At first I almost thought this was a joke because of the stupid acronym...
CORBA is already open and very flexible and proven. The latest version of the spec integrates with Enterprise Java Beans. What more could anyone want? Add RMI and Java into the scene and a proprietary distributed architecture from Microsoft is totally unnecessary.
Hate to sound cruel...but, although the other characters may be just as contrived and plastic, what exactly did Chewie bring that was spectacular? He basically grunted. And threw stuff. I'm primed man...
"One last thing that's a little off-subject: Why do we have to put up with people posting comments like "Right on!" just so they can be in the top few comments? I'm not sure what can be done about it, but it's really starting to cheese me off. Maybe just saying out loud that they're morons in enough, but I'd really rather that people started posting more intelligent, though-out and well reasoned comments that at least demonstrate that they've read the article. Rant mode off, sorry."
Use your slashdot preferences to set a penalty on "short" comments.
The IDEs are with NT. Where the IDEs are the developers are. Slowly IDEs are being brought over or developed for Linux so I expect to see many more people seriously considering an alternative OS. I mean, if you can get the same EXACT job done in the IDE, what does it matter, really, what OS you're on?
Well, if you/don't want to/ or/can't for some reason/ there are EZ-Linux distros around to get you up and running so you don't have to know first what the alias command does (and before that, the man command) to bind "dir" to "ls".
And yes, already distros of linux behave differently from each other. A lot of the "Lite" distros just install to a FAT partition and are run from Windows.
It started at the big bang, or the Alpha position of the timeless universe. I'm now confused about the Alpha point now, though. If there is no time, who's to say that the universe actually "started" there...and why would that be? Couldn't it theoretically "start" from any state?
One obvious feature of a universe like this would be that time travel of any kind would be impossible. There would be an infinite number of states you could have come from or could go to.
So our parents were right when we asked why something was and they said "because it just is". Maybe they should have said "because anything else would be much less probable".
Trademarks are on the terms themselves no on the MEANING OF THE TERMS. Should "Pizza Hut" be able to claim any translation of "Pizza" and "Hut"? No. What it trademarked was the sequence of glyphs: "P" "i" "z" "z" "a".... It did not trademark the MEANING. I guess nobody could make a car company called "People's Car" could it? Because Volkswagon already has that (very bad rough translation...I don't know german).
Basically we are reconciling the problems of our presuppositions by remodelling the universe into some bizarre conceptual form so that it adheres to what we observe. If the concept of time is introducing inconsistencies in what we observe, we must remodel our concept of reality to abandon it. On the surface the physics remain the same, but we have to do something fairly funky with the universe to explain it.
In other words, your "many universes" still presuppose some absolute time, through will all universes travel in parallel. The author, from what I can tell is saying that, although there ARE an infinity of universes/states, they do not move in time "independently" of each other, but instead are just probabilities paths. There is nothing preventing THIS universe from becoming ANOTHER universe in your scheme, because according to him all universes/states are just probabilities, and one can/possibly/ move from any state to another.
I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you mean in your argument against the article, but:
"One solution to this has been to say that the wave collapses in =this= universe, but that there are as many universes as possible states."
Doesn't this statement match perfectly with the author's idea that our universe is just a certain state amongst many other states, given by a probability cloud? You seem to agree with him that there are many states, of which our percieved universe is only one. He is just saying these myriad states are given by a probability cloud, and that was we percieve as time in/your/ universe moving forward, is actually instantaneous recalculations of new states. These seem to be reconciled with each other, to NOT contradict each other.
Yes, you can obviously use aliases. But newbies won't know that, and however much I would dislike letting them get away with it without a clue, some of the newbie distros are picking up the slack for those who are too afraid/lazy/dumb/busy to learn. We might not like it, but having more people on board helps.
Because of the inability of the public to differentiate (who are the real Christians? Is it the Baptists who say women are subserviant (was them right?), or perhaps the Mormons, maybe the Catholics) between Christian individuals, WMpCs (White Males professing Christianity) get lumped together. Of course one would be skeptical.
Well I don't know where the quote came from, but the onus is not on everybody else to differentiate people who claim to be Christians and people who "really are" Christians. If an Arab blows up a building and says he did it for Allah that casts a shadow on Islam, whether or not other Muslims considered him a "real" Muslim. How can the public evaluate everybody's faithfullness or perception of their religion? I think the (many and sundry) Christian churches have done a poor job of dissociating themselves with fringe weirdo groups.
"Am I the only one who realizes that you can be White and Male, and NOT CHRISTIAN?! Anyone who would tie a guy to their truck and drag him until he died is NOT A "CHRISTIAN, they are a SICK MOTHER FUCKER. I don't care what they call themselves, to be a christian you have to live by the Word, not just spew verses and go to church. Also, the groups killing scientists were in reference to several hundred years ago. The people bombing abortion clinics may claim christianity, but they aren't christians as has been patently demonstrated."
Yes, we all realize that. You had originally wondered WHY WMCs are always lambasted and made to look evil. Well I'm telling you why. Because they have a long history of doing bad things and being associated with nutcase fringe groups. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's WHY WMCs are percieved in a dark light. Of course it's stereotyping but I'm just telling you the reason. Because of that, if you are a "true" christian who happens to be white and male, then obviously you would want to distance yourself from those wierd groups. Same deal with Muslims. Every ignorant person thinks every Muslim or anybody in a turban (BTW, that would be Sikhism) is a terrorist. Of course this is a stupid view and of course "true" Muslims are getting a bad rap because of it.
"Since when does your boss know your religious preference?"
I never mentioned anything about/religious/ discrimination. I just listed some historical consequences of disagreeing (regardless of religion) with powerful WMC groups.
"I've run into plenty of Anti-christian atheists. Anti-christian Wiccans. Anti-christian Satanists"
"Radical muslims are anti-christian, I've run into plenty of Anti-christian atheists. Anti-christian Wiccans. Anti-christian Satanists."
I guess I'll have to take that at face value. And these anti-christian groups have powerful political and social influence? Doubt it. The reason Christianity is under fire and not these other groups is because Christian groups (or Christianity-professing groups) are the ones who have the political and social clout to bully people around, and are the ones who for the most part are dangerous. I've never heard of a Wiccan militia, or a Atheist new world order. And I don't know if you know much about Satanism, but their not all evil goat sacrificing blood-drinking orgy-goers like movies like to make out.
"Singer wants to kill handicapped kids, saying that they are less than human."
Wrong. Singer doesn't want to kill handicaps indiscriminantly in the first place. In the second place he certainly doesn't want to kill anybody on their degree of "humanness". Wouldn't he then want to kill all non-human life forms? No. Instead he is saying that cripplingly disfigured and hopelessly disabled infants with no hope of a life other than misery suffery and premature death should be allowed to be euthanized for the _SAKE_ of compassion.
HE DOES NOT WANT TO KILL PEOPLE MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE "INFERIOR" HUMANS IN SOME WAY.
This is the essential point moral elitist pro-lifers don't understand. It is BECAUSE of compassion that we euthanise, not DESPITE it! duh
My point wasn't to associate Christianity with the Nazi regime. My point was that it was ironic that Christians would now demonize people as being like those they were associated themselves with in the past (or those who professed to be associated with them, if you like).
In fact I had never heard the term "WMC" until it was used in the original post. I used it in my post because it was a convenient acronym. I didn't know it was insulting or presumptuous.
Slashdot Mirror
At first I almost thought this was a joke because of the stupid acronym...
CORBA is already open and very flexible and proven. The latest version of the spec integrates with Enterprise Java Beans. What more could anyone want? Add RMI and Java into the scene and a proprietary distributed architecture from Microsoft is totally unnecessary.
let's hope SOAP goes the way of COOL...
I'd have to say Pearl Jam and STP is my favorite coding music...
Hate to sound cruel...but, although the other characters may be just as contrived and plastic, what exactly did Chewie bring that was spectacular? He basically grunted. And threw stuff. I'm primed man...
"One last thing that's a little off-subject: Why do we have to put up with people posting comments like "Right on!" just so they can be in the top few comments? I'm not sure what can be done about it, but it's really starting to cheese me off. Maybe just saying out loud that they're morons in enough, but I'd really rather that people started posting more intelligent, though-out and well reasoned comments that at least demonstrate that they've read the article. Rant mode off, sorry."
Use your slashdot preferences to set a penalty on "short" comments.
The IDEs are with NT. Where the IDEs are the developers are. Slowly IDEs are being brought over or developed for Linux so I expect to see many more people seriously considering an alternative OS. I mean, if you can get the same EXACT job done in the IDE, what does it matter, really, what OS you're on?
Wow. So now Windows can come in multiple colors too! Blueberry, Cherry, Orange, Grape...
BOF = Bastard Operator From ?
Well, if you /don't want to/ or /can't for some reason/ there are EZ-Linux distros around to get you up and running so you don't have to know first what the alias command does (and before that, the man command) to bind "dir" to "ls".
And yes, already distros of linux behave differently from each other. A lot of the "Lite" distros just install to a FAT partition and are run from Windows.
It started at the big bang, or the Alpha position of the timeless universe. I'm now confused about the Alpha point now, though. If there is no time, who's to say that the universe actually "started" there...and why would that be? Couldn't it theoretically "start" from any state?
Oh no...question too deep...must...stop...pondering...or...brain...will ...implode...
Q: What time is it when an elephant sits on your watch?
A: A high probability of a subsequent state-path in which you purchase a new watch.
AHA! So God DOES roll dice! heh
One obvious feature of a universe like this would be that time travel of any kind would be impossible. There would be an infinite number of states you could have come from or could go to.
So our parents were right when we asked why something was and they said "because it just is". Maybe they should have said "because anything else would be much less probable".
This is such a blatently bogus claim.
.... It did not trademark the MEANING. I guess nobody could make a car company called "People's Car" could it? Because Volkswagon already has that (very bad rough translation...I don't know german).
Trademarks are on the terms themselves no on the MEANING OF THE TERMS. Should "Pizza Hut" be able to claim any translation of "Pizza" and "Hut"? No. What it trademarked was the sequence of glyphs: "P" "i" "z" "z" "a"
silly silly silly
Basically we are reconciling the problems of our presuppositions by remodelling the universe into some bizarre conceptual form so that it adheres to what we observe. If the concept of time is introducing inconsistencies in what we observe, we must remodel our concept of reality to abandon it. On the surface the physics remain the same, but we have to do something fairly funky with the universe to explain it.
In other words, your "many universes" still presuppose some absolute time, through will all universes travel in parallel. The author, from what I can tell is saying that, although there ARE an infinity of universes/states, they do not move in time "independently" of each other, but instead are just probabilities paths. There is nothing preventing THIS universe from becoming ANOTHER universe in your scheme, because according to him all universes/states are just probabilities, and one can /possibly/ move from any state to another.
I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you mean in your argument against the article, but:
/your/ universe moving forward, is actually instantaneous recalculations of new states. These seem to be reconciled with each other, to NOT contradict each other.
"One solution to this has been to say that the wave collapses in =this= universe, but that there are as many universes as possible states."
Doesn't this statement match perfectly with the author's idea that our universe is just a certain state amongst many other states, given by a probability cloud? You seem to agree with him that there are many states, of which our percieved universe is only one. He is just saying these myriad states are given by a probability cloud, and that was we percieve as time in
Yes, you can obviously use aliases. But newbies won't know that, and however much I would dislike letting them get away with it without a clue, some of the newbie distros are picking up the slack for those who are too afraid/lazy/dumb/busy to learn. We might not like it, but having more people on board helps.
Because of the inability of the public to differentiate (who are the real Christians? Is it the Baptists who say women are subserviant (was them right?), or perhaps the Mormons, maybe the Catholics) between Christian individuals, WMpCs (White Males professing Christianity) get lumped together. Of course one would be skeptical.
Well I don't know where the quote came from, but the onus is not on everybody else to differentiate people who claim to be Christians and people who "really are" Christians. If an Arab blows up a building and says he did it for Allah that casts a shadow on Islam, whether or not other Muslims considered him a "real" Muslim. How can the public evaluate everybody's faithfullness or perception of their religion? I think the (many and sundry) Christian churches have done a poor job of dissociating themselves with fringe weirdo groups.
Right...the intersection of WMCs, fanatics/fundamentalists, and political clout is very large, which why WMCs are lambasted easily.
"Am I the only one who realizes that you can be White and Male, and NOT CHRISTIAN?!
/religious/ discrimination. I just listed some historical consequences of disagreeing (regardless of religion) with powerful WMC groups.
Anyone who would tie a guy to their truck and drag him until he died is NOT A
"CHRISTIAN, they are a SICK MOTHER FUCKER. I don't care what they call themselves, to be a christian you have to live by the Word, not just spew verses and go to church.
Also, the groups killing scientists were in reference to several hundred years ago. The people bombing abortion clinics may claim christianity, but they aren't christians as has been patently demonstrated."
Yes, we all realize that. You had originally wondered WHY WMCs are always lambasted and made to look evil. Well I'm telling you why. Because they have a long history of doing bad things and being associated with nutcase fringe groups. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's WHY WMCs are percieved in a dark light. Of course it's stereotyping but I'm just telling you the reason. Because of that, if you are a "true" christian who happens to be white and male, then obviously you would want to distance yourself from those wierd groups. Same deal with Muslims. Every ignorant person thinks every Muslim or anybody in a turban (BTW, that would be Sikhism) is a terrorist. Of course this is a stupid view and of course "true" Muslims are getting a bad rap because of it.
"Since when does your boss know your religious preference?"
I never mentioned anything about
"I've run into plenty of Anti-christian atheists. Anti-christian Wiccans. Anti-christian Satanists"
"Radical muslims are anti-christian, I've run into plenty of Anti-christian atheists. Anti-christian Wiccans. Anti-christian Satanists."
I guess I'll have to take that at face value. And these anti-christian groups have powerful political and social influence? Doubt it. The reason Christianity is under fire and not these other groups is because Christian groups (or Christianity-professing groups) are the ones who have the political and social clout to bully people around, and are the ones who for the most part are dangerous. I've never heard of a Wiccan militia, or a Atheist new world order. And I don't know if you know much about Satanism, but their not all evil goat sacrificing blood-drinking orgy-goers like movies like to make out.
"Singer wants to kill handicapped kids, saying that they are less than human."
Wrong. Singer doesn't want to kill handicaps indiscriminantly in the first place. In the second place he certainly doesn't want to kill anybody on their degree of "humanness". Wouldn't he then want to kill all non-human life forms? No. Instead he is saying that cripplingly disfigured and hopelessly disabled infants with no hope of a life other than misery suffery and premature death should be allowed to be euthanized for the _SAKE_ of compassion.
HE DOES NOT WANT TO KILL PEOPLE MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE "INFERIOR" HUMANS IN SOME WAY.
This is the essential point moral elitist pro-lifers don't understand. It is BECAUSE of compassion that we euthanise, not DESPITE it! duh
That's fair. I'll start with the first link on google for "nazi catholicism":
p h_mccabe/big_blue_books/book_03.html#5
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/jose
There are more.
My point wasn't to associate Christianity with the Nazi regime. My point was that it was ironic that Christians would now demonize people as being like those they were associated themselves with in the past (or those who professed to be associated with them, if you like).
In fact I had never heard the term "WMC" until it was used in the original post. I used it in my post because it was a convenient acronym. I didn't know it was insulting or presumptuous.
Government should be a conversation not a monologue. Giuliani has brazenly taken the position of dictating to everybody how things should be.