That's typical IBM/Microsoft crap legacy design - my MacBook laptop has only 2 (num lock) and sleeping (which only lights when it's shows "breathing" activity when the lid is closed)
Every heard of the clitoris? It's the same organ, ontogenously. And it tends to be smaller than the average penis! I'd say you're the one lacking knowledge of female anatomy, buddy.
Yes, but remember that Sin entered "The World" after the Original Sin. After that, we were ALL condemned to sinful behavior. In that case, why wouldn't Original Sin affect other planets? Perhaps, though, Sin is hereditary, though, as opposed to something that acts on people externally. In which case, other planets would be safe from sins that happens on Earth. But then you have to imagine God sets up a tree, or whatever the equivalent would be on other planets, to test that species..I dunno, it just seems annoying to me, imagining a loving God designing all these little devices in a workshop..
I, personally think it unlikely that a perfectly good creature could evolve - there is too much evil behaviour that is advantageous.
It was not advantageous to leave the Garden of Eden; that was a big step down in standard of living. There are plenty of rational species (I believe) who would not touch the fruit of knowledge. ie you can be rational but lack knowledge and curiosity.
You mention the possibility of multiple incarnations of Christ, even if you do not think much of it.
Do you think it's possible? Don't you agree that it diminishes some of the grandeur and drama of Christ's sacrifice if he's doing it potentially millions of times throughout the universe? It just seems bizarre to me.
I think that kind of monkey-business would be forbidden because the Christian God is one who is rational, compassionate, and created a universe that "makes sense" to us. You are talking about a capricious, incomprehensible universe; what kind of evil God would create that?
Why do you think this is what Christianity's view is? When Adam & Eve ate the apple, it "brought sin into the world" but only affected Earth, I would think. That's totally bogus that God would punish the innocent creatues on other planets for what Adam and Eve did. Then again, He did wipe out all the terrestial animals (besides the ones on the ark, of course) in the flood, who were innocent as far as I can see, there, so I wouldn't put it past Him.
What in Christianity (for example) is incompatible with life on other planets?
I think the problem is this: Christ (the only Son of God) died (on this Earth) to redeem mankind because of man's sins (on this Earth). Now, if there is intelligent life on other planets and if that life sinned also, then Christ would have to be incarnated there, and die there as well. I think it's not so much as incompatible as simply inelegant. It makes you want to say, "why can't Christ just be incarnated somewhere in the middle of the universe and die and rise again there for the whole universe's sins, rather than at 30 AD in Jerusalem, Earth, and at 200,000 AD on the planet Zardoz-3 in the city of Qyynax'gbtht, and..etc."
If Boston developed the WiFi standards and protocols (for itself) and then decided to let others use it, I'd have no problems.
Hmmm..I wonder how Boston would fund such a development? No doubt using our tax dollars to fund another pointless "research project" like the Internet, and you'd have no problem with this?
I'm just so disappointed to see fake libertarians like "mi" tarnish a good political philosophy. TCP/IP has destroyed a nacent industry of privately developed networking protocols that could have cured all of the problems we are now suffering with. Again just imagine a world with separate, competing protocols, each proprietary to their service provider. For example, you'd log on to MSN, and you'd use "MSNP" or you'd log on to AOL and use "AOLP". Each one would have its own, proprietary networking hardware and software stack, and each would have a thriving industry surrounding each layers of that stack. If you were on AOL, and you wanted to send a mail to someone on MSN, of course you'd need to pay a service charge to convert that message from one protocol to the other, instead of the current, oppressive, socialist scheme where you can just send an email from Hotmail without paying a dime to AOL. Admittedly, this is a small theft per email, but think of the billions of dollars that Microsoft has lost in revenue. It's a sad thing.
It's the same with the interstate highway system. Now, as I said above, I have NO PROBLEM with the government building networks like the highway system, or the Internet, to protect us from Islam, Communism and things like that. What I DO have problem with is, non-government traffic on those networks. There is absolutely NO justification for people driving around on the interstates for their private affairs. Look it up in the Constitution and tell me where it says people should be able to drive on the Interstate (I'll wait..) There should be a parallel system of toll roads and you should have to pay for the privilege of using them.
Right, I wouldn't have a problem with TCP/IP if it were only used for legitimate government purposes like fighting wars. But the problem is that the government allowed non-military related use of this strictly government purpose. It's not too late to remedy this, however. We need to outlaw the use of TCP/IP except for government use, with strict penalties, including the death penalty for repeat offenders. In this way, we can foster an innovative, market-based private-sector solution to computer networking that is appropriate for non-government networks.
(Countries which continue to allow non-government usage of TCP/IP, such as supposed allies and well-known Islamist appeasers like France, should have sanctions placed against them, and we should declare war on them if they persist in this behavior).
Oh you're just fine with a government-sponsored, coercively developed standards, created by taxpayer expense, with money extracted by the threat of force, standards which oppress and inhibits the formation of market-based, genuinely innovative standards?
Some Libertarian you turned out to be. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those fake Libertarians that troll slashdot trying to make the rest of us real Libertarians look bad.
I feel the same way about open standards like TCP/IP, developed at public expense (I never would have consented to my money being wasted in this way). Instead of having a range of innovative, privately-developed protocols and networks (imagine being able to choose MSN's or AOL's innovate networking protocols), we are now forced to use a socialist, inefficient protocol like TCP/IP. It's been pretty much a disaster ever since.
I'm sure the following has absolutely nothing to Utahians' intelligence, but Bush's highest popularity ratings and highest vote percentage in 2004 was in Utah. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. Yep.
50 megs per tab is not unreasonable - suppose each page is 20k (for example, this slashdot story with all the comments that I just clicked on is 26.87k). Now, you have to build an in-memory DOM for that page. Suppose each byte is a single DOM node (of course it is a tree, so there are would be more nodes than bytes, but on the other hand, several words might be in a single #text DOM node, so it kind of works out). Surely 1024 bytes is reasonable for a DOM node, when you consider all the pointers to various CSS, javascript and other kinds of things that a DOM node needs to have.
So:
about 20 megs per page, or 200 megs for 10 tabs.
Now, of course you have overhead above and beyond the tabs, such as the UI code (which of course in Mozilla is *iteself* a DOM node and Javascript. So that's the other 300 megs.
Slashdot Mirror
That's typical IBM/Microsoft crap legacy design - my MacBook laptop has only 2 (num lock) and sleeping (which only lights when it's shows "breathing" activity when the lid is closed)
Pissing off Bushbots like DrRevotron: Priceless!
Every heard of the clitoris? It's the same organ, ontogenously. And it tends to be smaller than the average penis! I'd say you're the one lacking knowledge of female anatomy, buddy.
(Damn I love wikipedia!)
I heard it on talk radio, but there weren't any more details.
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."
Genesis 2:17
Finally, there may be species that do not sin.
Yes, but remember that Sin entered "The World" after the Original Sin. After that, we were ALL condemned to sinful behavior. In that case, why wouldn't Original Sin affect other planets? Perhaps, though, Sin is hereditary, though, as opposed to something that acts on people externally. In which case, other planets would be safe from sins that happens on Earth. But then you have to imagine God sets up a tree, or whatever the equivalent would be on other planets, to test that species..I dunno, it just seems annoying to me, imagining a loving God designing all these little devices in a workshop..
I, personally think it unlikely that a perfectly good creature could evolve - there is too much evil behaviour that is advantageous.
It was not advantageous to leave the Garden of Eden; that was a big step down in standard of living. There are plenty of rational species (I believe) who would not touch the fruit of knowledge. ie you can be rational but lack knowledge and curiosity.
You mention the possibility of multiple incarnations of Christ, even if you do not think much of it.
Do you think it's possible? Don't you agree that it diminishes some of the grandeur and drama of Christ's sacrifice if he's doing it potentially millions of times throughout the universe? It just seems bizarre to me.
I think that kind of monkey-business would be forbidden because the Christian God is one who is rational, compassionate, and created a universe that "makes sense" to us. You are talking about a capricious, incomprehensible universe; what kind of evil God would create that?
Why do you think this is what Christianity's view is? When Adam & Eve ate the apple, it "brought sin into the world" but only affected Earth, I would think. That's totally bogus that God would punish the innocent creatues on other planets for what Adam and Eve did. Then again, He did wipe out all the terrestial animals (besides the ones on the ark, of course) in the flood, who were innocent as far as I can see, there, so I wouldn't put it past Him.
What in Christianity (for example) is incompatible with life on other planets?
I think the problem is this: Christ (the only Son of God) died (on this Earth) to redeem mankind because of man's sins (on this Earth). Now, if there is intelligent life on other planets and if that life sinned also, then Christ would have to be incarnated there, and die there as well. I think it's not so much as incompatible as simply inelegant. It makes you want to say, "why can't Christ just be incarnated somewhere in the middle of the universe and die and rise again there for the whole universe's sins, rather than at 30 AD in Jerusalem, Earth, and at 200,000 AD on the planet Zardoz-3 in the city of Qyynax'gbtht, and..etc."
this is my ad-blocking software in /etc/hosts:
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
When I saw "link[ed] to the stars" and "millions of years ago" I was hoping scientists confirmed that HP Lovecraft was right..
"Action" is still around in 2007? Jesus, move onto the next, uh...concept already.
If Boston developed the WiFi standards and protocols (for itself) and then decided to let others use it, I'd have no problems.
Hmmm..I wonder how Boston would fund such a development? No doubt using our tax dollars to fund another pointless "research project" like the Internet, and you'd have no problem with this?
I'm just so disappointed to see fake libertarians like "mi" tarnish a good political philosophy. TCP/IP has destroyed a nacent industry of privately developed networking protocols that could have cured all of the problems we are now suffering with. Again just imagine a world with separate, competing protocols, each proprietary to their service provider. For example, you'd log on to MSN, and you'd use "MSNP" or you'd log on to AOL and use "AOLP". Each one would have its own, proprietary networking hardware and software stack, and each would have a thriving industry surrounding each layers of that stack. If you were on AOL, and you wanted to send a mail to someone on MSN, of course you'd need to pay a service charge to convert that message from one protocol to the other, instead of the current, oppressive, socialist scheme where you can just send an email from Hotmail without paying a dime to AOL. Admittedly, this is a small theft per email, but think of the billions of dollars that Microsoft has lost in revenue. It's a sad thing.
It's the same with the interstate highway system. Now, as I said above, I have NO PROBLEM with the government building networks like the highway system, or the Internet, to protect us from Islam, Communism and things like that. What I DO have problem with is, non-government traffic on those networks. There is absolutely NO justification for people driving around on the interstates for their private affairs. Look it up in the Constitution and tell me where it says people should be able to drive on the Interstate (I'll wait..) There should be a parallel system of toll roads and you should have to pay for the privilege of using them.
Right, I wouldn't have a problem with TCP/IP if it were only used for legitimate government purposes like fighting wars. But the problem is that the government allowed non-military related use of this strictly government purpose. It's not too late to remedy this, however. We need to outlaw the use of TCP/IP except for government use, with strict penalties, including the death penalty for repeat offenders. In this way, we can foster an innovative, market-based private-sector solution to computer networking that is appropriate for non-government networks.
(Countries which continue to allow non-government usage of TCP/IP, such as supposed allies and well-known Islamist appeasers like France, should have sanctions placed against them, and we should declare war on them if they persist in this behavior).
Oh you're just fine with a government-sponsored, coercively developed standards, created by taxpayer expense, with money extracted by the threat of force, standards which oppress and inhibits the formation of market-based, genuinely innovative standards?
Some Libertarian you turned out to be. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those fake Libertarians that troll slashdot trying to make the rest of us real Libertarians look bad.
I feel the same way about open standards like TCP/IP, developed at public expense (I never would have consented to my money being wasted in this way). Instead of having a range of innovative, privately-developed protocols and networks (imagine being able to choose MSN's or AOL's innovate networking protocols), we are now forced to use a socialist, inefficient protocol like TCP/IP. It's been pretty much a disaster ever since.
I'm sure the following has absolutely nothing to Utahians' intelligence, but Bush's highest popularity ratings and highest vote percentage in 2004 was in Utah. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. Yep.
If you're using firefox, enable Javascript and click on that link; then come back here and talk about insecure browsers.
Way to miss the parent's point! His point was exactly that; that if you use CSS you don't need to send the styling info with every page load.
SELECT * FROM jobs WHERE intertubes='allowed';
do not click above link unless you want your browser hijacked - very nasty!
nope..i was serious!
It must be true - I heard it on talk radio (although there weren't any more details).