It looks pretty bad on my phone, a Sony Ericsson W80
Oh well, sorry about that. I'd be more than happy to take on board any suggestions to improve it. I imagine adding a separate stylesheet for mobile devices would be a start...
What we really need is not.mobi, but something like.wst - sites that adhere to Web STandards.
We don't need a special TLD for mobile devices. The problem with accessing sites with mobile devices is largely down to the failure to follow web standards. Valid HTML 4.01 + CSS (or XHTML + CSS) already makes good provision for rendering content on a variety of different devices. But very few sites use it.
If a.wst domain was set up where adherence to Web Standards was mandatory, it would benefit all web users, not just those with mobile devices.
(Incidently, I can give a direct example of this. I designed http://www.stnics.org/ to XHTML 1.0 Strict + CSS. I didn't make any specific provision for mobile devices, so I was very gratified the first time I saw it rendered on a Loox hand-held and it looked fine, no sideways scrolling, all content easily accessible.)
You can make any claim about history but being an 'Historical Claim' doesn't automatically make it objective reality.
I agree! I really do. If you think I would disagree with that, then you have completely misunderstood what I am driving at.
Let's remind ourselves how we got here. I wrote:
There is a lot of evidence around this [the resurrection] - whether you believe it is a personal choice, but it is quite wrong to say there is no evidence.
and you wrote
No offence but that's [the resurrection's] just a religious belief.
My point is not that the claim of the resurrection makes the resurrection an objective reality. My point is that the claim of the resurrection itself is a claim about objective reality. That takes it out of the private realm of religious belief and 'blind faith' and into the public arena.
The fact that it is a matter concerning objective reality rather than subjective (religious) belief is in my view of crucial importance, because it means that there is a definite answer 'yes' or 'no' as to whether it happened, regardless of what we actually believe about it.
Clearly we disagree over whether the evidence concerning the resurrection is believable, or perhaps even whether it is worth taking seriously, but that is an argument for another day.
Anyway, as you said, this horse does appear to be dead, doesn't it?
We must be talking about different things. Here's my view:
1. You consider a historical claim. (E.g. Jesus rose from the dead.) 2. You look for evidence. 3. You evaluate the evidence. 4. You make a subjective judgement - does the evidence persuade you?
So to argue that "Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim because there is no evidence just doesn't make sense. You don't need evidence for something to be a claim. The evidence comes in when you decide whether the claim is true or not.
Next, evidence is still evidence whether you find it believable or not. So the eye-witness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible are evidence regardless of whether you think they are trustworthy or not.
I'm not trying to browbeat you into accepting the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" as true. All I want you to do is recognise that this is a claim about history, not just some religious belief that has no connection with objective reality.
I didn't dismiss historical claims as religious belief
OK, here's a historical claim: Jesus rose from the dead.
This is the central claim of Christianity. It is a historical claim because it is about something that (it is claimed) actually happened, at a particular place and time in history, and which could be objectively verified by anyone who was there at the time.
there is no evidence of a resurrection from the dead
There are plenty of accounts from people who were indeed there at the time. Does this really not in your view count as evidence? </flog>;-)
No, it's not just religious belief. It is an objective question of history. Either there were 400+ eye-witnesses or there were not. Either the disciples returned after fleeing in fear of their lives in order to boldly proclaim Christ crucified and raised back to life, or they did not. There are lots more claims like these.
The crucial thing is that these are claims about actual historical events, not subjective religious experience. They can be investigated.
You can't dismiss historical claims as 'just religious belief' simply because of whom they were made by.
There is no evidence of any kind of the existence, or not, of God.
There is the resurrection of Jesus. That he had come back from the dead was witnessed by more than 400 people. There is a lot of evidence around this - whether you believe it is a personal choice, but it is quite wrong to say there is no evidence.
Just a couple of quick answers (I don't want to flog this argument to death):
Yes, for me faith and belief are both always provisional, and both subject to being overturned by new evidence. The best definition of the difference is probably something you said - that faith is relational.
You (I understand) would add that faith can go much deeper, into areas that are not subject to reason, but I would say that this is of no value.
As for faith being a gift from God - yes, I think that is right. Faith in God increases as you get to know him better, and the fact that we can get to know him at all is purely down to his initiative. So I'd say that very much makes faith a gift.
You make some very interesting points (though I can't agree that the Bible is 'just words with various possible interpretations' - the correct interpretation is exactly what it was intended to mean*, though admittedly we can't always know what that is.)
I suppose it does come down in the end to how you see your religion, and it seems we have quite different views.
Since I like to try to justify everything I believe be based on some kind of evidence (I'm very concerned about what is and isn't true - I believe truth is something absolute), I get a bit annoyed if others think that by 'faith' I mean 'belief without evidence'.
To answer your first question (and I haven't really thought this through a great deal), I'd say that 'belief' is always provisional and often tentative. If I say "I believe he'll be here in time" I'm expressing a small element of doubt. It's subjective, not objective. My belief might be wrong. If I say "He'll be here in time", I'm leaving no room for doubt. If I say "I have faith that he'll be here in time" I mean that I know him as a punctual sort who won't let us down.
The pity is that differences in what we mean by the same words lead to a break-down in communication. I can't claim my definitions are any better than yours, but at least in this case we've made an attempt at explaining ourselves.
(* This get's a bit complicated - humanly it would be what the writer meant by the words he wrote, but in the case of the Bible, since it is supposed to be inspired by God, he must have something to do with it too!)
Re:It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Desi
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 1
since people already take laws to mean "Absolutely true"...
But that in itself is wrong, isn't it? No 'law' of science is absolutely true. A scientific law is (just?) a generalisation and an approximation that describes a set of observations. We know that Newton's laws of motion are not "Absolutely true", although they are a good approximation.
(Slightly off-topic, I think it is also important to get over the idea that the 'laws of nature' are not inevitable either. There's nothing to say they have to be as they are, other than real observations of the real universe.)
I do though fully agree with your sentiments about better communicating science to the public. I wish I could think of a better word to use. What about the "Principle of natural selection"?
Re:It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Desi
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 1
Most laws are proscriptive.
Ah. I looked it up. You're right, but I think I am too in this case.
proscribe
To prohibit; forbid
prescribe
To order the use of To my way of thinking, Newton's laws would never be thought of as prohibiting that the earth goes round the sun, even if they are sometimes erroneously thought of as mandating the same.
But yes, laws are usually prescriptive as you say - "Do not murder" etc.
No, true faith is based on nothing otherwise it is just belief.
Sorry to disagree, but in my book faith is always based on experience. It's strange how as soon as we start talking about religion, the word 'faith' seems to get used - mainly by the non-religious - to mean 'blind faith', quite to the contrary of how we normally use it.
If I said I had faith in my boss at work, you would assume that I'd seen good things from him in the past, hence I'd coem to trust him. If I said I had lost faith in someone, you would assume that something happened, not that I had randomly decided not to trust that person any more for no reason. But as soon as I say I have faith in God, people assume that for it to be true faith it cannot be based on evidence or it wouldn't be faith! How silly.
Re:It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Desi
on
One Big Bang, Or Many?
·
· Score: 1
Natural Selection becomes "Darwin's Laws", Mendellian Inheritence becomes "Mendel's Laws", and so forth.
I think calling scientific theories 'laws' is a big mistake. After all, it is not as if the earth goes round the sun because it obeys Newton's law of gravitation. But the way you hear people speaking sometimes you would be forgiven for thinking so.
There is a huge difference between 'law' in a prescriptive sense (which is how it is used most of the time) and 'law' in a descriptive sense (which is how scientists use it).
Personally, I say keep your faith and your science seperate.
Except that faith has to be based on reality, otherwise it would be intellectually dishonest.
From my own point of view as a Christian, if something that the Bible appeared to hold as true flatly contradicted what I knew to be true from my own experience then I would have to seriously re-examine either my understanding of the Bible, or my understanding of my experience. If the two are in contradiction, then one is wrong.
I wrote my doctorate thesis using MS Word 5.1 on an old 68k Macintosh. (OK, it was some years ago...) I learned a lot about Word, and was very careful to use styles for everything, exactly as this article recommends. There were a few limitations - character styles were not supported back then. But on the whole it worked very well and was easy to do.
When I started work a little later I had to prepare reports that then went to a secretary 'for final formatting' before publication. This was presumably to ensure that they followed the house style.
In fact, the first few came back completely garbled. (This was despite the fact that they were already - visually at least - in the house style when I submitted them.) Not long after, an edict came down that we were not to use 'automatic formatting'. When I queried this, it meant no styles, no automatic header numbering, no changing the paragraph spacing with the Format command, etc.
No one ever admitted it, but we all suspected the reason was that the secretaries did not understand enough about Word to realise why they couldn't manually change the heading numbers, why hitting return was inserting a double line space, or whatever.
Even now that we are all using Office 2003, all of our company templates are still set up using direct (manual) formatting.
It's even worse though, because Word 2003 is set up to automatically define a new style every time you manually apply direct formatting to a paragraph. If you look in the styles list for these templates, there are literally hundreds of styles defined there, all with meaningless names.
If only the templates were defined using proper styles and users were educated not to use the buttons on the toolbar but to select a style from the Styles and Formatting sidebar instead, all of this mess could be avoided, and all documents would 'automagically' come out with the house style with no effort at all.
(I'd even like to see Microsoft add some 'policies' to Word so that it can be set up on users' machines to enforce this way of working.)
Re:The BBC's Website
on
On The BBC 2.0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I know I really shouldn't rise to the bait, but the original poster did say "a web site that utilizes all of the screen space available in a browser window". That doesn't mean bigger than 800x600 or smaller than 800x600. It means fully using all of the space available - whatever the size may be. Something like a liquid layout.
Completely centralized IT should die a paintful death.
Excellent point. Another reason that you didn't mention is that different departments often have very different needs, and its easy for the biggest departments to end up dictating what IT services are provided to small departments with very different needs.
For example, the prime IT need of a call centre might be very high availability of a standard information system. Everyone uses the same limited range of applications. If the network goes down then 2000 people are sitting on their hands.
Whereas a small research department might not care less about MS Office, network drive availability (they're too slow anyway), even email for short times. But things like web access (MSDN, open source downloads, etc), administrator privileges, permission to add extra network cards and reconfigure local networks, etc, (and the occasional disk re-image when things go completely pear-shaped) may all be essential.
There's no way a centralised IT department geared towards servicing a call centre is going to be able to offer the same level of support to a research department.
The same also applies to IT policies. Policies appropriate for the call centre will stop the researches dead in their tracks.
This is almost as bad as asking "What programming language to use for a project"
No it isn't. He asked "How do you decide which framework to use?", not "What framework...". That is a completely different type of question, and a very pertinent one.
The same answer to his question could lead to the choice of various frameworks for various projects, depending on the circumstances.
If you think it is silly to ask about how to go about making a rational decision, you presumably think rational decisions are silly. (I guess this isn't really the case.)
Actually, the information isn't in the article. It's off in the FAQ.
Fair point. I suppose I'd regard the FAQ as part of the documentation, and therefore part of the article. But you certainly wouldn't see it at a cursory glance.
Regardless, I wonder how many people will simply ignore the advice and leave their PC on 24x7?
I won't be downloading the simulation. My home PC is generally only switched on for a short time each evening while I check email and read the news. I would take way longer than their target time to complete a single simulation on that basis.
They explicitly tell you in the instructions (several times) that you should not leave your computer switched on any more than you would without the simulation. You should use your computer as normal, shutting it down when you don't need it.
I really don't think that is likely to work for a mailing list.
Using the example of the GP, he along with many other people, put their email address on a list at a conference (or whatever). Some poor soul at the organisation then has the job of creating the mailing list and sending out 100 or so emails.
What will he do when he gets 25 bounce messages telling him to log into a web site and type in a name or security code in order to get the mailshot delivered? He'll decide you weren't interested enough to make it easy for him to contact you, and he'll delete your name off the mailing list.
You're simply not a Christian if you question that Jesus Christ is the literal and living Son of God
I guess that makes me not a Christian then. Despite the fact that every time I question whether Jesus is the Son of God, I come the conclusion that it is true, and despite the fact that I try to faithfully follow him (even if I regularly make a poor job of it).
Sadly so many people have perverted the meaning of the word 'faith' to make it mean some kind of unquestioning belief in something that can't be proved or for which there is no evidence. Funny how it only has this meaning in the realm of religion.
Outside religion, most people regard faith in someone as something that is built up over a time, based on experience. The idea that to be faithful to someone or some cause, you have to have some major gap in your knowledge about them (or it) so that you cannot rationally justify your stance is pure lunacy.
OK, maybe they don't exist, but I was rather hoping for something written using just the standard ANSI C library. Such a framework would be truly cross-platform.
As far as the build system is concerned, most unit test frameworks I've seen to date rely on autoconf and automake, or Ant, etc. It would be nice to find a framework that doesn't specify the build system at all. Would that be so very difficult?
Maybe I'm missing something - I've never actually used a unit test framework.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks pretty bad on my phone, a Sony Ericsson W80
Oh well, sorry about that. I'd be more than happy to take on board any suggestions to improve it. I imagine adding a separate stylesheet for mobile devices would be a start...
What we really need is not .mobi, but something like .wst - sites that adhere to Web STandards.
.wst domain was set up where adherence to Web Standards was mandatory, it would benefit all web users, not just those with mobile devices.
We don't need a special TLD for mobile devices. The problem with accessing sites with mobile devices is largely down to the failure to follow web standards. Valid HTML 4.01 + CSS (or XHTML + CSS) already makes good provision for rendering content on a variety of different devices. But very few sites use it.
If a
(Incidently, I can give a direct example of this. I designed http://www.stnics.org/ to XHTML 1.0 Strict + CSS. I didn't make any specific provision for mobile devices, so I was very gratified the first time I saw it rendered on a Loox hand-held and it looked fine, no sideways scrolling, all content easily accessible.)
You can make any claim about history but being an 'Historical Claim' doesn't automatically make it objective reality.
I agree! I really do. If you think I would disagree with that, then you have completely misunderstood what I am driving at.
Let's remind ourselves how we got here. I wrote:
There is a lot of evidence around this [the resurrection] - whether you believe it is a personal choice, but it is quite wrong to say there is no evidence.
and you wrote
No offence but that's [the resurrection's] just a religious belief.
My point is not that the claim of the resurrection makes the resurrection an objective reality. My point is that the claim of the resurrection itself is a claim about objective reality. That takes it out of the private realm of religious belief and 'blind faith' and into the public arena.
The fact that it is a matter concerning objective reality rather than subjective (religious) belief is in my view of crucial importance, because it means that there is a definite answer 'yes' or 'no' as to whether it happened, regardless of what we actually believe about it.
Clearly we disagree over whether the evidence concerning the resurrection is believable, or perhaps even whether it is worth taking seriously, but that is an argument for another day.
Anyway, as you said, this horse does appear to be dead, doesn't it?
We must be talking about different things. Here's my view:
1. You consider a historical claim. (E.g. Jesus rose from the dead.)
2. You look for evidence.
3. You evaluate the evidence.
4. You make a subjective judgement - does the evidence persuade you?
So to argue that "Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim because there is no evidence just doesn't make sense. You don't need evidence for something to be a claim. The evidence comes in when you decide whether the claim is true or not.
Next, evidence is still evidence whether you find it believable or not. So the eye-witness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible are evidence regardless of whether you think they are trustworthy or not.
I'm not trying to browbeat you into accepting the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" as true. All I want you to do is recognise that this is a claim about history, not just some religious belief that has no connection with objective reality.
Am I flogging a dead horse?
I didn't dismiss historical claims as religious belief
OK, here's a historical claim: Jesus rose from the dead.
This is the central claim of Christianity. It is a historical claim because it is about something that (it is claimed) actually happened, at a particular place and time in history, and which could be objectively verified by anyone who was there at the time.
there is no evidence of a resurrection from the dead
There are plenty of accounts from people who were indeed there at the time. Does this really not in your view count as evidence?
</flog>
No, it's not just religious belief. It is an objective question of history. Either there were 400+ eye-witnesses or there were not. Either the disciples returned after fleeing in fear of their lives in order to boldly proclaim Christ crucified and raised back to life, or they did not. There are lots more claims like these.
The crucial thing is that these are claims about actual historical events, not subjective religious experience. They can be investigated.
You can't dismiss historical claims as 'just religious belief' simply because of whom they were made by.
There is no evidence of any kind of the existence, or not, of God.
There is the resurrection of Jesus. That he had come back from the dead was witnessed by more than 400 people. There is a lot of evidence around this - whether you believe it is a personal choice, but it is quite wrong to say there is no evidence.
Just a couple of quick answers (I don't want to flog this argument to death):
Yes, for me faith and belief are both always provisional, and both subject to being overturned by new evidence. The best definition of the difference is probably something you said - that faith is relational.
You (I understand) would add that faith can go much deeper, into areas that are not subject to reason, but I would say that this is of no value.
As for faith being a gift from God - yes, I think that is right. Faith in God increases as you get to know him better, and the fact that we can get to know him at all is purely down to his initiative. So I'd say that very much makes faith a gift.
You make some very interesting points (though I can't agree that the Bible is 'just words with various possible interpretations' - the correct interpretation is exactly what it was intended to mean*, though admittedly we can't always know what that is.)
I suppose it does come down in the end to how you see your religion, and it seems we have quite different views.
Since I like to try to justify everything I believe be based on some kind of evidence (I'm very concerned about what is and isn't true - I believe truth is something absolute), I get a bit annoyed if others think that by 'faith' I mean 'belief without evidence'.
To answer your first question (and I haven't really thought this through a great deal), I'd say that 'belief' is always provisional and often tentative. If I say "I believe he'll be here in time" I'm expressing a small element of doubt. It's subjective, not objective. My belief might be wrong. If I say "He'll be here in time", I'm leaving no room for doubt. If I say "I have faith that he'll be here in time" I mean that I know him as a punctual sort who won't let us down.
The pity is that differences in what we mean by the same words lead to a break-down in communication. I can't claim my definitions are any better than yours, but at least in this case we've made an attempt at explaining ourselves.
(* This get's a bit complicated - humanly it would be what the writer meant by the words he wrote, but in the case of the Bible, since it is supposed to be inspired by God, he must have something to do with it too!)
since people already take laws to mean "Absolutely true"...
But that in itself is wrong, isn't it? No 'law' of science is absolutely true. A scientific law is (just?) a generalisation and an approximation that describes a set of observations. We know that Newton's laws of motion are not "Absolutely true", although they are a good approximation.
(Slightly off-topic, I think it is also important to get over the idea that the 'laws of nature' are not inevitable either. There's nothing to say they have to be as they are, other than real observations of the real universe.)
I do though fully agree with your sentiments about better communicating science to the public. I wish I could think of a better word to use. What about the "Principle of natural selection"?
Most laws are proscriptive.
Ah. I looked it up. You're right, but I think I am too in this case.
proscribe To prohibit; forbid prescribe To order the use of
To my way of thinking, Newton's laws would never be thought of as prohibiting that the earth goes round the sun, even if they are sometimes erroneously thought of as mandating the same.
But yes, laws are usually prescriptive as you say - "Do not murder" etc.
No, true faith is based on nothing otherwise it is just belief.
Sorry to disagree, but in my book faith is always based on experience. It's strange how as soon as we start talking about religion, the word 'faith' seems to get used - mainly by the non-religious - to mean 'blind faith', quite to the contrary of how we normally use it.
If I said I had faith in my boss at work, you would assume that I'd seen good things from him in the past, hence I'd coem to trust him. If I said I had lost faith in someone, you would assume that something happened, not that I had randomly decided not to trust that person any more for no reason. But as soon as I say I have faith in God, people assume that for it to be true faith it cannot be based on evidence or it wouldn't be faith! How silly.
Natural Selection becomes "Darwin's Laws", Mendellian Inheritence becomes "Mendel's Laws", and so forth.
I think calling scientific theories 'laws' is a big mistake. After all, it is not as if the earth goes round the sun because it obeys Newton's law of gravitation. But the way you hear people speaking sometimes you would be forgiven for thinking so.
There is a huge difference between 'law' in a prescriptive sense (which is how it is used most of the time) and 'law' in a descriptive sense (which is how scientists use it).
Personally, I say keep your faith and your science seperate.
Except that faith has to be based on reality, otherwise it would be intellectually dishonest.
From my own point of view as a Christian, if something that the Bible appeared to hold as true flatly contradicted what I knew to be true from my own experience then I would have to seriously re-examine either my understanding of the Bible, or my understanding of my experience. If the two are in contradiction, then one is wrong.
Well, that's exactly what I was asking for. You should get a few "+1 Informative"s for that useful bit of information.
Now persuading the powers that be to use it may be a different matter...
I wrote my doctorate thesis using MS Word 5.1 on an old 68k Macintosh. (OK, it was some years ago...) I learned a lot about Word, and was very careful to use styles for everything, exactly as this article recommends. There were a few limitations - character styles were not supported back then. But on the whole it worked very well and was easy to do.
When I started work a little later I had to prepare reports that then went to a secretary 'for final formatting' before publication. This was presumably to ensure that they followed the house style.
In fact, the first few came back completely garbled. (This was despite the fact that they were already - visually at least - in the house style when I submitted them.) Not long after, an edict came down that we were not to use 'automatic formatting'. When I queried this, it meant no styles, no automatic header numbering, no changing the paragraph spacing with the Format command, etc.
No one ever admitted it, but we all suspected the reason was that the secretaries did not understand enough about Word to realise why they couldn't manually change the heading numbers, why hitting return was inserting a double line space, or whatever.
Even now that we are all using Office 2003, all of our company templates are still set up using direct (manual) formatting.
It's even worse though, because Word 2003 is set up to automatically define a new style every time you manually apply direct formatting to a paragraph. If you look in the styles list for these templates, there are literally hundreds of styles defined there, all with meaningless names.
If only the templates were defined using proper styles and users were educated not to use the buttons on the toolbar but to select a style from the Styles and Formatting sidebar instead, all of this mess could be avoided, and all documents would 'automagically' come out with the house style with no effort at all.
(I'd even like to see Microsoft add some 'policies' to Word so that it can be set up on users' machines to enforce this way of working.)
I know I really shouldn't rise to the bait, but the original poster did say "a web site that utilizes all of the screen space available in a browser window". That doesn't mean bigger than 800x600 or smaller than 800x600. It means fully using all of the space available - whatever the size may be. Something like a liquid layout.
Completely centralized IT should die a paintful death.
Excellent point. Another reason that you didn't mention is that different departments often have very different needs, and its easy for the biggest departments to end up dictating what IT services are provided to small departments with very different needs.
For example, the prime IT need of a call centre might be very high availability of a standard information system. Everyone uses the same limited range of applications. If the network goes down then 2000 people are sitting on their hands.
Whereas a small research department might not care less about MS Office, network drive availability (they're too slow anyway), even email for short times. But things like web access (MSDN, open source downloads, etc), administrator privileges, permission to add extra network cards and reconfigure local networks, etc, (and the occasional disk re-image when things go completely pear-shaped) may all be essential.
There's no way a centralised IT department geared towards servicing a call centre is going to be able to offer the same level of support to a research department.
The same also applies to IT policies. Policies appropriate for the call centre will stop the researches dead in their tracks.
(Guess which I work for.)
Will this do?
This is almost as bad as asking "What programming language to use for a project"
No it isn't. He asked "How do you decide which framework to use?", not "What framework...". That is a completely different type of question, and a very pertinent one.
The same answer to his question could lead to the choice of various frameworks for various projects, depending on the circumstances.
If you think it is silly to ask about how to go about making a rational decision, you presumably think rational decisions are silly. (I guess this isn't really the case.)
Actually, the information isn't in the article. It's off in the FAQ.
Fair point. I suppose I'd regard the FAQ as part of the documentation, and therefore part of the article. But you certainly wouldn't see it at a cursory glance.
Regardless, I wonder how many people will simply ignore the advice and leave their PC on 24x7?
I won't be downloading the simulation. My home PC is generally only switched on for a short time each evening while I check email and read the news. I would take way longer than their target time to complete a single simulation on that basis.
RTFA.
They explicitly tell you in the instructions (several times) that you should not leave your computer switched on any more than you would without the simulation. You should use your computer as normal, shutting it down when you don't need it.
I really don't think that is likely to work for a mailing list.
Using the example of the GP, he along with many other people, put their email address on a list at a conference (or whatever). Some poor soul at the organisation then has the job of creating the mailing list and sending out 100 or so emails.
What will he do when he gets 25 bounce messages telling him to log into a web site and type in a name or security code in order to get the mailshot delivered? He'll decide you weren't interested enough to make it easy for him to contact you, and he'll delete your name off the mailing list.
You're simply not a Christian if you question that Jesus Christ is the literal and living Son of God
I guess that makes me not a Christian then. Despite the fact that every time I question whether Jesus is the Son of God, I come the conclusion that it is true, and despite the fact that I try to faithfully follow him (even if I regularly make a poor job of it).
Sadly so many people have perverted the meaning of the word 'faith' to make it mean some kind of unquestioning belief in something that can't be proved or for which there is no evidence. Funny how it only has this meaning in the realm of religion.
Outside religion, most people regard faith in someone as something that is built up over a time, based on experience. The idea that to be faithful to someone or some cause, you have to have some major gap in your knowledge about them (or it) so that you cannot rationally justify your stance is pure lunacy.
OK, maybe they don't exist, but I was rather hoping for something written using just the standard ANSI C library. Such a framework would be truly cross-platform.
As far as the build system is concerned, most unit test frameworks I've seen to date rely on autoconf and automake, or Ant, etc. It would be nice to find a framework that doesn't specify the build system at all. Would that be so very difficult?
Maybe I'm missing something - I've never actually used a unit test framework.