This is obviously spoken as someone who has never had to manage a mailing list. Having helped my father, a missionary, in touch with his supporters has caused me no end to heartache and heartburn as people on AOL and Hotmail have constant trouble with everything from opt-in confirmations to receiving the letters, to casual communication between them getting blocked because the mailing list was already blocked. Then you have the idiots that opt-in and decide they don't want it anymore and actually do hit the "Spam" button.
The users just don't understand that their ISP is hiding their email from them. For whatever reason, they are convinced their email is just fine, it's got to be a problem with the list.
And you....don't HAVE anythingthatyou're.... passionate about? Give ME a break. People who...can...QUOTE...baseballstatisticsoutoftheir.. ..heads...are JUST as geeky... but they DON'T get made fun of.
Because it would be so easy for law enforcement to:
1) Intercept a paged message 2) Unscramble the phone number sent (protected by any form of low brain power encryption, ie number + 1: 911 becomes 022) 3) Get the phone company to put a wiretap on the correct one time use phone number (Even this is being generous and assuming they won't encounter any resistance in using a roving a warrant that lets them tap any phone number that MAY be connected to their subject) 4) And do it all within the 10 to 15 seconds of privacy the criminal needs to coordinate using a known secure phone line.
We have these high tech devices that have just come out that let you send just a phone number to someone for the other person to call. They are call "pagers" and you may even be able to find one in a store near you.
This should work in most homes, where the parents are the only one who know the master password. That way the kids can't so easily mess up the whole computer. ALL games even work just fine without the master password, once they are properly set up.
I realize that since you are in IT, you probably do some kind of drugs, but this statement seems over the top. Maybe you accidentally reversed it, because on the last informal survey I've done, it's often kids who need to keep their parents away from trying to "improve" anything.
Except that isn't the myth. The myth is that food is safe to eat after 5 seconds on the floor. This is true. It's true up to some very large number of seconds, because the floor is safe to eat off of. All they disproved is that 5 seconds is any safer than 10, but the basis of the myth, that the food is safe to eat, wasn't tested. In spite of that, they still declared the myth busted and said that food wasn't safe, which was incorrect.
The one on alchohol's effect on your driving was even worse. It had me screaming at the screen that they "conclusively proved" it was dangerous after barely passing a driving test while sober, then barely failing it based on subjective measures while tipsy, and I'm a strong believer in stiff penalties for accidents caused under the influence (including other drugs and sleep deprivation if I had my way).
Yes, but that's the point of the show isn't it? Truth is pedantic. They declared a busted myth that food is safe after 5 seconds on the floor, based on growth of completely harmless bacteria, mold, and fungi. It's relevant that they most likely could have eaten the whole dish of growth that they created with no ill effects.
The primary complaint is that due to the nature of their format, they are forced to reduce the myth until it is no longer meaningful. Just because they 'did' a myth doesn't mean they satisfied all possibilities. They have more than once 'disproved' myths that are known true, by rephrasing the myth until they were testing something with no meaning at all.
An example of this is the episode on the five second rule. They tested whether bacteria transfers in five seconds. What they should have tested, is whether there was harmful bacteria present. Yes, it transfers. Yes, the food is still most likely safe to eat, due to the lack of harmful bacteria.
It isn't that your logic is spectacularly flawed. Even as a Christian myself, I don't care deeply whether or not Genesis was intended as a literal translation or a figurative story. The problem that grates on me is the assertion that is very popular that you'd have to be a fool to believe it. That's not the case, you simply need to start with a different set of suppositions. Evolution is the current best accepted secular theory of origination. Whether or not it will remain so is up for grabs.
The problem with your specific points of design is that they try to associate intent with intelligence. People who specialize in specific fields often look into other fields and wonder why things were not done differently in order to better suit their particular field. For example, human eye sight puts a limit on how aggressive we can be as a species. How much more dangerous would humans be if our ability to hunt was magnified even more through physical enhancements? While this is just an example, it illustrates that a system can be misunderstood because the viewer understands the purpose differently.
For your other example, having a largely sterile liquid periodically cleanse the vital reproductive tract isn't a particularly bad design either.
Evolution falls short under the same tests. For any test you have to make assumptions, where Evolution and Intelligent Design differ is what those assumptions are.
If you have a basin that holds 100 gallons of liquid, and you've measured the inflow to be exactly 1 gallon per minute (into the top, no pressure issues), and you've measured the current contents to be exactly 50 gallons. Approximately how long has the container been filling?
The correct answer is, of course, you have no idea. You have absolutely no idea what you started with, whether the current conditions have been continuous, whether any liquid has been removed, what conditions have changed, or any number of other factors.
This is the core of the debate, and it's one that can't be properly addressed. No system, given sufficient understanding of that system, is impossible to create mid-state.
The intelligent design debate centers on what you'd do if you'd build an aquarium. First, you'd make the conditions as much like how they'd exist had the system been functioning for a while. You wouldn't start with seeds, you'd start with plants. If you have plants that require composting matter, you'd add that matter at the beginning. In short, you'd create everything in a state that was ready to sustain life at the beginning, and given sufficient care was taken from inside the aquarium it would be impossible to determine a time refernce outside of the artificially advanced time you created.
It's a faith debate, and science can't prove it one way or the other. All things consider, it's not necessary to prove it one way or the other either, because the answer will very likely affect your life very little.
The US has leverage here in the purest sense of the word. It has the size and position to do whatever it wants, which is why the rest of the world is really upset. They can't just re-route because no matter how much hot air is made about the US losing the economic world, the rest of the world would still be equally devestated if they took their ball and went home.
That's what the moaning is all about, their is nothing they CAN do, and they are afraid that may be one day used against them. Another part of the problem is they fully intend to use to abuse their power if they get it, and they want to be able to regulate "hate speech" that the US refuses to block.
Out of curiousity, why would you want to switch? What does MythTV offer that you don't have with MCE? Also, what was the ease of use problem you ran into with MythTV? Did you try a CD based such as Knoppmyth, or try following a guide, such as Jarod's guide?
That's a valid concern, and this solution isn't for everyone. However, you don't need all that on your stereo rack if you don't want it there, but want the added flexibility to serve movies, music etc that a PC offers. You can put a simple front end by your TV, and put the rest of the stuff where ever you want.
Unless I missed something, which is possible, you don't get free listings with TiVo. The last time I looked, the lifetime package was about another $200.
TiVo does have an advantage in ease of use, and it can win on cost, especially if your content provider includes it with your service,.
It loses on DRM, expandability, and configurability.
You can build a solid HTPC for around the same cost though, with some homework. If you have a computer to scavange, so much the better.
$120 gets you a PVR500 with two tuners, that does encoding on board. ~$100 Large Hard Drive - Hard drive size, like in TiVo, is directly related to how much you want to record and how you want the quality. Unlike with TiVo, on a PC you can use network shares to distribute this as much as you want, and add more if you want conveniently.
The rest is just a mini computer to run the software and do the display. $50 mobo with onboard S/PDIF out, $50 AMD CPU, $50 bucks of RAM, case and PSU depends on whether you want to go with cheap or pretty and quiet, call it another $100, remote control about $20. DVD burner $30.
Average HTPC that holds more, higher quality video than TiVo, about $500, and you end up with complete control of your content (at least, for now).
It depends on what your goal is really. The PC requirement is there for content delivery. The PC is a media repository. With a proper network connection and a good client server architecture, the PC adds an amazing degree of flexibility.
I keep wanting to walk away, knowing there's no point in bothering with you, but your willingness to be passionately wrong is just staggering to me.
All "Christians" - Accepting Christians as a loose label would indicate one of the following, either anyone who claims to be a christian can be labeled as such, or only those who are saved can be labeled as such, or even only those who are saved and are actively pursuing a more Christ-like life can be called christian, or perhaps some other obscure context. In any of the contexts, it would be improper to say "all Christians" are anything, outside of whatever characteristic you are defining them from. The only possible way for you to be correct, is if you are defining the christian as a cannibalistic murderer, which is not one of the many common defining characterstics generally used to apply that label. If that's the case, you are just being foolish. Since you brought logic into it, what you are trying to do is called argumentum ad odium, with a little bit of an ad hominem attack thrown in.
You are so hung up on the label of who should be allowed to call themselves a christian, you are ignoring that I've told you multiple times the importance is not the label christian, it's the act of being saved. I've also told you how I define that act.
And no, Satan does not accept that he needs forgiveness from sin, at least not any where that I've seen. Additionally, no one is worthy of heaven outside of those who are perfect. Anyone can be made worthy through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. I'm sorry if that prevents you from taking joy in knowing people who were bad will suffer.
Finally, to quote you, aren't you aware of what Jesus told his disciples on this matter? Matthew 5:28 - Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.
By the way, James wrote James. Feel free to learn something about what Jesus said rather than what you wish he had said.
Slashdot Mirror
:wq!
So you are saying our Nuclear program...is bugged?
This is obviously spoken as someone who has never had to manage a mailing list. Having helped my father, a missionary, in touch with his supporters has caused me no end to heartache and heartburn as people on AOL and Hotmail have constant trouble with everything from opt-in confirmations to receiving the letters, to casual communication between them getting blocked because the mailing list was already blocked. Then you have the idiots that opt-in and decide they don't want it anymore and actually do hit the "Spam" button.
The users just don't understand that their ISP is hiding their email from them. For whatever reason, they are convinced their email is just fine, it's got to be a problem with the list.
No, no, no.
. ..heads...are JUST as geeky... but they DON'T get made fun of.
Shatner talks like this:
And you....don't HAVE anythingthatyou're.... passionate about? Give ME a break. People who...can...QUOTE...baseballstatisticsoutoftheir.
Take...some..damn....tactlessons.
Who do you think he works for?
Because it would be so easy for law enforcement to:
1) Intercept a paged message
2) Unscramble the phone number sent (protected by any form of low brain power encryption, ie number + 1: 911 becomes 022)
3) Get the phone company to put a wiretap on the correct one time use phone number (Even this is being generous and assuming they won't encounter any resistance in using a roving a warrant that lets them tap any phone number that MAY be connected to their subject)
4) And do it all within the 10 to 15 seconds of privacy the criminal needs to coordinate using a known secure phone line.
We have these high tech devices that have just come out that let you send just a phone number to someone for the other person to call. They are call "pagers" and you may even be able to find one in a store near you.
Very cheap, if the alternative is going to jail.
Even frogs notice being boiled alive
Despite all comments to the contrary, generally Canada is considered a civilized country, where one would expect decent infrastructure.
This should work in most homes, where the parents are the only one who know the master password. That way the kids can't so easily mess up the whole computer. ALL games even work just fine without the master password, once they are properly set up.
I realize that since you are in IT, you probably do some kind of drugs, but this statement seems over the top. Maybe you accidentally reversed it, because on the last informal survey I've done, it's often kids who need to keep their parents away from trying to "improve" anything.
Except that isn't the myth. The myth is that food is safe to eat after 5 seconds on the floor. This is true. It's true up to some very large number of seconds, because the floor is safe to eat off of. All they disproved is that 5 seconds is any safer than 10, but the basis of the myth, that the food is safe to eat, wasn't tested. In spite of that, they still declared the myth busted and said that food wasn't safe, which was incorrect.
The one on alchohol's effect on your driving was even worse. It had me screaming at the screen that they "conclusively proved" it was dangerous after barely passing a driving test while sober, then barely failing it based on subjective measures while tipsy, and I'm a strong believer in stiff penalties for accidents caused under the influence (including other drugs and sleep deprivation if I had my way).
Yes, but that's the point of the show isn't it? Truth is pedantic. They declared a busted myth that food is safe after 5 seconds on the floor, based on growth of completely harmless bacteria, mold, and fungi. It's relevant that they most likely could have eaten the whole dish of growth that they created with no ill effects.
The primary complaint is that due to the nature of their format, they are forced to reduce the myth until it is no longer meaningful. Just because they 'did' a myth doesn't mean they satisfied all possibilities. They have more than once 'disproved' myths that are known true, by rephrasing the myth until they were testing something with no meaning at all.
An example of this is the episode on the five second rule. They tested whether bacteria transfers in five seconds. What they should have tested, is whether there was harmful bacteria present. Yes, it transfers. Yes, the food is still most likely safe to eat, due to the lack of harmful bacteria.
It isn't that your logic is spectacularly flawed. Even as a Christian myself, I don't care deeply whether or not Genesis was intended as a literal translation or a figurative story. The problem that grates on me is the assertion that is very popular that you'd have to be a fool to believe it. That's not the case, you simply need to start with a different set of suppositions. Evolution is the current best accepted secular theory of origination. Whether or not it will remain so is up for grabs.
The problem with your specific points of design is that they try to associate intent with intelligence. People who specialize in specific fields often look into other fields and wonder why things were not done differently in order to better suit their particular field. For example, human eye sight puts a limit on how aggressive we can be as a species. How much more dangerous would humans be if our ability to hunt was magnified even more through physical enhancements? While this is just an example, it illustrates that a system can be misunderstood because the viewer understands the purpose differently.
For your other example, having a largely sterile liquid periodically cleanse the vital reproductive tract isn't a particularly bad design either.
Testability and repeatability.
Evolution falls short under the same tests. For any test you have to make assumptions, where Evolution and Intelligent Design differ is what those assumptions are.
If you have a basin that holds 100 gallons of liquid, and you've measured the inflow to be exactly 1 gallon per minute (into the top, no pressure issues), and you've measured the current contents to be exactly 50 gallons. Approximately how long has the container been filling?
The correct answer is, of course, you have no idea. You have absolutely no idea what you started with, whether the current conditions have been continuous, whether any liquid has been removed, what conditions have changed, or any number of other factors.
This is the core of the debate, and it's one that can't be properly addressed. No system, given sufficient understanding of that system, is impossible to create mid-state.
The intelligent design debate centers on what you'd do if you'd build an aquarium. First, you'd make the conditions as much like how they'd exist had the system been functioning for a while. You wouldn't start with seeds, you'd start with plants. If you have plants that require composting matter, you'd add that matter at the beginning. In short, you'd create everything in a state that was ready to sustain life at the beginning, and given sufficient care was taken from inside the aquarium it would be impossible to determine a time refernce outside of the artificially advanced time you created.
It's a faith debate, and science can't prove it one way or the other. All things consider, it's not necessary to prove it one way or the other either, because the answer will very likely affect your life very little.
Close, Outage Of Persistant Services
The US has leverage here in the purest sense of the word. It has the size and position to do whatever it wants, which is why the rest of the world is really upset. They can't just re-route because no matter how much hot air is made about the US losing the economic world, the rest of the world would still be equally devestated if they took their ball and went home.
That's what the moaning is all about, their is nothing they CAN do, and they are afraid that may be one day used against them. Another part of the problem is they fully intend to use to abuse their power if they get it, and they want to be able to regulate "hate speech" that the US refuses to block.
That looks nice, it'd be even nicer if I could set it up on my wife's laptop as a frontend to MythTV.
Out of curiousity, why would you want to switch? What does MythTV offer that you don't have with MCE? Also, what was the ease of use problem you ran into with MythTV? Did you try a CD based such as Knoppmyth, or try following a guide, such as Jarod's guide?
That's a valid concern, and this solution isn't for everyone. However, you don't need all that on your stereo rack if you don't want it there, but want the added flexibility to serve movies, music etc that a PC offers. You can put a simple front end by your TV, and put the rest of the stuff where ever you want.
Unless I missed something, which is possible, you don't get free listings with TiVo. The last time I looked, the lifetime package was about another $200.
TiVo does have an advantage in ease of use, and it can win on cost, especially if your content provider includes it with your service,.
It loses on DRM, expandability, and configurability.
You can build a solid HTPC for around the same cost though, with some homework. If you have a computer to scavange, so much the better.
$120 gets you a PVR500 with two tuners, that does encoding on board.
~$100 Large Hard Drive - Hard drive size, like in TiVo, is directly related to how much you want to record and how you want the quality. Unlike with TiVo, on a PC you can use network shares to distribute this as much as you want, and add more if you want conveniently.
The rest is just a mini computer to run the software and do the display. $50 mobo with onboard S/PDIF out, $50 AMD CPU, $50 bucks of RAM, case and PSU depends on whether you want to go with cheap or pretty and quiet, call it another $100, remote control about $20. DVD burner $30.
Average HTPC that holds more, higher quality video than TiVo, about $500, and you end up with complete control of your content (at least, for now).
It depends on what your goal is really. The PC requirement is there for content delivery. The PC is a media repository. With a proper network connection and a good client server architecture, the PC adds an amazing degree of flexibility.
By the way, hyperbole "exaggeration for emphasis" not hyperbola.
I keep wanting to walk away, knowing there's no point in bothering with you, but your willingness to be passionately wrong is just staggering to me.
All "Christians" - Accepting Christians as a loose label would indicate one of the following, either anyone who claims to be a christian can be labeled as such, or only those who are saved can be labeled as such, or even only those who are saved and are actively pursuing a more Christ-like life can be called christian, or perhaps some other obscure context. In any of the contexts, it would be improper to say "all Christians" are anything, outside of whatever characteristic you are defining them from. The only possible way for you to be correct, is if you are defining the christian as a cannibalistic murderer, which is not one of the many common defining characterstics generally used to apply that label. If that's the case, you are just being foolish. Since you brought logic into it, what you are trying to do is called argumentum ad odium, with a little bit of an ad hominem attack thrown in.
You are so hung up on the label of who should be allowed to call themselves a christian, you are ignoring that I've told you multiple times the importance is not the label christian, it's the act of being saved. I've also told you how I define that act.
And no, Satan does not accept that he needs forgiveness from sin, at least not any where that I've seen. Additionally, no one is worthy of heaven outside of those who are perfect. Anyone can be made worthy through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. I'm sorry if that prevents you from taking joy in knowing people who were bad will suffer.
Finally, to quote you, aren't you aware of what Jesus told his disciples on this matter?
Matthew 5:28 - Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.
By the way, James wrote James. Feel free to learn something about what Jesus said rather than what you wish he had said.