Add the US to your list. Just because they don't tell you the limits doesn't mean it's unlimited. One of the reasons we don't have any unlimited plans in Australia is that the advertising watchdog went after companies that advertised unlimited, and didn't deliver.
behaving provocatively a way intended to arouse the viewer
Care to define those terms so they are beyond question for us? I mean, there have been people who've said that skirts ending above the ankles are provocative, and there are people who can be aroused by just about anything.
So, what should God do? Prevent the molestor from attacking the child? Why is molestation a special case? Why not stop the mugging happening near by? Stop the boyfriend from bashing his girl? Stop the wife cheating on the husband she swore to be loyal to? Force the son to visit his sick Mum in hospital? Prevent people from spreading malicious gossip? Make every human dance like a puppet on a string because they shouldn't be able to make their own choices? Or destroy us all because whatever we do, we'll still cause evil, somewhere, sooner or later?
Where does it start, and where does it end? God's mercy lies in his not acting, because if he were to act, and act consistenly, act against all evil, it'd mean the end of all us. That's how Judgement Day is described in the Bible - when God's patience runs out, when mercy takes a backseat to justice. When everybody gets what they deserve. God's stalling, giving as many people as possible a chance to accept the amnesty Jesus offered, before we're all made accountable. That's mercy.
Basically, because if they did that, the hardcore torrent providers would all go out of business, and the torrenters would flock to the granny ISPs and start complaining about them.
Everyday users subsidise those who use more in the current system. That is why companies are trying to ban, or restrict heavy users. The more they do, the more profit they get. They don't want to cater to them - they want them to go away.
Firstly, if you're going to quote, get the quote right: "shouldnt you be off spreading religiosity to the fuzzy wuzzys or some such".
Secondly, if you're going to claim superiority to religion by virtue of reason, you should probably show a little in your posts, instead of resorting to name-calling and insults.
The second half of your post argues against the first. We build scaffolding when we're making bridges because we have a final goal in mind - a bridge. We want a bridge, so we create the scaffolding (which is useless), and build a bridge on top of it.
Evolution is blind - it doesn't plan. It picks out the most favourable adaptation, and runs with that. Some outliers may emerge - features that once were useful, but are now no longer due to environmental change, or that aren't useful, but aren't detrimental enough to have been selected out yet - but in general, evolution only selects things that are immediately useful.
Now, if you're saying that the scaffolding itself acts as a bridge, then you're not providing an accurate analogy of an allegedly "irreducibly complex" structure. The whole argument of irreducible complexity is that in order to get to the complex structure, it would require the selection of structures that confer no advantage. The "scaffolding" in your analogy confers an advantage - it acts as a bridge. Therefore, a structure which was created through the use of such scaffolding is not an example of irreducible complexity.
Note that I'm not arguing that irreducible complexity is true - it may be that there are no structures which meet it's definitions. It may be that for each structure put forward as irreducibly complex, you can put forward a series of steps in which every step is useful that would end up with the given structure. But your bridge example is just a way in which a structure is not irreducibly complex, not a way in which a truly irreducibly complex structure could have evolved (which is what needs to be demonstrated to invalidate irreducible complexity as a concept, rather than just invalidating possible examples of it on a case-by-case basis).
So what you're saying is "my threshold for evil is sexual predation - God should punish those I think are evil enough, but leave the ordinary liars or hypocrites alone". If you want justice, then what you're wanting is that God annihilate the world - because really, while we've got people running around here, there's not going to be justice, or peace, or goodness.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is merciful.
God's standard is perfection - and nobody's perfect. If you're demanding God wipe out all evil, chances are He'll start with you. I much rather it God's way - offering humanity a chance at forgiveness and transformation, tolerating evil until it can be redeemed.
Er, but how did that original complexity that this feature devolved from come about? Wouldn't it have had to evolve too? Yeah, when you're talking about an already-existing complex organism, evolution can involve removing or simplifying existing structures. But if you're talking about how complex organisms came to be in the first place, then it's always a progression from simple to complex - unless you're positing that complex structures just suddenly appeared (i.e. creationism).
No. Understanding scientific facts requires an amount of thought and analysis. Accepting them takes just as much thought as any other dogma. While those who actually perform the science may not see it that way, for most of the population, it's become a drop-in replacement for religion. Instead of "the Bible says" it's "science says", and they accept either with equal equanimity.
So are we to throw out all patents because anyone who is an expert would consider a new invention to be trivial and obvious?
Frankly, yes. If an implentation is obvious, why would I be interested in paying for it? (Me being the public in general, and the method of payment being a time-limited monopoly on use of the concept).
Patents should never be awarded for small, iterative improvements in design that are obvious to any person with knowledge of the field. Patents should be awarded for concepts that, if the patent-holder didn't come up with them, would conceivably never have been thought of.
No, they say unlimited. They don't say unlimited sites, or unlimited protocols, they simply state, without any qualification, unlimited. If you mean that only certain things are unlimited, then you need to spell them out. That's just the way the English langauge works. There are limits. Their statement is false. They are liars.
Firstly, the vast majority of MMORPGs revolve around a time-grind, and not skill. And even then, much of the skill tested isn't yours - building a good build, crunching the skill numbers - these are all done by online guides. Throw in latency as a rogue factor, and I don't believe skill is any particularly large factor in most MMORPGs.
Secondly, I wonder how much people would like football if the winning team was rewarded with extra gear that made their victory next season even more likely?
WoW has become to AOL of MMORPGs, where any retard can get a 1700 arena score and be shining in purples.
Yeah. Heaven forbid that just *anyone* could get the most out of the game they pay to play. That should be saved for the elite, and everyone else should just be grateful little peons.
Referrer information is provided by the browser, and thus, is not trustworthy. it's useful for statistical information (with it's untrustworthiness accounted for), but for security? No way.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Perhaps you missed the "necessarily" in his sentence. Some car guys are good at business, yes. But just because you are a car guy, it doesn't mean that due to that fact you will be good in the car business.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
While it's certainly helpful to have the management know how things down below work, as the organization or project grows larger this becomes less and less practical, down to downright impossible. The CEO of Ford knows what a carburetor is, but certainly can't identify the parts of one taken apart in front of him. That doesn't make him a bad CEO.
No, but he probably should know a bit about the jobs of the people directly under him. In a large corporation, the CEO isn't managing the people designing carbeuretors. He doesn't need to know anything about them - his role is too far removed from theirs. But if you're managing the carbeuretor designers, then you need to know enough about carbeuretors to pick the good designers from the bad ones, among other things.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I would have throught the best way to measure performance is in functionality/bug fixing, combined with some sort of rough syntax analsys so you can see how many bugs a person is introducing.
Probably. Thing is, to do that sort of analysis, you'd need at least some technical knowledge. Which is what this whole argument is about.
The thing is, once those pipes are dug, the outliers are just as profitable as the town center (on a per capita basis anyway. The outlay is a once-off cost, but the monopoly lasts forever. Neither of which matters in this case, because it sounds like the telco hasn't even bothered building the infrastructure, it just plans to in the future.
No, but you need to come up with an alternative consistent with your own views.
If the universe had some finite beginning, then there had to be some first cause. Science can't examine first causes.
The view that the universe always existed is likewise unscientific. You can't just say "it just is", and claim it as a scientific perspective.
If you believe in a universe that came about without divine intervention, it's just as much an article of faith as believing that God made it. That's what I meant by not being able to posit a universe without God. You can believe it, sure. And no, it's not up to you to prove or disprove God. But unless you have some scientific evidence (which, due to the nature of science, I believe is impossible), then your perspective is just as much an opinion as a deist's.
They're probably using gmail, hotmail, or some other web-based email system. Most people don't even seem to realise that stand-along email clients exist these days.
Slashdot Mirror
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
That's awesome then. All we need to do is train monkeys in decryption techniques and we're set!
Add the US to your list. Just because they don't tell you the limits doesn't mean it's unlimited. One of the reasons we don't have any unlimited plans in Australia is that the advertising watchdog went after companies that advertised unlimited, and didn't deliver.
behaving provocatively
a way intended to arouse the viewer
Care to define those terms so they are beyond question for us? I mean, there have been people who've said that skirts ending above the ankles are provocative, and there are people who can be aroused by just about anything.
So, what should God do? Prevent the molestor from attacking the child? Why is molestation a special case? Why not stop the mugging happening near by? Stop the boyfriend from bashing his girl? Stop the wife cheating on the husband she swore to be loyal to? Force the son to visit his sick Mum in hospital? Prevent people from spreading malicious gossip? Make every human dance like a puppet on a string because they shouldn't be able to make their own choices? Or destroy us all because whatever we do, we'll still cause evil, somewhere, sooner or later?
Where does it start, and where does it end? God's mercy lies in his not acting, because if he were to act, and act consistenly, act against all evil, it'd mean the end of all us. That's how Judgement Day is described in the Bible - when God's patience runs out, when mercy takes a backseat to justice. When everybody gets what they deserve. God's stalling, giving as many people as possible a chance to accept the amnesty Jesus offered, before we're all made accountable. That's mercy.
Basically, because if they did that, the hardcore torrent providers would all go out of business, and the torrenters would flock to the granny ISPs and start complaining about them.
Everyday users subsidise those who use more in the current system. That is why companies are trying to ban, or restrict heavy users. The more they do, the more profit they get. They don't want to cater to them - they want them to go away.
Firstly, if you're going to quote, get the quote right: "shouldnt you be off spreading religiosity to the fuzzy wuzzys or some such".
Secondly, if you're going to claim superiority to religion by virtue of reason, you should probably show a little in your posts, instead of resorting to name-calling and insults.
The second half of your post argues against the first. We build scaffolding when we're making bridges because we have a final goal in mind - a bridge. We want a bridge, so we create the scaffolding (which is useless), and build a bridge on top of it.
Evolution is blind - it doesn't plan. It picks out the most favourable adaptation, and runs with that. Some outliers may emerge - features that once were useful, but are now no longer due to environmental change, or that aren't useful, but aren't detrimental enough to have been selected out yet - but in general, evolution only selects things that are immediately useful.
Now, if you're saying that the scaffolding itself acts as a bridge, then you're not providing an accurate analogy of an allegedly "irreducibly complex" structure. The whole argument of irreducible complexity is that in order to get to the complex structure, it would require the selection of structures that confer no advantage. The "scaffolding" in your analogy confers an advantage - it acts as a bridge. Therefore, a structure which was created through the use of such scaffolding is not an example of irreducible complexity.
Note that I'm not arguing that irreducible complexity is true - it may be that there are no structures which meet it's definitions. It may be that for each structure put forward as irreducibly complex, you can put forward a series of steps in which every step is useful that would end up with the given structure. But your bridge example is just a way in which a structure is not irreducibly complex, not a way in which a truly irreducibly complex structure could have evolved (which is what needs to be demonstrated to invalidate irreducible complexity as a concept, rather than just invalidating possible examples of it on a case-by-case basis).
So what you're saying is "my threshold for evil is sexual predation - God should punish those I think are evil enough, but leave the ordinary liars or hypocrites alone". If you want justice, then what you're wanting is that God annihilate the world - because really, while we've got people running around here, there's not going to be justice, or peace, or goodness.
Correction:
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is merciful.
God's standard is perfection - and nobody's perfect. If you're demanding God wipe out all evil, chances are He'll start with you. I much rather it God's way - offering humanity a chance at forgiveness and transformation, tolerating evil until it can be redeemed.
Er, but how did that original complexity that this feature devolved from come about? Wouldn't it have had to evolve too? Yeah, when you're talking about an already-existing complex organism, evolution can involve removing or simplifying existing structures. But if you're talking about how complex organisms came to be in the first place, then it's always a progression from simple to complex - unless you're positing that complex structures just suddenly appeared (i.e. creationism).
No. Understanding scientific facts requires an amount of thought and analysis. Accepting them takes just as much thought as any other dogma. While those who actually perform the science may not see it that way, for most of the population, it's become a drop-in replacement for religion. Instead of "the Bible says" it's "science says", and they accept either with equal equanimity.
So are we to throw out all patents because anyone who is an expert would consider a new invention to be trivial and obvious?
Frankly, yes. If an implentation is obvious, why would I be interested in paying for it? (Me being the public in general, and the method of payment being a time-limited monopoly on use of the concept).
Patents should never be awarded for small, iterative improvements in design that are obvious to any person with knowledge of the field. Patents should be awarded for concepts that, if the patent-holder didn't come up with them, would conceivably never have been thought of.
You're right - it's just the 95% of them that give the rest a bad name.
No, they say unlimited. They don't say unlimited sites, or unlimited protocols, they simply state, without any qualification, unlimited. If you mean that only certain things are unlimited, then you need to spell them out. That's just the way the English langauge works. There are limits. Their statement is false. They are liars.
Not until they get it fixed anyway.
Firstly, the vast majority of MMORPGs revolve around a time-grind, and not skill. And even then, much of the skill tested isn't yours - building a good build, crunching the skill numbers - these are all done by online guides. Throw in latency as a rogue factor, and I don't believe skill is any particularly large factor in most MMORPGs. Secondly, I wonder how much people would like football if the winning team was rewarded with extra gear that made their victory next season even more likely?
WoW has become to AOL of MMORPGs, where any retard can get a 1700 arena score and be shining in purples.
Yeah. Heaven forbid that just *anyone* could get the most out of the game they pay to play. That should be saved for the elite, and everyone else should just be grateful little peons.
What, like MySpace?
Referrer information is provided by the browser, and thus, is not trustworthy. it's useful for statistical information (with it's untrustworthiness accounted for), but for security? No way.
Perhaps you missed the "necessarily" in his sentence. Some car guys are good at business, yes. But just because you are a car guy, it doesn't mean that due to that fact you will be good in the car business.
While it's certainly helpful to have the management know how things down below work, as the organization or project grows larger this becomes less and less practical, down to downright impossible. The CEO of Ford knows what a carburetor is, but certainly can't identify the parts of one taken apart in front of him. That doesn't make him a bad CEO.
No, but he probably should know a bit about the jobs of the people directly under him. In a large corporation, the CEO isn't managing the people designing carbeuretors. He doesn't need to know anything about them - his role is too far removed from theirs. But if you're managing the carbeuretor designers, then you need to know enough about carbeuretors to pick the good designers from the bad ones, among other things.
I would have throught the best way to measure performance is in functionality/bug fixing, combined with some sort of rough syntax analsys so you can see how many bugs a person is introducing.
Probably. Thing is, to do that sort of analysis, you'd need at least some technical knowledge. Which is what this whole argument is about.
The thing is, once those pipes are dug, the outliers are just as profitable as the town center (on a per capita basis anyway. The outlay is a once-off cost, but the monopoly lasts forever. Neither of which matters in this case, because it sounds like the telco hasn't even bothered building the infrastructure, it just plans to in the future.
No, but you need to come up with an alternative consistent with your own views.
If the universe had some finite beginning, then there had to be some first cause. Science can't examine first causes.
The view that the universe always existed is likewise unscientific. You can't just say "it just is", and claim it as a scientific perspective.
If you believe in a universe that came about without divine intervention, it's just as much an article of faith as believing that God made it. That's what I meant by not being able to posit a universe without God. You can believe it, sure. And no, it's not up to you to prove or disprove God. But unless you have some scientific evidence (which, due to the nature of science, I believe is impossible), then your perspective is just as much an opinion as a deist's.
They're probably using gmail, hotmail, or some other web-based email system. Most people don't even seem to realise that stand-along email clients exist these days.