It is important for Wikipedia to not claim perfection but to claim attempts thereto for the sake of integrity (whether or not that is 100% obtainable as well).
the file system would take care of that for you and automatically handle associations with applications without messy kludges like file extensions or MIME types
It exactly this kind of perspective that causes me to absolutely hate Microsoft products: the OS knows better than I do as to what I want to do with a file.
Doesn't it stand to reason that if 'WinFS' was going to handle MIME data for me that it would also limit me as to what choice I would have concerning which program I could open a file with? Microsoft already loves to lock you into programs when it, at least currently, asks you which program you want use to open such-and-such file and then, by default, checks the 'Always use this program for this file type (blah-blah-blah)'. (Disclaimer: this is fine for convenience and it would seem to work better for the n00b, but what if the n00b is wrong about which file they choose and then don't know where to change the association, let alone don't know it called an 'association', etc. etc.?).
Ultimately, I get really tired of WinXXX treating like a fool. So, to help combat it, I like to name my text files with no extension. I wonder how WinFS would efficiently handle that? What if I did that to my binary packet sniffs?
Therefore, in terms of evolution, they are more successful.
This is untested and presumes both species 'showing up' at the same time. Such statements remind me of Evolution theory in general: untested, not provable, and, therefore, not law, despite it being treated otherwise.
I would surmise that 'sticks-in-the-mud' really is exactly as you described: perception and that against changing attitudes/opinions. So, if that's the case, what if the change is in the wrong direction?
an environmentalist libertarian (no, it's not an oxymoron)
Why would that be an oxymoron? Would it be any more so than a Republican Environmentalist? (retorical question). But, you should see how big organic gardening is here in North Texas.
Guess what: most species of cockroaches are even more successful than humans.
That explains why they (don't) have such great dominion over us: we go where they cannot go, we (in the U.S.) can often stop from going to where we are. That's some weak definition of 'successful' (I don't mean to say it's your definition).
It's all a matter of perspective: If you believe that humans are superior to all other life forms, then of course, humans should get to do whatever they want. Extinction be damned.
I couldn't disagree more. It's a common misconception that Christians and Republicans are environmental-hating (fill-in-the-blanks). But the truth is that the first National Parks and the Environmental Protection Agency were both the result of Republican Presidents (whether either were Christian, that's another story). What I, as a Christian, disagree with is that the environment often becomes more important than humans (eagle eggs are more important than unborn babies) or a political excuse, or worse, a political tool (Kyoto accords), for those who often are way too pessimistic and fatalistic or just looking to get themselves ahead.
From the Christian perspective, we are stewards who will be held accountable for how well we steward that which has been put under our power: the Earth and the creatures thereon/in.
But I do mean to cry hypocracy at those who take a moral stand without a moral foundation. You point is not so, but instead, you back it up with more than, 'It just seems right.'
By the way, that is a great scripture to bring to the table of stewardship.
I can believe that a rock is falling onto my head, but it doesn't keep me from avoiding it.
This isn't about you avoiding your death.
Natural selection does not imply lack of human intervention.
Exactly my point: the dolphins are a victim of Natural Selection in which the agent is Human. That being the case, why does the writer complain when Humans are the agents of Natural Selection? It's really a 'have your cake and eat it too' scenario where they can cast some degree of their moral responsibility by removing an ultimate accountability for their action. Which is usually the case when one believes in Evolution (the ultimate accountability part, that is).
Again, my complaint then comes back to why they complain: some sense of morality concerning how things should be. Just because such a sense exists goes straight into the heart of Natural Selection, that cruel, un-biased harbinger of success to the advanced and death to the weak: no morality involved.
You and your ilk will go about spouting on about 'Evolution this' and 'Evolution that' but give no mind to the fact that IF Evolution is real, then guess what: We, the humans, are on top of the game and when humans, in all our Natural Selection glory, get no pass for having come out on top. But, no, when the process of Natural Selection happens, you cry "foul!" as if there's something wrong with Natural Selection.
So, tell me, how is it you want your cake and to eat it to: Is Natural Selection (which you mistakenly call Evolution concerning the disappearance of this dolphin) the real deal or is it that we, as humans, have a moral duty to steward this earth and the things there on? And, if we have a moral duty: says who? You? God? If it's you, what makes you so right? If it's God, why do you go on about Evolution?
Choose sides:
If you believe in Evolution: shut up, natural selection is at work.
If we are, instead, moral beings: shut up about Evolution, because there's nothing moral about it.
As I post in all these threads: I'm for gay marriage, pro choice (though anti abortion I don't feel I can make the choices for others), for legal gambling (we don't live in a theocracy), pro legalized drugs and prostitution (what do you think Mary Magdalene was???) etc.
I'll try to keep it short:
though anti abortion I don't feel I can make the choices for others Well, I'm anti theft, extortion, and murder! Should those also be made legal? You just don't recognize abortion as infanticide (read: murder of a human), do you.
what do you think Mary Magdalene was???: She was repentant and demon free. The latter implying that prostitution and demonic activity go hand in hand.
Did you know that if, today, you went and tried to translate the original Genesis story into English today it could have 4 or more meanings? Obviously there is some consensus on the current meaning, otherwise the criticism would ring down through the ages, if not by someone in the 'Christian' West, certainly by non-Christian detractors who have come into enough contact with them over the centuries. Not only so, but reading-level fluency of Hebrew and Koine Greek used to be required for Protestant ministers; that makes for a lot of eyes examining those works and translations and making sure it's accurate.
In light of the above, you really seem more of the 'nominal' sort en contra a real Christian.
no severe economic or social regimentation and no forcible suppression of opposition.
True, there is no severe any thing, to me at least, going on here. But, the request is quite a social regimentation and suppression of a percieved opposition... or it's just really so far out there it seems to fall toward that catagory.
You make a technically correct, let's say, 'correction'. But, the point was the lack of fervor for condeming this 'radical' idea.
'Mr. Hankey' made the point clear as to why things are so quiet:
...What you're really seeing is apathy for problems that do not affect people directly.
Slashdot Mirror
Only 2 in 5?
O_o
Perhaps you should reread this part of that line:
(emphasis mine)
It is important for Wikipedia to not claim perfection but to claim attempts thereto for the sake of integrity (whether or not that is 100% obtainable as well).
"Smart businesses" will not migrate to Vista until the absolutely HAVE to.
On a side note: I wonder how much Microsoft would like to see those afore-mentioned companies' products replaced with their own?
Don't worry. Perhaps they'll release the blacked-out material as Word docs.
You'll be able to read everything then!
If this island has "been covered" (as opposed to having "sank") where are the rest of the islands that should also be completely covered by the sea?
Could it just possibly be an issue of that island sinking?
If not, then I think you've gone past blind faith.
That's a great idea who's time might come. Especially if application extensions continue to proliferate.
the file system would take care of that for you and automatically handle associations with applications without messy kludges like file extensions or MIME types
It exactly this kind of perspective that causes me to absolutely hate Microsoft products: the OS knows better than I do as to what I want to do with a file.
Doesn't it stand to reason that if 'WinFS' was going to handle MIME data for me that it would also limit me as to what choice I would have concerning which program I could open a file with? Microsoft already loves to lock you into programs when it, at least currently, asks you which program you want use to open such-and-such file and then, by default, checks the 'Always use this program for this file type (blah-blah-blah)'. (Disclaimer: this is fine for convenience and it would seem to work better for the n00b, but what if the n00b is wrong about which file they choose and then don't know where to change the association, let alone don't know it called an 'association', etc. etc.?).
Ultimately, I get really tired of WinXXX treating like a fool. So, to help combat it, I like to name my text files with no extension. I wonder how WinFS would efficiently handle that? What if I did that to my binary packet sniffs?
I'm confused as to why the editors gave absolutely no background summary concerning whatever this case is.
Why should it make sense when, in reality, it's a continuation of a separate, as it were, 'conversation'?
How long before the first class action suit in the U.S. over bad Web site design?
Sad... but, plausible.
Therefore, in terms of evolution, they are more successful.
This is untested and presumes both species 'showing up' at the same time. Such statements remind me of Evolution theory in general: untested, not provable, and, therefore, not law, despite it being treated otherwise.
I would surmise that 'sticks-in-the-mud' really is exactly as you described: perception and that against changing attitudes/opinions. So, if that's the case, what if the change is in the wrong direction?
an environmentalist libertarian (no, it's not an oxymoron)
Why would that be an oxymoron? Would it be any more so than a Republican Environmentalist? (retorical question). But, you should see how big organic gardening is here in North Texas.
Ok, that's plausible.
But, that would only address the kernel. It in no way explains the shoddiness that runs on top of it.
Nothing! They get C's on their own!
Am I in the wrong forum?
Guess what: most species of cockroaches are even more successful than humans.
That explains why they (don't) have such great dominion over us: we go where they cannot go, we (in the U.S.) can often stop from going to where we are. That's some weak definition of 'successful' (I don't mean to say it's your definition).
It's all a matter of perspective: If you believe that humans are superior to all other life forms, then of course, humans should get to do whatever they want. Extinction be damned.
I couldn't disagree more. It's a common misconception that Christians and Republicans are environmental-hating (fill-in-the-blanks). But the truth is that the first National Parks and the Environmental Protection Agency were both the result of Republican Presidents (whether either were Christian, that's another story). What I, as a Christian, disagree with is that the environment often becomes more important than humans (eagle eggs are more important than unborn babies) or a political excuse, or worse, a political tool (Kyoto accords), for those who often are way too pessimistic and fatalistic or just looking to get themselves ahead.
From the Christian perspective, we are stewards who will be held accountable for how well we steward that which has been put under our power: the Earth and the creatures thereon/in.
What if the current situation is one of decline? Should that then be maintained?
Improvement should always be the goal.
Please.
Here's some absolutes for you, that everyone must deal with:
Some absolutes are unavoidable.
Yes.
Not because we are dominant, but because of stewardship.
Correct. I don't mean to say otherwise.
But I do mean to cry hypocracy at those who take a moral stand without a moral foundation. You point is not so, but instead, you back it up with more than, 'It just seems right.'
By the way, that is a great scripture to bring to the table of stewardship.
Perhaps an Anthopology graduate would suit your taste? Oh, that would be me.
My black and white overlay on the topic is a matter of my choice and preference, done to bring focus. I suppose you also don't believe in absolutes.
I can believe that a rock is falling onto my head, but it doesn't keep me from avoiding it.
This isn't about you avoiding your death.
Natural selection does not imply lack of human intervention.
Exactly my point: the dolphins are a victim of Natural Selection in which the agent is Human. That being the case, why does the writer complain when Humans are the agents of Natural Selection? It's really a 'have your cake and eat it too' scenario where they can cast some degree of their moral responsibility by removing an ultimate accountability for their action. Which is usually the case when one believes in Evolution (the ultimate accountability part, that is).
Again, my complaint then comes back to why they complain: some sense of morality concerning how things should be. Just because such a sense exists goes straight into the heart of Natural Selection, that cruel, un-biased harbinger of success to the advanced and death to the weak: no morality involved.
So, human actions are outside of nature?
Shut up already!
You and your ilk will go about spouting on about 'Evolution this' and 'Evolution that' but give no mind to the fact that IF Evolution is real, then guess what: We, the humans, are on top of the game and when humans, in all our Natural Selection glory, get no pass for having come out on top. But, no, when the process of Natural Selection happens, you cry "foul!" as if there's something wrong with Natural Selection.
So, tell me, how is it you want your cake and to eat it to: Is Natural Selection (which you mistakenly call Evolution concerning the disappearance of this dolphin) the real deal or is it that we, as humans, have a moral duty to steward this earth and the things there on? And, if we have a moral duty: says who? You? God? If it's you, what makes you so right? If it's God, why do you go on about Evolution?
Choose sides:
I'll try to keep it short:
though anti abortion I don't feel I can make the choices for others
Well, I'm anti theft, extortion, and murder! Should those also be made legal? You just don't recognize abortion as infanticide (read: murder of a human), do you.
what do you think Mary Magdalene was???: She was repentant and demon free. The latter implying that prostitution and demonic activity go hand in hand.
Did you know that if, today, you went and tried to translate the original Genesis story into English today it could have 4 or more meanings?
Obviously there is some consensus on the current meaning, otherwise the criticism would ring down through the ages, if not by someone in the 'Christian' West, certainly by non-Christian detractors who have come into enough contact with them over the centuries. Not only so, but reading-level fluency of Hebrew and Koine Greek used to be required for Protestant ministers; that makes for a lot of eyes examining those works and translations and making sure it's accurate.
In light of the above, you really seem more of the 'nominal' sort en contra a real Christian.
Yeah, that
really bothered me too... especially since I started using Google in H2 of 1999.Also, the whois page on it has this to say about it:
True, there is no severe any thing, to me at least, going on here. But, the request is quite a social regimentation and suppression of a percieved opposition... or it's just really so far out there it seems to fall toward that catagory.
You make a technically correct, let's say, 'correction'. But, the point was the lack of fervor for condeming this 'radical' idea.
'Mr. Hankey' made the point clear as to why things are so quiet:
Which word? I already know what "is" is!