If you use natural philosophy for all matters in the natural world, what then does that leave for Chistianity to say? It is popular among Christians to assume that humans are more than merely natural beings having something spirital as well. Then do you deny that you are a member of the natural world? Would your use of natural philosophy in science stop at scientific matters influenced by humans? And what fields of science are not thusly influnced by humans? If not, then what use is Christianity if it has nothing to say about our world? Why not some more abstract religion which has less dogmatic law?
How can a claim to be a scientist and not subscribe to natural philosophy, the basis of all science? I don't mean this question in a patronizing way for I truely find it difficult to understand your position.
Don't you see that you desire to not believe the article? Are you so entrenched in your beliefs that you find it impossible to fathom that you might be wrong? I will not repeat the contents of the article here to avoid patronizing you but for to suffice it to say that the sections that you quote explicitely address your claims. You skipped them because they're so threatening to your identity that you cannot even see it!
The field of psychology has long had a name for this phenomenon: cognative dissonance. Before you speak in public again I suggest that you read up on this phenomenon.
Evolution has been proven. It is fact. Scientists now expend time on making our picture of causal history more complete. If you believe the Earth goes around the Sun and that apples fall from trees because of gravity, you must follow your logic through to its conclusion and find that evolution is a fact. And, again I say, attacking evolution doesn't lend any credibility to Intelligent Design.
Your comments betray your fundamental misunderstanding of biology. That aside, complaining about evolution doesn't lend any credibility to Intelligent Design.
Now if you can tell me how we (the human species) is going to look in 10,000 years, and it comes true, then I guess I'll have to eat these words. But I'm not going to be starving myself waiting for them.
Humans will look exactly as they do today 10,000 years from now assuming that we don't destroy our civilization and revert to roaming packs of scavengers. Natural selection is no longer at play on our species (at least in a significant way) and so mutations will not flourish, therefore we will not evolve.
No wonder it was said that "the wisdom of man leads to death."
Intelligent Design has yet to put forth a testable hypothesis. Until it does so, it's not science and by extention, not a theory. Therefore, it has no place in a science classroom.
I just tried 2.8 again with some suggestions from others here and I have some corrections to my own comments:
1. 2.8 seems to have fixed the drag event menu problem 2. shift+drag does work for window snaping. I'm not sure how this can be turned on permanently or how I was supposed to find this feature intuitively. 3. The two hidden file-open features that I know of are: CTRL+F and CTRL+L. There may be more. 4. I should have been saying Kate, not Kedit. Kedit is devoid of features.
Re:Future viability in question?
on
Gnome 2.10 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
* Inability to hold down the mouse button (drag through) while navigating the menus. The thinking was accessibility related. A click event occurs after some arbitrary criteria has been met that convinces Gnome that the user really wanted to click and just didn't know to let go of the mouse button and then click again. Very annoying.
I'm not sure about this being a problem. I just now tried it on this Gnome 2.8 system and it doesn't seem to generate an action until the mouse button is released. I can click drag through any level of menus and across menus just fine.
Hum, well I did ask about it as recently as 2.6 and a dev on #gnome told me that it was indeed intentional. I think it's activated by holding the mouse cursor in a location for more than a set number of seconds. Once the event occurs, the menu entry one was hovering over enters drag-and-drop mode and one must press ESC and renavigate to the place in the menu that one was at. Perhaps it has changed in 2.8 and I didn't notice.
* Gnome terminal lacking ability to rename tabs by interacting with the tab (can be done through menu option somewhere)
Interesting feature gripe. Never thought about it, myself.
Consider the situation where you are working on three customer's boxes over SSH at one time. I love being able to double click the tab and make the tab name reflect the name of the customer I'm working on.
* Gedit lacking features as compared with KEdit
Gedit works fine for me. What features are you missing? For real work I use the Zend IDE. I rarely use the builtins, so unless it were on par with the ZDE (seamless SFTP, code highlighting, yadda yadda) it would be a non-issue.
I use the XML autocompletion and validation available with KEdit as well as the ability to have the text buffer content interact with scripts and terminals and vise-versa. Also the KIO-slaves missing is a gripe but not specific to Gedit.
* Epiphany / Galeon (which is it now?) not as feature complete as Firefox
Did you mean to say that Epiphany/Galeon aren't as complete as Konqueror? Last time I checked, Firefox had nothing specific to do with KDE. (Incidentally, I use FF on Gnome)
I brought it up because the full "integrated" experience is important to me. Firefox uses Gnome's mime handler but naught else. If I were to switch to Gnome I would be more likely to stay if the browser were nicely integrated with the environment. (think consistent UI experience). Konqueror may be lacking in compatibility with web sites but what it lacks it makes up for with gratuitous integration with the KDE environment and libraries.
Feature wise, I was missing the RSS integration, the yellow SSL security indicator on the link bar and some of the FF specific plugins.
I have to say - I've had sortof the opposite experience than you in many ways. I try KDE again about once each year, and each time I'm annoyed by the same aspects (over-widgety feel of everything, too many hard angles, the ugly phony-LED clock, etc). I realize alot of this stuff can be changed, but the general flavor of the desktop doesn't match my less-is-more attitude.
I can kinda see where you're coming from. I have openned up a new KDE app on occasion and felt dizzy from the massive array of buttons and widgets thrown at me. Once I spend a little time though, the interface becomes familiar and useful.
Kudos to the gnome team on another fine, timely release.
Aye, they are nothing if not timely and well managed.
Re:Future viability in question?
on
Gnome 2.10 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Disclaimer: I'm a KDE user.
I always give Gnome due dilligence for each release. Each time a new version comes out I test it out for one full week and see how it works for me. Since the release of 2.0 I have always gone back to KDE for this reason:
[on #gnome on irc.freenode.net] Me: Where is feature X? It seems like I ought to be able to do X but I can't seem to find it. Dev/Zealot A1: Yea we think that's a good idea but we haven't gotten to it yet. or Dev/Zealot A2: Well, X is too complicated so we did Y. You must use Y. X is not implemented.
As with other releases I will try 2.10 out and see how it's progressed but here's a list of show stoppers in previous versions:
* Inability to edit or affect the panel menus in an intuitive way (somewhat addressed through the addition of applications:/// which was hard to find) * Inability to hold down the mouse button (drag through) while navigating the menus. The thinking was accessibility related. A click event occurs after some arbitrary criteria has been met that convinces Gnome that the user really wanted to click and just didn't know to let go of the mouse button and then click again. Very annoying. * No window snapping * Non-existance of KIO-slaves equivalent (ability to open and work with files on arbitrary network resources) -- very useful * Gnome terminal lacking ability to rename tabs by interacting with the tab (can be done through menu option somewhere) * Gedit lacking features as compared with KEdit * Epiphany / Galeon (which is it now?) not as feature complete as Firefox * Until recently, the Gnome file open dialog box was a nightmare. It still has some problems, though. Many of its features are hidden in shortcut keys that one would only know existed if one scoured the Gnome manuals.
A lot of people bitch about spacial Nautilus but I don't think that's nearly important as some other basic needed features (window snapping). I can modify the way my brain works with a particular computer paradigm if I think it might be more sensible but I cannot do without features that increase my productivity.
"For example, if a condom breaks during intercourse, the associated volume of fluid leaking out of the condom is estimated to be approximately one-third of the total ejaculate, i.e., about 1 ml. Therefore, assuming a 2% breakage or slippage rate during actual use, the relative risk of semen exposure from the infrequent condom breakage (compared to using no condom at all) would be.006 (1 ml × 2/100 ÷ 3.3 ml).
For example, if a condom breaks during intercourse, the associated volume of fluid leaking out of the condom is estimated to be approximately one-third of the total ejaculate, i.e., about 1 ml. Therefore, assuming a 2% breakage or slippage rate during actual use, the relative risk of semen exposure from the infrequent condom breakage (compared to using no condom at all) would be.006 (1 ml × 2/100 ÷ 3.3 ml)."
So, actually, that report supports my claims. The statistic you cite is the probability of infection in those that claim to always use condoms. There's a difference.
So, what you're saying is essentially: "Those HIV people keep going around spreading HIV because they don't know they have it; we should quarantine them so they don't do that."
Not to be too simplistic but, uh, how are you going to know someon is HIV+ if they don't know?
A lot of the information was incorrect, but not unexpected, your own response proved your are just as much an ignorant ass and idiot.
Okay, we're off to a rocky start but maybe you will prove your ad hominum point...
You're pissed because you got a deadly disease that was preventable and may die by your actions. You don't like someone being truthful about it
That's an interesting claim but unsubstatiated. You don't know me.
So you go and call them Nazi-like. How educated your are. Asshole.
He suggests putting all HIV+ people under house arrest and you call me an asshole?
re condom coverage--Liar. You know better. As any STAT ([Medical but not always] Students Teaching AIDS [education] to [high school] Students)...
"Students" starts with a "S", not a "T" but if you say this supposed group exists, whatever...
person knows from their first group sitdown on talks, and indeed any HIV school advisor or adolescent caretaker should know, condoms do NOT cover ALL VULNERABLE parts. Now, maybe you didn't do the sex thing right and you don't know this. Coverage isn't about parts. Coverage is about FLUIDS. It's FLUID TRANSFER. Usually, this is through the sex organs, but condoms themselves are not great at coverage. If you're male, put one on; the base, scrotum, etc. are not covered. This was one of the major things going for the female condom; it had better coverage for the female. This is why dams{sp} are used during oral sex (if you don't have a damn, cut any additional condoms you have and unroll flat).
Hum, so you're claiming that fluids penetrate the epidermis? So, I guess that you're really claiming that you believe that casual contact with an HIV+ person is dangerous. Somehow I don't think that this claim is substantiated and you'd be hard-pressed to find any medical doctor that agreed with you. Furth, a dental dam is to protect your exposed mucous membranes in your mouth. However, there has been only one documented HIV infection in the entire history of study of the disease. It sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.
re medical ethics--You're no doctor yourself (I'm not one either). The central dogma is do no harm. Even so-called laypersons (general population, average Joe) know this. It is NOT to improve life. Indeed, that very tenet is secondary.
Debatable; but either way it does nothing to bolster your arguments here.
If the tenet was to improve life, that would be hugely problematic, as that would the REASON to enforce quarantines, create mandatory testing, rip parents from their children, and create a second class of humans in name as well as societal treatment.
Slipery slope argument. Invalidated.
All in all, this ethics discussion points to the difficulty when you classify things as Christian or left wing or what not. People become misinformed. "Do no harm" which was more like the previous poster, if implemented now, would drastically reduce the spread of HIV. People would get tested, treated, and reveal their conditions. It's the folks spreading them, living their lives, who are killing.
I fail to see how "do no harm" substantiates a doctrine of compulsory quarantine. HIV+ is not air born and is not spread through casual contact. I do no harm to anyone by being allowed to go to work, go to school and pay my taxes. You used slipery slope here again making these broad unsubstantiated claims without connecting statement A to statement B.
But presently, it is not the answer as that mentality is not prevalent in our society, as you so readily indicate in your own post.
Right, I'm glad that everyone doesn't jump to conclusions as quickly as you do here.
And no, it is not a loss of privacy issue; you can be HIV positive and not have to reveal any of it if you lived in a manner which protected your partners.
When/where did privacy enter the conversation? I'm rebutting a person's claim that putting all HIV+ persons under "house arrest" is logical. You do know what "house arrest" is, right?
In this case the Nazi analogy was right on target. Eugenics, anyone?
You sadly oversimplify the matter of risk. My partner has chosen to take his 0.001% risk that one of the times that we have sex the condom will have a construction flaw that will cause it to break. However, since we humans have these wonderful things called eyes, we examine the condom before we continue.
If a small cut in the condom were to go undetected, the probability that an infection would result is still low as the cut would have to be exactly at the tip and the flaw would have to be so pronounced that it would allow a (relatively) large amount of fluid to be exchanged.
In any event, he has made that choice because the benefit of happiness between us out-weight the chance that he will become infected. People make choices of this nature all the time.
And please stop characterizing condoms as non-functional. If you have some scientific data to back up your belief I would love to see it.
I'm so angry about your short rant that I could spit. (And shame on you moderators.) But instead of throwing a fit, I'm going to spell it out for you very clearly starting with the most aggrecious of your claims:
I know that stopping the transmission works. HIV patients need quarrantined (home bound etc) for their own protection from secondary diseases. Even treating them in the Hospital is a threat to their safety. They will not spread HIV and we don't need to treat them for the horrid illnesses they get when their failed immune systems contact the general world about them. Suggesting otherwise is to deny them the general protection of reverse isolation quarrantine that we do for other immuno compromised patients such as chemo therapy and transplant patients.
Having been HIV+ for three years, and expecting to be so for the rest of my (possibly short) life, as I'm sure and expert like you is so aware, HIV and AIDS are two medical conditions. I expect to be free from the symptoms of AIDS for at least another ten years. Your comments here expose a profound misunderstanding of how HIV works, immuno reponse works, and the variety of drugs that can keep HIV/AIDS folks out of the red zone for a very long time. Indeed is was true 20 years ago that HIV meant extreme immuno vulnerablility but that is no longer the case.
And for being an expert, somewhere along the way you, apparently, missed the class on medical ethics in which you would have learned that the central edict of medicine is increasing the quality of life for its recipients.
I don't know what kind of Nazi fantasy world you live in but there is no way in hell you are going to put me under house arrest 'for my protection' so that you feel safer when you don't know where your children are or who they are doing. The very notion that we can social engineer sexual exposure out of our society is nieve at best and disturbed at worst.
If I were to suggest that playing in the sewer was lots of fun and simply tell the kids that putting on rubber boots created "safe sewer play" equipment you would find me a dispicable person when I lead a booted class of kids into the sewers to play. There are activities and behaviors that are inherently dangerous and destructive. Making counter argument does not change the facts that these are dangerous.
It sounds like you've been reading so Christian-right pro-abstainance bullshit. Your analogy fails in two ways:
People aren't compelled by their very nature to go play in the sewer. As you may recall (if you can see through the hazy of your ideolgoy), as a young boy you were compelled automatically to desire sex.
Boots do not sheath the vulnerable parts of your body (mouth and nose) from the air born bacteria in a sewer. Condoms sheath the vunerable parts of your body (penis, vagina, rectum) from the fluid born viri with which people are be concerned. To suggest otherwise does a disservice to those who engage in sexual activity because their will is weak and who would choose not to use protection because of your lies.
Our company has been been doing LTSP server installs in local area school for a year, now. In that time we've learned a lot about what LTSP needs and doesn't have and have developed tools to deal with those issues. Novell has a long road ahead of them to deal with that list of challenges. Off the top of my head, here are some common ones:
Devices connected to thin clients are extremely difficult to bind back to the server for enumeration and individual user access. Think users in different rooms want to print to their printer on their desk. Our tools handle that but took months to develop.
Managing the KDE Kiosk API to lock down user desktop is not currently possible in anything but config files; again, our tools manage those things but took months to develop.
Managing the rolling out of user profile changes requires scripts and GUI interfaces to those scripts.
Changes in hardware configurations require close relationships with customers where an advanced Linux technician can respond timely. This is a huge cost to our company but it make the stuff work and makes our customers happy.
People that purchase LTSP servers have no interest in learning or administering Linux. They want it to just work; they're tired of adminstering variances in Windows labs and networks. You have to have a Linux tech to closely support the server.
Upgrades between releases of SuSE cannot be done, AFAIK. Presently, the only distros that can continually upgrade without breaking are Gentoo, Debian, LFS, and Slackware. This is Novells biggest challenge. This means that users of Novell's implementation would have to reinstall to receive any new software.
With currently available SuSE tools, it's not possible to boot from CD remotely and do a complete server rebuild or forensics in case of absolute disaster. We can do this by using Gentoo boot CD's.
Clients invariably have one Windows app that they just have to run in Wine. It requires time, patience, and working with the Wine folks and good debugging skills to get some of these things to work. I don't think Novell has the time or interest due to costs of such things.
Novell has their work cut out for them but I think that, ultimately, a company this large will find that the cost of supporting these servers running in places with noone with any Linux knowledge is too high -- they'll get out of the business or their customers will not get sufficient support and leave.
The problem is that information is rarely heirarchial and XML only serves to force us in to making it be stored heirarchially. Information is more like a web of relationships. In graph theory, this is a simple, connected graph.
The best reply to this has been one that Jonathan Hutchins posted to our KCLUG mailing list:
You know, I was going to answer this. I even started to list the main reasons
why I'm currently converting all of my Windows systems to Linux.
Then I returned to my senses. Microsoft has made it abundantly clear that it
views competitors as enemies. Competition is to be smotherd, obliterated,
discredited, or if all else fails, assimilated.
So why does Microsoft want to know what makes Linux great? So it can refute
it, tailoring it's FUD campaigns more carefully? So it can find other
tactics like it's support of SCO's lawsuits to impede Linux's strengths? So
it can engineer it's own software to lock Linux systems out, prevent them
from succeeding in mixed environments?
We'd all like to believe that it's so it can target those strengths as ways to
enhance it's own software, but years track record show that even when
Microsoft does this, it also does the "take away their air" tactics and is
ultimately more interested in it's own "triumph" than in the advancement of
technology.
No, Mr. Surkan, I don't believe you're the kindly uncle who just wants to
understand us better. Even if your personal motives are pure, even if the
infomation you collect is used for good, it will also be picked over by the
best experts in the world for any scrap that can be used against Linux - and
ultimately against us.
KC Linux Users Group -- to unsubscribe send mail to majordomo@kclug.org
Enter without the quotes in body of message "unsubscribe kclug"
You could get a large group of people to converge on a scientology meeting. Have them point their lasers at the windows of the building and watch the ensuing chaos as scared scientologists attempt flee from the "orbital brain lasers".
Way, WAY off topic, but it's worth mentioning that maturbation is now legal in all fifty due to the Supreme Court's sodomy ruling. Good news for geeks everywhere!
"Ah, but what is moral?" said the philosopher. Can we define moral as the preservation of self? If so, capitalism is moral being no more or less moral than any single person competing for finite resources. The crux, you see, is when we define morality as working in concert -- more or less, socialism. And so, neither economic system can be defined without its opposite. Such is the nature of the Hegelian dialectic that gave birth to Marx's ideas.
Notice that "disabled people" wasn't used in the headline, though. Language is powerful and as someone that works in the disabilities field. In order of most offensive to most respectful: "the disabled," "disabled people," "people with disabilites." Language has a powerful influence on how we perceive things.
Slashdot Mirror
If you use natural philosophy for all matters in the natural world, what then does that leave for Chistianity to say? It is popular among Christians to assume that humans are more than merely natural beings having something spirital as well. Then do you deny that you are a member of the natural world? Would your use of natural philosophy in science stop at scientific matters influenced by humans? And what fields of science are not thusly influnced by humans? If not, then what use is Christianity if it has nothing to say about our world? Why not some more abstract religion which has less dogmatic law?
How can a claim to be a scientist and not subscribe to natural philosophy, the basis of all science? I don't mean this question in a patronizing way for I truely find it difficult to understand your position.
Your lose a great deal of credibity, in my estimation, when your proclaimed profession and religion are fundamentally in conflict.
Don't you see that you desire to not believe the article? Are you so entrenched in your beliefs that you find it impossible to fathom that you might be wrong? I will not repeat the contents of the article here to avoid patronizing you but for to suffice it to say that the sections that you quote explicitely address your claims. You skipped them because they're so threatening to your identity that you cannot even see it!
The field of psychology has long had a name for this phenomenon: cognative dissonance. Before you speak in public again I suggest that you read up on this phenomenon.
Evolution has been proven. It is fact. Scientists now expend time on making our picture of causal history more complete. If you believe the Earth goes around the Sun and that apples fall from trees because of gravity, you must follow your logic through to its conclusion and find that evolution is a fact. And, again I say, attacking evolution doesn't lend any credibility to Intelligent Design.
Your comments betray your fundamental misunderstanding of biology. That aside, complaining about evolution doesn't lend any credibility to Intelligent Design.
Now if you can tell me how we (the human species) is going to look in 10,000 years, and it comes true, then I guess I'll have to eat these words. But I'm not going to be starving myself waiting for them.
Humans will look exactly as they do today 10,000 years from now assuming that we don't destroy our civilization and revert to roaming packs of scavengers. Natural selection is no longer at play on our species (at least in a significant way) and so mutations will not flourish, therefore we will not evolve.
No wonder it was said that "the wisdom of man leads to death."
Wisdom is serving me quite well.
Intelligent Design has yet to put forth a testable hypothesis. Until it does so, it's not science and by extention, not a theory. Therefore, it has no place in a science classroom.
I just tried 2.8 again with some suggestions from others here and I have some corrections to my own comments:
1. 2.8 seems to have fixed the drag event menu problem
2. shift+drag does work for window snaping. I'm not sure how this can be turned on permanently or how I was supposed to find this feature intuitively.
3. The two hidden file-open features that I know of are: CTRL+F and CTRL+L. There may be more.
4. I should have been saying Kate, not Kedit. Kedit is devoid of features.
I'm not sure about this being a problem. I just now tried it on this Gnome 2.8 system and it doesn't seem to generate an action until the mouse button is released. I can click drag through any level of menus and across menus just fine.
Hum, well I did ask about it as recently as 2.6 and a dev on #gnome told me that it was indeed intentional. I think it's activated by holding the mouse cursor in a location for more than a set number of seconds. Once the event occurs, the menu entry one was hovering over enters drag-and-drop mode and one must press ESC and renavigate to the place in the menu that one was at. Perhaps it has changed in 2.8 and I didn't notice.
* Gnome terminal lacking ability to rename tabs by interacting with the tab (can be done through menu option somewhere)
Interesting feature gripe. Never thought about it, myself.
Consider the situation where you are working on three customer's boxes over SSH at one time. I love being able to double click the tab and make the tab name reflect the name of the customer I'm working on.
* Gedit lacking features as compared with KEditGedit works fine for me. What features are you missing? For real work I use the Zend IDE. I rarely use the builtins, so unless it were on par with the ZDE (seamless SFTP, code highlighting, yadda yadda) it would be a non-issue.
I use the XML autocompletion and validation available with KEdit as well as the ability to have the text buffer content interact with scripts and terminals and vise-versa. Also the KIO-slaves missing is a gripe but not specific to Gedit.
* Epiphany / Galeon (which is it now?) not as feature complete as FirefoxDid you mean to say that Epiphany/Galeon aren't as complete as Konqueror? Last time I checked, Firefox had nothing specific to do with KDE. (Incidentally, I use FF on Gnome)
I brought it up because the full "integrated" experience is important to me. Firefox uses Gnome's mime handler but naught else. If I were to switch to Gnome I would be more likely to stay if the browser were nicely integrated with the environment. (think consistent UI experience). Konqueror may be lacking in compatibility with web sites but what it lacks it makes up for with gratuitous integration with the KDE environment and libraries.
I have to say - I've had sortof the opposite experience than you in many ways. I try KDE again about once each year, and each time I'm annoyed by the same aspects (over-widgety feel of everything, too many hard angles, the ugly phony-LED clock, etc). I realize alot of this stuff can be changed, but the general flavor of the desktop doesn't match my less-is-more attitude.Feature wise, I was missing the RSS integration, the yellow SSL security indicator on the link bar and some of the FF specific plugins.
I can kinda see where you're coming from. I have openned up a new KDE app on occasion and felt dizzy from the massive array of buttons and widgets thrown at me. Once I spend a little time though, the interface becomes familiar and useful.
Kudos to the gnome team on another fine, timely release.Aye, they are nothing if not timely and well managed.
Disclaimer: I'm a KDE user.
I always give Gnome due dilligence for each release. Each time a new version comes out I test it out for one full week and see how it works for me. Since the release of 2.0 I have always gone back to KDE for this reason:
[on #gnome on irc.freenode.net]
Me: Where is feature X? It seems like I ought to be able to do X but I can't seem to find it.
Dev/Zealot A1: Yea we think that's a good idea but we haven't gotten to it yet.
or
Dev/Zealot A2: Well, X is too complicated so we did Y. You must use Y. X is not implemented.
As with other releases I will try 2.10 out and see how it's progressed but here's a list of show stoppers in previous versions:
* Inability to edit or affect the panel menus in an intuitive way (somewhat addressed through the addition of applications:/// which was hard to find)
* Inability to hold down the mouse button (drag through) while navigating the menus. The thinking was accessibility related. A click event occurs after some arbitrary criteria has been met that convinces Gnome that the user really wanted to click and just didn't know to let go of the mouse button and then click again. Very annoying.
* No window snapping
* Non-existance of KIO-slaves equivalent (ability to open and work with files on arbitrary network resources) -- very useful
* Gnome terminal lacking ability to rename tabs by interacting with the tab (can be done through menu option somewhere)
* Gedit lacking features as compared with KEdit
* Epiphany / Galeon (which is it now?) not as feature complete as Firefox
* Until recently, the Gnome file open dialog box was a nightmare. It still has some problems, though. Many of its features are hidden in shortcut keys that one would only know existed if one scoured the Gnome manuals.
A lot of people bitch about spacial Nautilus but I don't think that's nearly important as some other basic needed features (window snapping). I can modify the way my brain works with a particular computer paradigm if I think it might be more sensible but I cannot do without features that increase my productivity.
So here's to hoping.
So, actually, that report supports my claims. The statistic you cite is the probability of infection in those that claim to always use condoms. There's a difference.
So, what you're saying is essentially: "Those HIV people keep going around spreading HIV because they don't know they have it; we should quarantine them so they don't do that."
Not to be too simplistic but, uh, how are you going to know someon is HIV+ if they don't know?
Okay, we're off to a rocky start but maybe you will prove your ad hominum point...
That's an interesting claim but unsubstatiated. You don't know me.
He suggests putting all HIV+ people under house arrest and you call me an asshole?
"Students" starts with a "S", not a "T" but if you say this supposed group exists, whatever...
Hum, so you're claiming that fluids penetrate the epidermis? So, I guess that you're really claiming that you believe that casual contact with an HIV+ person is dangerous. Somehow I don't think that this claim is substantiated and you'd be hard-pressed to find any medical doctor that agreed with you. Furth, a dental dam is to protect your exposed mucous membranes in your mouth. However, there has been only one documented HIV infection in the entire history of study of the disease. It sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Debatable; but either way it does nothing to bolster your arguments here.
Slipery slope argument. Invalidated.
I fail to see how "do no harm" substantiates a doctrine of compulsory quarantine. HIV+ is not air born and is not spread through casual contact. I do no harm to anyone by being allowed to go to work, go to school and pay my taxes. You used slipery slope here again making these broad unsubstantiated claims without connecting statement A to statement B.
Right, I'm glad that everyone doesn't jump to conclusions as quickly as you do here.
When/where did privacy enter the conversation? I'm rebutting a person's claim that putting all HIV+ persons under "house arrest" is logical. You do know what "house arrest" is, right?
In this case the Nazi analogy was right on target. Eugenics, anyone?
You sadly oversimplify the matter of risk. My partner has chosen to take his 0.001% risk that one of the times that we have sex the condom will have a construction flaw that will cause it to break. However, since we humans have these wonderful things called eyes, we examine the condom before we continue.
If a small cut in the condom were to go undetected, the probability that an infection would result is still low as the cut would have to be exactly at the tip and the flaw would have to be so pronounced that it would allow a (relatively) large amount of fluid to be exchanged.
In any event, he has made that choice because the benefit of happiness between us out-weight the chance that he will become infected. People make choices of this nature all the time.
And please stop characterizing condoms as non-functional. If you have some scientific data to back up your belief I would love to see it.
I'm so angry about your short rant that I could spit. (And shame on you moderators.) But instead of throwing a fit, I'm going to spell it out for you very clearly starting with the most aggrecious of your claims:
Having been HIV+ for three years, and expecting to be so for the rest of my (possibly short) life, as I'm sure and expert like you is so aware, HIV and AIDS are two medical conditions. I expect to be free from the symptoms of AIDS for at least another ten years. Your comments here expose a profound misunderstanding of how HIV works, immuno reponse works, and the variety of drugs that can keep HIV/AIDS folks out of the red zone for a very long time. Indeed is was true 20 years ago that HIV meant extreme immuno vulnerablility but that is no longer the case.
And for being an expert, somewhere along the way you, apparently, missed the class on medical ethics in which you would have learned that the central edict of medicine is increasing the quality of life for its recipients.
I don't know what kind of Nazi fantasy world you live in but there is no way in hell you are going to put me under house arrest 'for my protection' so that you feel safer when you don't know where your children are or who they are doing. The very notion that we can social engineer sexual exposure out of our society is nieve at best and disturbed at worst.
It sounds like you've been reading so Christian-right pro-abstainance bullshit. Your analogy fails in two ways:
Our company has been been doing LTSP server installs in local area school for a year, now. In that time we've learned a lot about what LTSP needs and doesn't have and have developed tools to deal with those issues. Novell has a long road ahead of them to deal with that list of challenges. Off the top of my head, here are some common ones:
Novell has their work cut out for them but I think that, ultimately, a company this large will find that the cost of supporting these servers running in places with noone with any Linux knowledge is too high -- they'll get out of the business or their customers will not get sufficient support and leave.
... IMHO, of course.
Yes, it is a documented memory leak. I believe most of the problem comes from imagelib.
The problem is that information is rarely heirarchial and XML only serves to force us in to making it be stored heirarchially. Information is more like a web of relationships. In graph theory, this is a simple, connected graph.
The best reply to this has been one that Jonathan Hutchins posted to our KCLUG mailing list:
You could get a large group of people to converge on a scientology meeting. Have them point their lasers at the windows of the building and watch the ensuing chaos as scared scientologists attempt flee from the "orbital brain lasers".
"Pointy Haired Boss" a la Dilbert
Way, WAY off topic, but it's worth mentioning that maturbation is now legal in all fifty due to the Supreme Court's sodomy ruling. Good news for geeks everywhere!
"Ah, but what is moral?" said the philosopher. Can we define moral as the preservation of self? If so, capitalism is moral being no more or less moral than any single person competing for finite resources. The crux, you see, is when we define morality as working in concert -- more or less, socialism. And so, neither economic system can be defined without its opposite. Such is the nature of the Hegelian dialectic that gave birth to Marx's ideas.
That's has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Slashdot.
Notice that "disabled people" wasn't used in the headline, though. Language is powerful and as someone that works in the disabilities field. In order of most offensive to most respectful: "the disabled," "disabled people," "people with disabilites." Language has a powerful influence on how we perceive things.