people will have a mental block that iPhone does not have IE Um, I have a Blackberry, with a browser. I think it's Opera, but I really don't care. I do know that it doesn't support frames (no real surprise), graphical backgrounds are a pain in the ass (I turned them off), and the escape key is like the back button (a real pain in the ass since it behaves as hide app in all the other apps).
I'd be inclined to conclude that the energy involved in converting dead people into fossil fuel likely outweighs the energy you'd get out of it. The 80's called, they want their science back. Ever hear of thermaldepolymerization? It was even discussed here (and here, and more if you actually look.).
I wonder how this is going to compare to the Foveon sensors. They capture RGB data at all pixels - filtered based on depth rather than location. Now if only those babies cost less.
Assuming that everything you say is true, this still doesn't negate the fact that, for instance, the controls shipped with VS.Net 2003 do not follow common Windows guidelines. So unless you have your installation of Windows XP in the default configuration for themes, etc., it is painfully clear that you aren't using default controls.
And why should I have to roll my own? Windows contains a perfectly adequate set of controls (in most cases). What you suggest sounds uncomfortably like reinventing the wheel. The reason for using a tool like VS.Net is to bypass all the tedious steps required to get a program started and get the real work done (in a highly functional environment). Why would they want to penalize their users by making executables that can't look like regular Windows apps out of the box?
IIRC, Office 97 and VS6 used their own controls rather than the OS controls. Having developed for both, I can agree it's a pain in the ass. But I think that predates the monopoly issues. Also, the current version of VS, and all versions of VS.Net use their own custom controls. This is not a requirement! In fact, REALbasic claims to use the standard controls of 3 OSes! I can't imagine it would be harder for MS to use the standard controls they already make...unless they're too crappy to commonly use. In which case, I have to wonder why they haven't improved their quality. It makes me wonder if this is yet another example of them giving lower-quality products to the masses while keeping better tools for those who buy their products. A good argument against that is that VS.Net and Office use different controls from each other, too! And that has me just shaking my head.
Incorrect. Let's take this to the physical model. We have a sheet of paper. This paper represents the totality of people who didn't die of natural causes. Now we draw a shape. The shape contains the totality of people who were killed in the name of religion. Just for fun, let's draw another shape, and assume it contains the totality of people who have been killed in the name of atheism (note that is likely isn't zero). Now, give a name that describes the people contained on the sheet of paper with the exception of the first shape. So... We have a shape, the full sheet of paper, which represents all people who died of unnatural causes. We have a shape, the subset of the above, which represents all people killed in the name of religion. We have another shape, another subset of the first, which represents all people killed in the name of atheism.
Now, think of a name to describe the portion of the sheet outside of the first shape. It will not be "no people murdered in the name of religion", unless you assume that all people who were murdered were murdered in the name of religion. I think we can assume there are people who were killed that don't fall into that group.
There are a lot of ways to determine the "opposite" of something. In math, there is additive and multiplicative inverse. Do you honestly think that there are fewer in the many types of logic out there? Remember, not all of them are Boolean.
First, god can't order genocide via the Bible unless he actually exists. You have to pick one - either it's people who are making these statements or god exists. You can't play it both ways.
Second, given that we've now decided that god does indeed exists, he ordered, for lack of a better term, racial cleansing by one people in one area. Note that genocide requires that you intend to destroy an entire race. This wasn't declared. If people chose to leave, no matter how implausible that would have been, there was no requirement to hunt them down. That was probably a moot point for the vast majority of people. Also, any group which was only partially contained within the land they targeted. If the group was not contained within their land before they came, they weren't going to be wiped out for the sake of completeness.
I'm not saying the particular biblical statement was any less extreme, but let's make sure we use terms clearly.
The goal wasn't to prove that mass murder happened in the name of atheism, it was to prove that mass murder has happened in the name of things other than religion. That would be the logical exclusion of your statement, not the one you provided. You're in university, are you? I hear they have some good logic courses. Perhaps you should enroll in one.
It looks to me like someone should point out to you the difference between "reason" and "excuse". Do you honestly think that many of the genocidal maniacs in recorded history did it because told them to? More likely, they saw it as a tool to get people to support them, or at least not oppose them too stronglym in their quest for power. Remember, most people are sheep, and the wolves know how to scare them into line.
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
It's also important to consider the price of fairness. I'm of the opinion that protocols, drivers, etc. should be released under a BSD-like license. It supports ubiquity and stability between platforms, which helps everyone. Beyond that, I'm more ambivalent. I could honestly see myself releasing code under the GPL, BSD, or conventional closed-source licensing. The nice thing is, freedom supports me choosing any one.
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Freedom is much like a probability space. Some freedoms are mutually exclusive, some aren't. I can swing my fists all I like until I get too close to your face. But we are both free to use public sidewalks, absorb photons flowing through the same physical space, etc.
Freedoms tend to be limited when the resource they depend upon are limited (say, room to swing my fists). Freedoms on unlimited resources, or physical resources that are used for limited periods (say, a particular piece of sidewalk you're traversing) tend to be unlimited. It's reasonable to say that software, and data, are unlimited - that's the whole problem with digital music, from the producers' perspective. It's not reasonable to say the GPL is free. I can't choose to not release my source code if I release my software under the GPL. This isn't an issue under the BSD license, and others. Simply put, the GPL places terms on some group of users of the software that aren't necessary for the support of freedom. Perhaps another way of saying it is that GPL is as free as possible while still being (very) fair. BSD is as free as possible with no considerations for fairness. Whether that makes one better or worse for you is an entirely personal consideration. Remember, fair and free are two entirely different animals, and not entirely (or even at all) related to each other.
What I'm getting at is the weapon is not the problem, the person is. The only exception to that is that, as a weapon, guns are much more effective than anything else out there. And guns shoot, possibly even kill people, but there are plenty of ways to accomplish the task. It's just that, as usual, people often use the most effective means at their disposal.
I have a friend whose sister was killed by her husband when she asked him for a divorce. He was an avid hunter, both bow and gun IIRC. I don't think he had any handguns. When he killed his wife, he beat her to death with a baseball bat. It seemed to work well enough. When he killed himself, he used a gun (shotgun IIRC). I kind of curious, in an abstract kind of way, if their two boys are going to be against guns, baseball bats (clubs?), both, or neither. Of course, what I really hope for is that they can see that the quality of the person has more relevance than the tools they have at their disposal. It's important in many more situations than solely life-and-death ones.
But you should be aware what happens when you let your highly distilled social circles decide your social norms as opposed to checking out what your average neighbor and townsfolk are thinking about it. But I don't want to be average. I want to be below average! The Internet is the place for me!
Also, what you're saying is "guns don't kill people, door handles do." If you think guns don't kill people, try to shoot someone without one. While I don't agree that his idea would have changed much (too many ways to effectively seal a door), you're also missing the point. Knives are as useful in a trained hand in close combat as a gun is, and it doesn't run out. Molotov cocktails have as good a spread effect as a shotgun, and you can carry about as many (effective) rounds. A car is a wonderful tool for killing a person in an open area, and it happens every day. While I agree that guns are quite effective at killing things (it is a specific-use tool), the change of a single word in your statement displays its absurdity quite well. "If you think guns don't kill people, try to kill someone without one." Sounds pretty simple. I suspect Neanderthals had more clubbing deaths than we do nowadays. I wonder if they tried to ban trees.
Two points. First, it's not uncommon for sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. Second, identity theft and fraud can thoroughly destroy your life, leaving you with problems to deal with for years, perhaps even decades. Sure, it's better than being dead, but I suspect you'd think differently every now and then if you were going through it yourself.
Both can force you onto their way, but for some reason it's more "valuable" if you, the mere human, choose to follow either willingly. I think the more correct term would be "Satan can't, God won't." Satan's interested in collecting bodies, God's interested in collecting hearts. The thing is, God sets the rules, and Satan only gets to play as long as God lets him. The game's over when everyone has a reasonable chance to pick sides.
I appreciate the idea of security actually being taken into consideration, something MS doesn't seem to do or at least do poorly, but is there an alternative? Would the security risk still be there if the original file name was used with some random text at the end? That way you could view the files and ignore the random text, and the remote attackers wouldn't know the full name of the file. Is that reasonable, or would knowing part of the file name be enough to pose a security risk?
it's not stupid. it's moderately smart and it seems to be working quite well in the US. I've come to the conclusion in the last 5 years or so that just because something works well in the US doesn't mean it isn't stupid.
same when deeply religious people freak out at some sort of sacriledge. with dignity and ignoring the sacriledge, they show the depth of their love, by turning into ravenous dogs, they only denigrate their faith... Other options are available. I personally find images of Jesus getting fellated by the disciples highly offensive, stories of him being married to (or just having an affair with) Mary Magdalene only somewhat less so. If anyone asks me how I feel about that, I'm fine with giving them my opinion. This doesn't compel me to start shouting for a ban on The DaVinci Code or some tasteless artist or other. I just decide to not support them with my money.
Since when does needing to rethink a few scientific models, and go back and gather some data again now that we know we might have measured wrong constitue a crisis? Since science took on the tone of religion, and all the faith and infallibility that implies.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how this is going to compare to the Foveon sensors. They capture RGB data at all pixels - filtered based on depth rather than location. Now if only those babies cost less.
Assuming that everything you say is true, this still doesn't negate the fact that, for instance, the controls shipped with VS.Net 2003 do not follow common Windows guidelines. So unless you have your installation of Windows XP in the default configuration for themes, etc., it is painfully clear that you aren't using default controls.
And why should I have to roll my own? Windows contains a perfectly adequate set of controls (in most cases). What you suggest sounds uncomfortably like reinventing the wheel. The reason for using a tool like VS.Net is to bypass all the tedious steps required to get a program started and get the real work done (in a highly functional environment). Why would they want to penalize their users by making executables that can't look like regular Windows apps out of the box?
IIRC, Office 97 and VS6 used their own controls rather than the OS controls. Having developed for both, I can agree it's a pain in the ass. But I think that predates the monopoly issues. Also, the current version of VS, and all versions of VS.Net use their own custom controls. This is not a requirement! In fact, REALbasic claims to use the standard controls of 3 OSes! I can't imagine it would be harder for MS to use the standard controls they already make...unless they're too crappy to commonly use. In which case, I have to wonder why they haven't improved their quality. It makes me wonder if this is yet another example of them giving lower-quality products to the masses while keeping better tools for those who buy their products. A good argument against that is that VS.Net and Office use different controls from each other, too! And that has me just shaking my head.
Incorrect. Let's take this to the physical model. We have a sheet of paper. This paper represents the totality of people who didn't die of natural causes. Now we draw a shape. The shape contains the totality of people who were killed in the name of religion. Just for fun, let's draw another shape, and assume it contains the totality of people who have been killed in the name of atheism (note that is likely isn't zero). Now, give a name that describes the people contained on the sheet of paper with the exception of the first shape.
So...
We have a shape, the full sheet of paper, which represents all people who died of unnatural causes.
We have a shape, the subset of the above, which represents all people killed in the name of religion.
We have another shape, another subset of the first, which represents all people killed in the name of atheism.
Now, think of a name to describe the portion of the sheet outside of the first shape. It will not be "no people murdered in the name of religion", unless you assume that all people who were murdered were murdered in the name of religion. I think we can assume there are people who were killed that don't fall into that group.
There are a lot of ways to determine the "opposite" of something. In math, there is additive and multiplicative inverse. Do you honestly think that there are fewer in the many types of logic out there? Remember, not all of them are Boolean.
First, god can't order genocide via the Bible unless he actually exists. You have to pick one - either it's people who are making these statements or god exists. You can't play it both ways.
Second, given that we've now decided that god does indeed exists, he ordered, for lack of a better term, racial cleansing by one people in one area. Note that genocide requires that you intend to destroy an entire race. This wasn't declared. If people chose to leave, no matter how implausible that would have been, there was no requirement to hunt them down. That was probably a moot point for the vast majority of people. Also, any group which was only partially contained within the land they targeted. If the group was not contained within their land before they came, they weren't going to be wiped out for the sake of completeness.
I'm not saying the particular biblical statement was any less extreme, but let's make sure we use terms clearly.
The goal wasn't to prove that mass murder happened in the name of atheism, it was to prove that mass murder has happened in the name of things other than religion. That would be the logical exclusion of your statement, not the one you provided.
You're in university, are you? I hear they have some good logic courses. Perhaps you should enroll in one.
It looks to me like someone should point out to you the difference between "reason" and "excuse". Do you honestly think that many of the genocidal maniacs in recorded history did it because told them to? More likely, they saw it as a tool to get people to support them, or at least not oppose them too stronglym in their quest for power.
Remember, most people are sheep, and the wolves know how to scare them into line.
It's also important to consider the price of fairness. I'm of the opinion that protocols, drivers, etc. should be released under a BSD-like license. It supports ubiquity and stability between platforms, which helps everyone. Beyond that, I'm more ambivalent. I could honestly see myself releasing code under the GPL, BSD, or conventional closed-source licensing. The nice thing is, freedom supports me choosing any one.
Freedom is much like a probability space. Some freedoms are mutually exclusive, some aren't. I can swing my fists all I like until I get too close to your face. But we are both free to use public sidewalks, absorb photons flowing through the same physical space, etc.
Freedoms tend to be limited when the resource they depend upon are limited (say, room to swing my fists). Freedoms on unlimited resources, or physical resources that are used for limited periods (say, a particular piece of sidewalk you're traversing) tend to be unlimited.
It's reasonable to say that software, and data, are unlimited - that's the whole problem with digital music, from the producers' perspective. It's not reasonable to say the GPL is free. I can't choose to not release my source code if I release my software under the GPL. This isn't an issue under the BSD license, and others. Simply put, the GPL places terms on some group of users of the software that aren't necessary for the support of freedom.
Perhaps another way of saying it is that GPL is as free as possible while still being (very) fair. BSD is as free as possible with no considerations for fairness. Whether that makes one better or worse for you is an entirely personal consideration. Remember, fair and free are two entirely different animals, and not entirely (or even at all) related to each other.
What I'm getting at is the weapon is not the problem, the person is. The only exception to that is that, as a weapon, guns are much more effective than anything else out there. And guns shoot, possibly even kill people, but there are plenty of ways to accomplish the task. It's just that, as usual, people often use the most effective means at their disposal.
I have a friend whose sister was killed by her husband when she asked him for a divorce. He was an avid hunter, both bow and gun IIRC. I don't think he had any handguns. When he killed his wife, he beat her to death with a baseball bat. It seemed to work well enough. When he killed himself, he used a gun (shotgun IIRC). I kind of curious, in an abstract kind of way, if their two boys are going to be against guns, baseball bats (clubs?), both, or neither. Of course, what I really hope for is that they can see that the quality of the person has more relevance than the tools they have at their disposal. It's important in many more situations than solely life-and-death ones.
While I agree that guns are quite effective at killing things (it is a specific-use tool), the change of a single word in your statement displays its absurdity quite well. "If you think guns don't kill people, try to kill someone without one." Sounds pretty simple. I suspect Neanderthals had more clubbing deaths than we do nowadays. I wonder if they tried to ban trees.
Two points. First, it's not uncommon for sentences to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. Second, identity theft and fraud can thoroughly destroy your life, leaving you with problems to deal with for years, perhaps even decades. Sure, it's better than being dead, but I suspect you'd think differently every now and then if you were going through it yourself.
Dammit, I thought that link was going to be to a picture! :D
I appreciate the idea of security actually being taken into consideration, something MS doesn't seem to do or at least do poorly, but is there an alternative? Would the security risk still be there if the original file name was used with some random text at the end? That way you could view the files and ignore the random text, and the remote attackers wouldn't know the full name of the file. Is that reasonable, or would knowing part of the file name be enough to pose a security risk?
My personal favorite is "Mysterious Octogenarian Thingy May Lead To Cheaper Solar Panels." Priceless.
They already have, and you can be less leery. Google for mice longevity.