It should be taught in a way to show how it isn't science, and requires no evidence (it's belief based), and is specific to the judeochristian religion. Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.
First, many scientific theories are based on no evidence (string theory) and at this time we don't even know when they can be proven, if ever, but yet I'm sure many people can cite cases where universities are teaching string theory. Many theories are also based on assumptions that, given the human tendency to act holier-than-though, we think must be right or otherwise, God forbid, our theory might end up being wrong.
Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation. The exact details are unknown which is why, unfortunately, scientists don't believe it because they seek hard facts which are not discussed in the respective religions' holy books. The various Creations though have at least two things in common: there was a beginning and it didn't happen by accident. If you stick to those general premises then you don't run into the typical separate of church and state issue that *only* arises when people want to insert topics specific to Christianity. If you make the reasoning for insertion and the actual discussion generic then those who complain of church and state go away because you can use the same excuse everyone who tries to insert Islam into the school system uses (and get away with it unfortunately): it's a history lesson. In this case, it's a scientific one.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
I think having the manager understand the technical nature of whats going on is certainly an asset.. but ultimately I don't know if it's a necessity.
I agree. It isn't a necessity if you have the right organizational structure. I'll expand on that further down.
Managers are about the big picture, not the fine details. In fact.. a micro-managing manager can be a bad thing.
I agree. I've had one of these and it makes the job harder. I work on government contracts and the way each project on a contract is structure is with a project manager, a technical lead, and then the individual team members doing the grunt work all with varying skill levels. I believe the guys I'm working with now are a good example and why I'm using them as proof that your organizational structure determines whether your manager needs to know something.
My project manager on my current project is the same one I had when I started with my company. The guys who run the projects work for the prime contractor. I'm a subcontractor so I still have my own company-specific manager but I hardly see him. I basically report to the project manager once a week but see him every day. He knows his stuff as far as a project manager is concerned. He convinced me to go back for a BS degree. He can't configure his TCP/IP settings though and that's okay. He has myself and other guys to tell him how long something will take and what all sub-tasks must be defined for a larger task. For general technical direction though and for reporting technical issues to management (for the customer and his management) we have the technical lead. The project manager does the scheduling, budgeting, and some paperwork while interfacing with the customer's management but the technical lead works with the minions like myself to make sure things are working right and that we are using the right products, etc.
We all have our place and we work great together knowing each other's strengths and weaknesses. The managers (project manager and tech lead) must understand those strengths and weaknesses and be able to trust their minions in order to properly do their own job. The project manager and tech lead attend the weekly interface meetings with the customer. Us minions can stay behind doing the real work instead of spending 1-2 hours a week in a meeting where we mostly sit around listening to others talk. That protection enables us to do our job and get things done when a schedule is already tight.
So in summary, I believe the key is that a project manager can be totally technically clueless but he does his management job perfectly because 1) he has guys he can trust (the minions and the tech lead) and 2) he has experience doing his job which helps him refine his skills just like anyone else. The technical lead steps in and provides high-level tasking information to the project manager for scheduling and budgets. Those 2 guys work hand-in-hand. I believe that structure works out well in the environment I'm in. Many regular IT companies don't have tech leads though as far as I know but they have plenty of managers and senior developers. The senior developer though is still expected to be hands-on which isn't quite the same.
There's a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between arranged pen testing and some stranger who breaks in and then brags to you about it. There are responsible ways to do things and horrible ways to do things... some of which are illegal.
In theory, yes, but not necessarily in practice. You put more faith into an individual who does it professional as opposed to some guy who asks you informally if he hack you and then let you know the results later. But neither gives you a guarantee that you won't be screwed over in the end.
What's more, if we allowed unannounced, unsanctioned "hacking" if the perpetrator later sends a paper, than anyone you catch could just say, "well I was just gunna try it and write a paper later".
I never was recommending going with an unannounced and unsanctioned penetration. I was trying to figure out the logic the OP was expressing by stating that just because someone asks must mean they can be 100% trusted and wouldn't have to do any cleanup afterward. People lie, some people lie really well. Nothing says that just because someone asks politely that they are going to do everything else by the book. That's the cynical viewpoint I guess.
If some asshat broke into one of my servers then told me how, I'd send his ass to jail too. If he contacted me and said "I would like to break into your server then I'll tell you how", I'd pay him to do it under controlled circumstances. However, if he just up and did it one day, it would cost me tens of thousands of dollars in cleanup.
So just because someone asks beforehand means you can trust them to not require a cleanup afterwards? What kind of arbitrary logic is that? If you don't trust them and that's why you want it done under controlled conditions such that everything they do is recorded then you may as well do it yourself. Someone who doesn't ask isn't necessarily malicious as in this case but someone who does ask can still be malicious. You just have a better chance of the person(s) not being malicious if they do ask but there are exceptions on both sides of the situation.
Also, just for fun, I googled my real name (which is not especially common) and I found three other prople who share the same name in the top 5 hits. The real me appeared once in the top 10 (I was interviewed by a newspaper as part of a charity event several years ago).
I google my name every so often although it's been a couple years since I last did it. At that point in time one search result said I was a drug dealer arrested somewhere out west like Missouri and another result said I was a college basketball player but it wasn't hard to find a bunch of archived newsgroup messages about Linux that had my email address attached to them and since I put my email address on my resume' it would be easy to link at these the newsgroup postings to me. Hopefully there is no accidental link to the drug dealing.
Is frustrating, oh no its only accurate for 150million years. JUST WAIT for the ID people to jump all over this and start with the whole dinosaurs didnt exist, invisible man made everything 5000years ago. *sighs* these people live in my neighborhood and are going to harass me with their ignorance again.
I'm sure they get tired of you harassing them with your holier-than-thou attitude. Remember, one man's teaching the "facts" is another man's spreading propaganda. Both sides always feels harassed except that one side is always thinking it's one way because of the holier-than-though attitude.
Because it would show that life can be created from basic non-living components using simple chemical reactions, and that it didn't require some magical "zap" from heaven to do it?
So the lightning bolt often mentioned as the trigger for biogenesis/evolution/ didn't come from heaven?
Yes, in this case it would be a scientist doing it intentionally, rather than it occurring by chance in the primordial soup, but it shows that in principle it is possible.
It shows exactly what it is, that a *human* can initiate life from non-living material. Nothing more.
At that point you would have a pretty solid theory of abiogenesis if you can show that earth had in the distant past these basic components and sufficient energy to cause the necessary reactions, and then just like with evolution you have millions of years and trillions of molecules to handle the "chance" part.
I'm still waiting for that chance to occur again. If it happened once then there is no reason why it couldn't happen again and yet there is no proof that in the millions of years since it supposedly occurred once that it ever occurred again to make 2 completely separate evolutionary trees. So how to prove it even happened the first time in that manner (without invoking the anthropic principle of circular logic)? We are guessing at events that we were not around to witness to prove 100% correct but are taught as being gospel nonetheless. The smoking gun is still missing: that the conditions alone, without any intervention from a higher power, can spark life while a scientist (providing the intervention) in a lab still only *almost* can.
The only 'real' advantage to this program is that you can go into a store and buy it. It comes from a semi-legit company and probably doesn't have too many spyware and popup modules included.
Take an objective look at say "Doom9.net - The definitive DVD backup resource". The home page is covered with jibberish about things called "eac3to" and "DGAVCDec" and "AviSynth". Even aside from the vaugely hackerish feel of the site, this is hugely intimidating for the average dumbass.
That's why God made DVDShrink or at least allowed the author(s) to be born so they could write it.
Or more to the point less than the cost of cleaning up after one hurricane.
Or even more to the point, the costs of rebuilding/cleaning up after a hurricane is a guarantee and proven to work. We have yet to to figure out (beyond global warming proponents always believing *they* are right) whether this idea will actually work. If it doesn't, who is going to pay for the lost money?
What does a hurricane off the coast of New England (or farther, I haven't checked lately) have to do with turning off analog TV signals in North Carolina? Maybe Ike would be a little more relevant?
Not really. A modem can certainly count how many bytes you sent or received. "Theres nothing like an odometer to measure..." Yes there is. Right there on my screen there's a little icon of two computers talking. It tells me that in the last 30 days I've sent 45 gigabytes and received 89 gigabytes.
Simple.
That works just dandy if you have 1 PC. What if you have a family of 5 and each of 3 kids has a PC? Are you going to have your kids report in every day to tell you what their current throughput is? How about if you leave your WAP or router open and people leech off you? How to tell what your throughput is then?
You see evidence, other people see Elvis. Why do you trust your judgment so greatly?
Because the evidence I see is the same evidence that you see but interpreted differently and without an agenda. Therefore the evidence *is* there. For example, you would agree that if Earth was any closer to the Sun that the planet would be too hot to sustain life and if it was any farther away it would be too cold? I take that as resulting in an actual reason for why the Solar System is setup the way it is (for us to exist) instead of it being an accident and us being the *result* through some convoluted set of numerous other accidents.
By the way, the topic was Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues, not whether people who are non-religious have morals.
If you truly believe this thread has changed to that topic to that then there is no hope for you. I was defending Palin because of someone's implication that Palin not believing in evolution was akin to insanity. To help you get back on track, I was talking about animals not having morals which is one way they are different from mankind, therefore implying mankind did not originate from animals like evolution theorizes, thus providing a reason for why Palin believes what she believes. I did not say that the non-religious have no morals but people like you who hate religion will take any chance you you are given to complain that someone of religion is attacking you. Please help yourself be a better Slashdot user by enhancing your reading comprehension skills.
So does your dog, and he is a mere animal. Socialization is all that's necessary to evolve a moral framework. It's just selection pressure, working on a different scale. A wolf that went postal on his pack wouldn't have been permitted to breed. Fast forward 100,000 years, and -- lo and behold! you can trust your dog not to eat your wife and child for breakfast if you forget to feed him the night before.
A pet not attacking your family members has nothing to do with having a moral framework. You can mistreat a dog and it will change its behavior so that it *can* attack your family. It doesn't know any better. That's its instincts which have been modified based on how it has been treated. You can't say it suddenly lost its moral framework or chose to do something wrong. Animals don't know right from wrong. If they did animals wouldn't attack humans. We consider that wrong but they are either defending their territory or looking for food. That's the level of thinking they have.
Basically, only someone with a staggering level of ignorance of animal behavior (to say nothing of human behavior) could have written your post.
Basically, only someone with a staggering level of ignorance and lack of any useful argument could come up with something like what you have written. Show me where my level of ignorance exists. Is there proof that animals have morals or ethics? I'd like to know which experiments were performed on an animal to determine the exact set of morals the sample animal possesses. You seem to think they have some morals so I'd love to be entertained by your sharing your supposed knowledge. Oh, by the way, stop confusing instincts with morals. Most animals don't attack another animal of the same species, at least for food. They know through instincts that food comes from other sources so there is no need to do that. Again, an animal will defend its territory though if required. That doesn't come close to meaning the animal has morals or that it believes one of those actions is wrong or right.
The world is much bigger than you were taught in church. You've been lied to, probably all your life. You should be pissed about that. Why aren't you?
Please stay on topic. You have no idea what I've been taught or what I haven't been taught. It takes a fool to think he knows something about someone else without knowing anything about them. It also takes a fool to think he is the one who has been taught the truth his entire life and that he knows everything. My previous post is no indication of what you know about me contrary to what you want to believe in order to feel better about berating someone you disagree with. Those who taught me what I know across all subjects taught me what they thought were facts. In many cases, those facts turn out to be wrong based on further research but during the time they were being taught those facts were known to be the most accurate available. We see here on this site all the time where researchers come up with something that makes more sense compared to past "evidence". Facts have to be updated.
If I were you I'd be pissed when I came to the realization that everything people taught me was for their own agendas to spread propaganda. Call it an enlightening moment. Since you don't seem to be pissed about that I guess that just means you haven't experienced the realization yet and for that I feel sorry for you. If you are of the opinion that what I'm taught in church is propaganda just because it contains a structure where many people sit down in front of a single person who spouts off what you should know and you are expected to believe it then I assume that you also do not believe in the public school system and therefore discount anything you were taught as mere lies and spreading propaganda (Holocaust? no way! Moon landing? no way!).
Just try to consider that being a Christian does NOT necessarily mean "blind belief".
I never said it does mean that. I see evidence every day all around me that we aren't here by accident and that the whole environment (terrestrial and non-) is here for us instead of us being here because of it. I don't need blind faith/belief when I already have evidence right in front of me. Those who choose to interpret that evidence differently for their own agendas (1) are the ones who should be reconsidering what they think.
1) What agenda would I have for believing what I do? I'm not in a position of power to influence others.
yet she does not believe in evolution ("believe in evolution"??? I cringe even typing such a phrase about someone)
Some people like to think that humans are more than mere animals, that they have free will, morals and can realize the difference between right and wrong. When you view mankind in that light evolution just isn't the correct explanation. Those who believe in that cringe when someone else says that they *do* believe in evolution. Evolution relegates mankind to the level of an animal and when we consider ourselves animals there isn't any sin anymore; people can then feel like they can do anything without consequence. That's the chain of logic to explain the non-secularist's view of the world. To not like someone (Palin) because she believes in mankind being capable of ethics and morals and possessing free will is not liking them for the wrong reason.
Why don't the extension developers keep ready an upgraded version of their add-ons so that with every Firefox upgrade you don't have to sit and wait for days for the add-ons to be upgraded?
Even better would be if Firefox wouldn't break the plug-in API. On OS X I finally got a plug-in for Firefox 2.x that would save tabs and when I upgraded to version 3 the plug-in broke and the preference in Firefox to save tabs on exit does not work for some reason in OS X.
I have no problem with the 250 GB cap. I'd much prefer ISPs clearly state their actual usage limits, as opposed to the current widespread practice of selling "unlimited" bandwidth plans that are anything but unlimited.
I don't have a problem with a 250GB cap either but for a different reason. I'm with TW right now and they are currently looking into tiered pricing as well as throughput (not bandwidth, already got that) caps. I use DUMeter to measure my daily/weekly/monthly throughput and over the last 8 months my biggest month was 280GB (down and up). My smallest month was August with just under 100 GB. Unless I download movies from newsgroups I don't get even 200GB let alone 250GB. I'd be okay with 250GB and could probably get by with 200GB most of the time.
I don't do streaming video and I don't leave eMule running all the time letting people suck stuff from me so I guess I'm not a heavy user unlike some people. I'm sure there are people who download 400GB+ a month but I don't see how they could possibly be downloading something useful the entire time. You can only download so many ISOs, DVDs and MP3s to actually use/watch/listen to in a months time. Maybe some people are like me though and just want to download them to have them to expand their collection that never gets used but I only have hording tendencies toward ebooks which aren't that big.
Sounds to me like XP's deciding to increase your cache size at the expense of running programs. One thing to check: on My Computer's context menu, select properties / advanced / performance settings / advanced and check that "memory usage" is set to "programs" not "system cache".
I checked that but it was already set to "programs" but I may load up on more RAM (I have 2GB right now) since RAM is so cheap right now and try turning off swap completely to see the effects.
And, no, I don't see 300-400MB of browser usage being "the long awaited "killer app" that drives customers towards 4GB+ systems and the 64-bit flavors of Windows Vista/7." First of all, all current 32-bit versions of windows are capable of handling 4GB of RAM perfectly fine. We're talking using less than 10% of that RAM, *while the browser is in heavy use*. Stop using it, and it'll be swapped out. What do you want to do that'll use the other 90% of that RAM at the same time?
Being swapped out happens all too often with XP Pro from what I've seen. I can stop using a program for just a couple minutes and it gets swapped out and then I go to use it (Opera) and I have to wait for 200 megs to be swapped back in. It's pathetic and a big time waster. I don't know whether to blame Opera or Windows XP for the behavior. I'd think it would be XP's fault. Anyone have any info on this issue?
still in business that means we still have to see the stupid Smilin' Bob commercials? Or worse, will they think of another stupid ad campaign to try to drum up more business and soften (no pun intended) the blow of the $500 million forfeiture?
I started with Core Java 2 Fundamentals Volume 1 since it was the textbook for my Java class. It's a good book but I didn't have to read it much. I read over it to help me with listeners but that was about it. Everything else came from lectures or tutorials. I didn't have any trouble getting over not having to write destructors. What I had trouble with was the idea of not having to setup a mouse listener to watch for click events for basic clicking on buttons like I had to do in GTK- under Linux. The ActionListener does that for me and you only need a MouseListener for more "advanced" stuff. I guess that was just part of the fact that Java abstracts more than GTK- and other languages do so I didn't have to worry about the low-level stuff as much. I liked that part. I'm more productive that way.
Realize that Magomed was shot in the temple, that's a guaranteed way to kill someone. It was no accident, it was premeditated.
Premeditation is not the opposite of accidental. Being shot in the temple just implies that it was an execution and on purpose. In this case it probably was premeditated as well but a murder on purpose isn't always premeditated. An example would be a crime of passion where an argument got out of hand and person A killed person B on a whim. Fighting someone with a gun and it going off and killing the other person would be accidental. That also turns it into manslaughter.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be taught in a way to show how it isn't science, and requires no evidence (it's belief based), and is specific to the judeochristian religion. Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.
First, many scientific theories are based on no evidence (string theory) and at this time we don't even know when they can be proven, if ever, but yet I'm sure many people can cite cases where universities are teaching string theory. Many theories are also based on assumptions that, given the human tendency to act holier-than-though, we think must be right or otherwise, God forbid, our theory might end up being wrong.
Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation. The exact details are unknown which is why, unfortunately, scientists don't believe it because they seek hard facts which are not discussed in the respective religions' holy books. The various Creations though have at least two things in common: there was a beginning and it didn't happen by accident. If you stick to those general premises then you don't run into the typical separate of church and state issue that *only* arises when people want to insert topics specific to Christianity. If you make the reasoning for insertion and the actual discussion generic then those who complain of church and state go away because you can use the same excuse everyone who tries to insert Islam into the school system uses (and get away with it unfortunately): it's a history lesson. In this case, it's a scientific one.
I think having the manager understand the technical nature of whats going on is certainly an asset.. but ultimately I don't know if it's a necessity.
I agree. It isn't a necessity if you have the right organizational structure. I'll expand on that further down.
Managers are about the big picture, not the fine details. In fact.. a micro-managing manager can be a bad thing.
I agree. I've had one of these and it makes the job harder. I work on government contracts and the way each project on a contract is structure is with a project manager, a technical lead, and then the individual team members doing the grunt work all with varying skill levels. I believe the guys I'm working with now are a good example and why I'm using them as proof that your organizational structure determines whether your manager needs to know something.
My project manager on my current project is the same one I had when I started with my company. The guys who run the projects work for the prime contractor. I'm a subcontractor so I still have my own company-specific manager but I hardly see him. I basically report to the project manager once a week but see him every day. He knows his stuff as far as a project manager is concerned. He convinced me to go back for a BS degree. He can't configure his TCP/IP settings though and that's okay. He has myself and other guys to tell him how long something will take and what all sub-tasks must be defined for a larger task. For general technical direction though and for reporting technical issues to management (for the customer and his management) we have the technical lead. The project manager does the scheduling, budgeting, and some paperwork while interfacing with the customer's management but the technical lead works with the minions like myself to make sure things are working right and that we are using the right products, etc.
We all have our place and we work great together knowing each other's strengths and weaknesses. The managers (project manager and tech lead) must understand those strengths and weaknesses and be able to trust their minions in order to properly do their own job. The project manager and tech lead attend the weekly interface meetings with the customer. Us minions can stay behind doing the real work instead of spending 1-2 hours a week in a meeting where we mostly sit around listening to others talk. That protection enables us to do our job and get things done when a schedule is already tight.
So in summary, I believe the key is that a project manager can be totally technically clueless but he does his management job perfectly because 1) he has guys he can trust (the minions and the tech lead) and 2) he has experience doing his job which helps him refine his skills just like anyone else. The technical lead steps in and provides high-level tasking information to the project manager for scheduling and budgets. Those 2 guys work hand-in-hand. I believe that structure works out well in the environment I'm in. Many regular IT companies don't have tech leads though as far as I know but they have plenty of managers and senior developers. The senior developer though is still expected to be hands-on which isn't quite the same.
There's a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between arranged pen testing and some stranger who breaks in and then brags to you about it. There are responsible ways to do things and horrible ways to do things... some of which are illegal.
In theory, yes, but not necessarily in practice. You put more faith into an individual who does it professional as opposed to some guy who asks you informally if he hack you and then let you know the results later. But neither gives you a guarantee that you won't be screwed over in the end.
What's more, if we allowed unannounced, unsanctioned "hacking" if the perpetrator later sends a paper, than anyone you catch could just say, "well I was just gunna try it and write a paper later".
I never was recommending going with an unannounced and unsanctioned penetration. I was trying to figure out the logic the OP was expressing by stating that just because someone asks must mean they can be 100% trusted and wouldn't have to do any cleanup afterward. People lie, some people lie really well. Nothing says that just because someone asks politely that they are going to do everything else by the book. That's the cynical viewpoint I guess.
If some asshat broke into one of my servers then told me how, I'd send his ass to jail too. If he contacted me and said "I would like to break into your server then I'll tell you how", I'd pay him to do it under controlled circumstances. However, if he just up and did it one day, it would cost me tens of thousands of dollars in cleanup.
So just because someone asks beforehand means you can trust them to not require a cleanup afterwards? What kind of arbitrary logic is that? If you don't trust them and that's why you want it done under controlled conditions such that everything they do is recorded then you may as well do it yourself. Someone who doesn't ask isn't necessarily malicious as in this case but someone who does ask can still be malicious. You just have a better chance of the person(s) not being malicious if they do ask but there are exceptions on both sides of the situation.
This link actually works. It was at the University of North Carolina. Not much info is provided at the link so don't expect a full article.
Also, just for fun, I googled my real name (which is not especially common) and I found three other prople who share the same name in the top 5 hits. The real me appeared once in the top 10 (I was interviewed by a newspaper as part of a charity event several years ago).
I google my name every so often although it's been a couple years since I last did it. At that point in time one search result said I was a drug dealer arrested somewhere out west like Missouri and another result said I was a college basketball player but it wasn't hard to find a bunch of archived newsgroup messages about Linux that had my email address attached to them and since I put my email address on my resume' it would be easy to link at these the newsgroup postings to me. Hopefully there is no accidental link to the drug dealing.
Is frustrating, oh no its only accurate for 150million years. JUST WAIT for the ID people to jump all over this and start with the whole dinosaurs didnt exist, invisible man made everything 5000years ago. *sighs* these people live in my neighborhood and are going to harass me with their ignorance again.
I'm sure they get tired of you harassing them with your holier-than-thou attitude. Remember, one man's teaching the "facts" is another man's spreading propaganda. Both sides always feels harassed except that one side is always thinking it's one way because of the holier-than-though attitude.
Because it would show that life can be created from basic non-living components using simple chemical reactions, and that it didn't require some magical "zap" from heaven to do it?
So the lightning bolt often mentioned as the trigger for biogenesis/evolution/ didn't come from heaven?
Yes, in this case it would be a scientist doing it intentionally, rather than it occurring by chance in the primordial soup, but it shows that in principle it is possible.
It shows exactly what it is, that a *human* can initiate life from non-living material. Nothing more.
At that point you would have a pretty solid theory of abiogenesis if you can show that earth had in the distant past these basic components and sufficient energy to cause the necessary reactions, and then just like with evolution you have millions of years and trillions of molecules to handle the "chance" part.
I'm still waiting for that chance to occur again. If it happened once then there is no reason why it couldn't happen again and yet there is no proof that in the millions of years since it supposedly occurred once that it ever occurred again to make 2 completely separate evolutionary trees. So how to prove it even happened the first time in that manner (without invoking the anthropic principle of circular logic)? We are guessing at events that we were not around to witness to prove 100% correct but are taught as being gospel nonetheless. The smoking gun is still missing: that the conditions alone, without any intervention from a higher power, can spark life while a scientist (providing the intervention) in a lab still only *almost* can.
The only 'real' advantage to this program is that you can go into a store and buy it. It comes from a semi-legit company and probably doesn't have too many spyware and popup modules included. Take an objective look at say "Doom9.net - The definitive DVD backup resource". The home page is covered with jibberish about things called "eac3to" and "DGAVCDec" and "AviSynth". Even aside from the vaugely hackerish feel of the site, this is hugely intimidating for the average dumbass.
That's why God made DVDShrink or at least allowed the author(s) to be born so they could write it.
Or more to the point less than the cost of cleaning up after one hurricane.
Or even more to the point, the costs of rebuilding/cleaning up after a hurricane is a guarantee and proven to work. We have yet to to figure out (beyond global warming proponents always believing *they* are right) whether this idea will actually work. If it doesn't, who is going to pay for the lost money?
aah yes. I forgot about the ungodly lead time on submitted articles before they are actually rejected/accepted.
What does a hurricane off the coast of New England (or farther, I haven't checked lately) have to do with turning off analog TV signals in North Carolina? Maybe Ike would be a little more relevant?
Not really. A modem can certainly count how many bytes you sent or received. "Theres nothing like an odometer to measure..." Yes there is. Right there on my screen there's a little icon of two computers talking. It tells me that in the last 30 days I've sent 45 gigabytes and received 89 gigabytes. Simple.
That works just dandy if you have 1 PC. What if you have a family of 5 and each of 3 kids has a PC? Are you going to have your kids report in every day to tell you what their current throughput is? How about if you leave your WAP or router open and people leech off you? How to tell what your throughput is then?
You see evidence, other people see Elvis. Why do you trust your judgment so greatly?
Because the evidence I see is the same evidence that you see but interpreted differently and without an agenda. Therefore the evidence *is* there. For example, you would agree that if Earth was any closer to the Sun that the planet would be too hot to sustain life and if it was any farther away it would be too cold? I take that as resulting in an actual reason for why the Solar System is setup the way it is (for us to exist) instead of it being an accident and us being the *result* through some convoluted set of numerous other accidents.
By the way, the topic was Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues, not whether people who are non-religious have morals.
If you truly believe this thread has changed to that topic to that then there is no hope for you. I was defending Palin because of someone's implication that Palin not believing in evolution was akin to insanity. To help you get back on track, I was talking about animals not having morals which is one way they are different from mankind, therefore implying mankind did not originate from animals like evolution theorizes, thus providing a reason for why Palin believes what she believes. I did not say that the non-religious have no morals but people like you who hate religion will take any chance you you are given to complain that someone of religion is attacking you. Please help yourself be a better Slashdot user by enhancing your reading comprehension skills.
So does your dog, and he is a mere animal. Socialization is all that's necessary to evolve a moral framework. It's just selection pressure, working on a different scale. A wolf that went postal on his pack wouldn't have been permitted to breed. Fast forward 100,000 years, and -- lo and behold! you can trust your dog not to eat your wife and child for breakfast if you forget to feed him the night before.
A pet not attacking your family members has nothing to do with having a moral framework. You can mistreat a dog and it will change its behavior so that it *can* attack your family. It doesn't know any better. That's its instincts which have been modified based on how it has been treated. You can't say it suddenly lost its moral framework or chose to do something wrong. Animals don't know right from wrong. If they did animals wouldn't attack humans. We consider that wrong but they are either defending their territory or looking for food. That's the level of thinking they have.
Basically, only someone with a staggering level of ignorance of animal behavior (to say nothing of human behavior) could have written your post.
Basically, only someone with a staggering level of ignorance and lack of any useful argument could come up with something like what you have written. Show me where my level of ignorance exists. Is there proof that animals have morals or ethics? I'd like to know which experiments were performed on an animal to determine the exact set of morals the sample animal possesses. You seem to think they have some morals so I'd love to be entertained by your sharing your supposed knowledge. Oh, by the way, stop confusing instincts with morals. Most animals don't attack another animal of the same species, at least for food. They know through instincts that food comes from other sources so there is no need to do that. Again, an animal will defend its territory though if required. That doesn't come close to meaning the animal has morals or that it believes one of those actions is wrong or right.
The world is much bigger than you were taught in church. You've been lied to, probably all your life. You should be pissed about that. Why aren't you?
Please stay on topic. You have no idea what I've been taught or what I haven't been taught. It takes a fool to think he knows something about someone else without knowing anything about them. It also takes a fool to think he is the one who has been taught the truth his entire life and that he knows everything. My previous post is no indication of what you know about me contrary to what you want to believe in order to feel better about berating someone you disagree with. Those who taught me what I know across all subjects taught me what they thought were facts. In many cases, those facts turn out to be wrong based on further research but during the time they were being taught those facts were known to be the most accurate available. We see here on this site all the time where researchers come up with something that makes more sense compared to past "evidence". Facts have to be updated.
If I were you I'd be pissed when I came to the realization that everything people taught me was for their own agendas to spread propaganda. Call it an enlightening moment. Since you don't seem to be pissed about that I guess that just means you haven't experienced the realization yet and for that I feel sorry for you. If you are of the opinion that what I'm taught in church is propaganda just because it contains a structure where many people sit down in front of a single person who spouts off what you should know and you are expected to believe it then I assume that you also do not believe in the public school system and therefore discount anything you were taught as mere lies and spreading propaganda (Holocaust? no way! Moon landing? no way!).
Just try to consider that being a Christian does NOT necessarily mean "blind belief".
I never said it does mean that. I see evidence every day all around me that we aren't here by accident and that the whole environment (terrestrial and non-) is here for us instead of us being here because of it. I don't need blind faith/belief when I already have evidence right in front of me. Those who choose to interpret that evidence differently for their own agendas (1) are the ones who should be reconsidering what they think.
1) What agenda would I have for believing what I do? I'm not in a position of power to influence others.
yet she does not believe in evolution ("believe in evolution"??? I cringe even typing such a phrase about someone)
Some people like to think that humans are more than mere animals, that they have free will, morals and can realize the difference between right and wrong. When you view mankind in that light evolution just isn't the correct explanation. Those who believe in that cringe when someone else says that they *do* believe in evolution. Evolution relegates mankind to the level of an animal and when we consider ourselves animals there isn't any sin anymore; people can then feel like they can do anything without consequence. That's the chain of logic to explain the non-secularist's view of the world. To not like someone (Palin) because she believes in mankind being capable of ethics and morals and possessing free will is not liking them for the wrong reason.
Why don't the extension developers keep ready an upgraded version of their add-ons so that with every Firefox upgrade you don't have to sit and wait for days for the add-ons to be upgraded?
Even better would be if Firefox wouldn't break the plug-in API. On OS X I finally got a plug-in for Firefox 2.x that would save tabs and when I upgraded to version 3 the plug-in broke and the preference in Firefox to save tabs on exit does not work for some reason in OS X.
I have no problem with the 250 GB cap. I'd much prefer ISPs clearly state their actual usage limits, as opposed to the current widespread practice of selling "unlimited" bandwidth plans that are anything but unlimited.
I don't have a problem with a 250GB cap either but for a different reason. I'm with TW right now and they are currently looking into tiered pricing as well as throughput (not bandwidth, already got that) caps. I use DUMeter to measure my daily/weekly/monthly throughput and over the last 8 months my biggest month was 280GB (down and up). My smallest month was August with just under 100 GB. Unless I download movies from newsgroups I don't get even 200GB let alone 250GB. I'd be okay with 250GB and could probably get by with 200GB most of the time.
I don't do streaming video and I don't leave eMule running all the time letting people suck stuff from me so I guess I'm not a heavy user unlike some people. I'm sure there are people who download 400GB+ a month but I don't see how they could possibly be downloading something useful the entire time. You can only download so many ISOs, DVDs and MP3s to actually use/watch/listen to in a months time. Maybe some people are like me though and just want to download them to have them to expand their collection that never gets used but I only have hording tendencies toward ebooks which aren't that big.
Sounds to me like XP's deciding to increase your cache size at the expense of running programs. One thing to check: on My Computer's context menu, select properties / advanced / performance settings / advanced and check that "memory usage" is set to "programs" not "system cache".
I checked that but it was already set to "programs" but I may load up on more RAM (I have 2GB right now) since RAM is so cheap right now and try turning off swap completely to see the effects.
And, no, I don't see 300-400MB of browser usage being "the long awaited "killer app" that drives customers towards 4GB+ systems and the 64-bit flavors of Windows Vista/7." First of all, all current 32-bit versions of windows are capable of handling 4GB of RAM perfectly fine. We're talking using less than 10% of that RAM, *while the browser is in heavy use*. Stop using it, and it'll be swapped out. What do you want to do that'll use the other 90% of that RAM at the same time?
Being swapped out happens all too often with XP Pro from what I've seen. I can stop using a program for just a couple minutes and it gets swapped out and then I go to use it (Opera) and I have to wait for 200 megs to be swapped back in. It's pathetic and a big time waster. I don't know whether to blame Opera or Windows XP for the behavior. I'd think it would be XP's fault. Anyone have any info on this issue?
still in business that means we still have to see the stupid Smilin' Bob commercials? Or worse, will they think of another stupid ad campaign to try to drum up more business and soften (no pun intended) the blow of the $500 million forfeiture?
I started with Core Java 2 Fundamentals Volume 1 since it was the textbook for my Java class. It's a good book but I didn't have to read it much. I read over it to help me with listeners but that was about it. Everything else came from lectures or tutorials. I didn't have any trouble getting over not having to write destructors. What I had trouble with was the idea of not having to setup a mouse listener to watch for click events for basic clicking on buttons like I had to do in GTK- under Linux. The ActionListener does that for me and you only need a MouseListener for more "advanced" stuff. I guess that was just part of the fact that Java abstracts more than GTK- and other languages do so I didn't have to worry about the low-level stuff as much. I liked that part. I'm more productive that way.
Realize that Magomed was shot in the temple, that's a guaranteed way to kill someone. It was no accident, it was premeditated.
Premeditation is not the opposite of accidental. Being shot in the temple just implies that it was an execution and on purpose. In this case it probably was premeditated as well but a murder on purpose isn't always premeditated. An example would be a crime of passion where an argument got out of hand and person A killed person B on a whim. Fighting someone with a gun and it going off and killing the other person would be accidental. That also turns it into manslaughter.