Right, so making a leap in assumption that the "dense ball of matter" was put there somehow by a humaniform deity of unknown origin using unknown techniques is a simple explaination. Wow, sorry we clearly have differing views of what constitutes "simple". At least the big bang theory is internally consistent, actually it explains itself quite nicely using simple physical laws originating from within itself.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
Simpler ideas such as...
Please, I am all for simpler working models that explain biological diversity. I think we all are.
Extra terrestrials, divine intervention et al. all require large leaps of complexity wholey unsupported by evidence, so I hope you do not suggest that these are easier to believe.
I expect you have an ulterior motive (usually religious) anyway for saying this however, so I won't waste my breath. Pardon me if I misinterpret , Its just that every single time I have this discussion with someone it is EXCLUSIVELY because they have fundamentalist belief in the bible, and frankly those people are a waste of time to converse with.
Well if you aren't going to explain it I will. i18n is a short way of saying internationalization (get it, i 18 letters then an n). Which is usually done using GNU gettext. Programs written for i18n and l10n (localisation) and compiled usually with --include-nls (native language support) and/or --include-gettext simply access system variables that point to locale files (installed with glibc in/usr/lib/locale i believe). Anyhow, I would say on a typical GNU system, over half the software is nls enabled already. KDE and GNOME both are as well.
Oh I don't know, maybe so people don't make shit up? Seriously, saying things without backing authority is how disinformation is spread. Do you believe everything people tell you, even if they can't back it up?
I think, and I borrow loosely from Arthur C Clarke, that people always seem to underestimate human inginutity and overestimate the abundance of resources in the future. So for instance, the 60s view of 2002 looked like the 60s only with infinite resources to do whatever they wanted with simply improved 60s tech. We don't have hundreds of space stations, personal shuttles and such because we don't have infinite money, but we DO have computers that fit in the palms our our hands, and who would have thought that back then?
I know it doesn't NEED to have urls as namespace declarations, but it does which is nice - especially if those eventually actually point to real documents (i assume they dont right now). By validation I don't mean xhtml validation obviously i mean is is simply well-formed xml. Oh and the original poster was trying to make a show of how hard the thing is to read, and my point regarding formatting was just that he dumped it all as a block there, which can be easily sorted out if for instance you viewed it as an xml document in IE. Relax dude, I know its not html:)
No no no, thats not my point. I agree with you there. My point is the ELEMENT still has to contain binary tags and attributes, but the data INSIDE the element can be binary. This might sound like a silly/pointless thing to say, but the fact is, an xml file containing nothing but base-64 binary data is STILL parsable by anyone's text viewer, just the DATA isn't (yes i know that is the important part). This is at least a little easier to read than a pure binary file, because the binary blocks have to have some ascii metadata attributed to them.
So lets look at this... the namespaces are all published in clear text as urls, no binary data is apparent, and no dtd or schema is even used. It is also well-formed using the W3C's own validator. In short, I see no problems at all, especially when saved as an xml doc and viewed in IE where it formats it all pretty.
sorry I mistyped. You can have binary DATA but you cant for instance have binary-encrypted elements (tags, attributes etc.). So the document must remain parsable by a text viewer. They can't for instance put xmlns:0x16f53ea4 or something when referencing the namespace.
Actually he's right, you can have valid xml without a dtd or schema, its just completely open and impossible to validate, which means I find it most unlikely MS would go that way because usually dtd-less documents are extremely simple.
No because the dtd and/or namespace will have to be referenced in plain text in the xml document. so, even if they use absurdly complex element names, they have to use a valid dtd or namespace uri which can be easily referenced, or it just ain't xml at all. Also you aren't allowed to put binary data in an xml document, but even if they did reference their dtd by memory address for instance, its an easy task to just read that address. In conclusion they would have to break xml pretty hard-core in order to make their doc types proprietary. Besides, then what would be the point of going xml in the first place?
this is the settlement they reached, so no countersueing will take place. my guess is nintendo wanted more like 50% since they are joint owners of the trademark.
You cannot both know the data and report on its aniversary at the same time, only one or the other via the uncertainty principle.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 2
Actually what I hated about this film was how Spielburg, in his pandering way, decided he needed to take a Kubrick ending and dumb it down with a voiceover narative explaining every damn thing happening on the screen. ARGH! I think it could have been so much better if he'd left the ending open to interpretation! I almost always feel my intelligence has been insulted at the end of a spielburg film (or in Jurrasic park, where it was insulted repeatedly throughout the whole movie.)
If a heart monitoring computer crashes, people die. If a missile control system fails, people die. When the computer in your car fails, you might die. A corporate LAN goes down and your company looses millions. Computers are very important, not just comodities anymore.
Dude, its a page visited by maybe 10 people a week, all friends. I really only intended it to be an experiment in formatting with CSS, and everyone who uses it uses Moz anyhow. I really couldn't care less if people don't visit it because of that. It's not like I'm marketing something on it.
I actually lost that URL so thank YOU. I sure wish MS would release a version of IE that does it justice though. My friends keep telling me my site looks fugly.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, so making a leap in assumption that the "dense ball of matter" was put there somehow by a humaniform deity of unknown origin using unknown techniques is a simple explaination. Wow, sorry we clearly have differing views of what constitutes "simple". At least the big bang theory is internally consistent, actually it explains itself quite nicely using simple physical laws originating from within itself.
Simpler ideas such as...
Please, I am all for simpler working models that explain biological diversity. I think we all are.
Extra terrestrials, divine intervention et al. all require large leaps of complexity wholey unsupported by evidence, so I hope you do not suggest that these are easier to believe.
I expect you have an ulterior motive (usually religious) anyway for saying this however, so I won't waste my breath. Pardon me if I misinterpret , Its just that every single time I have this discussion with someone it is EXCLUSIVELY because they have fundamentalist belief in the bible, and frankly those people are a waste of time to converse with.
Well if you aren't going to explain it I will. /usr/lib/locale i believe).
i18n is a short way of saying internationalization (get it, i 18 letters then an n). Which is usually done using GNU gettext. Programs written for i18n and l10n (localisation) and compiled usually with --include-nls (native language support) and/or --include-gettext simply access system variables that point to locale files (installed with glibc in
Anyhow, I would say on a typical GNU system, over half the software is nls enabled already. KDE and GNOME both are as well.
Oh I don't know, maybe so people don't make shit up? Seriously, saying things without backing authority is how disinformation is spread. Do you believe everything people tell you, even if they can't back it up?
uhm, you finished the single player and logged 100 games and you DON'T LIKE IT VERY MUCH???
How much time do you spend playing games you DO like??
I think, and I borrow loosely from Arthur C Clarke, that people always seem to underestimate human inginutity and overestimate the abundance of resources in the future. So for instance, the 60s view of 2002 looked like the 60s only with infinite resources to do whatever they wanted with simply improved 60s tech. We don't have hundreds of space stations, personal shuttles and such because we don't have infinite money, but we DO have computers that fit in the palms our our hands, and who would have thought that back then?
I know it doesn't NEED to have urls as namespace declarations, but it does which is nice - especially if those eventually actually point to real documents (i assume they dont right now). By validation I don't mean xhtml validation obviously i mean is is simply well-formed xml. :)
Oh and the original poster was trying to make a show of how hard the thing is to read, and my point regarding formatting was just that he dumped it all as a block there, which can be easily sorted out if for instance you viewed it as an xml document in IE. Relax dude, I know its not html
No no no, thats not my point. I agree with you there. My point is the ELEMENT still has to contain binary tags and attributes, but the data INSIDE the element can be binary. This might sound like a silly/pointless thing to say, but the fact is, an xml file containing nothing but base-64 binary data is STILL parsable by anyone's text viewer, just the DATA isn't (yes i know that is the important part). This is at least a little easier to read than a pure binary file, because the binary blocks have to have some ascii metadata attributed to them.
wow you only used 2 elements and no dtd, and its STILL not well formed. congratulations.
<?xml version="1.0">
<!DOCTYPE doc PUBLIC "http://www.microsoft.com/xml">
<doc xmlns="www.microsoft.com/xml" "xml:lang="en">
<data>
asdfafs%65356FG653$5#@$%6Asdtkasdt@%@#$%@#$%245
</data>
</doc>
Would be more in line for all you paranoids out there.
So lets look at this... the namespaces are all published in clear text as urls, no binary data is apparent, and no dtd or schema is even used. It is also well-formed using the W3C's own validator. In short, I see no problems at all, especially when saved as an xml doc and viewed in IE where it formats it all pretty.
sorry I mistyped. You can have binary DATA but you cant for instance have binary-encrypted elements (tags, attributes etc.). So the document must remain parsable by a text viewer. They can't for instance put xmlns:0x16f53ea4 or something when referencing the namespace.
Actually he's right, you can have valid xml without a dtd or schema, its just completely open and impossible to validate, which means I find it most unlikely MS would go that way because usually dtd-less documents are extremely simple.
IE does a pretty decent job of parsing xml already actually. Its perfectly strict. 6 Does make some errors though that Moz gets right.
No because the dtd and/or namespace will have to be referenced in plain text in the xml document. so, even if they use absurdly complex element names, they have to use a valid dtd or namespace uri which can be easily referenced, or it just ain't xml at all. Also you aren't allowed to put binary data in an xml document, but even if they did reference their dtd by memory address for instance, its an easy task to just read that address. In conclusion they would have to break xml pretty hard-core in order to make their doc types proprietary. Besides, then what would be the point of going xml in the first place?
Nah its ok, it really is a stab. Tell this "Jesus" fellow he can suck it.
:)
I have lots of karma, bring it on
this is the settlement they reached, so no countersueing will take place. my guess is nintendo wanted more like 50% since they are joint owners of the trademark.
and Indiana Jones too
"Everyone else does it and its wrong, so therefore these guys can do it and be right" is a logical falacy.
You cannot both know the data and report on its aniversary at the same time, only one or the other via the uncertainty principle.
Actually what I hated about this film was how Spielburg, in his pandering way, decided he needed to take a Kubrick ending and dumb it down with a voiceover narative explaining every damn thing happening on the screen. ARGH! I think it could have been so much better if he'd left the ending open to interpretation! I almost always feel my intelligence has been insulted at the end of a spielburg film (or in Jurrasic park, where it was insulted repeatedly throughout the whole movie.)
Does a future history teacher teach the present?
If a heart monitoring computer crashes, people die. If a missile control system fails, people die. When the computer in your car fails, you might die. A corporate LAN goes down and your company looses millions. Computers are very important, not just comodities anymore.
Dude, its a page visited by maybe 10 people a week, all friends. I really only intended it to be an experiment in formatting with CSS, and everyone who uses it uses Moz anyhow. I really couldn't care less if people don't visit it because of that. It's not like I'm marketing something on it.
I don't know, some funny things are insulting, but in this case he's just insulting because he thinks its funny.
I actually lost that URL so thank YOU. I sure wish MS would release a version of IE that does it justice though. My friends keep telling me my site looks fugly.