I was a heavy TCL programmer back in those days, and built some fairly serious software in it (and still maintain one package to this day). Honestly, looking back, I'm glad TCL didn't win. It's a horrible language.
Absurdly minimal, yes. But it's possible to be too minimal. upvar+uplevel in place of pass-by-reference? Unstructured strings as the fundamental representation for everything? The inability to parse the language without simultaneously interpreting it? I'm sorry, but after a decade of experience I think I can say it's just awful. It's like a Scheme dialect from the planet Htrae.
Plants do a pretty good job of splitting water and combining the hydrogen with carbon from the air using energy from the sun; that's the whole idea behind photosynthesis. Of course, raising plants for fuel and then converting that biomass to a usable fuel (whether alcohol or simple hydrocarbons) is the uneconomical part.
Yes, exactly. We're seeing the gravitational effects of large concentrations of mass, but that mass is neither blocking nor emitting light. Hence (for lack of a better name) we call it "dark matter".
If it's efficient enough to be self-sustaining (100% efficiency), you still won't have any energy left over to power the car.
I think the most practical and efficient way to store hydrogen in a usable form is to bond it with short chains of atoms. Carbon seems to be the best choice as a "carrier" since you can attach two or three hydrogen atoms to each carbon atom in the chain, and the resulting compounds are liquid or gaseous at normal temperatures. I've no idea why this technology isn't already in widespread use; it's a simple matter of organic chemistry.:)
There is the difficulty that we've now directly observed the gravitational effects of blobs of "dark matter" which became separated from their host galaxies. MOND or not, we need to account for what that stuff is somehow.
When Protestants separated themselves from the Church, they also ultimately ended up separating themselves from much of the philosophy and theology that would have helped them to accept scientific data. On the Catholic side, you have theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas, who worked out in the medieval period the philosophical and theological "faith versus science" issues which a lot of Protestants needlessly wrestle with today.
That doesn't mean that all Catholics take the Thomistic line (Behe is Catholic, for a particularly notorious example), but educated Catholics tend to be more aware of Aquinas' thought, and Aquinas has long been specially recognized by the Church for his theological contributions.
So who should host the canonical copies of those DTDs to which the system identifier refers, if not the W3C?
If the !DOCTYPE has an external identifier at all, the external identifier has to include a system identifier (it's the public identifier that's optional). Although it's a requirement of XML, the requirement is inherited from SGML, which predates the W3C. The requirement exists for good reason, too: without it, there would be no way to obtain a new DTD in a forward-compatible way.
Minor quibbles: "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" is not a URN but a PI (public identifier), and there is a reason to have validating parsers: the DTD can contain essential information for correctly interpreting the document (e.g. entity declarations, as is obviously the case in HTML).
What people were supposed to do is include a copy of the DTDs with their software. That's what the PI string is there for, as an index into a local catalog of DTD resources. The URL was supposed to be only a fallback measure.
Browsers should ship with the DTD. That's the whole point of the public identifier (e.g. "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01/EN"), so that a local copy can be obtained using the PI as an index into a local catalog. The URL is only there as a fallback.
That's the whole purpose of the public identifier (e.g. "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN") in the doctype, and the SGML and XML Catalog specifications!
The expectation is that software would ship with its own copies of "well-known" DTDs with associated catalog entries; the URL is only there as a fallback. The problem is ignorant and/or lazy software developers not implementing catalogs and simply downloading from the URI each time.
To be fair, that is at least partly the result of a difference of opinion between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Iran is predominantly Shia; most of the Muslims offended at Wikipedia are apparently Sunni.
I'm not happy to see people getting killed over disagreements of that sort, and I don't think God rewards it, but the ground truth of human behavior is that people do end up fighting sometimes about things that are important to them. And the specifics of God's particular attributes and acts are not insignificant details but actually rather important; they have grave and direct significance for people's lives. What God is like has distinct bearing on things like the treatment of art and artists, the tolerance of scientific inquiry, and whether or not violent conquest is an acceptable way to spread the faith. Different ideas about what God is like lead to different conclusions on those counts.
My apologies; in the post I was replying to, you had made only an assertion, but I see that you have been endeavoring to make a proper case in other (sub)threads.
My "argument" sounds just fine, thank you. Because the images are part of larger artistic and cultural traditions, not simply the products of individuals, they are indicative of significant and long-term disagreement among Muslims regarding the interpretation of the Islamic strictures on images. The images themselves reflect a range of interpretations -- the fourth and fifth images in the OP carefully avoid a direct depiction by veiling or omitting the Prophet's face, for example, whereas the first and third do not. Some other traditions appear to permit only indirect depictions. Obviously there is also the interpretation that any depiction of people or animals (however limited) is wrong.
Since I am not a Muslim, it falls to you to make a case to non-Muslims regarding which interpretation is authoritative and correct within Islam, and why.
Slashdot Mirror
The demonstrated intent of the copyright holder does have some bearing on the interpretation of a license, however.
I was a heavy TCL programmer back in those days, and built some fairly serious software in it (and still maintain one package to this day). Honestly, looking back, I'm glad TCL didn't win. It's a horrible language.
Absurdly minimal, yes. But it's possible to be too minimal. upvar+uplevel in place of pass-by-reference? Unstructured strings as the fundamental representation for everything? The inability to parse the language without simultaneously interpreting it? I'm sorry, but after a decade of experience I think I can say it's just awful. It's like a Scheme dialect from the planet Htrae.
...which rhymes with Lord?
Plants do a pretty good job of splitting water and combining the hydrogen with carbon from the air using energy from the sun; that's the whole idea behind photosynthesis. Of course, raising plants for fuel and then converting that biomass to a usable fuel (whether alcohol or simple hydrocarbons) is the uneconomical part.
Yes, exactly. We're seeing the gravitational effects of large concentrations of mass, but that mass is neither blocking nor emitting light. Hence (for lack of a better name) we call it "dark matter".
If it's efficient enough to be self-sustaining (100% efficiency), you still won't have any energy left over to power the car.
:)
I think the most practical and efficient way to store hydrogen in a usable form is to bond it with short chains of atoms. Carbon seems to be the best choice as a "carrier" since you can attach two or three hydrogen atoms to each carbon atom in the chain, and the resulting compounds are liquid or gaseous at normal temperatures. I've no idea why this technology isn't already in widespread use; it's a simple matter of organic chemistry.
You'll still get a passive response from the antenna even if you take out the batteries. It's a basic-properties-of-RF-radiation thing.
No, that's all right. I'm sorry for not reading more of the context.
Is this good enough?
There is the difficulty that we've now directly observed the gravitational effects of blobs of "dark matter" which became separated from their host galaxies. MOND or not, we need to account for what that stuff is somehow.
When Protestants separated themselves from the Church, they also ultimately ended up separating themselves from much of the philosophy and theology that would have helped them to accept scientific data. On the Catholic side, you have theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas, who worked out in the medieval period the philosophical and theological "faith versus science" issues which a lot of Protestants needlessly wrestle with today.
That doesn't mean that all Catholics take the Thomistic line (Behe is Catholic, for a particularly notorious example), but educated Catholics tend to be more aware of Aquinas' thought, and Aquinas has long been specially recognized by the Church for his theological contributions.
Also known as "psychological torture".
I used to be involved with Berlin. Berlin was re-renamed back to Fresco and has been dead since 2003/2004.
Yes.
So who should host the canonical copies of those DTDs to which the system identifier refers, if not the W3C?
If the !DOCTYPE has an external identifier at all, the external identifier has to include a system identifier (it's the public identifier that's optional). Although it's a requirement of XML, the requirement is inherited from SGML, which predates the W3C. The requirement exists for good reason, too: without it, there would be no way to obtain a new DTD in a forward-compatible way.
This sounds sensible and I think I agree.
Even then, those should be caching in a local catalog, based on the PI.
Minor quibbles: "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" is not a URN but a PI (public identifier), and there is a reason to have validating parsers: the DTD can contain essential information for correctly interpreting the document (e.g. entity declarations, as is obviously the case in HTML).
Other than that you're spot on.
What people were supposed to do is include a copy of the DTDs with their software. That's what the PI string is there for, as an index into a local catalog of DTD resources. The URL was supposed to be only a fallback measure.
Browsers should ship with the DTD. That's the whole point of the public identifier (e.g. "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01/EN"), so that a local copy can be obtained using the PI as an index into a local catalog. The URL is only there as a fallback.
That's the whole purpose of the public identifier (e.g. "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN") in the doctype, and the SGML and XML Catalog specifications!
The expectation is that software would ship with its own copies of "well-known" DTDs with associated catalog entries; the URL is only there as a fallback. The problem is ignorant and/or lazy software developers not implementing catalogs and simply downloading from the URI each time.
To be fair, that is at least partly the result of a difference of opinion between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Iran is predominantly Shia; most of the Muslims offended at Wikipedia are apparently Sunni.
I'm not happy to see people getting killed over disagreements of that sort, and I don't think God rewards it, but the ground truth of human behavior is that people do end up fighting sometimes about things that are important to them. And the specifics of God's particular attributes and acts are not insignificant details but actually rather important; they have grave and direct significance for people's lives. What God is like has distinct bearing on things like the treatment of art and artists, the tolerance of scientific inquiry, and whether or not violent conquest is an acceptable way to spread the faith. Different ideas about what God is like lead to different conclusions on those counts.
My apologies; in the post I was replying to, you had made only an assertion, but I see that you have been endeavoring to make a proper case in other (sub)threads.
My "argument" sounds just fine, thank you. Because the images are part of larger artistic and cultural traditions, not simply the products of individuals, they are indicative of significant and long-term disagreement among Muslims regarding the interpretation of the Islamic strictures on images. The images themselves reflect a range of interpretations -- the fourth and fifth images in the OP carefully avoid a direct depiction by veiling or omitting the Prophet's face, for example, whereas the first and third do not. Some other traditions appear to permit only indirect depictions. Obviously there is also the interpretation that any depiction of people or animals (however limited) is wrong.
Since I am not a Muslim, it falls to you to make a case to non-Muslims regarding which interpretation is authoritative and correct within Islam, and why.