Email is the most important form of communication for many businesses.
Sometimes people need to find an old agreement of some sort and the benefit of finding this information can be worth a lot of money.
So, take a deep breath and solve the problem. Regular archiving of old Emails is fine, as well as limiting the size of individual Emails, as well as banning personal Emails. Make users jump through any hoops you like. But don't make them delete their old business Emails.
If a person doesn't understand Animal Farm then that doesn't mean that the story isn't true. But if they interpret it literally then there is a problem. Their understanding doesn't represent the truth.
And with the bible we most certainly have this problem, because people don't agree on what parts that are allegories and which parts are literal. And the bible doesn't really help people determine which parts that are allegories and which parts are supposed to be literal. So then it is open to interpretation, and the general consensus on which parts are and aren't change over time.
Don't re-define the term to suit your own needs. Allegories need not be obvious, that's not part of the definition."
OK, I admit that I didn't use the word allegory correctly. An allegory does not have to be understood to still be an allegory. But if an allegory isn't understood as an allegory then it is fiction, or make-believe, to that person. That is my point.
"Again, context which you learn from study, which you have not obviously done and won't do because you mind is already made up on the matter."
Even if I don't understand the concept of context, do you or don't you believe that the healing of the crippled man happened? And if you do or don't, why is that? Also, why was my question unclear or wrong because of wrong or missing context?
You can believe any story if you can disregard the parts that you don't believe.
My point is, that if the Bible wanted to have "stories" and still be correct then it would be very easy to identify the stories as allegories, in words that a peasant from 2000 years ago could understand.
For something to be an allegory, without explicitly identifying the story as an allegory it has to be very easy to identify it as an allegory for anyone that reads it. So to accept that the bible is truthful we have to be able to believe that all the stories we believe to be allegories _always_ was easy to identify as allegories.
If we identify them as an allegory, then the peasant 2000 years ago must also have easily identified it as an allegory. If either you, or the peasant didn't identify a story as an allegory, then the bible had an untruthful story in it at some point in time.
Now, a 1000 years from now more stories in the bible might have been discredited due to science, and a story that you believed is then widely considered an allegory.
So, if I can choose what portions to believe then lets consider the story of Jesus healing a man that couldn't walk. Did that or didn't it happen? If your believe that story, then why did you believe that particular story? Is it or isn't it an allegory.
The bible has stories that aren't true. If they were called allegories or identified as a story that will explain something in the simplest possible way, then I could accept it. But they are presented as being true stories.
But as it stands, most people accept that the stories aren't literal, as such they aren't true.
I understand how a writer might end up writing stories like the ones in the bible. But the reasons apply to humans, not to a person that only is translating Gods words.
I'm 98% bi-lingual and I agree that translation sometimes is hard, but if they can translate J.R.R. Tolkiens trilogy better than the Bible then the situation isn't ideal. I can't really back that statement up with facts, other than having read the trilogy in both English and Swedish without uncovering any really blatant mis-translations that change the meaning of something.
I'm no expert on mis-translations of the Bible but I always find the examples I hear very interesting. And the most interesting situation is when I hear some person explain something in the bible, as well as motivating why the bible says what it says, when I know that that particular passage may be mis-translated.
You seem to have put some serious thought into this. I have a few comments.
1) You are saying that the bible can't be taken literally. This really means that the bible isn't truthful. Or even more harshly, it would contain lies. The bible could easily have stayed truthful if it had just noted that the descriptions where allegories or "as if" descriptions. And the people of that time would still have been able to understand it.
2) If all the things that contradict science can be explained by the writers of the bible trying to explain things in terms that people could understand. Then what purpose did the story of Jonah have?
3) I know that there are many translation errors in the bible. For instance, English bibles say that God created existence in 8 days. But the word in the original scripture could mean not only "day" but also a more generic "period of time".
I wrote a business plan and people didn't care much for it. I don't suck at writing (in my native language) but I still couldn't make it interesting enough.
I made a powerpoint presentation instead, with the same subject and almost got a standing ovation from a board of directors.
I'm no expert on this subject. But whatever your business plan is, I think a great presentation is more important. Learn from Steve Jobs.
*declare your copy constructors private (with no body) if you don't plan to use them. With this you'll catch unintentional use of the copy constructor through parameter passing.
*Use unit testing and make sure you can regression test your system
*Get a tool such as purify to find memory leaks and use of uninitialized memory
*turn on compiler warnings to its most anal setting
*Create a system to give you a call stack in case of errors (to quickly squash bugs because you will have bugs).
*Only write multi-threaded if you have to. If you have to program multithreadedly, try to have a good and well thought out strategy to avoid race conditions.
I understand their point about in game harassment. I also understand that like minded people want to play with like minded people.
So, why not create a server dedicated to these preferences. There can be a gay server, a christian server, a moslem server, a republican server, a democrat server. Or even, how about a singles server?
This will let people meet like minded people and there will be little to no harassment. Anyone that wants to harass a group of people would essentially have to create an account on that server. And if it becomes clear that the primary intent of that account is to harass, then it can be closed.
I believe the GPL only applies to software that you are distributing right?
The rule is, if you distribute the binaries, you must also distribute the source code. But if you only run your code on your web server you don't have to do that.
The success of the Office on iTunes is probably because it can be enjoyed even if you watch only a few minutes at at time. You don't need to sit through the entire show to enjoy it. You can just watch a few minutes.
And that probably suits the mobile nature of iPod viewing.
And it might be a good show to buy if you want to show off your new iPod to friends because you can always find a good little short scene that you can show whenever someone is asking about the video capabilities of your new iPod. And this probably matters quite a bit at the moment. Most of the 8 million videos that Steve Jobs claimed were sold are probably bought by people who bought just one episode to check out what it's all about.
Slashdot Mirror
We haven't even invented faster than light travel, time travel, teleportation or cloaking devices.
We haven't even invented a self repleneshing beer can.
Deploy your applications with clickonce. Problem solved.
Email is the most important form of communication for many businesses.
Sometimes people need to find an old agreement of some sort and the benefit of finding this information can be worth a lot of money.
So, take a deep breath and solve the problem. Regular archiving of old Emails is fine, as well as limiting the size of individual Emails, as well as banning personal Emails. Make users jump through any hoops you like. But don't make them delete their old business Emails.
If a person doesn't understand Animal Farm then that doesn't mean that the story isn't true. But if they interpret it literally then there is a problem. Their understanding doesn't represent the truth.
And with the bible we most certainly have this problem, because people don't agree on what parts that are allegories and which parts are literal. And the bible doesn't really help people determine which parts that are allegories and which parts are supposed to be literal. So then it is open to interpretation, and the general consensus on which parts are and aren't change over time.
"You ever heard of "Animal Farm"?
Don't re-define the term to suit your own needs. Allegories need not be obvious, that's not part of the definition."
OK, I admit that I didn't use the word allegory correctly. An allegory does not have to be understood to still be an allegory. But if an allegory isn't understood as an allegory then it is fiction, or make-believe, to that person. That is my point.
"Again, context which you learn from study, which you have not obviously done and won't do because you mind is already made up on the matter."
Even if I don't understand the concept of context, do you or don't you believe that the healing of the crippled man happened? And if you do or don't, why is that? Also, why was my question unclear or wrong because of wrong or missing context?
You can believe any story if you can disregard the parts that you don't believe.
My point is, that if the Bible wanted to have "stories" and still be correct then it would be very easy to identify the stories as allegories, in words that a peasant from 2000 years ago could understand.
For something to be an allegory, without explicitly identifying the story as an allegory it has to be very easy to identify it as an allegory for anyone that reads it. So to accept that the bible is truthful we have to be able to believe that all the stories we believe to be allegories _always_ was easy to identify as allegories.
If we identify them as an allegory, then the peasant 2000 years ago must also have easily identified it as an allegory. If either you, or the peasant didn't identify a story as an allegory, then the bible had an untruthful story in it at some point in time.
Now, a 1000 years from now more stories in the bible might have been discredited due to science, and a story that you believed is then widely considered an allegory.
So, if I can choose what portions to believe then lets consider the story of Jesus healing a man that couldn't walk. Did that or didn't it happen? If your believe that story, then why did you believe that particular story? Is it or isn't it an allegory.
I understand your point, but I don't accept it.
The bible has stories that aren't true. If they were called allegories or identified as a story that will explain something in the simplest possible way, then I could accept it. But they are presented as being true stories.
But as it stands, most people accept that the stories aren't literal, as such they aren't true.
I understand how a writer might end up writing stories like the ones in the bible. But the reasons apply to humans, not to a person that only is translating Gods words.
I'm 98% bi-lingual and I agree that translation sometimes is hard, but if they can translate J.R.R. Tolkiens trilogy better than the Bible then the situation isn't ideal. I can't really back that statement up with facts, other than having read the trilogy in both English and Swedish without uncovering any really blatant mis-translations that change the meaning of something.
I'm no expert on mis-translations of the Bible but I always find the examples I hear very interesting. And the most interesting situation is when I hear some person explain something in the bible, as well as motivating why the bible says what it says, when I know that that particular passage may be mis-translated.
Doh, 7 days, the 8 was a typo.
Aaah,
You seem to have put some serious thought into this. I have a few comments.
1) You are saying that the bible can't be taken literally. This really means that the bible isn't truthful. Or even more harshly, it would contain lies. The bible could easily have stayed truthful if it had just noted that the descriptions where allegories or "as if" descriptions. And the people of that time would still have been able to understand it.
2) If all the things that contradict science can be explained by the writers of the bible trying to explain things in terms that people could understand. Then what purpose did the story of Jonah have?
3) I know that there are many translation errors in the bible. For instance, English bibles say that God created existence in 8 days. But the word in the original scripture could mean not only "day" but also a more generic "period of time".
OK,
I understand how someone can believe in both God and science.
_But_ can you believe in the bible and science at the same time? As someone said, can a person survive 3 days in a fish? Or Noah's ark?
I seems to me that science and the bible are mutually exclusive.
It's amazing how "educated" people fail to understand that many of the people on ./ aren't native English speakers.
The guy you were complaining about might be from China and highly intelligent. How good is your Chinese?
You better start practicing now though so that your Chinese is perfect by the time it becomes the dominant language on the Internet.
You need to enthuse your investors.
I wrote a business plan and people didn't care much for it. I don't suck at writing (in my native language) but I still couldn't make it interesting enough.
I made a powerpoint presentation instead, with the same subject and almost got a standing ovation from a board of directors.
I'm no expert on this subject. But whatever your business plan is, I think a great presentation is more important. Learn from Steve Jobs.
He knows that. That's obvious.
And by your explanation you are ruining the joke as well as revealing that you don't realise that it is obvious.
Turning the screen 90 degrees (or 270 degrees if you prefer) and having a nano sized scroll wheel sounds more attractive to me.
I have a 3G ipod and my beef is that I accidentally click the buttons all the time. So I'd prefer something that you actually need to push.
*Get a coverage testing tool
*avoid pointer arithmetic
*declare your copy constructors private (with no body) if you don't plan to use them. With this you'll catch unintentional use of the copy constructor through parameter passing.
*Use unit testing and make sure you can regression test your system
*Get a tool such as purify to find memory leaks and use of uninitialized memory
*turn on compiler warnings to its most anal setting
*Create a system to give you a call stack in case of errors (to quickly squash bugs because you will have bugs).
*Only write multi-threaded if you have to. If you have to program multithreadedly, try to have a good and well thought out strategy to avoid race conditions.
So it's OK to lie? Take a step back and think about that.
While you are joking, you are actually bringing up an interesting point.
My suggestion isn't really the Rosa Parks of ideas. It will not help integrate people from these different groups.
I understand their point about in game harassment. I also understand that like minded people want to play with like minded people.
So, why not create a server dedicated to these preferences. There can be a gay server, a christian server, a moslem server, a republican server, a democrat server. Or even, how about a singles server?
This will let people meet like minded people and there will be little to no harassment. Anyone that wants to harass a group of people would essentially have to create an account on that server. And if it becomes clear that the primary intent of that account is to harass, then it can be closed.
I believe the GPL only applies to software that you are distributing right?
The rule is, if you distribute the binaries, you must also distribute the source code. But if you only run your code on your web server you don't have to do that.
Have I misunderstood something?
This is not the Slashdot I'm used to. Definitely not the Slashdot I'm used to. Definitely not.
I'm an excellent driver.
PS.
I like it.
DS.
The success of the Office on iTunes is probably because it can be enjoyed even if you watch only a few minutes at at time. You don't need to sit through the entire show to enjoy it. You can just watch a few minutes.
And that probably suits the mobile nature of iPod viewing.
And it might be a good show to buy if you want to show off your new iPod to friends because you can always find a good little short scene that you can show whenever someone is asking about the video capabilities of your new iPod. And this probably matters quite a bit at the moment. Most of the 8 million videos that Steve Jobs claimed were sold are probably bought by people who bought just one episode to check out what it's all about.
And here I mistakenly thought that world war III would be fought over oil and all along it was copper.
full of bats that poop a lot.
In Soviet Russia it would be.