents to meet with 9/11 hijackers.
A CIA intelligence agent met Osama fucking Bin Laden in hospital shortly before 9/11.
The US does not send civilians to shelter in military command posts it knows will be bombed.
No, but it does bomb the Red Cross in Afghanistan - twice.
Face it - you can not defend Hussein rationally.
I'm not trying to defend him. He's an evil man. But placing the blame on him for sanctions is simply incorrect and ignores the US's culpability.