I was aware (loosely) of the others, and had read the Wikipedia articles on this. The luteran position on this one is new to me. Sorry I don't personally know any Lutherans.
Lutheran: Christ is really present "in, with and under" the bread and wine at the moment of receiving communion (no Eucharistic adoration)
This is really interesting. I spoke to someone else who knows more on this than I (forgive me for not trusting Wikipedia completely), and she confirmed that was Luther's position. So Luther never really diverged significantly from the Roman Catholic position. So I am clearly wrong in stating the the Lutheran church has departed from Luther's position. I assumed that there was greater uniformity in the different reformation churches.
What was further interesting about this is that before Luther there were a number of English reformers who disagreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Wycliffe being one of these. The Anglican, Baptist, Quaker, Methodists were descended largely from the English church, so we can see some line of decent in the theology.
This is clearly an interesting area and worthy of further research. I think I'll hunt down some histories on it.
If they do, they have regressed since 1517. Luther triggered the reformation on issues like this one. Certainly in England transubstantiation (literal changing of bread and wine to body and blood) was a hot topic, largley because this treatment of the bread and wine was considered idolatry. People in England were burnt at the stake over this one.
As far as I am aware only the Roman Catholic church believes in transubstantiation. Possibly some of the more Anglo-Catholic sections of the Anglican/Church of England/Episcopalian churches might follow this trend.
I'm cancelling my new shipment of new AMD machines as soon as I get to the office this morning.
In that case I am putting in a new shipment order for/pinkie to mouth/ one million AMD desktops.
It must stroke your ego to think that you are in a position to order computers. To think that people listen to you enough to dump an entire order on your say say.
It must be better than being paid by intel to astroturf on web forums from your mother's basement, the screen reflecting on your palid skin.
So what... they kill them, bring them back to life, and kill them again? That explains the concept of being given multiple sentences of death;)
It could also be very convenient. Suppose not all the grieving relatives were able to make it to the execution. You could stage it again, possibly even closer to their homes. Think of the possibilities.
OK, I'll go sit in the corner and take my sense of humour with me.
To make it look adequate on a Palm: 1. Download etext 2. Run through gut.pl (http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/gut/) - followed by deleting the legal stuff if you like 3. Convert to Plucker / iSilo or whatever you like 4. Read
You missed step 3.1: 3.1 Throw away your palm and read them one something that has a decent sized screen. I have a Tungesten E, and the screen is just not big enough to actually read anything of any size. Maybe it is because I am quite a fast reader, but still.
Because, as we all know, GNOME runs *great* with 128MB of memory. And of course, Mac OS X is absolutely smooth on 128MB as well.
You don't *have* to run gnome as your window manager for Linux. There are other, lighter weight window managers (icewm, xfce, blackbox to name a few). With windows, you don't really have a choice.
French intelligence agents sunk the Rainbow Warrior (killing one person IIRC) in Auckland harbour.
This is not equivalent to Freedom Fries. This was state sanctioned murder. I have book that describes the forensic evidence that describes the case against the French agents.
"Built by the Crusaders in 1150, it took 100 years to complete. Despite its formidable position and 4000 strong garrison, it fell to Sultan Baibars in 1271"
This is the end of a long list of people who should be blamed, software companies are included in this list. For you convenience (saving you the trouble of actually going and reading the article), I've reproduced the list here:
There's enough blame for everyone.
Blame the users who don't secure their systems and applications.
Blame the vendors who write and distribute insecure shovel-ware.
Blame the sleazebags who make their living infecting innocent people with spyware, or sending spam.
Blame Microsoft for producing an operating system that is bloated and has an ineffective permissions model and poor default configurations.
Blame the IT managers who overrule their security practitioners' advice and put their systems at risk in the interest of convenience. Etc.
Truly, the only people who deserve a complete helping of blame are the hackers. Let's not forget that they're the ones doing this to us. They're the ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and [the] right to privacy.
Many people today point at the U.S. and use actions from WWII in their arguments regarding U.S. actions today. Of course, they only do themselves and their arguments a disservice. Allied Europeans helped to build the bombs, provided resources, condoned their use, etc. It was a question of justification at the time; it was just survival. In fact, those primitive nuclear weapons did far less damage than the many firebombings during WWII. They were something people had never seen. It was shocking and terrible. It was a more effective terrorism than the firebombing that had been engaged in previously. The firebombing that was initiated by the European Allies.
I know I am not addressing your main point, but the firebombings of Japan did far more damage than the firebombings of Germany. More people were killed in a single firebombing raid on Tokoyo, than were killed by both atomic bombs.
OTOH, since the discussion here is veering all over the place, I submit that the current U.S. administration's discussion about deploying tactical nukes is pure fucking insanity and clearly shows just how stupid and ignorant they are, and further that the administration's lying to the public to further its agenda is a clear fucking sign regarding its (lack of) integrity and self-serving purposes.
It is also rank hypocricy to be doing this while simultaneously telling Iran and Nth Korea they can't have nukes.
- Didn't the Russian have far better equipment than the Japanese: Yes, the Russians had just fought a war against Germany, the Japanese had fought against peasants.
Just to add a little comment to this. During the invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese twice deliberately crossed into Russian territory and were soundly beaten. We already had a display of what might happend if the two armies met.
If you plan on doing some heavy command line work on someone elses computer, bring your profile file. It's a tiny text file that could easily be kept in a public place.
First off, you don't often plan to do this kind of work. In the course of general life these things can sneak up on you. So I would need to carry around your profile file everywhere. Probably on floppy, USB key and CD, so as to have it available on all machines. And I'd need to be able to transfer it over terminal service to whatever server I was working on at the time.
Ok so I am being a little extreme, but I do have better things to do in life than carry around the aliases monad. What if I had to do this for each application I used?
2. Re-install, have to realias it.
No, you don't. Your aliases are maintained seperately. See Bash and.bashrc
You are somehow suggesting that when I reformat and re-install, monad keeps my settings?
The point I am making is that good defaults are *very* important, because for most people that is all they will use, and in general it is often inconvenient to use anything other than the defaults.
If you still don't like the verbose names, alias them.
It's that simple.
This is not a good argument. Default names become the standard. There are many reasons for this, but the top ones: 1. You go to someone else's machine, they have a different set of aliases 2. Re-install, have to realias it.
We really, really need to remove everybody in the House, Senate, and White House immediately, and restore the rights of the people.
No you don't. And before you mod me down, listen why. You say what happened in Iraq when the government (and army and civil apparatus) was removed? Chaos. Sure you aren't suggesting that you remove the civil authorities (everyone below the house, senate and White House) and the army, but you are still creating a recipe for chaos. You may not like it, but you are removing the people who have actual experience in running this country.
After reading a lot of history, I have come the conclusion that violent change generally isn't change. Sure things change for a little while, but is almost all cases things revert to the state they were in before the change. Real change occurs gradually.
The other one that is really annoying is the wireless config window that pops up to tell you it can't find a wireless access point. First off, I know that, the icon in the toolbar has a red X on it. And secondly, to close it I have to click a small X, anything else bring up the wireless config box.
Acutally I'll have to take that back about short circuit evaluation. I'm not sure where I got the idea that it couldn't. I think I wrote some code assuming that it could and get exceptions thrown. I'll have to dig further to find out under what conditions this occurs or if I just made a mistake and attributed it to the wrong source.
Really, it's not that bad to work with. In one way it's really nice, actually, in that nothing is hidden. In some cases that makes the code easier to think about.
I think you might be right. It is possible with more experience that this might feel rather more natural.
No short circuit evaluation? That does suck. I can see how someone might think it simplifies the language for dumb programmers, but real programmers have to hate.
Big time. Very annoying. C# also has a tendancy to be overly verbose, in a way that does not improve clarity. Short circuit evaluation is one of those areas. You also tend to end up with long statements: SomeVar.SomeProp.SomeFunc()
This is exacabated by the fact that everything is class based. So you never have a plain constant, everything is class based. So to get a NULL value, you need: DBNull.Value
Or for a carriage return: Environment.NewLine (as opposed to vbcrlf in vb)
The other area where this is annoying is the lack of templates (which mentioned before). Suppose you have a widget class. You want to store a collection of widgets (polymorphic, whatever), and you want to be able to add and remove items at will. Now you have two options, both relatively unsavoury.
1. Use an arraylist, which stores everything as an object, and so things must be cast back to their appropriate types when you pull them out. This is, in some ways, an accident waiting to happen because you don't know is acutally there, and need to handle the fact that, by mistake, a instance of class other than widget was pushed in.
2. Extend of the collection classes. I think that this is the recommended way. What is screwed about this is that you end up writing the same code again and again. Errors increase, and it is a waste of time. It does not increase clarity, and a slighly non-standard implementation of this might slip right under the radar. Microsoft: code duplication is bad mmkay?
I just don't think that 2 is a sustainable option, so I run with 1. What I really want are vectors, maps and the like.
Aside from that it is a pretty neat language. But I have to say, C++ is still my favourite language, particularly when you include the STL. It is just a pity I don't get paid to write it and I don't have the time to write it for recreation. I was working on an app that allowed you to do boolean searches of a collection of files. I haven't touched in a couple of years though:-(. Sitting at 1000 lines last time I touched it. This was before the release of the Google and MSN desktop search tools.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why so many people use European Stock as an example of what is proper and good for humanity.
Because they are currently on the top of the heap.
Next?
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
I was aware (loosely) of the others, and had read the Wikipedia articles on this. The luteran position on this one is new to me. Sorry I don't personally know any Lutherans.
Lutheran: Christ is really present "in, with and under" the bread and wine at the moment of receiving communion (no Eucharistic adoration)
This is really interesting. I spoke to someone else who knows more on this than I (forgive me for not trusting Wikipedia completely), and she confirmed that was Luther's position. So Luther never really diverged significantly from the Roman Catholic position. So I am clearly wrong in stating the the Lutheran church has departed from Luther's position. I assumed that there was greater uniformity in the different reformation churches.
What was further interesting about this is that before Luther there were a number of English reformers who disagreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Wycliffe being one of these. The Anglican, Baptist, Quaker, Methodists were descended largely from the English church, so we can see some line of decent in the theology.
This is clearly an interesting area and worthy of further research. I think I'll hunt down some histories on it.
And so the wheel of time turns.
Do you realise that early Christians were ridiculed as cannibals?
...formally chronicled in writing 300 years after the facts, on top of that...
More like 40 years.
If they do, they have regressed since 1517. Luther triggered the reformation on issues like this one. Certainly in England transubstantiation (literal changing of bread and wine to body and blood) was a hot topic, largley because this treatment of the bread and wine was considered idolatry. People in England were burnt at the stake over this one.
As far as I am aware only the Roman Catholic church believes in transubstantiation. Possibly some of the more Anglo-Catholic sections of the Anglican/Church of England/Episcopalian churches might follow this trend.
I'm cancelling my new shipment of new AMD machines as soon as I get to the office this morning.
/pinkie to mouth/ one million AMD desktops.
In that case I am putting in a new shipment order for
It must stroke your ego to think that you are in a position to order computers. To think that people listen to you enough to dump an entire order on your say say.
It must be better than being paid by intel to astroturf on web forums from your mother's basement, the screen reflecting on your palid skin.
So what... they kill them, bring them back to life, and kill them again? That explains the concept of being given multiple sentences of death ;)
It could also be very convenient. Suppose not all the grieving relatives were able to make it to the execution. You could stage it again, possibly even closer to their homes. Think of the possibilities.
OK, I'll go sit in the corner and take my sense of humour with me.
To make it look adequate on a Palm:
1. Download etext
2. Run through gut.pl (http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/gut/) - followed by deleting the legal stuff if you like
3. Convert to Plucker / iSilo or whatever you like
4. Read
You missed step 3.1:
3.1 Throw away your palm and read them one something that has a decent sized screen. I have a Tungesten E, and the screen is just not big enough to actually read anything of any size. Maybe it is because I am quite a fast reader, but still.
As far as I can tell, 53. I am not including plays I have seen, only plays I have read, or books I have started by not finished.
I believe that may parents would have somewhere between a quarter and half the books on that list. I certainly recognise a great number of them.
Because, as we all know, GNOME runs *great* with 128MB of memory. And of course, Mac OS X is absolutely smooth on 128MB as well.
You don't *have* to run gnome as your window manager for Linux. There are other, lighter weight window managers (icewm, xfce, blackbox to name a few). With windows, you don't really have a choice.
I suggest you read your sibling post.
French intelligence agents sunk the Rainbow Warrior (killing one person IIRC) in Auckland harbour.
This is not equivalent to Freedom Fries. This was state sanctioned murder. I have book that describes the forensic evidence that describes the case against the French agents.
He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.
"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.
"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.
I'd think: fantastic I have got more value than I expected, I get to read the paper without advertisments.
It takes a special kind of person to believe what he is saying.
There is a castle, located in the Middle East, that was so well designed that it was virtually impossible for an attacker to break in by force.
The castle you are thinking of is Krak des Chavalier. And I quote:
"Built by the Crusaders in 1150, it took 100 years to complete. Despite its formidable position and 4000 strong garrison, it fell to Sultan Baibars in 1271"
Like we're going to believe a guy who couldn't even swim the Atlantic.
Is this the new measure of believability?
Someone should RTFA.
This is the end of a long list of people who should be blamed, software companies are included in this list. For you convenience (saving you the trouble of actually going and reading the article), I've reproduced the list here:
There's enough blame for everyone.
Blame the users who don't secure their systems and applications.
Blame the vendors who write and distribute insecure shovel-ware.
Blame the sleazebags who make their living infecting innocent people with spyware, or sending spam.
Blame Microsoft for producing an operating system that is bloated and has an ineffective permissions model and poor default configurations.
Blame the IT managers who overrule their security practitioners' advice and put their systems at risk in the interest of convenience. Etc.
Truly, the only people who deserve a complete helping of blame are the hackers. Let's not forget that they're the ones doing this to us. They're the ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and [the] right to privacy.
Many people today point at the U.S. and use actions from WWII in their arguments regarding U.S. actions today. Of course, they only do themselves and their arguments a disservice. Allied Europeans helped to build the bombs, provided resources, condoned their use, etc. It was a question of justification at the time; it was just survival. In fact, those primitive nuclear weapons did far less damage than the many firebombings during WWII. They were something people had never seen. It was shocking and terrible. It was a more effective terrorism than the firebombing that had been engaged in previously. The firebombing that was initiated by the European Allies.
I know I am not addressing your main point, but the firebombings of Japan did far more damage than the firebombings of Germany. More people were killed in a single firebombing raid on Tokoyo, than were killed by both atomic bombs.
OTOH, since the discussion here is veering all over the place, I submit that the current U.S. administration's discussion about deploying tactical nukes is pure fucking insanity and clearly shows just how stupid and ignorant they are, and further that the administration's lying to the public to further its agenda is a clear fucking sign regarding its (lack of) integrity and self-serving purposes.
It is also rank hypocricy to be doing this while simultaneously telling Iran and Nth Korea they can't have nukes.
- Didn't the Russian have far better equipment than the Japanese: Yes, the Russians had just fought a war against Germany, the Japanese had fought against peasants.
Just to add a little comment to this. During the invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese twice deliberately crossed into Russian territory and were soundly beaten. We already had a display of what might happend if the two armies met.
If you plan on doing some heavy command line work on someone elses computer, bring your profile file. It's a tiny text file that could easily be kept in a public place.
.bashrc
First off, you don't often plan to do this kind of work. In the course of general life these things can sneak up on you. So I would need to carry around your profile file everywhere. Probably on floppy, USB key and CD, so as to have it available on all machines. And I'd need to be able to transfer it over terminal service to whatever server I was working on at the time.
Ok so I am being a little extreme, but I do have better things to do in life than carry around the aliases monad. What if I had to do this for each application I used?
2. Re-install, have to realias it.
No, you don't. Your aliases are maintained seperately. See Bash and
You are somehow suggesting that when I reformat and re-install, monad keeps my settings?
The point I am making is that good defaults are *very* important, because for most people that is all they will use, and in general it is often inconvenient to use anything other than the defaults.
If you still don't like the verbose names, alias them.
It's that simple.
This is not a good argument. Default names become the standard. There are many reasons for this, but the top ones:
1. You go to someone else's machine, they have a different set of aliases
2. Re-install, have to realias it.
Good defaults are important.
We really, really need to remove everybody in the House, Senate, and White House immediately, and restore the rights of the people.
No you don't. And before you mod me down, listen why. You say what happened in Iraq when the government (and army and civil apparatus) was removed? Chaos. Sure you aren't suggesting that you remove the civil authorities (everyone below the house, senate and White House) and the army, but you are still creating a recipe for chaos. You may not like it, but you are removing the people who have actual experience in running this country.
After reading a lot of history, I have come the conclusion that violent change generally isn't change. Sure things change for a little while, but is almost all cases things revert to the state they were in before the change. Real change occurs gradually.
Thinkpads too. Or at least my T41 has it, along with trackpoint.
Old code is subject to bit rot.
The other one that is really annoying is the wireless config window that pops up to tell you it can't find a wireless access point. First off, I know that, the icon in the toolbar has a red X on it. And secondly, to close it I have to click a small X, anything else bring up the wireless config box.
Acutally I'll have to take that back about short circuit evaluation. I'm not sure where I got the idea that it couldn't. I think I wrote some code assuming that it could and get exceptions thrown. I'll have to dig further to find out under what conditions this occurs or if I just made a mistake and attributed it to the wrong source.
Really, it's not that bad to work with. In one way it's really nice, actually, in that nothing is hidden. In some cases that makes the code easier to think about.
:-(. Sitting at 1000 lines last time I touched it. This was before the release of the Google and MSN desktop search tools.
I think you might be right. It is possible with more experience that this might feel rather more natural.
No short circuit evaluation? That does suck. I can see how someone might think it simplifies the language for dumb programmers, but real programmers have to hate.
Big time. Very annoying. C# also has a tendancy to be overly verbose, in a way that does not improve clarity. Short circuit evaluation is one of those areas. You also tend to end up with long statements:
SomeVar.SomeProp.SomeFunc()
This is exacabated by the fact that everything is class based. So you never have a plain constant, everything is class based. So to get a NULL value, you need:
DBNull.Value
Or for a carriage return:
Environment.NewLine
(as opposed to vbcrlf in vb)
The other area where this is annoying is the lack of templates (which mentioned before). Suppose you have a widget class. You want to store a collection of widgets (polymorphic, whatever), and you want to be able to add and remove items at will. Now you have two options, both relatively unsavoury.
1. Use an arraylist, which stores everything as an object, and so things must be cast back to their appropriate types when you pull them out. This is, in some ways, an accident waiting to happen because you don't know is acutally there, and need to handle the fact that, by mistake, a instance of class other than widget was pushed in.
2. Extend of the collection classes. I think that this is the recommended way. What is screwed about this is that you end up writing the same code again and again. Errors increase, and it is a waste of time. It does not increase clarity, and a slighly non-standard implementation of this might slip right under the radar. Microsoft: code duplication is bad mmkay?
I just don't think that 2 is a sustainable option, so I run with 1. What I really want are vectors, maps and the like.
Aside from that it is a pretty neat language. But I have to say, C++ is still my favourite language, particularly when you include the STL. It is just a pity I don't get paid to write it and I don't have the time to write it for recreation. I was working on an app that allowed you to do boolean searches of a collection of files. I haven't touched in a couple of years though