From your post : Thats not what IP is for - foolproof delivery of packets is handled by connection-orientated protocols like TCP.
From the article:packet-based nature of Internet Protocol, which was not designed for foolproof delivery of messages.
I think you two actually agree. They are saying that IP was not designed with this in mind, and they want a system that is designed with this in mind.
(I'm not a network-type, I don't work in IT, and have squat for training/education in the field, so if whatever I say here is wrong, I won't be surprised one bit)
I'll buy into "private" and possibly "state", but I suspect that there are no federal programs in place to either hand out the Pill or condoms or what-have-you.
They are not all direct programs, many of them are grants to state health boards to pay (explicitly) for distribution of birth control methods. There was a recent stink in Kentucky about accepting the fed funds.
As for your contention that the primary opponent to nudity is religious groups, I disagree. Neighborhoods band to gether to keep sexually oriented businesses or indicated nude bathing areas out of their locale. The motivation may have its roots in religion, but that is not the same as allowing "relgious groups immutably dictate our social norms". That's overstating the situation a bit for the sake of rhetoric.
And by the way, there are a large number of nude beaches and bathing areas in the US as well. Many are private, granted, but they do exsist. As for crushing society, I wouldn't use France and an example of a healthy society. It opens the discussion up for waaaayyyy too many "Frenchie" jokes. (Just a joke, BTW, nothing against France. I wouldn't want to piss them off, they may use harsh words or something)
Read my reply above about the kids I work with. They get the knowlegde somewhere, and most of them say they got it at school, in class.
Also note that I said they teach "mechanisms of birth control", as in the Pill, condoms, abstinance, etc. I'm pretty sure there's more to sexuality than that.
I doubt that the baring of her breast was artistically motivated. If she was trying to make an artistic statement, she has made no indication of it since. If indeed it was no accident, it was a publicity stunt.
I work with a large number of kids, ranging in age from 12 to 18. A very small percentage of them are unaware of birth control, its implications and use (I know this because in the course of working with them, it comes up from time to time). Most have very age-appropriate knowledge; the only difference being in depth of it (older kids know about how it works, etc; they all know what it's for...the name kinda gives it away). Most tell me they learned in school. And this is Texas, where Bush was in charge for a while before. There are women's centers supported by state schools that distribute low-cost birth control (there's one branch down the street from my house, sells it for $5/cycle on a state grant), there are in-school sex ed programs, and so on. Granted, the focus of the sex-ed is abstinance, but the focus is certainly not exclusionary. And more recently, birth control is being discouraged for a very good reason: its use discourages condom use. The fact remains however, that it is discussed, and discussed early. At least in Texas.
As for the parental part, I agree with your sentiment. However, I want those other people who disagree protected, just like I would want to be protected when I have a point of view that many may disagree with. And as for your judgement on them for giving the nod to displays of violence but sheltering from displays of sex, I would argue that the juxtaposition of the two could be even more hazardous. (and IAAP, and my kids saw the halftime show, and I didn't even notice when it happened).
In reality, I am more disgusted by the fact that it was a cheap publicity stunt than by the fact that it happened. If it was an accident, fine. Take reasonable precautions to make sure it doesn't happen again, and let it be. I don't think seeing a boob is going to warp my son's brain. Hell, it was his sole source of nutrition for nearly a year....
Actually, I am even more disgusted that the cheap publicity stunt worked so damn well.
IIRC, the bill of rights in the US Constitution was written specifically because of the lack of such assurances under British rule. The Magna Carta did go a very long way for the assurance of certain rights, and it is a landmark in the history of government, but it did not "(define) freedom as everyone knows it". At least not how it is currently known. Also, your argument that the UK has freedom of speech due to EU laws indicates that this freedom has somehow been eroded in the 600 years following to its granting in the Magna Carta.
(And yes, I know that many of the freedoms that were denied the Colonists were denied to them simply because they were colonists. But many of them became colonists because of the lack of freedoms (specifically religious freedom) at home)
The fuss is about America's cultural inability to deal with sexuality in a constructive way.
Janet Jackson flashing everubody at the halftime show was an expression of "sexuality in a constructive way"?
As for the birth control statement, it is taught. At public schools, no less. In fact, there are private, state, and federal programs in place to distribute mechanisms of birth control to people, with a focus on young people. The first place I learned about birth control (as in the Pill) was in biology class at a private Christian school, over 15 years ago.
As for the disparity between cable and non-cable TV, it's a matter of expectation. Parents who choose to keep their children from this type of thing allow their kids to watch the Super Bowl, assuming that it will conform to a certain standard. Likewise, there are people who are themselves offended by the sight of nudity. These people watch the Super Bowl expecting to see a football game, not Janet Jackson's "See-look-I'm-nastier-than-Brittney-so-I'm-still-c ool-too-please-love-me" gag. These same parents make sure that other channels, such as HBO, Cinemax, etc are not available (i.e., they don't buy them).
Just like it's ok for a woman to strip down naked and hump a pole in a strip club, but it's not ok for her to do the same thing at a bus stop, for reasons beyond the simple infection risk.
Well, security through obscurity works, but only when the obscurity is at or very near 100%. In the Pentagon, no one is allowed to see the layout, and only certain people are allowed to interact with any part of it. The McVeigh execution was the same way, no one got to see any details of it. IIRC, the exact time/date wasn't even announced until the last minute.
However, in software you can't have that near 100% obscurity because large numbers of people have to use the software. Take the Pentagon example. If it was necessary for a very large number of people to have somewhat limited access to the building on a continual basis, the security would eventually break down. The floor plan would eventually be at least partially elucidated and this could allow further security breaches, leading to the discovery of more of the floor plan, etc.
The whole point of making software (like this) is so that lots of people will use it routinely. This high volume, routine use does eventually lead to a breach in the security of the software.
I agree that the flat, absolute statement "security through obscurity never works" is incorrect. However, that pure obscurity is exceptionally rare, alomst to the point of nonexsistence in the software world.
In the original, I mentioned the qualifier "at some point in the life cycle"
Sponges, other tunicates, corals and barnacles are free swimming as larvae. They only become sessile as adults.Reminds me of a favorite quote of mine regarding sea squirts (tunicates), which are, incidentally, the closest thing there is to a vertebrate that's not quite a vertebrate:
The juvenile seasquirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock or coral to cling to and make its home for life. For this task it has a rudimentary nervous system. When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain anymore so it eats it. It's rather like getting tenure.
Remember...the organism must fulfill all requirements listed. Remember also that heterotrophy refers to caloric food source. Venus fly traps, pitcher plants and the like use the insects they catch as a nitrogen source. Their caloric foodsource is still photosynthesis, making them autotrophs.
As for motion, what is described at the (broken) link is not the controlled motion I was talking about. I suppose I should have again been exceptionally precise with my statements; we're talking about transportation here.
Besides, none of these still meet the requirement of heterotrophy.
So I ask you again, what exact defines an "Animal"?
So, with an added clarification, I repeat: Heterotrophy, controlled self-sustained (transportational; as in for the purpose of moving from one place to another) motion, and obligate multicellular.
heterophagic : More common usage is "heterotroph" or "heteroptrophic"..I probably should have used that term. It's from the Greek roots, it means "to eat others". They are biological terms, not likely to be in your abridged Webster's. Sorry, I should have defined it in the original post.
It means that the organism's caloric food source is the consumption of other organisms. The "we are not a Kingdom unto ourselves" is a reference to the fact that we are members of the animal Kingdom.
And what plant (slime mold is not a plant!) "is capable of controlled, self-sustained motion at some point in its life cycle"?
But here's my question, what makes an "animal" an "animal"??
Any life form that is obligate multicellular, posseses distinct organ systems, is heterophagic and capable of controlled, self-sustained motion at some point in its life cycle is an animal. Humans are animals in the biological sense. We are not a Kingdom unto ourselves.
It's not just semantics. For scientists (and I speak as one), a hypothesis is an educated guess based on preliminary data. Basically, it's an unproven explanation of observations. They are ususally general, lack detail, are very testable, and are set up with a specific set of experiments in mind to determine its validity. A model or theory is the result of the testing of that hypothesis.
It is more than a semantic difference; saying you have a hypothesis means that it is preliminary and you have not proven or even tested it yet, but you have good reason to think that it might be true. A hypothesis is little more than talking out of your ass. A theory or a model is more advanced than that. It implies that you have conducted a carefully structured set of experiments to test your hypothesis.
A hypothesis is not the result of experimentation, it is the begining of experimentation.
The mechanism by which Botox works is precisely the same mechanism by which botulinum poisoning works. In both scenarios, the "effect" is acheived through flaccid paralysis of muscles by inactivation of nerves. Botulinum binds to and prevents secretion of certain synaptic vesicles, such as those containing acetylcholine.
The 'purified strain' they tout about is 'purified' in that is makes a lot of the toxin, so it's easy to purify. The reason people don't get killed by Botox injections is not that it's a modified version of the toxin, but that they give a low dose. As a result, the area of effect is smaller, but the effect is identical, all the way down to the molecular level.
The media of a modern hard disk is normally a thin layer of iron oxide over an aluminum substrate. I don't know how much iron oxide is typically used in hard disks (any engineers know?), but 1 mol of Fe2O3 would be 160g (~5.6 oz).
I imagine that the thin coating of iron oxide on the platter of a hard drive actually represents orders of magnitude less material than 5.6 oz.
I think we may have already acheived and surpassed this kind of information density. Does anybody know how much mass is represented by the media layer on a hard drive?
These will provide plenty of targets for the rover to study up close with its suite of instruments, which include a rock-grinder and microscope and a Mossbauer spectrometer.
You actually think NASA should sit on anything from Spirit until it has been published in Nature? Can you imagine the public outcry? Spirit lands, and they don't say anything except "Look at the pretty pictures! No, we won't tell you what we've found. Yes it is moving around and everything's working fine, but we won't tell you anything until publication. You'll just have to wait." The public would go apeshit. The people on/. would be out for blood. With a program this big, they can't sit on everything they find, it's just a fact of modern life. They are doing their best by keeping everything low key. Lots of "maybes" and "appears-to-bes" and "looks likes"
Even once it has been released into the peer reviewed world, it will be sensationalized. How many times has there been a panacea cure for cancer published in Science? If you read the NYT, you'd say dozens. If you read Science, you'd say never.
This is all true, I remember hearing about it and seeing it demonstrated years ago. Anybody that's in amateur astronomy is familiar with this, too. After a while, all of your charts look the same in red light or daylight. But that's not the issue here.
Although the evidence from elsewhere on his site is pretty good that this guy's a few bricks short, the problem here is not differences in human eye/brain color correction based on ambient light. The camera (or software, or whatever) is making the corrections in these images, not our eyes. If the calibration wheel looks different on the Mars image than it does on the lab image, you correct the color of the Mars image so that the it matches the lab image. That's the whole point of having a calibration device.
I think I finally get it now. Imagining it as a 2D surface alone, with no edges and no 3rd dimension made it a lot easier (waiting for a rational time to be awake helped, too).
So, everything moves apart, but there is no overall center. Any given set of objects will seem to be moving away from a given point, but if you add more objects, that apparent convergence point will change. The same thing if you watch them for very long.
That was my problem; I was always imagining from the exterior. There is no exterior, so you can't look at it that way.
I hope I got it right; it all makes more sense now...thanks.
Actually, their only limits are food and the Navy policy of 6 month cruises during peacetime. Oxygen isn't a limiting factor because electricity + water = oxygen (and hydrogen). Nuclear subs have no shortage of electricity. And water is pretty readily available.
I've heard both the baloon and raisin cake analogies before, and they both seemed overly simplistic. I guess it's just the constant referral to the expansion that gets me. If something expands, it is exanding froma point; even the balloon is expanding from a point, it's just not a point on the 2D surface.
You're probably right; as these things get more complex, they must be understood on their own terms. I guess I need to get off my butt and find a good book on the subject, then get back on my butt and read it. Any suggestions?
This surprise has nothing to do with distance from the "center" of the big bang, since there is no center
I've heard this before, and although I don't disagree with it, I've never been able to wrap my brain around it. It seems to me that any explosion has a center, or a point of origin. Even one that expands out into "nothing" like the Big Bang did/is.
Like I said, I don't disagree with what you said, I've heard it before by people who know a lot more about the subject than I do, I've just never been able to understand it. How can an expanding body not have a center? I can get it if it's just that we have no way of determining where the center is; that would make sense. But saying it has no center is another matter entirely.
I'm no physicist, so I'll leave the critique of this particular hypothesis to the more learned.
However, research into conecpts that turn out to be wrong or seemingly useless can be valid and useful, provided the hypothesis is founded in some modicum of real scientific observation. Even if the hypothesis turns out to be bunk, the observation is still valid, and the question is still valid. Therefore, the reserach that was done simply demonstrated what was incorrect. We can apply some of the lessons learned during that misguided research to what comes later on. We now know what doesn't adequately explain what is observed.
There's a quote from Edison, something along the lines of "Trying to create a lightbulb, there were not 100 failures. I found 100 ways to make a nonfunctioning lightbulb."
I may be mistaken, but aren't RSS feeds through http? I run the little KDE taskbar newsticker, and all the links I put in there start "http://". Not really a browser, I guess, but still http.
Besides, how do you get more info? Those little headlines don't do much for me. I normally want more info.
Actually, the old (1850s) idea that the Gulf Stream moderates European temperatures has come under fire recently. Many meterologists are now thinking that most of the poleward transfer of heat is done by the atmosphere, and not the ocean. Basically, it's the Rockies that keep European temperatures moderate, not the Gulf Stream. So you'd better watch out...if you don't play nice, we'll take the Rockies down...THEN what are you gonna do? Huh? Yeah, that's what I tought.
There was a paper in October of '02 outlining it. British meterological journal of some kind, I don't recall the name. There's a synopsis (probably with reference, just skimmed it) here.
That is a custom, maybe even a tradition, not a right.
He probably meant "rite", but was confused as to the spelling.
What does the religious meanign of christmas have to do with this at all?
As for the religious reference, IIRC it's an old Scot tradition. It was a custom that if a boarding house, hotel, or private home had room for visitors to stay, they would place a candle in the window so travellers would know that they could come in and stay the night.
When Mary & Joseph went to Bethlehem, there was no place for them to stay because of the census. Everything was full. As a result, Jesus was born in a stable.
The Scot tradition was that you placed a light in your window, left your doors unlocked, prepared an extra bed and set an extra plate at dinner on Christmas eve. This was to indicate that you welcomed Mary, Joseph, and Jesus into your home (or life). This is an allusion to "letting Christ into your heart", or becoming a Christian.M
And before yo flame me for all the religious stuff, the author of the parent post DID ask that specifically. Whether you belive the religion or not, that is the significance of it in the Christian faith. Although I doubt most Christians are aware of it.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article :packet-based nature of Internet Protocol, which was not designed for foolproof delivery of messages.
I think you two actually agree. They are saying that IP was not designed with this in mind, and they want a system that is designed with this in mind.
(I'm not a network-type, I don't work in IT, and have squat for training/education in the field, so if whatever I say here is wrong, I won't be surprised one bit)
They are not all direct programs, many of them are grants to state health boards to pay (explicitly) for distribution of birth control methods. There was a recent stink in Kentucky about accepting the fed funds.
As for your contention that the primary opponent to nudity is religious groups, I disagree. Neighborhoods band to gether to keep sexually oriented businesses or indicated nude bathing areas out of their locale. The motivation may have its roots in religion, but that is not the same as allowing "relgious groups immutably dictate our social norms". That's overstating the situation a bit for the sake of rhetoric.
And by the way, there are a large number of nude beaches and bathing areas in the US as well. Many are private, granted, but they do exsist. As for crushing society, I wouldn't use France and an example of a healthy society. It opens the discussion up for waaaayyyy too many "Frenchie" jokes. (Just a joke, BTW, nothing against France. I wouldn't want to piss them off, they may use harsh words or something)
Also note that I said they teach "mechanisms of birth control", as in the Pill, condoms, abstinance, etc. I'm pretty sure there's more to sexuality than that.
I work with a large number of kids, ranging in age from 12 to 18. A very small percentage of them are unaware of birth control, its implications and use (I know this because in the course of working with them, it comes up from time to time). Most have very age-appropriate knowledge; the only difference being in depth of it (older kids know about how it works, etc; they all know what it's for...the name kinda gives it away). Most tell me they learned in school. And this is Texas, where Bush was in charge for a while before. There are women's centers supported by state schools that distribute low-cost birth control (there's one branch down the street from my house, sells it for $5/cycle on a state grant), there are in-school sex ed programs, and so on. Granted, the focus of the sex-ed is abstinance, but the focus is certainly not exclusionary. And more recently, birth control is being discouraged for a very good reason: its use discourages condom use. The fact remains however, that it is discussed, and discussed early. At least in Texas.
As for the parental part, I agree with your sentiment. However, I want those other people who disagree protected, just like I would want to be protected when I have a point of view that many may disagree with. And as for your judgement on them for giving the nod to displays of violence but sheltering from displays of sex, I would argue that the juxtaposition of the two could be even more hazardous. (and IAAP, and my kids saw the halftime show, and I didn't even notice when it happened).
In reality, I am more disgusted by the fact that it was a cheap publicity stunt than by the fact that it happened. If it was an accident, fine. Take reasonable precautions to make sure it doesn't happen again, and let it be. I don't think seeing a boob is going to warp my son's brain. Hell, it was his sole source of nutrition for nearly a year....
Actually, I am even more disgusted that the cheap publicity stunt worked so damn well.
(And yes, I know that many of the freedoms that were denied the Colonists were denied to them simply because they were colonists. But many of them became colonists because of the lack of freedoms (specifically religious freedom) at home)
Janet Jackson flashing everubody at the halftime show was an expression of "sexuality in a constructive way"?
As for the birth control statement, it is taught. At public schools, no less. In fact, there are private, state, and federal programs in place to distribute mechanisms of birth control to people, with a focus on young people. The first place I learned about birth control (as in the Pill) was in biology class at a private Christian school, over 15 years ago.
As for the disparity between cable and non-cable TV, it's a matter of expectation. Parents who choose to keep their children from this type of thing allow their kids to watch the Super Bowl, assuming that it will conform to a certain standard. Likewise, there are people who are themselves offended by the sight of nudity. These people watch the Super Bowl expecting to see a football game, not Janet Jackson's "See-look-I'm-nastier-than-Brittney-so-I'm-still-c ool-too-please-love-me" gag. These same parents make sure that other channels, such as HBO, Cinemax, etc are not available (i.e., they don't buy them).
Just like it's ok for a woman to strip down naked and hump a pole in a strip club, but it's not ok for her to do the same thing at a bus stop, for reasons beyond the simple infection risk.
However, in software you can't have that near 100% obscurity because large numbers of people have to use the software. Take the Pentagon example. If it was necessary for a very large number of people to have somewhat limited access to the building on a continual basis, the security would eventually break down. The floor plan would eventually be at least partially elucidated and this could allow further security breaches, leading to the discovery of more of the floor plan, etc.
The whole point of making software (like this) is so that lots of people will use it routinely. This high volume, routine use does eventually lead to a breach in the security of the software.
I agree that the flat, absolute statement "security through obscurity never works" is incorrect. However, that pure obscurity is exceptionally rare, alomst to the point of nonexsistence in the software world.
Sponges, other tunicates, corals and barnacles are free swimming as larvae. They only become sessile as adults.Reminds me of a favorite quote of mine regarding sea squirts (tunicates), which are, incidentally, the closest thing there is to a vertebrate that's not quite a vertebrate:
The juvenile seasquirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock or coral to cling to and make its home for life. For this task it has a rudimentary nervous system. When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain anymore so it eats it. It's rather like getting tenure.
Remember...the organism must fulfill all requirements listed. Remember also that heterotrophy refers to caloric food source. Venus fly traps, pitcher plants and the like use the insects they catch as a nitrogen source. Their caloric foodsource is still photosynthesis, making them autotrophs.
As for motion, what is described at the (broken) link is not the controlled motion I was talking about. I suppose I should have again been exceptionally precise with my statements; we're talking about transportation here.
Besides, none of these still meet the requirement of heterotrophy.
So I ask you again, what exact defines an "Animal"?
So, with an added clarification, I repeat: Heterotrophy, controlled self-sustained (transportational; as in for the purpose of moving from one place to another) motion, and obligate multicellular.
It means that the organism's caloric food source is the consumption of other organisms. The "we are not a Kingdom unto ourselves" is a reference to the fact that we are members of the animal Kingdom.
And what plant (slime mold is not a plant!) "is capable of controlled, self-sustained motion at some point in its life cycle"?
Any life form that is obligate multicellular, posseses distinct organ systems, is heterophagic and capable of controlled, self-sustained motion at some point in its life cycle is an animal. Humans are animals in the biological sense. We are not a Kingdom unto ourselves.
It is more than a semantic difference; saying you have a hypothesis means that it is preliminary and you have not proven or even tested it yet, but you have good reason to think that it might be true. A hypothesis is little more than talking out of your ass. A theory or a model is more advanced than that. It implies that you have conducted a carefully structured set of experiments to test your hypothesis.
A hypothesis is not the result of experimentation, it is the begining of experimentation.
The 'purified strain' they tout about is 'purified' in that is makes a lot of the toxin, so it's easy to purify. The reason people don't get killed by Botox injections is not that it's a modified version of the toxin, but that they give a low dose. As a result, the area of effect is smaller, but the effect is identical, all the way down to the molecular level.
I imagine that the thin coating of iron oxide on the platter of a hard drive actually represents orders of magnitude less material than 5.6 oz.
I think we may have already acheived and surpassed this kind of information density. Does anybody know how much mass is represented by the media layer on a hard drive?
These will provide plenty of targets for the rover to study up close with its suite of instruments, which include a rock-grinder and microscope and a Mossbauer spectrometer.
Synopsis: There IS a microscope on Spirit.
Even once it has been released into the peer reviewed world, it will be sensationalized. How many times has there been a panacea cure for cancer published in Science? If you read the NYT, you'd say dozens. If you read Science, you'd say never.
Although the evidence from elsewhere on his site is pretty good that this guy's a few bricks short, the problem here is not differences in human eye/brain color correction based on ambient light. The camera (or software, or whatever) is making the corrections in these images, not our eyes. If the calibration wheel looks different on the Mars image than it does on the lab image, you correct the color of the Mars image so that the it matches the lab image. That's the whole point of having a calibration device.
So, everything moves apart, but there is no overall center. Any given set of objects will seem to be moving away from a given point, but if you add more objects, that apparent convergence point will change. The same thing if you watch them for very long.
That was my problem; I was always imagining from the exterior. There is no exterior, so you can't look at it that way.
I hope I got it right; it all makes more sense now...thanks.
Actually, their only limits are food and the Navy policy of 6 month cruises during peacetime. Oxygen isn't a limiting factor because electricity + water = oxygen (and hydrogen). Nuclear subs have no shortage of electricity. And water is pretty readily available.
You're probably right; as these things get more complex, they must be understood on their own terms. I guess I need to get off my butt and find a good book on the subject, then get back on my butt and read it. Any suggestions?
I've heard this before, and although I don't disagree with it, I've never been able to wrap my brain around it. It seems to me that any explosion has a center, or a point of origin. Even one that expands out into "nothing" like the Big Bang did/is.
Like I said, I don't disagree with what you said, I've heard it before by people who know a lot more about the subject than I do, I've just never been able to understand it. How can an expanding body not have a center? I can get it if it's just that we have no way of determining where the center is; that would make sense. But saying it has no center is another matter entirely.
However, research into conecpts that turn out to be wrong or seemingly useless can be valid and useful, provided the hypothesis is founded in some modicum of real scientific observation. Even if the hypothesis turns out to be bunk, the observation is still valid, and the question is still valid. Therefore, the reserach that was done simply demonstrated what was incorrect. We can apply some of the lessons learned during that misguided research to what comes later on. We now know what doesn't adequately explain what is observed.
There's a quote from Edison, something along the lines of "Trying to create a lightbulb, there were not 100 failures. I found 100 ways to make a nonfunctioning lightbulb."
Besides, how do you get more info? Those little headlines don't do much for me. I normally want more info.
There was a paper in October of '02 outlining it. British meterological journal of some kind, I don't recall the name. There's a synopsis (probably with reference, just skimmed it) here.
He probably meant "rite", but was confused as to the spelling.
What does the religious meanign of christmas have to do with this at all?
As for the religious reference, IIRC it's an old Scot tradition. It was a custom that if a boarding house, hotel, or private home had room for visitors to stay, they would place a candle in the window so travellers would know that they could come in and stay the night.
When Mary & Joseph went to Bethlehem, there was no place for them to stay because of the census. Everything was full. As a result, Jesus was born in a stable.
The Scot tradition was that you placed a light in your window, left your doors unlocked, prepared an extra bed and set an extra plate at dinner on Christmas eve. This was to indicate that you welcomed Mary, Joseph, and Jesus into your home (or life). This is an allusion to "letting Christ into your heart", or becoming a Christian.M
And before yo flame me for all the religious stuff, the author of the parent post DID ask that specifically. Whether you belive the religion or not, that is the significance of it in the Christian faith. Although I doubt most Christians are aware of it.