Cookbook
The ultimate cookbook application, with online grocery shopping, thousands of recipes, Leopard voiceover technology integration, shopping list sharing, and more.
This is a sort-of-cool idea. I don't think it has quite the scope and brilliant of Whistler, but this is something I could actually almost use... IF I were stupid enough to put a computer in the kitchen... DOH!
That was my first thought as well until I saw the following in the writeup:
Then, to cook with the ingredients, Cookbook's assisted full-screen mode will allow you to follow recipes on your MacBook from across the kitchen. Use the Apple Remote to navigate through recipes, or if your hands are too dirty, voice recognition will take its place so you'll never have to touch a key.
If done right (and all of the screenshots look good), this could very well be the recipe software that a lot of us have been looking for. Of all of the apps, this one really makes the most sense since it is so well designed and feasible.
Re:There is no lack of material
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What are you talking about? Weird Al's stuff is about as low-brow as it gets
You are correct. I chose the wrong word. I will blame it on lack of sleep. I was trying to refer to the sleeze comedy that is so popular today where the only joke that seems to exist anymore is sex.
Frankly, I prefer Richard Cheese's expletive-laden covers. If that means the songs are off-limits to kids, Christians and other sensitive types then that's their problem, not mine.
It has been in my experience, especially in regard to songs, that if one resorts to the use of bad language, they usually have run out of ideas. As a song writer I can tell you word space is limited in a song. You only have so many syllables to say exactly what you want to say. Swear words waste valuable real estate and generally do not add much to the meaning of the song (there are very few exceptions). Swear words are misused more often than not (not used for the meaning they actually have) and are not as poetic or descriptive as alternate forms. For example, consider "My life smells like sh*t" versus "My life smells like monkeys at the zoo". The second line has much more meaning and is repulsive without being vulgar. It is creative and different (I know the lines are not interchangable in a song, but you can see what I mean about the poetry). Too often those who use vulgarity don't have a whole lot to say or the creativity to say it right. (IMHO)
Regardless of taste, alienating the "kids, Christians and other sensitive types" alienates a very large percentage of the population. In order to remain popular have the kind of following Weird Al has, you need to be able to reach that audience as well. It is what has given him staying power. If you want your art to have vulgarity, innuendo, or nudity, that is fine, but do not complain when it doesn't reach a mass audience.
Re:There is no lack of material
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm not surprised that Weird Al has lasted so long; I'm surprised that more people don't do the same. Maybe Weird Al and the Simpsons just do it better than anyone else.
One of Weird Al's strengths is the fact that he keeps his humor clean, and the Simpsons has remained relatively clean compared to its competitors. There are many other comedians and parody artists who allow vulgarity and low-brow humor to slip into their work which undermines it. No one has a guilty conscience for listening to Weird Al's songs, so his humor is able to reach a larger audience. It also often takes more talent to be funny and clean as you are not relying on the "shock" factor as many "colorful" comedians do. There is something magical about a comedic routine that people of all ages and walks of life can enjoy.
Those who focus on IE only and use IE specific tags and ActiveX usually put themselves out of a job by neglecting a large percentage of the market...
I really wish that were the case, but in my experience, it has been exactly the opposite. Lip service has been given to browser compatibility, but when it comes done to crunch time, management says that we will just have to tell our customers to use IE. Since Windows has ~95% of the market, a vast majority of our users will have access to IE. It just takes too much time and money for them to ensure that all of the Javascript and fancy display options work in all browsers. The developers who insist on taking the time and effort to ensure that all browsers work the same and correctly are more in danger of losing their job. This seems to be a fairly common mindset in larger companies, but smaller companies may in fact be more open to full browser support.
Also, by focusing on IE, you do not neglect a "large percentage of the market", but rather a small but vocal percentage. However, when it comes to pure financials, appeasing this minority can be hard to justify. I am not saying that I like it this way, but this is the way it is.
Re:The never ending march ...
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A parent was quoted as saying that her son feels safer now and that she'd witnessed enough "near collisions".(emphasis added)
A couple points here: First, I am so tired of hearing parents saying what their children feel. Does her son really feel safer, or does he just say he does because it makes mom happy?
Also, note that the concern comes from the mother. Now I will probably be labelled sexist here, but this just brings up the differences between the sexes (yes, to all of you college professors and students lost in the realm of theory and academia, there is a difference between men and women). Women are inherently protective because security is very important to them. It is called nuturing. It gives them the incredible gift of motherhood which helps children feel safe and protected. Men, on the other hand, tend to be harder and push their children. They are the ones who encourage their sons to make a solid tackle next time instead of just a glancing blow. They are also the ones that encourage their children to take chances. For men, it is all about status and fulfillment. The fact is that both the mother and father are necessary to the proper upbringing of children. All children need to feel safe, but they also need to learn that taking risks is okay. They need both in order to grow up to be well-adjusted adults.
Unfortunately, over the past thirty or forty years, our society has demeaned fathers and promoted mothers. Fathers are portrayed in the media as stupid, aloof, or cruel. Men are looked down upon for being who they are as our whole society loses the ability to take chances. Women, in trying to make men into images of themselves, are now finding that they can no longer find "real men". I wonder why. This instance is a case in point. Notice that it is the mother who is concerned about the issue. It is the mother who has pushed this agenda until the school backed down. The father has been rendered powerless -- or has allowed himself to become powerless.
Two things need to happen here if things are to turn around. First, men need to involve themselves in their children's lives. Their role is just as important as the mother's in raising children. Teach your sons to be men, and teach your daughters what kind of men that she be attracted to. Second, women need to allow men to take the role they were meant to play as a true partner in the relationship. No more cheap potshots at men, and no demeaning them infront of their children. Couples need to come together and support each other, and we as a society need to recognize the differences and strengths of both mothers and fathers and support them.
There is a disturbing trend that I have been witnessing in software development -- especially web applications. A lot of effort is being directed into making the developer's job easier or faster at the expense of a better user experience. Toolsets are being developed that make it easy to produce a functional UI in a very short period of time, however the end result is bloated and inefficient -- not just in code execution but in user experience. The interface is not tailored to the user's needs (making frequent tasks quicky and easy to perform for example), and often they are forced to go through a series of hoops to accomplish a simple task because it was more convenient to program it a certain way. If you have any experience with SAP applications, you know exactly what I mean.
Unfortunately, the focus right now is entirely on getting the software out quickly. Good UI design takes time and a flexible library. It also requires skilled programmers who know how to solve problems, but unfortunately, many of the popular tools appeal to the novice programmers encouraging more poor design and inefficient code. With increasing misfortune, upper management sees these tools as the answers to these problems -- get the product out quickly without the need for good programmers. As a result, the overall quality continues to decline, and software becomes less useful with each new release. If it were not for examples such as Google and Apple, I might give up hope in software altogether.
So really, I think the answer is not that nobody cares, but that they care about the wrong things.
All the evidence supports it, and none contradicts it... (emphasis added)
Sorry, but that strikes me as a very absolute (and therefore probably wrong)statement -- and I see it a lot here on Slashdot from those who claim they are above such sins. Creationists are criticized for making sweeping statements like this, but if you believe in the popular theory (evolution) you are somehow allowed to make these same kinds of statements?
I think most real scientists -- even if they believe strongly in evolution -- would disagree with that statement. There is plenty of evidence that goes against evolution. For example, the evolution of DNA is a puzzle. You cannot evolve DNA unless you have two organisms with compatible altered DNA to mate and produce offspring with the same characteristics. To simplify this idea, consider an organism with a DNA strand of 100 pairs evolving to an organism with 110 pairs. Two of these organisms would have to be born with 110 pairs, be able to meet and mate, and produce viable offspring that could continue the new strain. This seems like a very unlikely event. Does this disprove evolution? Not necessarily, but it is evidence that would seem to go against it until someone can prove a workaround.
Another piece of evidence -- the saltiness of the ocean. The ocean becomes increasingly salty every year -- albeit slowly. It gains minerals faster than it loses them, and according to most estimates, it can only have been on its current pace for around 60,000 years assuming it started as a fresh water sea. This would indicate that the dates given for the age of the earth (in the millions or billions of years) are far too high. This again would be evidence against evolution. Add to this that we are discovering every day how things that we believed took a very long time to accomplish actually do not take long at all (the formation of the Grand Canyon, petrified forests, formation of coal and oil).
There is evidence against evolution -- or at least the current theories related to evolution -- but most scientists believe there is more evidence (some say far more) to support it than disprove it. If there were not problems in the theory, we would not have so many people studying the field trying to overcome them. There continue to be missing links between various species. There continue to be steps of evolution that baffle scientists and do not match current theories. To say that all evidence supports evolution and that there is no contradiction is just as pig-headed as the creationists that you deride.
Actually, that page has been up all morning before the slashdot link to the site. There may be something wrong with their servers, but it happened before the slashdot effect.
How many members of MySpace will be turning old enough to vote by the time Bush is to be replaced? Is that enough to sway a victory? And, what's going to happen when the myspace nation finds a political leader?
These are some very important questions, and the fact is that most people do not know. The one big event that you did not mention which makes this an even more pressing question is the retirement and eventual disappearance of the baby boom generation. For the past two or three decades, this country has effectively been run by this large, vocal group -- a group that as a whole has invested a lot of money but very little time into their children. As a result, you have a generation of people raised with every thing their hearts desired but lacking the insight into the wisdom and experience of the preceding generations. Thus, MySpace. It is a place of infinite freedom to them where they get the social interactions they did not get at home. Yet, they know so very little about the world, and there is no positive influence from the older generations to guide them away from the cliff.
Every generation rebels -- this is pretty much a fact, but even in these rebellions, the wisdom of the older generations tempers it. All that the young generation knows now is that the current system is broken. They see the actions of their parents and grandparents as mistakes, but they do not understand why those mistakes were made or why some of their "new" ideas were not implemented. For example, they are frustrated that we don't live in a true democracy without stopping to think why that might be (protection for minorities, the existence of fundamental laws and rights, etc.). The scary thing is that some day, the leader of our nation will have to be elected by the MySpace crowd because they will be the only ones left (the babyboomers won't live forever). What values have we passed down to them to help them make the decisions that will direct their future? What choices will they make?
While we can stumble along and learn lessons the hard way, there is great value in gleaning observations of reality from those who have already lived it -- even if we don't agree with them. Unfortunately, I think this is one of the values passed down -- a disrespect for the older generations. It is my fear that as the babyboomers move into retirement homes, they will become the loneliest generation our country has ever seen.
Goons is subjective, and pejorative, but the rest of this point is darned hard to argue with. When a party rises from the mat to take control of all three branches of the federal Government, is a coordinated effort lasting decades, you'd be hard pressed to call it luck. (emphasis added)
Yes, the forty years of Democratic rule in the House of Representatives was very well coordinated... oh wait! You were talking about the Republicans in congress over the last 13 years. Yes, I suppose since it has been over 10 years that the Republicans have held congress it can technically be considered decades. However, for six of those years, there was a Democrat in the White House (you do remember Clinton don't you?). Hmm, decades is starting to sound like an exaggeration, and so far, I am only talking about two branches of the federal government. "Control" over the three branches did not occur until the past year.
There is enough division in the United States without adding bald-faced lies and distortions to make the divisions even stronger. You want a conspiracy? Then tell me why there seems to be a concerted effort to alienate and divide practically every segment of the American society. You know, one of the best ways to defeat someone is to divide and conquer....
In case some disaster destroyed my town i'd be more concerned at staying warm than about my meat going off.
I think the idea here is medical supplies that need to be refrigerated -- blood, perishible medication, etc. There is more to keep cool in a rescue operation than just food. Besides, the cooling mechanism was included to increase the effeciency of the turbines. The ability to have refridgeration or to generate water were nice bonuses since the original idea was to save fuel when generating energy.
I did not say that I did not believe in God. I, in fact, do. However, I was acknowledging that this point would not be shared by a large percentage of the slashdot population. It is my belief that God does know what is going to happen that gives me peace and security in an otherwise very insecure world.
Bottom line is that nobody in the whole world can say with any certainty when Vista will actually be released.
That is a reality of life that we all too often overlook. Nothing is certain until it happens, and even then our interpretation of it may be incorrect. Even if they were the most organized company in the world with stellar software engineering skills, Mount Rainier could erupt causing the release to be delayed (to put it mildly). No one can tell you with absolute certainty what will happen this afternoon let alone tomorrow or six months from now (except for God, but most people here don't believe in Him anyway). I dare say that even the best of us could not say with certainty the exact day that a project of this scale would be released.
and it should only be done for the purpose of procreation.... and only "missionary" style... with the lights off... and the covers up....
Don't put words into my mouth. Did you not read my post? It was these very additions that you added that I called one of the dangerous extremes. Sex is not something to be hidden or frowned upon... but for the good of society it needs to remain in the realm of a man and woman to build a strong family environment. You want to have a good sex life? Find yourself a life-long partner and go have fun (and a lot of kids!). Some of the most godly Christians I have known have had large families... proof that they knew how to have fun in bed! In fact, studies have shown that married couples have sex far more often than their single counterparts. They have a willing partner who is available virtually 24/7. So what is so bad about this exactly?
There are always limits that need to be paid attention to for us to achieve maximum happiness. Limitations are not the great evil that our relativistic society tries to make them. For example, when confronted with a rich chocolate cake, we all understand that you need to eat in moderation. If you try to consume the whole cake, you will make yourself ill. Instead, you (gasp) cut a small slice. You limit yourself for your own happiness and health's sake. We drive our cars (most of us) in the proper lanes, and we stop at red lights and go on green. We follow the rules because it greatly increases our chances of survival and generally helps us get to our destination effeciently (bad city planning may hinder this). Why should sex and marriage be any different? I love sex. It is a fantastic experience, and I highly recommend it! However, I also recommend that we show the proper restraint to ensure that we get the maximum benefit out of it.
Sex doesn't have to be between a man and a woman, as I'm sure you are aware. You have no business telling two women or men that their sex life is outside the bounds of what "should" occur. Your morality is just that... yours. Keep it to yourself.
You obviously didn't read the rest of my post, or you just don't plain want to hear what I was saying. Studies are showing that children raised in a stable home with a father and mother have the best chance for success and are less likely to be involved in drugs, gangs, or crime -- especially when one of them stays home. When children do not have a positive role model from both sexes, they are more likely to get into trouble during their teenage years. This is a fact. What I am saying is that this should be the goal of our society -- to promote an atmosphere that fosters the traditional family.
Sex is one of the primary ways of creating intimacy and unity in a marriage, and it works best when the couple is faithful to one another. It builds mutual trust and closeness that is much more difficult to grow in an "open" relationship. As a result, children are able to be raised in a stable, safe environment. Teaching kids that having sex outside of marriage is dangerous. They run the risk of getting a sexual transmitted disease, teenage pregnancy, and sexual baggage that they will carry with them for the rest of their life making intimacy with a future spouse more difficult. Is it evil of me to want to help people avoid these heartaches? Or put in another way, if you see a car driving toward a bridge that they don't know is washed out, would you try to flag them down and stop them, or would you say that it is their choice to go on?
However, I don't think I really have that much to prove. The traditional male/female family has been the building block of nearly every civilization throughout history. Can you prove to me that your "free" society is better? Can you provide me studies that show that homosexualty adds stability to a society? It sounds good in principle, but when it meets the harsh world of reality it doesn't stand up.
Personally, I think that making sex and the human body (all parts of it) more accepted and acceptable would help to alleviate many problems in American society.
I think that is taking it to the other extreme and is therefore just as wrong as the first extreme. There are good reasons to limit access to sex -- namely, it can help protect and strengthen marriages. If your only sexual experience is with your spouse, you are less likely to become dissatisfied. Sexual abstinence is designed to protect the minds of people approaching marriage so that the sex with their spouse is elevated and special. Sex should be a beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman. That is the intent of those who are against pornography, etc.
The problem is that the effort to protect marriage and sex went too far. To keep kids away from sex before marriage, they tried to hide sex entirely. They made everything about it taboo and secretive. For a long time, "sex" was actually a dirty word that no one would say publicly. As a result, it became that proverbial forbidden fruit that made the negative effects even stronger than before. Extremes have a tendency to do this.
Now, however, there is a strong push to the other extreme where sex is allowed to run rampant, be seen everywhere, and is acceptible in all forms. As a result, marriage is being marginalized, and soon will have no meaning at all. This is a serious problem because conclusive studies have shown that children are best raised in a stable home with a married man and woman (the presence of one of each sex is vital to the upbringing of a child). The basic family unit has been the foundation of society since the beginning of time, but by taking sexual freedom to the extreme, we are threatening to destroy this foundation.
What is the answer? I think it is somewhere in the middle. Children need to be taught that sex is a very wonderful thing that needs to be treated with the respect it deserves. It needs to be something that is anticipated and cherished so that when you finally meet your life-mate, it remains the powerful, uniting experience it was always meant to be. Boys need to be raised with the understanding that with sex comes the responsibility of becoming a true father to the offspring that can result. This is why sex should only be pursued in the realm of marriage where that commitment has already been made. It should not be casually pursued or they will approach the responsibilty casually as well. Girls need to be taught that they should expect men to treat them with respect, and that love from a man should involve true commitment. To do anything less is to set them all up for heartache and trouble and to threaten the very existence of our society.
So you actively work to keep them ignorant. Think about it.
I have, and yes, I do. I believe there are certain things it is best not to know because once the line is crossed, you cannot go back. For example, I had a co-worker (who was somewhat promiscuous) that he felt the primary reason not to have extra-marital or pre-marital affairs was so that you would not compare your spouse to other experiences. If you don't know what you are missing, then you are not disappointed with what you have.
Now obvious this reasoning can go too far, but as with many things in this life, there is a balance that needs to be found. The world falls apart when we seek the extremes. I don't want to know everything, because my enjoyment of life would almost certainly be impaired if I did. At the same time I don't want to be completely ignorant because I can cause great harm to those around me if I am. The answer, I believe, is somewhere in the middle. There are just some things that it really is best that I do not know because it does not help me to be a better person and can in fact could make me worse.
If you look at the next paragraph, things don't look so bleak.
Recent estimates predict that a Type II supernova would have to be closer than 8 parsecs (26 light years) to destroy half of the Earth's protective ozone layer.[2] Such estimates are mostly concerned with atmospheric modelling and considered only the known radiation flux from SN 1987A, a Type II supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Estimates of the rate of supernova occurrence within 10 parsecs of the Earth vary from once every 100 million years [3] to once every one to ten billion years.[4]
While this supernova could affect the earth, the affect would probably not be catastrophic. We would probably have a great light show and some communication interference, but our existence would not be threatened.
I have a rather strange reason that took me a while to put my finger on it. I made a concerted effort to give Opera a shot. It had a lot of nice features including passing itself automatically as IE or even using the IE rendering engine on certain pages. It was fast and worked pretty well, but I always felt uncomfortable when I used it. I found myself stumbling again and again when trying to use the tabs, and my productivity was reduced. Then I figured it out... the navigation bar is underneath the tabs in Opera where it is at the top of the browser in Firefox. Why is this such a big deal? Because once I get my tabs set up, I don't care about the URL associated with each. I just want to be able to switch back and forth between tabs as quickly and effeciently as possible. With Opera, the navigation bar always seemed in the way which added to my discomfort. With Firefox, the tabs and the pages are more closely linked visually which works better for how I use the browser. I know why Opera did this, and from a certain point of view it makes sense, but it does not work as well for me.
Another gripe I have with Opera is that the bookmarks are not nearly as easy to setup as Firefox where you can drag-and-drop the links onto the bookmark bar. I have come to use this almost exclusively while ignoring the rest of the bookmark menu. It is just far more handy to me and provides quick access to my bookmarks while browsing.
I will continue to keep tabs (no pun intended) on Opera in the future, but I will probably not be switching from Firefox until I have a very compelling reason.
Wouldn't a landmine that transmits a signal be relatively easy to detect? Just look for the signal and disable the mine. On the plus side, maybe these would make it easier to clean them up when the particular war that used them was over. There are many countries that are potted with landmines from wars that ended years ago. Taking a stroll in the country in these places is extremely dangerous.
How do you know only the Creator can do those things?
I believe I understand what the parent poster was trying to say. Jesus performed miracles that no other prophet had been able to perform, and this was a sign that He was in fact the Messiah. For example, considering the reaction of the disciples in Mark 4:26-41:
And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him.
And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling.
But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?"
And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
He said to them, "Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?"
And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, "Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?"
Who else could control the weather like this -- taking a severe storm and turning into a peaceful calm instantly by spoken command? This was a sign of diety in their minds, and I would say that most of us would probably be thinking along the same lines as well. While there is no law stating such things, only God, the creator and maintainer of our universe, would have the power to calm the sea. Even our advanced technology is completely dwarfed by the power of the sea.
Never fear. Had the Prophet met Christ, there would only be one of those religions around today -- that whose leader wasn't killed in the ensuing war.
I found your comment somewhat comical considering that Jesus did die. Not from a war, but because he allowed the leaders of his day capture and crucify him. He then rose from the dead which marked the beginning of Christianity. Given his teaching, the Christians would not have been the ones fighting the war.
If the proposed situation did occur, the muslims would have probably attacked the Christians (just as the Romans did), but the Christian church has always grown the fastest when it has been under the greatest persecution. Net result: the large Christian church you see today. Just because one side can kill better than the other does not mean that the more peaceful side will not win in the end.*
* Admittedly, many people have used the name of Christ to justify their wars (just as people always some kind of justification for what they want to do that is wrong), but I think you would find that very rarely was it truly done in the name of Christ and in keeping with His teachings.
No Christians died for their beliefs in any systematic manner until at least 150 years after Jesus' death--when Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome. By that time, no one had first hand experience.
Nero began to pursecute the Christians around 62 AD (the burning of Rome). This would have been within 30 years of Christ's death (~33 AD) which would put the events of Jesus' life very much within their lifetime.
There's no evidence whatever that Julius Caesar founded Rome, and much evidence that it had been around for at least 700 years before his reign.
I chose to respond to this one since it is the first -- yeah, that was a mis-statement. I know that Julius Caesar did not found Rome. I meant to say that he started what became known as the Roman Empire. Rome (the city) obviously predates him when you consider that the famous Punic Wars with Carthage had been raging for a couple centuries before he even came along. My mistake.:-)
Fundamentalist christians are using a SINGLE, HIGHLY UNRELIABLE source to draw conclusions about SINGULAR, HIGHLY UNLIKELY events in the distant past
That is patently untrue. Try reading Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell for a detailed listing of historical and archeological evidence supporting the Biblical accounts. As for "SINGLE, HIGHLY UNRELIABLE", the Bible is THE most accurate historical document of its time. This site has a good writeup on the accuracy of the New Testament documents. There are over 4000 fragments that contain all or part of the New Testament, and the Old Testament was transcribed from ancient documents with incredible accuracy. The dead sea scrolls that predate the birth of Jesus contained a version of the book of Isaiah that contains only the slightest differences (probably typographical) from the book we have in the Bible today.
DESPITE the lack of scientific corroboration
Uh, what does science have to do with history? Science is the study of the cause and functioning of things by direct observation and reproduction in a laboratory or field test. It has nothing to do with historical analysis or archaeology.
SINGULAR, HIGHLY UNLIKELY
Yes, the likelihood of a group of Jewish fisherman making up a story about a Messiah figure who claimed to be God (blasphemy) and then turning the entire Roman empire upside down in the matter of a few decades is highly unlikely. It is even more unlikely that they would all suffer torture and death to protect a story that is not true. And yet, that is exactly what happened. If anything, this is a strong indication that their story was real. Would you die for something you know to be false?
The Bible has strong archaeological and textual evidence that supports its accuracy. You may question its interpretation of events, but there is just as much evidence for its claims as there is that a man named Socrates taught in the streets of Athens, or that a man named Julius Caesar founded Rome.
Slashdot Mirror
That was my first thought as well until I saw the following in the writeup:
If done right (and all of the screenshots look good), this could very well be the recipe software that a lot of us have been looking for. Of all of the apps, this one really makes the most sense since it is so well designed and feasible.
You are correct. I chose the wrong word. I will blame it on lack of sleep. I was trying to refer to the sleeze comedy that is so popular today where the only joke that seems to exist anymore is sex.
It has been in my experience, especially in regard to songs, that if one resorts to the use of bad language, they usually have run out of ideas. As a song writer I can tell you word space is limited in a song. You only have so many syllables to say exactly what you want to say. Swear words waste valuable real estate and generally do not add much to the meaning of the song (there are very few exceptions). Swear words are misused more often than not (not used for the meaning they actually have) and are not as poetic or descriptive as alternate forms. For example, consider "My life smells like sh*t" versus "My life smells like monkeys at the zoo". The second line has much more meaning and is repulsive without being vulgar. It is creative and different (I know the lines are not interchangable in a song, but you can see what I mean about the poetry). Too often those who use vulgarity don't have a whole lot to say or the creativity to say it right. (IMHO)
Regardless of taste, alienating the "kids, Christians and other sensitive types" alienates a very large percentage of the population. In order to remain popular have the kind of following Weird Al has, you need to be able to reach that audience as well. It is what has given him staying power. If you want your art to have vulgarity, innuendo, or nudity, that is fine, but do not complain when it doesn't reach a mass audience.
One of Weird Al's strengths is the fact that he keeps his humor clean, and the Simpsons has remained relatively clean compared to its competitors. There are many other comedians and parody artists who allow vulgarity and low-brow humor to slip into their work which undermines it. No one has a guilty conscience for listening to Weird Al's songs, so his humor is able to reach a larger audience. It also often takes more talent to be funny and clean as you are not relying on the "shock" factor as many "colorful" comedians do. There is something magical about a comedic routine that people of all ages and walks of life can enjoy.
I really wish that were the case, but in my experience, it has been exactly the opposite. Lip service has been given to browser compatibility, but when it comes done to crunch time, management says that we will just have to tell our customers to use IE. Since Windows has ~95% of the market, a vast majority of our users will have access to IE. It just takes too much time and money for them to ensure that all of the Javascript and fancy display options work in all browsers. The developers who insist on taking the time and effort to ensure that all browsers work the same and correctly are more in danger of losing their job. This seems to be a fairly common mindset in larger companies, but smaller companies may in fact be more open to full browser support.
Also, by focusing on IE, you do not neglect a "large percentage of the market", but rather a small but vocal percentage. However, when it comes to pure financials, appeasing this minority can be hard to justify. I am not saying that I like it this way, but this is the way it is.
A couple points here: First, I am so tired of hearing parents saying what their children feel. Does her son really feel safer, or does he just say he does because it makes mom happy?
Also, note that the concern comes from the mother. Now I will probably be labelled sexist here, but this just brings up the differences between the sexes (yes, to all of you college professors and students lost in the realm of theory and academia, there is a difference between men and women). Women are inherently protective because security is very important to them. It is called nuturing. It gives them the incredible gift of motherhood which helps children feel safe and protected. Men, on the other hand, tend to be harder and push their children. They are the ones who encourage their sons to make a solid tackle next time instead of just a glancing blow. They are also the ones that encourage their children to take chances. For men, it is all about status and fulfillment. The fact is that both the mother and father are necessary to the proper upbringing of children. All children need to feel safe, but they also need to learn that taking risks is okay. They need both in order to grow up to be well-adjusted adults.
Unfortunately, over the past thirty or forty years, our society has demeaned fathers and promoted mothers. Fathers are portrayed in the media as stupid, aloof, or cruel. Men are looked down upon for being who they are as our whole society loses the ability to take chances. Women, in trying to make men into images of themselves, are now finding that they can no longer find "real men". I wonder why. This instance is a case in point. Notice that it is the mother who is concerned about the issue. It is the mother who has pushed this agenda until the school backed down. The father has been rendered powerless -- or has allowed himself to become powerless.
Two things need to happen here if things are to turn around. First, men need to involve themselves in their children's lives. Their role is just as important as the mother's in raising children. Teach your sons to be men, and teach your daughters what kind of men that she be attracted to. Second, women need to allow men to take the role they were meant to play as a true partner in the relationship. No more cheap potshots at men, and no demeaning them infront of their children. Couples need to come together and support each other, and we as a society need to recognize the differences and strengths of both mothers and fathers and support them.
There is a disturbing trend that I have been witnessing in software development -- especially web applications. A lot of effort is being directed into making the developer's job easier or faster at the expense of a better user experience. Toolsets are being developed that make it easy to produce a functional UI in a very short period of time, however the end result is bloated and inefficient -- not just in code execution but in user experience. The interface is not tailored to the user's needs (making frequent tasks quicky and easy to perform for example), and often they are forced to go through a series of hoops to accomplish a simple task because it was more convenient to program it a certain way. If you have any experience with SAP applications, you know exactly what I mean.
Unfortunately, the focus right now is entirely on getting the software out quickly. Good UI design takes time and a flexible library. It also requires skilled programmers who know how to solve problems, but unfortunately, many of the popular tools appeal to the novice programmers encouraging more poor design and inefficient code. With increasing misfortune, upper management sees these tools as the answers to these problems -- get the product out quickly without the need for good programmers. As a result, the overall quality continues to decline, and software becomes less useful with each new release. If it were not for examples such as Google and Apple, I might give up hope in software altogether.
So really, I think the answer is not that nobody cares, but that they care about the wrong things.
Sorry, but that strikes me as a very absolute (and therefore probably wrong)statement -- and I see it a lot here on Slashdot from those who claim they are above such sins. Creationists are criticized for making sweeping statements like this, but if you believe in the popular theory (evolution) you are somehow allowed to make these same kinds of statements?
I think most real scientists -- even if they believe strongly in evolution -- would disagree with that statement. There is plenty of evidence that goes against evolution. For example, the evolution of DNA is a puzzle. You cannot evolve DNA unless you have two organisms with compatible altered DNA to mate and produce offspring with the same characteristics. To simplify this idea, consider an organism with a DNA strand of 100 pairs evolving to an organism with 110 pairs. Two of these organisms would have to be born with 110 pairs, be able to meet and mate, and produce viable offspring that could continue the new strain. This seems like a very unlikely event. Does this disprove evolution? Not necessarily, but it is evidence that would seem to go against it until someone can prove a workaround.
Another piece of evidence -- the saltiness of the ocean. The ocean becomes increasingly salty every year -- albeit slowly. It gains minerals faster than it loses them, and according to most estimates, it can only have been on its current pace for around 60,000 years assuming it started as a fresh water sea. This would indicate that the dates given for the age of the earth (in the millions or billions of years) are far too high. This again would be evidence against evolution. Add to this that we are discovering every day how things that we believed took a very long time to accomplish actually do not take long at all (the formation of the Grand Canyon, petrified forests, formation of coal and oil).
There is evidence against evolution -- or at least the current theories related to evolution -- but most scientists believe there is more evidence (some say far more) to support it than disprove it. If there were not problems in the theory, we would not have so many people studying the field trying to overcome them. There continue to be missing links between various species. There continue to be steps of evolution that baffle scientists and do not match current theories. To say that all evidence supports evolution and that there is no contradiction is just as pig-headed as the creationists that you deride.
Actually, that page has been up all morning before the slashdot link to the site. There may be something wrong with their servers, but it happened before the slashdot effect.
These are some very important questions, and the fact is that most people do not know. The one big event that you did not mention which makes this an even more pressing question is the retirement and eventual disappearance of the baby boom generation. For the past two or three decades, this country has effectively been run by this large, vocal group -- a group that as a whole has invested a lot of money but very little time into their children. As a result, you have a generation of people raised with every thing their hearts desired but lacking the insight into the wisdom and experience of the preceding generations. Thus, MySpace. It is a place of infinite freedom to them where they get the social interactions they did not get at home. Yet, they know so very little about the world, and there is no positive influence from the older generations to guide them away from the cliff.
Every generation rebels -- this is pretty much a fact, but even in these rebellions, the wisdom of the older generations tempers it. All that the young generation knows now is that the current system is broken. They see the actions of their parents and grandparents as mistakes, but they do not understand why those mistakes were made or why some of their "new" ideas were not implemented. For example, they are frustrated that we don't live in a true democracy without stopping to think why that might be (protection for minorities, the existence of fundamental laws and rights, etc.). The scary thing is that some day, the leader of our nation will have to be elected by the MySpace crowd because they will be the only ones left (the babyboomers won't live forever). What values have we passed down to them to help them make the decisions that will direct their future? What choices will they make?
While we can stumble along and learn lessons the hard way, there is great value in gleaning observations of reality from those who have already lived it -- even if we don't agree with them. Unfortunately, I think this is one of the values passed down -- a disrespect for the older generations. It is my fear that as the babyboomers move into retirement homes, they will become the loneliest generation our country has ever seen.
Yes, the forty years of Democratic rule in the House of Representatives was very well coordinated... oh wait! You were talking about the Republicans in congress over the last 13 years. Yes, I suppose since it has been over 10 years that the Republicans have held congress it can technically be considered decades. However, for six of those years, there was a Democrat in the White House (you do remember Clinton don't you?). Hmm, decades is starting to sound like an exaggeration, and so far, I am only talking about two branches of the federal government. "Control" over the three branches did not occur until the past year.
There is enough division in the United States without adding bald-faced lies and distortions to make the divisions even stronger. You want a conspiracy? Then tell me why there seems to be a concerted effort to alienate and divide practically every segment of the American society. You know, one of the best ways to defeat someone is to divide and conquer....
I think the idea here is medical supplies that need to be refrigerated -- blood, perishible medication, etc. There is more to keep cool in a rescue operation than just food. Besides, the cooling mechanism was included to increase the effeciency of the turbines. The ability to have refridgeration or to generate water were nice bonuses since the original idea was to save fuel when generating energy.
I did not say that I did not believe in God. I, in fact, do. However, I was acknowledging that this point would not be shared by a large percentage of the slashdot population. It is my belief that God does know what is going to happen that gives me peace and security in an otherwise very insecure world.
That is a reality of life that we all too often overlook. Nothing is certain until it happens, and even then our interpretation of it may be incorrect. Even if they were the most organized company in the world with stellar software engineering skills, Mount Rainier could erupt causing the release to be delayed (to put it mildly). No one can tell you with absolute certainty what will happen this afternoon let alone tomorrow or six months from now (except for God, but most people here don't believe in Him anyway). I dare say that even the best of us could not say with certainty the exact day that a project of this scale would be released.
Don't put words into my mouth. Did you not read my post? It was these very additions that you added that I called one of the dangerous extremes. Sex is not something to be hidden or frowned upon... but for the good of society it needs to remain in the realm of a man and woman to build a strong family environment. You want to have a good sex life? Find yourself a life-long partner and go have fun (and a lot of kids!). Some of the most godly Christians I have known have had large families... proof that they knew how to have fun in bed! In fact, studies have shown that married couples have sex far more often than their single counterparts. They have a willing partner who is available virtually 24/7. So what is so bad about this exactly?
There are always limits that need to be paid attention to for us to achieve maximum happiness. Limitations are not the great evil that our relativistic society tries to make them. For example, when confronted with a rich chocolate cake, we all understand that you need to eat in moderation. If you try to consume the whole cake, you will make yourself ill. Instead, you (gasp) cut a small slice. You limit yourself for your own happiness and health's sake. We drive our cars (most of us) in the proper lanes, and we stop at red lights and go on green. We follow the rules because it greatly increases our chances of survival and generally helps us get to our destination effeciently (bad city planning may hinder this). Why should sex and marriage be any different? I love sex. It is a fantastic experience, and I highly recommend it! However, I also recommend that we show the proper restraint to ensure that we get the maximum benefit out of it.
You obviously didn't read the rest of my post, or you just don't plain want to hear what I was saying. Studies are showing that children raised in a stable home with a father and mother have the best chance for success and are less likely to be involved in drugs, gangs, or crime -- especially when one of them stays home. When children do not have a positive role model from both sexes, they are more likely to get into trouble during their teenage years. This is a fact. What I am saying is that this should be the goal of our society -- to promote an atmosphere that fosters the traditional family.
Sex is one of the primary ways of creating intimacy and unity in a marriage, and it works best when the couple is faithful to one another. It builds mutual trust and closeness that is much more difficult to grow in an "open" relationship. As a result, children are able to be raised in a stable, safe environment. Teaching kids that having sex outside of marriage is dangerous. They run the risk of getting a sexual transmitted disease, teenage pregnancy, and sexual baggage that they will carry with them for the rest of their life making intimacy with a future spouse more difficult. Is it evil of me to want to help people avoid these heartaches? Or put in another way, if you see a car driving toward a bridge that they don't know is washed out, would you try to flag them down and stop them, or would you say that it is their choice to go on?
However, I don't think I really have that much to prove. The traditional male/female family has been the building block of nearly every civilization throughout history. Can you prove to me that your "free" society is better? Can you provide me studies that show that homosexualty adds stability to a society? It sounds good in principle, but when it meets the harsh world of reality it doesn't stand up.
I think that is taking it to the other extreme and is therefore just as wrong as the first extreme. There are good reasons to limit access to sex -- namely, it can help protect and strengthen marriages. If your only sexual experience is with your spouse, you are less likely to become dissatisfied. Sexual abstinence is designed to protect the minds of people approaching marriage so that the sex with their spouse is elevated and special. Sex should be a beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman. That is the intent of those who are against pornography, etc.
The problem is that the effort to protect marriage and sex went too far. To keep kids away from sex before marriage, they tried to hide sex entirely. They made everything about it taboo and secretive. For a long time, "sex" was actually a dirty word that no one would say publicly. As a result, it became that proverbial forbidden fruit that made the negative effects even stronger than before. Extremes have a tendency to do this.
Now, however, there is a strong push to the other extreme where sex is allowed to run rampant, be seen everywhere, and is acceptible in all forms. As a result, marriage is being marginalized, and soon will have no meaning at all. This is a serious problem because conclusive studies have shown that children are best raised in a stable home with a married man and woman (the presence of one of each sex is vital to the upbringing of a child). The basic family unit has been the foundation of society since the beginning of time, but by taking sexual freedom to the extreme, we are threatening to destroy this foundation.
What is the answer? I think it is somewhere in the middle. Children need to be taught that sex is a very wonderful thing that needs to be treated with the respect it deserves. It needs to be something that is anticipated and cherished so that when you finally meet your life-mate, it remains the powerful, uniting experience it was always meant to be. Boys need to be raised with the understanding that with sex comes the responsibility of becoming a true father to the offspring that can result. This is why sex should only be pursued in the realm of marriage where that commitment has already been made. It should not be casually pursued or they will approach the responsibilty casually as well. Girls need to be taught that they should expect men to treat them with respect, and that love from a man should involve true commitment. To do anything less is to set them all up for heartache and trouble and to threaten the very existence of our society.
I have, and yes, I do. I believe there are certain things it is best not to know because once the line is crossed, you cannot go back. For example, I had a co-worker (who was somewhat promiscuous) that he felt the primary reason not to have extra-marital or pre-marital affairs was so that you would not compare your spouse to other experiences. If you don't know what you are missing, then you are not disappointed with what you have.
Now obvious this reasoning can go too far, but as with many things in this life, there is a balance that needs to be found. The world falls apart when we seek the extremes. I don't want to know everything, because my enjoyment of life would almost certainly be impaired if I did. At the same time I don't want to be completely ignorant because I can cause great harm to those around me if I am. The answer, I believe, is somewhere in the middle. There are just some things that it really is best that I do not know because it does not help me to be a better person and can in fact could make me worse.
If you look at the next paragraph, things don't look so bleak.
While this supernova could affect the earth, the affect would probably not be catastrophic. We would probably have a great light show and some communication interference, but our existence would not be threatened.
I have a rather strange reason that took me a while to put my finger on it. I made a concerted effort to give Opera a shot. It had a lot of nice features including passing itself automatically as IE or even using the IE rendering engine on certain pages. It was fast and worked pretty well, but I always felt uncomfortable when I used it. I found myself stumbling again and again when trying to use the tabs, and my productivity was reduced. Then I figured it out... the navigation bar is underneath the tabs in Opera where it is at the top of the browser in Firefox. Why is this such a big deal? Because once I get my tabs set up, I don't care about the URL associated with each. I just want to be able to switch back and forth between tabs as quickly and effeciently as possible. With Opera, the navigation bar always seemed in the way which added to my discomfort. With Firefox, the tabs and the pages are more closely linked visually which works better for how I use the browser. I know why Opera did this, and from a certain point of view it makes sense, but it does not work as well for me.
Another gripe I have with Opera is that the bookmarks are not nearly as easy to setup as Firefox where you can drag-and-drop the links onto the bookmark bar. I have come to use this almost exclusively while ignoring the rest of the bookmark menu. It is just far more handy to me and provides quick access to my bookmarks while browsing.
I will continue to keep tabs (no pun intended) on Opera in the future, but I will probably not be switching from Firefox until I have a very compelling reason.
Wouldn't a landmine that transmits a signal be relatively easy to detect? Just look for the signal and disable the mine. On the plus side, maybe these would make it easier to clean them up when the particular war that used them was over. There are many countries that are potted with landmines from wars that ended years ago. Taking a stroll in the country in these places is extremely dangerous.
I believe I understand what the parent poster was trying to say. Jesus performed miracles that no other prophet had been able to perform, and this was a sign that He was in fact the Messiah. For example, considering the reaction of the disciples in Mark 4:26-41:
Who else could control the weather like this -- taking a severe storm and turning into a peaceful calm instantly by spoken command? This was a sign of diety in their minds, and I would say that most of us would probably be thinking along the same lines as well. While there is no law stating such things, only God, the creator and maintainer of our universe, would have the power to calm the sea. Even our advanced technology is completely dwarfed by the power of the sea.
I found your comment somewhat comical considering that Jesus did die. Not from a war, but because he allowed the leaders of his day capture and crucify him. He then rose from the dead which marked the beginning of Christianity. Given his teaching, the Christians would not have been the ones fighting the war.
If the proposed situation did occur, the muslims would have probably attacked the Christians (just as the Romans did), but the Christian church has always grown the fastest when it has been under the greatest persecution. Net result: the large Christian church you see today. Just because one side can kill better than the other does not mean that the more peaceful side will not win in the end.*
* Admittedly, many people have used the name of Christ to justify their wars (just as people always some kind of justification for what they want to do that is wrong), but I think you would find that very rarely was it truly done in the name of Christ and in keeping with His teachings.
Nero began to pursecute the Christians around 62 AD (the burning of Rome). This would have been within 30 years of Christ's death (~33 AD) which would put the events of Jesus' life very much within their lifetime.
I chose to respond to this one since it is the first -- yeah, that was a mis-statement. I know that Julius Caesar did not found Rome. I meant to say that he started what became known as the Roman Empire. Rome (the city) obviously predates him when you consider that the famous Punic Wars with Carthage had been raging for a couple centuries before he even came along. My mistake. :-)
That is patently untrue. Try reading Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell for a detailed listing of historical and archeological evidence supporting the Biblical accounts. As for "SINGLE, HIGHLY UNRELIABLE", the Bible is THE most accurate historical document of its time. This site has a good writeup on the accuracy of the New Testament documents. There are over 4000 fragments that contain all or part of the New Testament, and the Old Testament was transcribed from ancient documents with incredible accuracy. The dead sea scrolls that predate the birth of Jesus contained a version of the book of Isaiah that contains only the slightest differences (probably typographical) from the book we have in the Bible today.
Uh, what does science have to do with history? Science is the study of the cause and functioning of things by direct observation and reproduction in a laboratory or field test. It has nothing to do with historical analysis or archaeology.
Yes, the likelihood of a group of Jewish fisherman making up a story about a Messiah figure who claimed to be God (blasphemy) and then turning the entire Roman empire upside down in the matter of a few decades is highly unlikely. It is even more unlikely that they would all suffer torture and death to protect a story that is not true. And yet, that is exactly what happened. If anything, this is a strong indication that their story was real. Would you die for something you know to be false?
The Bible has strong archaeological and textual evidence that supports its accuracy. You may question its interpretation of events, but there is just as much evidence for its claims as there is that a man named Socrates taught in the streets of Athens, or that a man named Julius Caesar founded Rome.