The proprietary file format doesn't affect my choice much. I used WordPerfect for 6 years, and after that, OpenOffice for three. I needed full.doc compatibility, and both of those worked fine for what I would write in them. I finally switched to Word this year because I could be more productive with it. Some of us actually think it is a better product than anything else out there.
Ooo! I was just reading some stuff on pbzone and a reader was saying that changing things in the "Universal Access" settings (choose mouse, then change initial delay and/ or maximum speed settings). Could you verify if that works for making the trackpad cover more area in one swoop? I can't wait to give this a shot at the Mac store, too, because the short movement of the pointer really discouraged me (and made my wrist sore). Thanks!
Hey, I'm thinking of getting that same model, and I've heard that there were some issues with the trackpad. Have you encountered any? All I know for sure is that I was trying it at the Mac store, and I found that the vertical mouse movement in general was verrry pokey, even on the highest settings. You couldn't easily get from the top to the bottom of the screen in one movement, which is quite simple with my Latitude. I was just wondering how it was working out for you. Maybe I just wasn't using it right or something (I rarely use a trackpad).
On a bright note, I also tried the scrolling while I was there and found that to be so much better than my Dell.
My secret (final?) fantasy is to be at my wedding, kiss the bride, and then the piano player plays the victory fanfare, we we run down the aisle, a la NES/ Famicom FFs.
For the majority of programming-types here, if you had enough interpersonal skills to be a moderate success in raising your child so far, I'd venture to say that you're talented enough to teach them programming, and do a good job at it.
I was a teaching assistant for a university introductory programming course for 5 semesters. One of most frequent comments was that I was more effective teaching the material in a 50-minute recitation than the instructor was in 2.5 hours of class each week. And this includes the semester where we messed up the scheduling between the lectures and the assignments, and I was actually basically required to teach the entire week's lesson in that 50 minutes, rather than just review. This is after no training whatsoever (I take that back, actually. They realized in my last semester that undergrad TAs never got the required training so they quickly administered it then). I guess I just have some reasonably decent people skills. That's it.
So, you're probably better at it than you think. And the individual attention can't hurt, either. I guess this explains why all the home-schooled people I've met so far have been exceptionally bright.:-)
Oh, and I'm teaching my 10-year-old brother C#. After the same course used it last semester and had a ton of success with it, I figured I'd let my child prodigy brother give it a shot, and he's doing well so far.
I've never been able to get this resolved by talking to AOL, so I figured I'd ask to see if anybody here knows.
Is it possible to use an AOL account on AIM after that plan that account was on is canceled?
I've been using the same AIM account for like 8 years, so everybody knows me on it, but it was created before AIM even existed, and when I was still living at home. My parents nonetheless still have AOL, but are about ready to get rid of it. Do I need a new screenname?
Venerable, adj.
1. Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position.
2. Worthy of reverence, especially by religious or historical association: venerable relics.
3. Venerable Abbr. Ven. or V.
1. Roman Catholic Church. Used as a form of address for a person who has reached the first stage of canonization.
2. Used as a form of address for an archdeacon in the Anglican Church or the Episcopal Church.
Ignoring parts of speech for a moment, that makes for a pretty funny sentence:-).
When there's laws governing the transaction of said "intellectual property", it's no longer just a gentleman's agreement.
In a microcosm shielded from laws (and supposing moral relativism), the agreement for a person to not steal another's car just becomes a "gentleman's agreement", too.
There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester.
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
I don't think grossing people out is necessary in the abortion debate. I just don't get how there can be such a disconnect for people between something in the womb and something that just came out if it. Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being. If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
I was totally incensed this past April or whenever when CNN had the Pro Choice march on. All these woman would come up to speak about the virtue of a Woman's Right to Choose(tm) and then they bring up their daughters and tell them how they're doing all this for THEM!!!! If given the microphone for a moment, most of them just said something along the lines of "go pro-choice!", I was waiting for one to say, "I'm glad mommy didn't abort me!".
Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
As long as it's legal, I'd have to say it should be okay until they move out;-).
hey, I was wondering if anybody else had this issue, too. Sometimes OOo for me just doesn't load all the way. I'll see the title screen, but it will just never get past that. I'll look in the task manager and see soffice.exe in all of its 42 MB of glory, but it's idling. Finally, like an hour or four later, it will load up all the way.
I've seen this behavior on 2 PCs- a P3 1.1 GHz and a P-M 1.3 GHz, both with 512 MB RAM and Windows XP, and I was just wondering if I was the only one:-/.
I don't know about IBMs, dude...between 2000 and 2001 (and a little bit of 2002), at the Foutune 100 I work at, we've had about half of our leased NetVistas fall to bad capacitors on the mobo...that's like 200-250 computers. At least Dell called a recall...Not to mention that half of the floppy drives were broken when we got them back, despite never being used. It normally isn't a horrible thing, except lease companies charge you an arm and a leg if anything *inside* the computer is broken (a fraction of the entire computer's estimated cost- often well over $100).
Because science, unlike creationism, doesn't work by assuming a model and attempting to retrofit all data into it. Science comes up with a theoretical model as a result of interpretation of observed data.
It's not like there is no good observed data. It's as simple as "Crap, all this stuff here looks terribly complex, as if somebody created it. Let's make a model that takes this into consideration and see if the data fits it". Evolution did the exact same thing. Folks said, "Crap, these currently living animals look like they have slight modifications from recently extinct animals, and those recently extinct animals look like these even longer extinct animals. Let's make a model that considers that and fit evidence to it."
No set of bones or fossils "writes" the theory. They're just there. Humans make hypothesises that connect the dots together. All evidence has to be retrofitted by virtue that the evidence existed before the model.
Evolutionary study has to assume a model, because no piece of evidence comes even close to demanding a particular model. Same with ID. For both, there's evidence that fits each model, but it could fit another- like the "Space Aliens Put It There" model (which we can actually rather safely dismiss for a variety of compelling reasons). All we can really judge in these areas is each model's explaining power, not whether or not it is correct.
I'm not sure that there is a term for it. My point is that "undirected evolution" is not itself a scientific theory.
That's great. But, when talking to laypeople, I don't think it really matters what is a scientific theory and what's not. What's a popular worldview, or what is the worldview of a particular person is what's important. People don't really care about nomenclature; they care about what they believe or don't believe, and a lot of people believe what I'm talking about, even if the scientific community doesn't address it under a single umbrella. That's what I was refering to.
Actually, a chimera -- a REAL chimera, not an assertion of one (I heard of one creationist who insisted that the duck-billed platypus was a chimera) would present real problems for evolution, because there's no proposed mechanism for getting genetic sequences of that type in that order all of a sudden
There's practically no proposed mechanisms for getting just about anything by evolution, even gradually. Nobody's offered any potentially satisfying explaination for how even relatively small jumps in speciation- it mostly amounts to broad explainations at best, hand waving at worst. The appearance of a chimera wouldn't upset anything, because there's simply not enough to upset yet.
Moreover, there's the issue of fossils. If you found a rabbit fossil in precambrian strata, you'd send the theory of evolution toppling on its head.
Something's position in rock isn't an absolute indicator of when it's from. Something horribly catastrophic could have happened to put that rabbit there- we have no clue. Furthermore, first it would have to reexamined if that was really even precambrian strata.
How would this take away from ID's explaining power?
If an entity is unnecessary, a hypothesis whose main point is that the entity is necessary is going to be rather weak.
I've seen this line of reasoning before. Somehow ID or creationism would be weakened if it could be demonstrated that certain organism features could come about naturally. This, of course, exposes the full weakness of ID/creationism. First, you're making the mistake of assuming that just because a feature could have come about naturally it means that it must have come about naturally, when in fact the "designer" might have just made it seem that way. Secondly, you're showing that ID is nothing more than an attempt to shoehorn in argument from incredulity by tossing out evolution, saying "if evolution is false, I can't think of any other explanation, so this one must be true"
Nobody's saying that ID must be true because evolution doesn't hold up somewhere. ALL ID'ers are trying to say is that there's evidence that doesn't fit the evolution model, but it does fit the ID model. The model already exists, so why not try to fit the data to it? Why do we have to keep waiting for mysterious option #3? Odds are, #3 would still basically be a variant of evolution or ID, because either nature alone can produce the organisms in question or an outside force is required.
And what is "unguided evolution"? Explain it in scientific terms.
Okay, this is the chance for me to ask somebody who might know what to call the people who believe that everything came about through non-supernatural means. I guess I could say "materialism", but that really doesn't get the gist of it. At any rate, I'm always hesitant just to say evolution when I talk about this, because then I get flamed (and rightfully so, I guess) because ID doesn't exclude evolution. It often works to head off evolution at a certain point, because if you find that something couldn't have evolved, well, you have something that says another force had to be involved.
At any rate, to believe that there was no creator and simutaneously believe in a religion that says there is one would be contradictory. That's what I was talking about.
No, evolution is not the "source of all life", it is the origin of the species. Evolution can not and does not account for the first life forms. Moreover, it is impossible for any scientific theory to make any statements regarding the existence of a "creator". The claim that evolution outright denies the existence of a creator or even a generic "designer" is an outright, but common, creationist lie.
Well, then you should be just as PO'ed that people push it as that as I am. Often in science textbooks, the big bang and evolution sandwich a little sliver which glazes over the origin of life. This silent treatment has led so many to think t
Slashdot Mirror
The proprietary file format doesn't affect my choice much. I used WordPerfect for 6 years, and after that, OpenOffice for three. I needed full .doc compatibility, and both of those worked fine for what I would write in them. I finally switched to Word this year because I could be more productive with it. Some of us actually think it is a better product than anything else out there.
Derr....I can do that in Windows, too.
Ooo! I was just reading some stuff on pbzone and a reader was saying that changing things in the "Universal Access" settings (choose mouse, then change initial delay and/ or maximum speed settings). Could you verify if that works for making the trackpad cover more area in one swoop? I can't wait to give this a shot at the Mac store, too, because the short movement of the pointer really discouraged me (and made my wrist sore). Thanks!
Hey, I'm thinking of getting that same model, and I've heard that there were some issues with the trackpad. Have you encountered any? All I know for sure is that I was trying it at the Mac store, and I found that the vertical mouse movement in general was verrry pokey, even on the highest settings. You couldn't easily get from the top to the bottom of the screen in one movement, which is quite simple with my Latitude. I was just wondering how it was working out for you. Maybe I just wasn't using it right or something (I rarely use a trackpad).
On a bright note, I also tried the scrolling while I was there and found that to be so much better than my Dell.
My secret (final?) fantasy is to be at my wedding, kiss the bride, and then the piano player plays the victory fanfare, we we run down the aisle, a la NES/ Famicom FFs.
Naw, the proper question is still "can we". :-)
My biology teacher in high school told us that it was a fact.
Gosh, if the teachers aren't going to make it clear what separates scientific fact and theory, SOMEBODY has to...
For the majority of programming-types here, if you had enough interpersonal skills to be a moderate success in raising your child so far, I'd venture to say that you're talented enough to teach them programming, and do a good job at it.
:-)
I was a teaching assistant for a university introductory programming course for 5 semesters. One of most frequent comments was that I was more effective teaching the material in a 50-minute recitation than the instructor was in 2.5 hours of class each week. And this includes the semester where we messed up the scheduling between the lectures and the assignments, and I was actually basically required to teach the entire week's lesson in that 50 minutes, rather than just review. This is after no training whatsoever (I take that back, actually. They realized in my last semester that undergrad TAs never got the required training so they quickly administered it then). I guess I just have some reasonably decent people skills. That's it.
So, you're probably better at it than you think. And the individual attention can't hurt, either. I guess this explains why all the home-schooled people I've met so far have been exceptionally bright.
Oh, and I'm teaching my 10-year-old brother C#. After the same course used it last semester and had a ton of success with it, I figured I'd let my child prodigy brother give it a shot, and he's doing well so far.
I've never been able to get this resolved by talking to AOL, so I figured I'd ask to see if anybody here knows.
Is it possible to use an AOL account on AIM after that plan that account was on is canceled?
I've been using the same AIM account for like 8 years, so everybody knows me on it, but it was created before AIM even existed, and when I was still living at home. My parents nonetheless still have AOL, but are about ready to get rid of it. Do I need a new screenname?
Venerable, adj.
:-).
1. Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position.
2. Worthy of reverence, especially by religious or historical association: venerable relics.
3. Venerable Abbr. Ven. or V.
1. Roman Catholic Church. Used as a form of address for a person who has reached the first stage of canonization.
2. Used as a form of address for an archdeacon in the Anglican Church or the Episcopal Church.
Ignoring parts of speech for a moment, that makes for a pretty funny sentence
...just so we could all make fun of the guy?
When there's laws governing the transaction of said "intellectual property", it's no longer just a gentleman's agreement.
In a microcosm shielded from laws (and supposing moral relativism), the agreement for a person to not steal another's car just becomes a "gentleman's agreement", too.
A mom who will raise a kid no matter what the odds is a lot tougher than the one who will only do it when life is cozy. I'll take the former anyday.
You should probably question why people exercising their right to public demonstration and free speech makes you angry.
That wasn't the reason why I insensed. RTFP.
um...who was saying the life of the mother has no value, or any less value?
The idea is preserving life whenever possible, not trying at all costs to get the baby out.
Cassini's data has already thrown scientists for loop.
Main screen turn on!
There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester.
;-).
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
I don't think grossing people out is necessary in the abortion debate. I just don't get how there can be such a disconnect for people between something in the womb and something that just came out if it. Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being. If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
I was totally incensed this past April or whenever when CNN had the Pro Choice march on. All these woman would come up to speak about the virtue of a Woman's Right to Choose(tm) and then they bring up their daughters and tell them how they're doing all this for THEM!!!! If given the microphone for a moment, most of them just said something along the lines of "go pro-choice!", I was waiting for one to say, "I'm glad mommy didn't abort me!".
Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
As long as it's legal, I'd have to say it should be okay until they move out
so, what did you originally write?
...like, um, 4*3???
How do you know the parent works for George Bush?
hey, I was wondering if anybody else had this issue, too. Sometimes OOo for me just doesn't load all the way. I'll see the title screen, but it will just never get past that. I'll look in the task manager and see soffice.exe in all of its 42 MB of glory, but it's idling. Finally, like an hour or four later, it will load up all the way.
:-/.
I've seen this behavior on 2 PCs- a P3 1.1 GHz and a P-M 1.3 GHz, both with 512 MB RAM and Windows XP, and I was just wondering if I was the only one
Computing with C# by Art Gittleman is a hoss...I'm a teaching assistant in an intro class that uses it, and it's solid.
I don't know about IBMs, dude...between 2000 and 2001 (and a little bit of 2002), at the Foutune 100 I work at, we've had about half of our leased NetVistas fall to bad capacitors on the mobo...that's like 200-250 computers. At least Dell called a recall...Not to mention that half of the floppy drives were broken when we got them back, despite never being used. It normally isn't a horrible thing, except lease companies charge you an arm and a leg if anything *inside* the computer is broken (a fraction of the entire computer's estimated cost- often well over $100).
Because science, unlike creationism, doesn't work by assuming a model and attempting to retrofit all data into it. Science comes up with a theoretical model as a result of interpretation of observed data.
It's not like there is no good observed data. It's as simple as "Crap, all this stuff here looks terribly complex, as if somebody created it. Let's make a model that takes this into consideration and see if the data fits it". Evolution did the exact same thing. Folks said, "Crap, these currently living animals look like they have slight modifications from recently extinct animals, and those recently extinct animals look like these even longer extinct animals. Let's make a model that considers that and fit evidence to it."
No set of bones or fossils "writes" the theory. They're just there. Humans make hypothesises that connect the dots together. All evidence has to be retrofitted by virtue that the evidence existed before the model.
Evolutionary study has to assume a model, because no piece of evidence comes even close to demanding a particular model. Same with ID. For both, there's evidence that fits each model, but it could fit another- like the "Space Aliens Put It There" model (which we can actually rather safely dismiss for a variety of compelling reasons). All we can really judge in these areas is each model's explaining power, not whether or not it is correct.
I'm not sure that there is a term for it. My point is that "undirected evolution" is not itself a scientific theory.
That's great. But, when talking to laypeople, I don't think it really matters what is a scientific theory and what's not. What's a popular worldview, or what is the worldview of a particular person is what's important. People don't really care about nomenclature; they care about what they believe or don't believe, and a lot of people believe what I'm talking about, even if the scientific community doesn't address it under a single umbrella. That's what I was refering to.
Actually, a chimera -- a REAL chimera, not an assertion of one (I heard of one creationist who insisted that the duck-billed platypus was a chimera) would present real problems for evolution, because there's no proposed mechanism for getting genetic sequences of that type in that order all of a sudden
There's practically no proposed mechanisms for getting just about anything by evolution, even gradually. Nobody's offered any potentially satisfying explaination for how even relatively small jumps in speciation- it mostly amounts to broad explainations at best, hand waving at worst. The appearance of a chimera wouldn't upset anything, because there's simply not enough to upset yet.
Moreover, there's the issue of fossils. If you found a rabbit fossil in precambrian strata, you'd send the theory of evolution toppling on its head.
Something's position in rock isn't an absolute indicator of when it's from. Something horribly catastrophic could have happened to put that rabbit there- we have no clue. Furthermore, first it would have to reexamined if that was really even precambrian strata.
How would this take away from ID's explaining power?
If an entity is unnecessary, a hypothesis whose main point is that the entity is necessary is going to be rather weak.
I've seen this line of reasoning before. Somehow ID or creationism would be weakened if it could be demonstrated that certain organism features could come about naturally. This, of course, exposes the full weakness of ID/creationism. First, you're making the mistake of assuming that just because a feature could have come about naturally it means that it must have come about naturally, when in fact the "designer" might have just made it seem that way. Secondly, you're showing that ID is nothing more than an attempt to shoehorn in argument from incredulity by tossing out evolution, saying "if evolution is false, I can't think of any other explanation, so this one must be true"
Nobody's saying that ID must be true because evolution doesn't hold up somewhere. ALL ID'ers are trying to say is that there's evidence that doesn't fit the evolution model, but it does fit the ID model. The model already exists, so why not try to fit the data to it? Why do we have to keep waiting for mysterious option #3? Odds are, #3 would still basically be a variant of evolution or ID, because either nature alone can produce the organisms in question or an outside force is required.
And what is "unguided evolution"? Explain it in scientific terms.
Okay, this is the chance for me to ask somebody who might know what to call the people who believe that everything came about through non-supernatural means. I guess I could say "materialism", but that really doesn't get the gist of it. At any rate, I'm always hesitant just to say evolution when I talk about this, because then I get flamed (and rightfully so, I guess) because ID doesn't exclude evolution. It often works to head off evolution at a certain point, because if you find that something couldn't have evolved, well, you have something that says another force had to be involved.
At any rate, to believe that there was no creator and simutaneously believe in a religion that says there is one would be contradictory. That's what I was talking about.
No, evolution is not the "source of all life", it is the origin of the species. Evolution can not and does not account for the first life forms. Moreover, it is impossible for any scientific theory to make any statements regarding the existence of a "creator". The claim that evolution outright denies the existence of a creator or even a generic "designer" is an outright, but common, creationist lie.
Well, then you should be just as PO'ed that people push it as that as I am. Often in science textbooks, the big bang and evolution sandwich a little sliver which glazes over the origin of life. This silent treatment has led so many to think t