Scared of the new Office 2007 formats? Afraid that if you save a document in Word 2007, you won't be able to open it in Word XP, 2000, or 2003? Here you go.
This entire "article" is FUD. Say what you will about Microsoft formats, but so long as you're using Word, Excel, or Powerpoint (i.e. not Outlook), there's nothing to worry about. And for the record, I've tried importing the mail from an Outlook 2007 PST file in Outlook 2003, and it works perfectly fine. There's also apparently workarounds for importing 2007 PST files into earlier versions of Outlook - including 2003 into XP, 2000, and so forth - as described here.
Old? The TrackPoint is still used on IBM laptops. They haven't even changed the default cap ("cat's tongue"), though they have added two new alternatives.
Three "educational" games pop into my mind when you said that you have no interest in them:
1) Balance of Power. It's not an educational game per se, but it's an excellent game that teaches about international relationships and the ramifications of your actions on a global scale. It's also historical, being that it's set in the Cold War.
2) Hidden Agenda. Same ideas, but focused on a national rather than international scale. The detail in this one is fantastic and forces the player to really think about what it takes to run a country.
3) Peacemaker. This one's more recent: lead either Israel or Palestine and try to balance peace with not getting fired.
Now, one might complain that these aren't educational games per se, but whether or not they were designed to educate, they do educate. That's good enough for me. (There was another game I thought about, the title of which I can't remember off-hand. It had to do with simulating Stalin's Five Year plans. Can anybody help me out here?)
I think once the court officers turn over the RAM to the guys in charge of the computer forensics lab, the techies there will have a good laugh and explain exactly what "RAM" is. I doubt anybody will get in trouble because a judge doesn't know a PS/2 port from a SATA connector.
"If they can afford to sell many thousands of these books at the Indian price, the pricing obviously has nothing to do with the cost of publishing the book."
I'm in no way defending textbook publishers, but perhaps they can afford to sell $20 books in India because North Americans pay $130 for the same book. As an English major, all of my "textbooks" could usually be either found a) in the public domain, or b) heavily discounted at Amazon.com, so I never concerned myself with the economics of textbook publishing.
More realistically, maybe the advertisement should go like "Displays many, many colors".
MacBook Pro 2008:
-Goes pretty fast
-Can hold stuff in memory
-Average sized hard drive
-Displays many, many colors
-Some type of media drive
-Available for more than a couple hundred dollars Apple: Computer Specifications for the Rest of Us
If I decide to buy several dozen full-quality albums (.wavs) from Magnatune, and go over the 5GB limit, I'll be cut off because they assume that I'm pirating movies?
The baseline is the current world. The current world contains evil. I don't think anyone disputes this. The thing is, we can imagine a better, and still possible world. Since we can imagine a better world, one in which there is less evil and yet still enough evil to make Free Will possible, why did God make this world? Isn't it contradictory for a God, who really does wish for the well-being of his universe (i.e., omnibenevolent), to make a universe that is more evil than it needs to be?
My point is that the world could be much worse than it is. You said "how do we know that there couldn't be less evil in the world." If the world was less evil than it does now, how would you know? Your control group and your sample are the same. Second, your assumption that "the well-being of the universe" means less evil than that which currently exists predicates on your first point, and again, what makes you think that, because of God's influence, the universe doesn't have less evil than it would if he chose not to influence it?
What you're likely getting at is "If God exists, why does evil exist?" There are more eloquent writers than me out there who can debate this point, but suffice to say that, from a Christian viewpoint, earthly pain continues so that God can give us a chance to wake up and realise that we need him. If the earth was a more pleasant place to live, why would we need God?
Shit! I didn't know that you were God! You seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent. You are not a good substitute for God, because you don't really know what your child will do. God does. God not only knows what your child will do, he set the universe in motion (therefore, he created your child), and he knows exactly how it will play out. So if God tells your child not to do something, and your child does anyway, God would have known this at the moment he set the universe in motion. Therefore, whatever your child does, it is really God's fault.
So what you're telling me that we are all absolved of responsibility simply because God created us? If you're driving on the freeway and a policeman pulls you over, do you say, "Well, my parents created me, so it's their fault that I'm speeding?" God bears responsibility for creating us, and as a result of free will some of us will be with God for eternity and some will not. But that's not the same as saying that all sin is God's fault, as that doesn't necessarily follow - God didn't create sin, as the definition of sin is disobedience to God.
I'm still waiting for someone to justify God's existence based on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. That one would win brownie points in my book!
Reason one - how do we know that there couldn't be less evil in the world, but still enough to demand moral choices. This might not be the best of all possible worlds, there could be better, and without a way to prove that all evil is necessary evil, there's no way to justify said evil.
How do you know that there isn't less evil in the world? What's your baseline?
Reason two - if god created the world and all in it, and has perfect knowledge of creation, and basically set all the constants for the physical world, then god would know how everything would turn out all the way from the beginning, knowing the complete existence of creation just by setting it in motion. This point questions the idea that people have free will at all, that we can make any choice differently than how god planned it, since he set the whole thing up and in motion, knowing how it would turn out. An actually belief in this sort of creationism would rescind responsibility from humanity, not endow us with it.
Do you have children? If I turn on my TV and tell my two-year-old not to watch it, he might have a choice about whether he'll watch it or not, but I'm reasonably certain that he will, despite what I say. Just because I knew what was going to happen, it doesn't mean that it still wasn't his choice to watch TV. In other words, omnipotence and free will aren't mutually exclusive.
The parent doesn't make this distinction. The parent starts his rant with "We have a whole irrational damn-near religious awe of credentials and enormous stigma against those who do not possess this 'sacred currency...'" "Credentials" included professional degrees as much as it does liberal arts degrees. I agree with you, but that's not the point the parent was trying to make - and what I was calling him on.
You are deemed more or less worthy by how well you navigated some arbitrary designed academic obstacle course that may or most likely - may not have interested you because of the stale (or incorrect) way it was presented and the stifling of natural curiosity that happens in how children are taught today.
Well, I'll tell you what: any day of the week, if I was in a serious car accident, I'd take a surgeon with a piece of paper from an arbitrary designed academic obstacle course than an unemployed, uneducated individual with mere natural curiosity as his only credentials.
I haven't used either program, but I read most of the review, especially the part about performance.. but their test hardware was a macbook pro and a g5. Neither one of those can have a particularly stellar video card. They don't specify the g5's video card, but I'm guessing it's as out of date as the machine. and the x1600 in the macbook pro isn't a screamer.
Isn't that the point? Not all of us have screaming fast computers or even top-of-the-line video cards, but I, for one, have a C2D iMac with a x1600 video card. Photographers, as a post above me pointed out, like to shell out the big bucks for important items like cameras, lenses, filters, and tripods; processing equipment doesn't need to be top of the line. The point is that Aperture is pretty painful on a slower system, but Lightroom looks to work well on mid-range systems, which is what people (like me) are excited about.
It might be, if it were even possible. You can't sue anyone for copyright infringement in small claims court.
But according to the MPAA itself, downloading films is stealing. If downloading films is "stealing," it stands to reason that downloading software is "stealing" too. Wonder how that would hold up in small claims court.
That argument might be true in a paper encyclopedia, but in an online encyclopedia? So long as there's no links between "important" pieces of knowledge and pages on Worf or Bashir, what's the harm?
Yeah, what he said! Those three games (MOO, MOM, and Colonization), along with Civ1 and the Mars scenario for Civ2, sucked more of my life away than university. I'm still fricking pissed about SimTex folding before they released their mecha strategy game... uh, MechLords, I think it was supposed to be called. I sent Chips & Bits some $30 USD for a preorder of the game. Dammit. I'm going to go cry in a corner now.
Really? In one, somebody downloads a song and listens to it without paying for it. In another, somebody downloads a song and uses it to create their own song. It would seem to me that the root problem of both issues is the same.
Being an online-posting musician myself what rights do I have if this should ever happen to me, and what can be done to raise awareness about such things?
Um, I don't know... how about not posting your songs online for everybody to download? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here: if you don't want people to use your stuff, don't let people listen to it? Alternatively, DRM your music. You're facing the same problems that record-label musicians face every day, how to combat piracy, and they're fighting a losing battle.
Firstly, there's the moral question. How bad must a government be before military action is justified? No government is perfect; even those of relatively liberal and democratic countries like mine commit acts that are outrageous and criminal from time to time. Come to that, my country has nukes, and even has the distinction of having pretty much invented the concentration camp, while fighting in South Africa, and has performed tests on chemical weapons. How much worse must a country be before we're morally justified in military action? What makes NK qualitatively different?
1. Mass starvation due to governmental policy.
2. Closed door to Red Cross and other humanitarian groups.
3. Illegal (by international standards) testing on its own citizens.
4. Operation of concentration camps that are equivalent to those operating in WWII Germany - camps for which people were put to death in the Nuremburg trials.
For all four of these reasons together, something needs to be done. In my mind, this includes military action. The fact that North Korea isn't expanding is meaningless; their dogged pursuit of nuclear weaponry makes them a global threat to peace. That enough of a justification for you?
Closely allied to that, what gives us the right to change the NK government? There's no such thing as a World Policeman. Much as the USA might have delusions of grandeur (and of objectivity, and of invincibility), it's just another sovereign country. If every sovereign country who didn't like another one tried to invade, none of us would be here at all. What gives us the right in this case?
I'll forgive you for the assumption that I'm American. The question isn't "What gives our nation the right to impose our will on another nation," but "As fellow human beings, how long can we stand a government that tortures, rapes, and kills its own citizens?" Standing behind borders of nationality and rationalising inaction because of this is petty. People are dying because a madman lacks the fortitude to recognise that some of his citizens disagree with his methods and his results. This alone should give us the right to invade.
And thirdly, do we have the ability? I think the débâcles in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that enforced régime change is hard; even massive military intervention cannot force a government upon a people who don't want it. Are we so sure that all the people of North Korea would be immediately convinced of the moral rightness of an invasion, and give their full support to it? (Or, if not, do we have the military power to invade against their wishes and install a government of our own that would be just as despotic?)
This is your best point. Currently, an invasion of North Korea would almost certainly lead to the deaths of every citizen of Seoul, the capital city of South Korea (~14 million), as NK has thousands of artillery pieces pointed at the city. Even if the regime were to be toppled, we're talking about a country that has been propagandised for half a century and a citizenry that has known only two de facto leaders. I completely disagree with you that an installed regime would be as despotic as the one it would replace: when the allies finally conquered Germany in WWII, was the occupying government as despotic as Hitler's? Also, regardless of whether the NK people are convinced of the moral rightness of an invasion or not, it is in their best interest to ensure that Kim Jong-Il not continue his campaign of terror and brutality against his own people.
The situation in North Korea is very, very similar to that of WWII Germany, the worst excesses of Stalinist USSR, Pol Pot's regime, and so on. North Korea needs a regime change more than Iraq did. From your post, I'm pretty sure you didn't read the links I provided in an earlier post.
I don't pretend to have the answers to all of these question
Slashdot Mirror
This entire "article" is FUD. Say what you will about Microsoft formats, but so long as you're using Word, Excel, or Powerpoint (i.e. not Outlook), there's nothing to worry about. And for the record, I've tried importing the mail from an Outlook 2007 PST file in Outlook 2003, and it works perfectly fine. There's also apparently workarounds for importing 2007 PST files into earlier versions of Outlook - including 2003 into XP, 2000, and so forth - as described here.
I'm wondering how a quote ripped straight from the article merits "+1 insightful."
Old? The TrackPoint is still used on IBM laptops. They haven't even changed the default cap ("cat's tongue"), though they have added two new alternatives.
1) Balance of Power. It's not an educational game per se, but it's an excellent game that teaches about international relationships and the ramifications of your actions on a global scale. It's also historical, being that it's set in the Cold War.
2) Hidden Agenda. Same ideas, but focused on a national rather than international scale. The detail in this one is fantastic and forces the player to really think about what it takes to run a country.
3) Peacemaker. This one's more recent: lead either Israel or Palestine and try to balance peace with not getting fired.
Now, one might complain that these aren't educational games per se, but whether or not they were designed to educate, they do educate. That's good enough for me. (There was another game I thought about, the title of which I can't remember off-hand. It had to do with simulating Stalin's Five Year plans. Can anybody help me out here?)
I think once the court officers turn over the RAM to the guys in charge of the computer forensics lab, the techies there will have a good laugh and explain exactly what "RAM" is. I doubt anybody will get in trouble because a judge doesn't know a PS/2 port from a SATA connector.
I'm in no way defending textbook publishers, but perhaps they can afford to sell $20 books in India because North Americans pay $130 for the same book. As an English major, all of my "textbooks" could usually be either found a) in the public domain, or b) heavily discounted at Amazon.com, so I never concerned myself with the economics of textbook publishing.
You're both right: it's sacrilicious!
MacBook Pro 2008:
-Goes pretty fast
-Can hold stuff in memory
-Average sized hard drive
-Displays many, many colors
-Some type of media drive
-Available for more than a couple hundred dollars
Apple: Computer Specifications for the Rest of Us
The last time I downloaded America's Army, it was over 2GB, so it's not just patches, but legitimate game content.
If I decide to buy several dozen full-quality albums (.wavs) from Magnatune, and go over the 5GB limit, I'll be cut off because they assume that I'm pirating movies?
My point is that the world could be much worse than it is. You said "how do we know that there couldn't be less evil in the world." If the world was less evil than it does now, how would you know? Your control group and your sample are the same. Second, your assumption that "the well-being of the universe" means less evil than that which currently exists predicates on your first point, and again, what makes you think that, because of God's influence, the universe doesn't have less evil than it would if he chose not to influence it?
What you're likely getting at is "If God exists, why does evil exist?" There are more eloquent writers than me out there who can debate this point, but suffice to say that, from a Christian viewpoint, earthly pain continues so that God can give us a chance to wake up and realise that we need him. If the earth was a more pleasant place to live, why would we need God?
So what you're telling me that we are all absolved of responsibility simply because God created us? If you're driving on the freeway and a policeman pulls you over, do you say, "Well, my parents created me, so it's their fault that I'm speeding?" God bears responsibility for creating us, and as a result of free will some of us will be with God for eternity and some will not. But that's not the same as saying that all sin is God's fault, as that doesn't necessarily follow - God didn't create sin, as the definition of sin is disobedience to God.
Which one? There are two.
How do you know that there isn't less evil in the world? What's your baseline?
Do you have children? If I turn on my TV and tell my two-year-old not to watch it, he might have a choice about whether he'll watch it or not, but I'm reasonably certain that he will, despite what I say. Just because I knew what was going to happen, it doesn't mean that it still wasn't his choice to watch TV. In other words, omnipotence and free will aren't mutually exclusive.
Why not?
The parent doesn't make this distinction. The parent starts his rant with "We have a whole irrational damn-near religious awe of credentials and enormous stigma against those who do not possess this 'sacred currency...'" "Credentials" included professional degrees as much as it does liberal arts degrees. I agree with you, but that's not the point the parent was trying to make - and what I was calling him on.
Is this what you're looking for?
Well, I'll tell you what: any day of the week, if I was in a serious car accident, I'd take a surgeon with a piece of paper from an arbitrary designed academic obstacle course than an unemployed, uneducated individual with mere natural curiosity as his only credentials.
Isn't that the point? Not all of us have screaming fast computers or even top-of-the-line video cards, but I, for one, have a C2D iMac with a x1600 video card. Photographers, as a post above me pointed out, like to shell out the big bucks for important items like cameras, lenses, filters, and tripods; processing equipment doesn't need to be top of the line. The point is that Aperture is pretty painful on a slower system, but Lightroom looks to work well on mid-range systems, which is what people (like me) are excited about.
But according to the MPAA itself, downloading films is stealing. If downloading films is "stealing," it stands to reason that downloading software is "stealing" too. Wonder how that would hold up in small claims court.
That argument might be true in a paper encyclopedia, but in an online encyclopedia? So long as there's no links between "important" pieces of knowledge and pages on Worf or Bashir, what's the harm?
Some people are extremely sensitive to the high pitched buzz that *all* CRTs emit. I went LCD as soon as I could and haven't looked (heard?) back.
Yeah, what he said! Those three games (MOO, MOM, and Colonization), along with Civ1 and the Mars scenario for Civ2, sucked more of my life away than university. I'm still fricking pissed about SimTex folding before they released their mecha strategy game... uh, MechLords, I think it was supposed to be called. I sent Chips & Bits some $30 USD for a preorder of the game. Dammit. I'm going to go cry in a corner now.
Yeah, one word: Starforce.
Really? In one, somebody downloads a song and listens to it without paying for it. In another, somebody downloads a song and uses it to create their own song. It would seem to me that the root problem of both issues is the same.
Um, I don't know... how about not posting your songs online for everybody to download? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here: if you don't want people to use your stuff, don't let people listen to it? Alternatively, DRM your music. You're facing the same problems that record-label musicians face every day, how to combat piracy, and they're fighting a losing battle.
1. Mass starvation due to governmental policy.
2. Closed door to Red Cross and other humanitarian groups.
3. Illegal (by international standards) testing on its own citizens.
4. Operation of concentration camps that are equivalent to those operating in WWII Germany - camps for which people were put to death in the Nuremburg trials.
For all four of these reasons together, something needs to be done. In my mind, this includes military action. The fact that North Korea isn't expanding is meaningless; their dogged pursuit of nuclear weaponry makes them a global threat to peace. That enough of a justification for you?
I'll forgive you for the assumption that I'm American. The question isn't "What gives our nation the right to impose our will on another nation," but "As fellow human beings, how long can we stand a government that tortures, rapes, and kills its own citizens?" Standing behind borders of nationality and rationalising inaction because of this is petty. People are dying because a madman lacks the fortitude to recognise that some of his citizens disagree with his methods and his results. This alone should give us the right to invade.
This is your best point. Currently, an invasion of North Korea would almost certainly lead to the deaths of every citizen of Seoul, the capital city of South Korea (~14 million), as NK has thousands of artillery pieces pointed at the city. Even if the regime were to be toppled, we're talking about a country that has been propagandised for half a century and a citizenry that has known only two de facto leaders. I completely disagree with you that an installed regime would be as despotic as the one it would replace: when the allies finally conquered Germany in WWII, was the occupying government as despotic as Hitler's? Also, regardless of whether the NK people are convinced of the moral rightness of an invasion or not, it is in their best interest to ensure that Kim Jong-Il not continue his campaign of terror and brutality against his own people.
The situation in North Korea is very, very similar to that of WWII Germany, the worst excesses of Stalinist USSR, Pol Pot's regime, and so on. North Korea needs a regime change more than Iraq did. From your post, I'm pretty sure you didn't read the links I provided in an earlier post.