Literally interpreted, it would mean that they have a large second derivative. That means that the first derivative will become greater than zero on a long enough time frame and it will increase, but maybe not now.
And why would somebody pay $664.64 (min at Froogle) now (or $200 in 2 years) to exchange the processor for one a little faster, in a computer that is hobbled by that stupid Intel on-board graphics?
Because a few individuals use their computers for processing that is not related to games?
I never said the roman catholic church wasn't a cult. If you confuse the roman catholic church with Christianity as a whole you are doing your understanding a grave disservice. As for the "Paul is a Roman spy" theory, I won't pretend that is the first time I heard it but I would like to see your evidence. For the first 50 years of Christianity almost all of its members were ethnically Jewish, many of whom were Roman citizens. And may I point out that most evidence seems to suggest that Paul was executed by the Roman authorities after spending much of his last few years in jail for illegally preaching, this doesn't seem like what the empire would do to one of their own. I would also point out that the Christian extermination policy never really started up until after Pauls death, until Paul, Christianity wasn't even on the Roman radar and if it was, it was largely tollerated by the Romans in Judea since it took people away from Judaism. By the time Christianity was first persecuted in earnest, doctrine was largely based around Pauls letters. This makes no sence whatsoever in the context of your theory.
Limbo (together with pergatory) however was never part of the bible, it was simply part of that pagan stuff that was folded in by the Roman church to allign it with other popular beliefs of the day, it is part of what protestant churches reject. The catholic church actually did the bible a service by getting rid of that dogma. I don't think you personally know what the bible says, how different churches interpret it. I think you should learn a little about theology and church history rather than a bunch of crazy conspiracy stories if you want to talk rationally about something.
I don't let my personal Atheism prejudice my study of faith, I don't see why you should either.
In this case, the cult is Christianity. If they were any other group, we'd be laughing at them. Unfortunately, they are large enough that their crazy belief system may cause trouble for the rest of us (yet again).
Christianity does not believe end times are heralded by RFID tags, some Christians do. That is what separates Christianity from crazy cults, since it is large and diverse enough to have people make up their own minds on such things. Cults need centralized leadership to tell its adherents what to do and what to believe, Christianity hasn't got a central authority and so its adherents are free to interpret the canon however they see fit and form groups where they share crucial facts of their interpretation. Most Christians believe the book of Revelation to be a non-literal message about what kind of persecution the church has faced and will face in the time between Christ's first and second coming, others believe it is an allegorical prophecy of the history of the thousand years after it was written in about 50AD and some (like the RFID nutter) believe that it is an allegorical prophesy of the thousand years before Christs second coming (whenever that may be). What almost all scholars agree on is that whoever the beast may be is irrelevant when one simply holds to the principles that the bible teaching when dealing with the beast as with dealing with anyone, thus finding the beast is pointless. Unfortunately, not all Christians are scholars and some like to draw shaky parallels and make accusations without merit.
I know I have just bitten a troll, but someone had to clarify it.
That is just two versions in the sense that there are 6 versions of vista, remember in the article where it says that Vista versions are not about what type of computer people run, but what it is intended to do? If ports and recompilations count as new versions then gentoo would have something like 8 editions and debian would have something like 50.
re-gifting goes back to the days of the Inca. The Spanish used to pay the Incan prostitutes in silver mined from their own lands.
No, that is called Imperialism. This is possibly the opposite to regifting. Regifting is giving a unwanted gift to another party as a gift. The conquistadors took treasure by force (not a gift) and in this case returned some to the Inca (not another party) for services (again, not a gift).
Well, I went to high school and was a few years behind Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (at a different school), I grew up in a rural area where guns were common and the only handgun I saw or heard about that was not safely holstered at police officers hips, belonged to a teacher who only took it out on weekends to shoot at his pistol club. I had a lot of outsider friends but none of them liked guns, talked about guns, had guns or wanted guns, only the redneck farmboys had them. I think the type of people who want to shoot up their school are very few in number today as they have always been.
One church (roman catholic) doesn't like it, most totally dig it since it prevents abortion and it allows more sex while having smaller and cheaper families. The key objection by the catholic church is not to do with abortion, but has to do with the catholic church's objection to non procriative sex, which they see as sinful carnal lust even when practiced between a married couple.
You'll find that most pregnancies don't end with fatality anymore due to advances in medicine, in particular the birth induction and cesarian section procedure that can be employed any time during the third trimester and even late in the second trimester if hormones are given to the fetus earlier to cause it to grow lungs. My younger brother was delivered this way at 28 weeks (well under 7 months) and medicine has improved in the 15 years since that has happened and now 24 week deliveries are possible. Such operations can be administered when the mother of fetus' lives are threatened by complications in the second half of pregnancy, earlier than that, fetus and embryos tend to just die their own during trauma. Anyway, if a fetus is killed during an operation to treat injury to its mother, I think you'll find its not legally classified as abortion, especially when the doctors try not to kill it.
Also, contraception doesn't prevent birth in any more concrete way than simply not having sex or having sex using a different orifice or through "outercourse". Destruction of germ cells is simply part of the human condition as ovulation and even ejaculation will continue regardless of sexual activity. Preventing a hypothetical pregnancy has nothing to do with ending a real one.
Raiders of the Lost Ark quotes give any post some extra zing. Still, I wish IE was actually locked into a US military warehouse where everyone is safe from opening it and having their face melt (as has been know to happen from time to time).
Why does nobody involved in the abortion debate ever understand what a continuum is?
If you think there is a continuum then you do not understand the question. It is wrong to kill babies. It is wrong to deprive women of freedom of choice over their own bodies and subject them to a painful pregnancy for any reason but the welfare of others. Thus, taking the middle ground is to acknowledge that one or both of these injustices are happening.
There are people who are willing to stand by to see these injustices happen, but those are cynical, apathetic people who are of a lower moral character than abortion doctors and those who murder abortion doctors because both these groups are doing what is right in their own reasoning. Don't you see? abortion is the greatest debate in history because to a religious person, or a secular humanist or anyone else, life is sacred. You cannot say that there is part of a life in a woman's womb, you cannot redefine life though existential debate for that is denying your own existence and your own right to life.
To allow abortion in certain cases and deny it in others is to acknowledge abortion as the slaughter of the innocent and as a woman's right. Thus in the cases where it is denied, you are forcing a woman into having her life changed by an unwanted child for no reason but your bossy authoritarian and when abortion is granted you are killing a human that has done nothing to deserve it.
In the US today, abortion is legal, yet when you accidentally terminate a wanted pregnancy through negligent driving it is considered manslaughter. This inconsistency leads to only one conclusion: a fetus is human if and only if its mother wants it. If this is about the beginnings of humanity, how can we not extrapolate this nihilist world view into our own lives? Am I only human because my mother and others continue to love me?
There is no middle ground when talking about what is life, it didn't work for Plato, Descartes or Wittgenstein who are all people smarter than you that have tried to define humanity and it won't work for me. The abortion debate should be thought through by each one of us, because it goes beyond choice or killing babies, it cuts to the very core of each one of our existences. The politically correct middle ground might be the safest option, but most great questions, the middle ground between two extremes is the only one that can be conclusively proved to be wrong.
Violent reactions to abortion clinics is a result of individuals considering fetus to be humans. I'm not going to weigh in on whether I think they are right or not (I certainly disagree when it comes to zygotes and embryos as in the discussion about RU-486) but I think that if someone believes a group to be committing routine murder they have the right to be annoyed.
There is nothing in the bible about unborn children, it is simply a philosophical difference found in adherents. People who have a belief in an immortal soul tend to believe that a human is made as soon as its genetic set is put together, whereas someone who believes in a mortal soul, or no soul at all considers a humans making is when they first gain consciousness.
This is the fundamental debate of abortion, what makes a human. If an unborn fetus is indeed a human then Abortion is murder, if not then Abortion is a woman's choice. The debate is as simple as that without weighing into religious doctrine of any faith. The abortion debate hinges on what is murder, murder is a secular principle that society agrees must be stopped in whatever means necessary.
Blasphemy however is directly tied to religious law from the ground up. Its prohibition is not based on a secular principle like murder, in fact it contradicts the secular principle of free speech and free religious practice. Thus although you can kill an abortion doctor coming from all walks of life, you must be religious to hate blasphemy.
Take just about any two subjects - models of neuarl plasticity in the accessory basal amygdala and feminist influences in nineteenth-century reinterpretations of Chaucer, say - and any good researcher working in either field will be perfectly able to seek money earmarked for the other.
That is probably the best phrased insight I have read on slashdot since I started coming here 5 years ago. Keep up the good work!
If a motel refuses to rent to Canadians, then the city would lose money from Canadian tourists or there is a danger that Canadians would be forced to sleep out on the streets.
Look, I don't want to disagree with you, because I have some good Canadian friends. However if hypothetically Canadians had a well above average rate of spontaneously combusting then it would be possible that not allowing Canadians into the motel is a good thing since their would be less fires due to incendiary Canadians.
Rightly or wrongly, everyone who practices active discrimination does so in the earnest belief that what they are doing will help them in the long term by sacrificing scope of interaction by minimization of risks that they see associated with certain characteristics in people. Some of these things are real, some are nonsense but regardless they are perceived as real by people who practice discrimination on those grounds. Their are many racists and sexists in this world spread fairly evenly over all races and sexes but no bigot knows that their assessments about certain groups is incorrect; if they did know this they wouldn't be bigoted because it wouldn't make sense to them anymore.
We all make mistakes about judging people by the groups in which they belong. However this is based on the human thought process of abstraction which we base most of decisions on correctly. In programming terms this would be analogous to upcasting and upcasting as we all know can lead to segfaults, but it is needed for many algorithms. You can't just argue against abstraction because it is a integral part of how we work, saying that Canadians shouldn't be treated differently is pointless when in someone's mind Canadians are (rightly or wrongly) different.
Discrimination and prejudice (also human thought processes used every day) have been vilified in their usage towards people so often that those most opposed to them have never had the courage to see how the world looks that way. Until those most opposed to bigotry learn to see things through the eyes of those who they seek to change they will never achieve anything but scare people into a repressed sense of bitterness against those who they have been forced to pretend to accept.
247365 is redundant, you need only say 24365 (24 hours a day, 365 days a year) or 24752 (24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year). Either way you save a digit.
This whole stupid discussion misses the point completely. What can Joe free software developer, or even Joe loud mouthed open source pundit do to get Photoshop ported to Linux? Can he download the source from Adobe and port it himself? Can he put up a $500 bounty for anyone who does it? Nope.
The only people who can possibly do it is Adobe. Adobe is not a Linux hostile company, they have ported things to Linux before, but only when it helps them make money, expected sales are what they care about. What Adobe sees is a platform that no graphics designers use, and only 10 million or so people use at all worldwide. What would be the point of porting photoshop? None at all!
What could make Adobe want to port photoshop to Linux? Artists using Linux; that's what. How can Artists start using Linux? Improving The Gimp and marketing the Gimp, because like it or not, the gimp IS graphics under linux. Get your head out of the fucking clouds for a second and think about what you can do. If you ever want to be free of Gimp under linux, go right home and make a patch making the Gimp better then tell all the creative types you know: "Gimp rocks and you should use it and Linux for the best art experience".
Bitching and moaning about the gimp is pointless because it is all we have and all we can improve. If Gimp developers start getting discoraged by reading about how much photoshop kills gimp in every way then you will NEVER have photoshop under Linux. However it is a lucky fact that no useful developers of any project read slashdot unless they can help it.
I don't know what the hell you think "Aryan" means, but Aryan refers to people who are native to Iran and those Indians with primarily Persian ancestry (those descended from traditional Nobility, often with lighter skin than other Indians). Saying that they all "advocate violence against others based on skin tone or religious affiliation" is the most racist thing I've read on this channel so far. Sure, the state of Iran does advocate violence against others based on religious affiliation, but judging a whole race by that is simply bigotry of the worst kind.
Totally poor metaphor. Gays are allowed in WoW, they are just not allowed to talk about it. It's like not allowing the black panthers to have a rally in your diner, perfectly acceptable.
Rambus is not a way to store information on a chip, it is a proticol designed to transfer data between storage spaces using packets and a bus. This is a constrast to SDRAM which transfers data by synchronously indexing then caching a strip of data and copying it to or from the chip's cache. Z-Ram on the other hand is a way to store information on a chip just like DRAM or SRAM. Z-Ram makes no demands as to how information is transfered, it may theoretically be done using the Rambus system (making RZRAM rather than RDRAM) or more likely using the Double Data Rate Synchronous Ram system (making DDR SZRAM as opposed to DDR SDRAM). In this case it is not intended to be used as system ram at all but on-die cache. Thus it will not have to use either of these systems since it (as cache) will only need to interface with the CPU and MMU. Such a system will have no impact as to what ram someone may use and will make no archetectual differences outside the die. Thus the Rambus comparison is completely pointless. If you had even read the summary properly you would know that.
I believe you call someone who makes wagons a "cartwright". "Smith" tends to refer to someone who works in metal, e.g. blacksmith, gunsmith, goldsmith, silversmith.
Slashdot Mirror
Literally interpreted, it would mean that they have a large second derivative. That means that the first derivative will become greater than zero on a long enough time frame and it will increase, but maybe not now.
Because a few individuals use their computers for processing that is not related to games?
Limbo (together with pergatory) however was never part of the bible, it was simply part of that pagan stuff that was folded in by the Roman church to allign it with other popular beliefs of the day, it is part of what protestant churches reject. The catholic church actually did the bible a service by getting rid of that dogma. I don't think you personally know what the bible says, how different churches interpret it. I think you should learn a little about theology and church history rather than a bunch of crazy conspiracy stories if you want to talk rationally about something.
I don't let my personal Atheism prejudice my study of faith, I don't see why you should either.
Christianity does not believe end times are heralded by RFID tags, some Christians do. That is what separates Christianity from crazy cults, since it is large and diverse enough to have people make up their own minds on such things. Cults need centralized leadership to tell its adherents what to do and what to believe, Christianity hasn't got a central authority and so its adherents are free to interpret the canon however they see fit and form groups where they share crucial facts of their interpretation. Most Christians believe the book of Revelation to be a non-literal message about what kind of persecution the church has faced and will face in the time between Christ's first and second coming, others believe it is an allegorical prophecy of the history of the thousand years after it was written in about 50AD and some (like the RFID nutter) believe that it is an allegorical prophesy of the thousand years before Christs second coming (whenever that may be). What almost all scholars agree on is that whoever the beast may be is irrelevant when one simply holds to the principles that the bible teaching when dealing with the beast as with dealing with anyone, thus finding the beast is pointless. Unfortunately, not all Christians are scholars and some like to draw shaky parallels and make accusations without merit.
I know I have just bitten a troll, but someone had to clarify it.
I don't know who said that, I know I didn't say it.
That is just two versions in the sense that there are 6 versions of vista, remember in the article where it says that Vista versions are not about what type of computer people run, but what it is intended to do? If ports and recompilations count as new versions then gentoo would have something like 8 editions and debian would have something like 50.
re-gifting goes back to the days of the Inca. The Spanish used to pay the Incan prostitutes in silver mined from their own lands. No, that is called Imperialism. This is possibly the opposite to regifting. Regifting is giving a unwanted gift to another party as a gift. The conquistadors took treasure by force (not a gift) and in this case returned some to the Inca (not another party) for services (again, not a gift).
Come on, that ad is funny and almost relivent. Someone mod parent underrated so he can at least be where he started!
Well, I went to high school and was a few years behind Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (at a different school), I grew up in a rural area where guns were common and the only handgun I saw or heard about that was not safely holstered at police officers hips, belonged to a teacher who only took it out on weekends to shoot at his pistol club. I had a lot of outsider friends but none of them liked guns, talked about guns, had guns or wanted guns, only the redneck farmboys had them. I think the type of people who want to shoot up their school are very few in number today as they have always been.
Yet if he had realised this 200 years ago he would have been considered the greatest genius who ever lived.
One church (roman catholic) doesn't like it, most totally dig it since it prevents abortion and it allows more sex while having smaller and cheaper families. The key objection by the catholic church is not to do with abortion, but has to do with the catholic church's objection to non procriative sex, which they see as sinful carnal lust even when practiced between a married couple.
Also, contraception doesn't prevent birth in any more concrete way than simply not having sex or having sex using a different orifice or through "outercourse". Destruction of germ cells is simply part of the human condition as ovulation and even ejaculation will continue regardless of sexual activity. Preventing a hypothetical pregnancy has nothing to do with ending a real one.
If you think there is a continuum then you do not understand the question. It is wrong to kill babies. It is wrong to deprive women of freedom of choice over their own bodies and subject them to a painful pregnancy for any reason but the welfare of others. Thus, taking the middle ground is to acknowledge that one or both of these injustices are happening.
There are people who are willing to stand by to see these injustices happen, but those are cynical, apathetic people who are of a lower moral character than abortion doctors and those who murder abortion doctors because both these groups are doing what is right in their own reasoning. Don't you see? abortion is the greatest debate in history because to a religious person, or a secular humanist or anyone else, life is sacred. You cannot say that there is part of a life in a woman's womb, you cannot redefine life though existential debate for that is denying your own existence and your own right to life.
To allow abortion in certain cases and deny it in others is to acknowledge abortion as the slaughter of the innocent and as a woman's right. Thus in the cases where it is denied, you are forcing a woman into having her life changed by an unwanted child for no reason but your bossy authoritarian and when abortion is granted you are killing a human that has done nothing to deserve it.
In the US today, abortion is legal, yet when you accidentally terminate a wanted pregnancy through negligent driving it is considered manslaughter. This inconsistency leads to only one conclusion: a fetus is human if and only if its mother wants it. If this is about the beginnings of humanity, how can we not extrapolate this nihilist world view into our own lives? Am I only human because my mother and others continue to love me?
There is no middle ground when talking about what is life, it didn't work for Plato, Descartes or Wittgenstein who are all people smarter than you that have tried to define humanity and it won't work for me. The abortion debate should be thought through by each one of us, because it goes beyond choice or killing babies, it cuts to the very core of each one of our existences. The politically correct middle ground might be the safest option, but most great questions, the middle ground between two extremes is the only one that can be conclusively proved to be wrong.
My father teaches at a conservative theological collage. I'll ask him about it but I think he'll agree with me (he's rabidly pro life b.t.w.).
Violent reactions to abortion clinics is a result of individuals considering fetus to be humans. I'm not going to weigh in on whether I think they are right or not (I certainly disagree when it comes to zygotes and embryos as in the discussion about RU-486) but I think that if someone believes a group to be committing routine murder they have the right to be annoyed. There is nothing in the bible about unborn children, it is simply a philosophical difference found in adherents. People who have a belief in an immortal soul tend to believe that a human is made as soon as its genetic set is put together, whereas someone who believes in a mortal soul, or no soul at all considers a humans making is when they first gain consciousness. This is the fundamental debate of abortion, what makes a human. If an unborn fetus is indeed a human then Abortion is murder, if not then Abortion is a woman's choice. The debate is as simple as that without weighing into religious doctrine of any faith. The abortion debate hinges on what is murder, murder is a secular principle that society agrees must be stopped in whatever means necessary. Blasphemy however is directly tied to religious law from the ground up. Its prohibition is not based on a secular principle like murder, in fact it contradicts the secular principle of free speech and free religious practice. Thus although you can kill an abortion doctor coming from all walks of life, you must be religious to hate blasphemy.
That is probably the best phrased insight I have read on slashdot since I started coming here 5 years ago. Keep up the good work!
Rightly or wrongly, everyone who practices active discrimination does so in the earnest belief that what they are doing will help them in the long term by sacrificing scope of interaction by minimization of risks that they see associated with certain characteristics in people. Some of these things are real, some are nonsense but regardless they are perceived as real by people who practice discrimination on those grounds. Their are many racists and sexists in this world spread fairly evenly over all races and sexes but no bigot knows that their assessments about certain groups is incorrect; if they did know this they wouldn't be bigoted because it wouldn't make sense to them anymore.
We all make mistakes about judging people by the groups in which they belong. However this is based on the human thought process of abstraction which we base most of decisions on correctly. In programming terms this would be analogous to upcasting and upcasting as we all know can lead to segfaults, but it is needed for many algorithms. You can't just argue against abstraction because it is a integral part of how we work, saying that Canadians shouldn't be treated differently is pointless when in someone's mind Canadians are (rightly or wrongly) different.
Discrimination and prejudice (also human thought processes used every day) have been vilified in their usage towards people so often that those most opposed to them have never had the courage to see how the world looks that way. Until those most opposed to bigotry learn to see things through the eyes of those who they seek to change they will never achieve anything but scare people into a repressed sense of bitterness against those who they have been forced to pretend to accept.
247365 is redundant, you need only say 24365 (24 hours a day, 365 days a year) or 24752 (24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year). Either way you save a digit.
The only people who can possibly do it is Adobe. Adobe is not a Linux hostile company, they have ported things to Linux before, but only when it helps them make money, expected sales are what they care about. What Adobe sees is a platform that no graphics designers use, and only 10 million or so people use at all worldwide. What would be the point of porting photoshop? None at all!
What could make Adobe want to port photoshop to Linux? Artists using Linux; that's what. How can Artists start using Linux? Improving The Gimp and marketing the Gimp, because like it or not, the gimp IS graphics under linux. Get your head out of the fucking clouds for a second and think about what you can do. If you ever want to be free of Gimp under linux, go right home and make a patch making the Gimp better then tell all the creative types you know: "Gimp rocks and you should use it and Linux for the best art experience".
Bitching and moaning about the gimp is pointless because it is all we have and all we can improve. If Gimp developers start getting discoraged by reading about how much photoshop kills gimp in every way then you will NEVER have photoshop under Linux. However it is a lucky fact that no useful developers of any project read slashdot unless they can help it.
I don't know what the hell you think "Aryan" means, but Aryan refers to people who are native to Iran and those Indians with primarily Persian ancestry (those descended from traditional Nobility, often with lighter skin than other Indians). Saying that they all "advocate violence against others based on skin tone or religious affiliation" is the most racist thing I've read on this channel so far. Sure, the state of Iran does advocate violence against others based on religious affiliation, but judging a whole race by that is simply bigotry of the worst kind.
Totally poor metaphor. Gays are allowed in WoW, they are just not allowed to talk about it. It's like not allowing the black panthers to have a rally in your diner, perfectly acceptable.
Rambus is not a way to store information on a chip, it is a proticol designed to transfer data between storage spaces using packets and a bus. This is a constrast to SDRAM which transfers data by synchronously indexing then caching a strip of data and copying it to or from the chip's cache. Z-Ram on the other hand is a way to store information on a chip just like DRAM or SRAM. Z-Ram makes no demands as to how information is transfered, it may theoretically be done using the Rambus system (making RZRAM rather than RDRAM) or more likely using the Double Data Rate Synchronous Ram system (making DDR SZRAM as opposed to DDR SDRAM). In this case it is not intended to be used as system ram at all but on-die cache. Thus it will not have to use either of these systems since it (as cache) will only need to interface with the CPU and MMU. Such a system will have no impact as to what ram someone may use and will make no archetectual differences outside the die. Thus the Rambus comparison is completely pointless. If you had even read the summary properly you would know that.
I believe you call someone who makes wagons a "cartwright". "Smith" tends to refer to someone who works in metal, e.g. blacksmith, gunsmith, goldsmith, silversmith.