How does this process (charge backs, preventing fraud, etc.) work when the purchases were made over the Internet using a credit card (and thus no physical signature)? Is it totally different or irrelevant?
Now, if the universe were to eventually settle down and stop expanding, or even start contracting again, wouldn't that preserve the radiation at whatever wavelength it is at? Or in the case of contracting, begin to blue shift it? I am no expert in physics, but i dabble in astronomy and can't recall reading anything that addresses this.
All evidence shows that the universe is not only expanding even after all this time but its expansion is increasing. Thus the logical conclusion is that it won't stop nor will it reverse into a collapse. If it did I'd agree with you that we would see a blue shift when the collapse begins. But based on the evidence, the current red shift will continue to grow stronger due to the accelerated expansion. This would cause the radiation to be more distributed and cooler which is what has caused the cooling up to this point. The background radiation is already down to 2 or 3 degrees Kelvin (if I remember correctly) so it is almost as cool as it will ever get.
What is time anyway, other than an abstraction of counting how often something vibrates? Isn't the idea that "it's always been there" far easier to grasp than "once there was nothing, now there is everything"?
Regarding your rhetorical time question, I'd suggest you read the Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. Since I'm only halfway through it myself I can't guarantee it will answer your question but he seems to be leading up to it in the book. He also discusses what creates the arrow of time.
As far as your 2nd statement is concerned, you would think that to say "it's always been there" would be easier to grasp but don't you feel compelled to ask "why would it have always been there"?
Also, to counter the other part of your comparison ("once there was nothing, now there is everything") I'd say that to grasp that you just have to consider the fact that the universe is expanding and within the part that is expanding you have all the stuff we can see and what we are familiar with but on the other side of that boundary what is there? The only thing there could be would be nothing. The universe hasn't expanded that far yet. Space hasn't reached those locations yet. The same thing that is there is the same thing that would have existed prior to the creation of the universe.
So in that regard, the question of what is easier to grasp is really simpler to answer and shifts the answer to the other part of your comparison. Something from nothing is easier to understand. It makes more senses for something to have a beginning and an end especially when the "nothing" still exists where the "something" hasn't yet reached so we still have evidence of both the "nothing" and the "something" to help us understand what it was like to just have a "nothing".
Anyone who thinks this for any reason is a bad and extraordinarily selfish parent and should immediately have their children taken away from them. Anyone who would deliberately impose a curable handicap on their children should be beaten, and I'd be happy to volunteer to be the one who brings the baseball bat and takes the first few swings. I sure as hell don't think I'd be the last one, either.
Great, now we can add another person to the list of people who think they are allowed to injure/maim/kill someone else because they feel they are justified and not because of self-defense. Why is beating someone with a baseball bat okay if the person doesn't represent a clear and present danger to you? I hate to break it to you but you would be the one going to jail, not to mention you give them the right to hit you back w/o fear of them going to jail for the assault (there's your self defense you don't care about).
By putting prayer in schools, you would be removing freedom of religion, not adding it. "No, Mr. Steinberg, you cannot sit out our prayer to the Lord Jesus Christ. We pray in this school, and I don't care if you're 'Jewish' or whatever it is you said"? As it is, any kid can pray to whatever god(s)/goddess(es) they want to, if they want to. Want to say Grace before lunch? Go ahead. The teachers just aren't leading kids who most likely hold different beliefs through one set of prayers which only recognizes one of those beliefs.
Putting prayer back in schools doesn't remove freedom of religion. No one says the phrase "prayer in schools" means it has to be led by state employees. No one says that it would require everyone to participate because it never required that to be criteria when it was there 100 years ago. That's only an excuse for those who don't want religion anywhere but in individual houses. Allowing it again would show that it is okay to pray if you want to and therefore encourage it. This is as opposed to how schools currently conduct school activities *led by students* by preventing the students from leading prayer such as at graduation ceremonies. That is not freedom of religion and it is because school boards are taking it to the extreme thus violating the 1st amendment in the process.
Even when religion conversation is started by students people think of whatever they can to still say it is sponsored by the school when it is simply
students exercising their right to religion.
Another instance where people think just because religion talk occurs in a school it must be school sponsored even if a student is the one who starts it. This school thinks it can even dictate how prayer can be performed by students. How is that not violating the 1st amendment?
I know many many years ago there was a game that was made for either the NES or SNES (I forget which) that had a lot of flashing lights on the screen (it was a Japanese game) and many Japanese kids were suffering seizures due to the frequency of the flashing. It may have been this game.
We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment.
They conveniently left out the freedom to show no responsibility whatsoever which is essential to any media producer's business, at least nowadays it is. "great entertainment" also is a relative term despite their self-proclamation.
Censorship doesn't have to be done by the government and even when it is it doesn't mean it is done because the item being censored is illegal. It might be in this case but it isn't not guaranteed to be both illegal and thus censored.
Given the size of the thing, and the speed and height it flies at, do you really think you are going to be able to see it with the naked eye? Commercial airliners are small enough as it is when they are flying at 35k feet. The enemy is always paranoid and we already had the SR-71 with no issues. Even if you could see it with binoculars you would then be able to see enough detail that you would know it isn't a missile.
I don't care who's running the party, but what is it with the language? The author of the article hits on something that really bugs me. Fuck this, fuck that, motherfuckin' giant kicked my motherfuckin' ass. All this spewing out of the mouth of some kid who isn't even old enough to see a Samuel L. Jackson movie. I'm 45, spent 10 years in the Navy and even I don't use language like that. Hey, I'm not some overly sensitive, touchy feely guy, but, holy crap! Maybe somebody who is a quarter of my age can fill me in...
A genuine lack of morals does that to someone and maybe throw in a pinch of not knowing what is right and wrong for good measure.
And a system where the legal code is so complex that we have made it a crime for non-certified professionals to attempt to interpret it (in most every state, lobbied for by the same lawyers who want to get paid exhorbitant fees to defend you and to to prosecute you, thank you very much), is a system of INjustice.
They know more than the legal code. They know the legal process from getting affidavits to knowing the sequence of the proceedings when actually in court. Unless someone has been in court before they wouldn't know those things and even prior experience may not help because the details of proceedings probably differ depending on the type of court you are in. Yes the legal code is screwed up but lawyers have experience working the details which can add up in your favor.
I say it has long been time that the media content providers/producers shape up and produce some quality programming that doesn't need gratuitous sex and language to make up the "entertainment" experience. If you can think of a reason other than "because I want it" for that type of content to be on TV let me know, otherwise it is considered fluff and offensive, and should be removed. How many decades did TV go through without a rating system, without v-chips in TVs, and without gratuitous sex and language? We didn't have those things because we didn't need them because companies cared about what they made/distributed. The problem is solved at its root if you fix the content. Then no FCC restrictions would even be needed, no tv ratings would be needed, no v-chip. Stop that type of content being produced/distributed, not the other way around. If you want to corrupt your mind and your children then buy some porno DVDs but keep it off the public wire, especially for those who don't want to support cable companies who distribute it but still want to watch good TV.
doesn't mean they don't care what their cable/satellite provider sends out on the wire and it shouldn't mean that the providers shouldn't care what they provide just because the content can't go to just everyone. Most people want to support companies who do good (other people just don't care). A provider who has obnoxious garbage will not get many customers in theory. The problem is that with cable there is only 1 provider available so families who want to do the right thing but still want entertainment have to weigh the cost of that entertainment with supporting a company whose business practices/decisions they disagree with. The use of the v-chip, parental controls, and tv ratings are all ways companies can say "that isn't our responsibility" and push it all on the parents. Have you noticed tv rating icons at the beginning of shows are larger and larger? All ways to say they don't care and if you are a good parent you have to be the one who takes action. I want to know who gave them the right to give up responsibility. Luckily the FCC has some rules to not let companies get away with just anything but the rules don't seem to be enforced very well. The content providers and producers obviously don't care how they make their money because they are constantly pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with so it can make them money because they have something new.
I have yet to see the point in providing profanity-laden and sexual situations on tv. For teenage boys they may be great entertainment but for me (28 male; not single) those things subtract from the show. Turning the channel means I don't have to watch it but that doesn't mean it goes away. I'm still paying a company who thinks it is good to provide that content as an example of "talent" and "good" entertainment.
Let it be clear, time does not slow down for the object. Time, if there even is such a thing, rolls along as it always rolls along for the object. It's just that for most of the rest of the universe (which is more sedentary compared to that of the object), time speeds up.
Since when? Every cosmology/relativity/etc. book I've read (and I have a growing collection of about 10 so far) does not say that time remains constant for the moving object while stationary objects' time speeds up. They all say that the faster an object moves the more time slows down for that object. At the speed of light time stops for the object but if a person was the object and they looked at the universe around them everything would be moving really really fast (similar to what you said but different point of view on the issue; one that every book I've read agrees on). The universe would pass them up in time. A photon from a star 10 billion light years away would not be 10 billion years old when it reaches us because for that photon time doesn't progress. I still have yet to figure out how the velocity of an object can affect the moving of the hands of a watch or even why that would be an indication that time slows down (just because an old-fashioned watch winds down that doesn't mean time is moving slower, right?) since a watch is not the definitive answer of how fast time progresses but that's what the books say like it would literally be happening that way.
It would keep traveling until it hits some matter that it can't pass through. Gamma rays can't go through planets or asteroids unlike neutrinos which can go through just about anything and not react with hardly anything. On the new show The Universe on the History Channel they were talking about gamma rays in the latest episode Tuesday night and showed that if any gamma rays hit the Earth anyone within the area that was hit directly would immediately have their skin burnt off and their molecules would decompose (those were the words of one of the scientists on the show). The whole planet would eventually feel the effects however since the rays would heat up the atmosphere but since the rays couldn't pass through the planet those who are directly opposite the rays on the other side of the earth would at least be safe from having a direct hit from the gamma rays.
but after hearing that Bush is working to have a North American Union come into existence in the near future, I know that the REAL ID is only going to help that come to fruition. The US doesn't need to merge with Canada and/or Mexico when it has survived as a sovereign nation for over 200 years just fine. Our economy is better than both of those countries combined so the economical reason people use to defend the formation of the NAU is ludicrous. The REAL ID and the delay of a border fence are 2 components to having the NAU become real. The REAL ID must be stopped.
The only people in the USA who get any freedom and opportunity are the Mexicans. The best part is that everyone else gets to pay for it thanks to the idiots in the gov't who don't listen to the actual citizens.
The newest issue of Linux Journal (July 2007) focuses on graphics and they have some good articles concerning graphical apps including an article describing Inkscape and an interview with the creator of Pixel. I have to say that for vector graphics, Inkscape looks pretty nice. There is also comments throughout those articles that the GIMP really is gimpy at the present time considering its lack of various color management schemes. The slack is being taken up by the likes of Inkscape and Pixel causing the GIMP to be left behind. Because of that I'd say there is no use in comparing the GIMP to Photoshop anymore and, as far as running on Linux, both Inkscape and Pixel do that. Pixel is actually cross-platform with a $35-40 (I forget the exact price) license giving you the right to any and all versions of the product not just a single platform version. FYI, Pixel supports PSD file format and the author is working to provide even better support (discussed in the interview).
For example: better NFS client / serving from Windows server, Office being able to read (not write) ODF, running Linux applications on Windows, stuff like that. Things that help people migrate OFF Linux. There may be a side effect that some things in Linux will work better with MS, but that is a side effect and not intended behavior.
Just as a FYI, Windows Server 2003 R2 has the Services For UNIX component built-in so you don't have to worry about adding them after the fact. NIS schema modifications and NFS client/server components are included. I had to use the actual SFU 3.5 installer since we were using R1 at work and we only installed the NFS server component to allow communication with a HP-UX server. We found out that copying from HP-UX to Windows through NFS was horribly slow (5 gigs took 1.25 hours) but copying in the other direction took far less (10 gigs took 27 min). Supposedly the problem is due to cached writes being disabled in Windows 2003 and the client is responsible for compensating. Luckily our one time use for the application will involve a UNIX to Windows copy (of 300 gigs).
The writers of the bible claimed to be inspired by God, but no part of the Bible actually constitutes God's word, not even when Jesus speaks, as our minds rarely remember quotes exactly, and not a single book of the Bible was written by Jesus. I'm tired of the extremists from both sides telling me I can't accept the morality of Jesus without accepting every insane 4000-year-old metaphor given by people who had no word to literally explain what happened even if they knew.
Fair enough. I guess you didn't do too well in any history class since you must not have believed anything you read considering you only believe events if they were recorded by the very people who were involved in the events. I bet you don't believe Hitler did everything he did since he wouldn't have wrote the Holocaust section of your history book. I guess that also means neanderthals also didn't really exist since they wouldn't have written about their own existence in your science books (I don't believe they existed as a *separate* species). I guess Newton didn't really discover the gravitational equations since he didn't write about them himself in your text books.
Before written language the only thing Man had to go on to pass on information regarding peoples, places, and things was to talk about them to their families. Children were engrained with this information and were able to repeat verbatim long stories. How else would family histories be past down through 5 or 10 generations? Many stories were turned into songs because it was easier to remember them that way (especially if they rhymed). You don't think people can recite long stories from memory because nowadays we don't have to do that in order to record history but many millennia that's all they had and they grew accustomed to it. You ever hear of savants who can recite Pi to the nth decimal place? Some do the calculations but some probably memorize all the digits so it is possible to do what you are discounting merely because you don't believe anything regarding religion. If people can recite long stories verbatim by using whatever methods they needed, surely someone who is recording Jesus speaking can remember what he said long enough to record it. Otherwise, our court stenographers are in trouble. They could be recording stuff that is wrong because they couldn't remember what was said!
...but I don't accept any sort of literal translation of the bible and, in fact, I think it's mostly fables created then for the same reasons fables are created now - to keep people in line.
Not accepting any literal translation of the Bible and considering it just a binder of fables are 2 different things. There is a difference between interpreting something one way compared to another and outright not believing anything that you read is true. You may accept Jesus Christ as your Savior (I assume that's what you meant when all you said was "accept") but not believing the Holy Bible is the *true* word of God will cause you problems. In fact, if you don't believe anything in it is true then you basically don't believe anything about the Christian religion is true since the entire religion is based on that book.
I think he was referring to the third rock around the sun, but you have definitely shot down his intelligent life argument.
Since when do we consider knowledge of intelligent life on earth a discovery? Who claims this discovery anyway? Shall I also consider my house a discovery of settlement of the North American continent? I didn't know the obvious could be considered a discovery.
Slashdot Mirror
He not only lied to Congress, he lied to the country our Congressmen represent.
Which one? Saudi Arabia?
I thought it was Mexico.
How does this process (charge backs, preventing fraud, etc.) work when the purchases were made over the Internet using a credit card (and thus no physical signature)? Is it totally different or irrelevant?
Now, if the universe were to eventually settle down and stop expanding, or even start contracting again, wouldn't that preserve the radiation at whatever wavelength it is at? Or in the case of contracting, begin to blue shift it? I am no expert in physics, but i dabble in astronomy and can't recall reading anything that addresses this.
All evidence shows that the universe is not only expanding even after all this time but its expansion is increasing. Thus the logical conclusion is that it won't stop nor will it reverse into a collapse. If it did I'd agree with you that we would see a blue shift when the collapse begins. But based on the evidence, the current red shift will continue to grow stronger due to the accelerated expansion. This would cause the radiation to be more distributed and cooler which is what has caused the cooling up to this point. The background radiation is already down to 2 or 3 degrees Kelvin (if I remember correctly) so it is almost as cool as it will ever get.
What is time anyway, other than an abstraction of counting how often something vibrates? Isn't the idea that "it's always been there" far easier to grasp than "once there was nothing, now there is everything"?
Regarding your rhetorical time question, I'd suggest you read the Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. Since I'm only halfway through it myself I can't guarantee it will answer your question but he seems to be leading up to it in the book. He also discusses what creates the arrow of time.
As far as your 2nd statement is concerned, you would think that to say "it's always been there" would be easier to grasp but don't you feel compelled to ask "why would it have always been there"?
Also, to counter the other part of your comparison ("once there was nothing, now there is everything") I'd say that to grasp that you just have to consider the fact that the universe is expanding and within the part that is expanding you have all the stuff we can see and what we are familiar with but on the other side of that boundary what is there? The only thing there could be would be nothing. The universe hasn't expanded that far yet. Space hasn't reached those locations yet. The same thing that is there is the same thing that would have existed prior to the creation of the universe.
So in that regard, the question of what is easier to grasp is really simpler to answer and shifts the answer to the other part of your comparison. Something from nothing is easier to understand. It makes more senses for something to have a beginning and an end especially when the "nothing" still exists where the "something" hasn't yet reached so we still have evidence of both the "nothing" and the "something" to help us understand what it was like to just have a "nothing".
When will Microsoft be issuing an apology for Vista? "Yep, Vista is a turd. Our bad."
As soon as Vista 2010 is 3 months away from being released.
Anyone who thinks this for any reason is a bad and extraordinarily selfish parent and should immediately have their children taken away from them. Anyone who would deliberately impose a curable handicap on their children should be beaten, and I'd be happy to volunteer to be the one who brings the baseball bat and takes the first few swings. I sure as hell don't think I'd be the last one, either.
Great, now we can add another person to the list of people who think they are allowed to injure/maim/kill someone else because they feel they are justified and not because of self-defense. Why is beating someone with a baseball bat okay if the person doesn't represent a clear and present danger to you? I hate to break it to you but you would be the one going to jail, not to mention you give them the right to hit you back w/o fear of them going to jail for the assault (there's your self defense you don't care about).
By putting prayer in schools, you would be removing freedom of religion, not adding it. "No, Mr. Steinberg, you cannot sit out our prayer to the Lord Jesus Christ. We pray in this school, and I don't care if you're 'Jewish' or whatever it is you said"? As it is, any kid can pray to whatever god(s)/goddess(es) they want to, if they want to. Want to say Grace before lunch? Go ahead. The teachers just aren't leading kids who most likely hold different beliefs through one set of prayers which only recognizes one of those beliefs.
Putting prayer back in schools doesn't remove freedom of religion. No one says the phrase "prayer in schools" means it has to be led by state employees. No one says that it would require everyone to participate because it never required that to be criteria when it was there 100 years ago. That's only an excuse for those who don't want religion anywhere but in individual houses. Allowing it again would show that it is okay to pray if you want to and therefore encourage it. This is as opposed to how schools currently conduct school activities *led by students* by preventing the students from leading prayer such as at graduation ceremonies. That is not freedom of religion and it is because school boards are taking it to the extreme thus violating the 1st amendment in the process.
Even when religion conversation is started by students people think of whatever they can to still say it is sponsored by the school when it is simply students exercising their right to religion.
Another instance where people think just because religion talk occurs in a school it must be school sponsored even if a student is the one who starts it. This school thinks it can even dictate how prayer can be performed by students. How is that not violating the 1st amendment?
I know many many years ago there was a game that was made for either the NES or SNES (I forget which) that had a lot of flashing lights on the screen (it was a Japanese game) and many Japanese kids were suffering seizures due to the frequency of the flashing. It may have been this game.
We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment.
They conveniently left out the freedom to show no responsibility whatsoever which is essential to any media producer's business, at least nowadays it is. "great entertainment" also is a relative term despite their self-proclamation.
Censorship doesn't have to be done by the government and even when it is it doesn't mean it is done because the item being censored is illegal. It might be in this case but it isn't not guaranteed to be both illegal and thus censored.
Given the size of the thing, and the speed and height it flies at, do you really think you are going to be able to see it with the naked eye? Commercial airliners are small enough as it is when they are flying at 35k feet. The enemy is always paranoid and we already had the SR-71 with no issues. Even if you could see it with binoculars you would then be able to see enough detail that you would know it isn't a missile.
I don't care who's running the party, but what is it with the language? The author of the article hits on something that really bugs me. Fuck this, fuck that, motherfuckin' giant kicked my motherfuckin' ass. All this spewing out of the mouth of some kid who isn't even old enough to see a Samuel L. Jackson movie. I'm 45, spent 10 years in the Navy and even I don't use language like that. Hey, I'm not some overly sensitive, touchy feely guy, but, holy crap! Maybe somebody who is a quarter of my age can fill me in...
A genuine lack of morals does that to someone and maybe throw in a pinch of not knowing what is right and wrong for good measure.
And a system where the legal code is so complex that we have made it a crime for non-certified professionals to attempt to interpret it (in most every state, lobbied for by the same lawyers who want to get paid exhorbitant fees to defend you and to to prosecute you, thank you very much), is a system of INjustice.
They know more than the legal code. They know the legal process from getting affidavits to knowing the sequence of the proceedings when actually in court. Unless someone has been in court before they wouldn't know those things and even prior experience may not help because the details of proceedings probably differ depending on the type of court you are in. Yes the legal code is screwed up but lawyers have experience working the details which can add up in your favor.
I say it has long been time that the media content providers/producers shape up and produce some quality programming that doesn't need gratuitous sex and language to make up the "entertainment" experience. If you can think of a reason other than "because I want it" for that type of content to be on TV let me know, otherwise it is considered fluff and offensive, and should be removed. How many decades did TV go through without a rating system, without v-chips in TVs, and without gratuitous sex and language? We didn't have those things because we didn't need them because companies cared about what they made/distributed. The problem is solved at its root if you fix the content. Then no FCC restrictions would even be needed, no tv ratings would be needed, no v-chip. Stop that type of content being produced/distributed, not the other way around. If you want to corrupt your mind and your children then buy some porno DVDs but keep it off the public wire, especially for those who don't want to support cable companies who distribute it but still want to watch good TV.
doesn't mean they don't care what their cable/satellite provider sends out on the wire and it shouldn't mean that the providers shouldn't care what they provide just because the content can't go to just everyone. Most people want to support companies who do good (other people just don't care). A provider who has obnoxious garbage will not get many customers in theory. The problem is that with cable there is only 1 provider available so families who want to do the right thing but still want entertainment have to weigh the cost of that entertainment with supporting a company whose business practices/decisions they disagree with. The use of the v-chip, parental controls, and tv ratings are all ways companies can say "that isn't our responsibility" and push it all on the parents. Have you noticed tv rating icons at the beginning of shows are larger and larger? All ways to say they don't care and if you are a good parent you have to be the one who takes action. I want to know who gave them the right to give up responsibility. Luckily the FCC has some rules to not let companies get away with just anything but the rules don't seem to be enforced very well. The content providers and producers obviously don't care how they make their money because they are constantly pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with so it can make them money because they have something new.
I have yet to see the point in providing profanity-laden and sexual situations on tv. For teenage boys they may be great entertainment but for me (28 male; not single) those things subtract from the show. Turning the channel means I don't have to watch it but that doesn't mean it goes away. I'm still paying a company who thinks it is good to provide that content as an example of "talent" and "good" entertainment.
Let it be clear, time does not slow down for the object. Time, if there even is such a thing, rolls along as it always rolls along for the object. It's just that for most of the rest of the universe (which is more sedentary compared to that of the object), time speeds up.
Since when? Every cosmology/relativity/etc. book I've read (and I have a growing collection of about 10 so far) does not say that time remains constant for the moving object while stationary objects' time speeds up. They all say that the faster an object moves the more time slows down for that object. At the speed of light time stops for the object but if a person was the object and they looked at the universe around them everything would be moving really really fast (similar to what you said but different point of view on the issue; one that every book I've read agrees on). The universe would pass them up in time. A photon from a star 10 billion light years away would not be 10 billion years old when it reaches us because for that photon time doesn't progress. I still have yet to figure out how the velocity of an object can affect the moving of the hands of a watch or even why that would be an indication that time slows down (just because an old-fashioned watch winds down that doesn't mean time is moving slower, right?) since a watch is not the definitive answer of how fast time progresses but that's what the books say like it would literally be happening that way.
It would keep traveling until it hits some matter that it can't pass through. Gamma rays can't go through planets or asteroids unlike neutrinos which can go through just about anything and not react with hardly anything. On the new show The Universe on the History Channel they were talking about gamma rays in the latest episode Tuesday night and showed that if any gamma rays hit the Earth anyone within the area that was hit directly would immediately have their skin burnt off and their molecules would decompose (those were the words of one of the scientists on the show). The whole planet would eventually feel the effects however since the rays would heat up the atmosphere but since the rays couldn't pass through the planet those who are directly opposite the rays on the other side of the earth would at least be safe from having a direct hit from the gamma rays.
but after hearing that Bush is working to have a North American Union come into existence in the near future, I know that the REAL ID is only going to help that come to fruition. The US doesn't need to merge with Canada and/or Mexico when it has survived as a sovereign nation for over 200 years just fine. Our economy is better than both of those countries combined so the economical reason people use to defend the formation of the NAU is ludicrous. The REAL ID and the delay of a border fence are 2 components to having the NAU become real. The REAL ID must be stopped.
that's what marketing do dumby!
So that's the name of Gumby's brother...
The only people in the USA who get any freedom and opportunity are the Mexicans. The best part is that everyone else gets to pay for it thanks to the idiots in the gov't who don't listen to the actual citizens.
The newest issue of Linux Journal (July 2007) focuses on graphics and they have some good articles concerning graphical apps including an article describing Inkscape and an interview with the creator of Pixel. I have to say that for vector graphics, Inkscape looks pretty nice. There is also comments throughout those articles that the GIMP really is gimpy at the present time considering its lack of various color management schemes. The slack is being taken up by the likes of Inkscape and Pixel causing the GIMP to be left behind. Because of that I'd say there is no use in comparing the GIMP to Photoshop anymore and, as far as running on Linux, both Inkscape and Pixel do that. Pixel is actually cross-platform with a $35-40 (I forget the exact price) license giving you the right to any and all versions of the product not just a single platform version. FYI, Pixel supports PSD file format and the author is working to provide even better support (discussed in the interview).
For example: better NFS client / serving from Windows server, Office being able to read (not write) ODF, running Linux applications on Windows, stuff like that. Things that help people migrate OFF Linux. There may be a side effect that some things in Linux will work better with MS, but that is a side effect and not intended behavior.
Just as a FYI, Windows Server 2003 R2 has the Services For UNIX component built-in so you don't have to worry about adding them after the fact. NIS schema modifications and NFS client/server components are included. I had to use the actual SFU 3.5 installer since we were using R1 at work and we only installed the NFS server component to allow communication with a HP-UX server. We found out that copying from HP-UX to Windows through NFS was horribly slow (5 gigs took 1.25 hours) but copying in the other direction took far less (10 gigs took 27 min). Supposedly the problem is due to cached writes being disabled in Windows 2003 and the client is responsible for compensating. Luckily our one time use for the application will involve a UNIX to Windows copy (of 300 gigs).
The writers of the bible claimed to be inspired by God, but no part of the Bible actually constitutes God's word, not even when Jesus speaks, as our minds rarely remember quotes exactly, and not a single book of the Bible was written by Jesus. I'm tired of the extremists from both sides telling me I can't accept the morality of Jesus without accepting every insane 4000-year-old metaphor given by people who had no word to literally explain what happened even if they knew.
Fair enough. I guess you didn't do too well in any history class since you must not have believed anything you read considering you only believe events if they were recorded by the very people who were involved in the events. I bet you don't believe Hitler did everything he did since he wouldn't have wrote the Holocaust section of your history book. I guess that also means neanderthals also didn't really exist since they wouldn't have written about their own existence in your science books (I don't believe they existed as a *separate* species). I guess Newton didn't really discover the gravitational equations since he didn't write about them himself in your text books.
Before written language the only thing Man had to go on to pass on information regarding peoples, places, and things was to talk about them to their families. Children were engrained with this information and were able to repeat verbatim long stories. How else would family histories be past down through 5 or 10 generations? Many stories were turned into songs because it was easier to remember them that way (especially if they rhymed). You don't think people can recite long stories from memory because nowadays we don't have to do that in order to record history but many millennia that's all they had and they grew accustomed to it. You ever hear of savants who can recite Pi to the nth decimal place? Some do the calculations but some probably memorize all the digits so it is possible to do what you are discounting merely because you don't believe anything regarding religion. If people can recite long stories verbatim by using whatever methods they needed, surely someone who is recording Jesus speaking can remember what he said long enough to record it. Otherwise, our court stenographers are in trouble. They could be recording stuff that is wrong because they couldn't remember what was said!
Not accepting any literal translation of the Bible and considering it just a binder of fables are 2 different things. There is a difference between interpreting something one way compared to another and outright not believing anything that you read is true. You may accept Jesus Christ as your Savior (I assume that's what you meant when all you said was "accept") but not believing the Holy Bible is the *true* word of God will cause you problems. In fact, if you don't believe anything in it is true then you basically don't believe anything about the Christian religion is true since the entire religion is based on that book.
I think he was referring to the third rock around the sun, but you have definitely shot down his intelligent life argument.
Since when do we consider knowledge of intelligent life on earth a discovery? Who claims this discovery anyway? Shall I also consider my house a discovery of settlement of the North American continent? I didn't know the obvious could be considered a discovery.