I don't think, though, that the default position is "use cloud computing unless you have a good reason not to," but rather should be "manage your data wisely," which cloud computing could fit into if there's a compelling reason to use it. Sure, I could set up offline synchronization and data encryption to put my data out on the web... but why should I? I don't think his concerns should be so easily dismissed.
Cloud computing makes sense for many web applications, etc. but I really don't see "it's the newest fad" as a compelling reason to assume that it also makes sense to fill every role. By comparison to traditional approaches, it's slow, dubiously reliable, and inherently less secure as a backup option. And it's slow, cumbersome, and less user-friendly than locally hosted apps as a client software option in most cases. Really, I think the biggest problem is trying to stretch it to applications it's not well suited for. Reminds me of the whole thin-client fad in the '90s.
Wouldn't it be great if someone came up with a way to take advantage of the value of your house to allow you to pay for improvements over time? We could call it a "home equity loan"... Seriously, I don't see the need for the state to subsidize home improvements, especially ones that will provide an economic benefit to the home owner over time.
What I don't get is why these features aren't more popular on new builds: at that stage, the added cost is minimized and will naturally be included in the buyer's mortgage and thus paid for over time. Maybe not always solar per se, but new homes built with insulated concrete forms and having geothermal-heatsink HVAC systems installed when the foundation is dug are becoming quite price competitive with traditional "stick-built" homes (dramatically reduced labor costs offset the increased material costs, or so I hear from a friend who's a home builder). The solar roof would still be a bit of an upgrade, but the energy bills are so much lower that the extra cost of such houses can be quickly recovered.
And directly across the street — in the exact same building as that Starbucks — there is another Starbucks.
Both across the street and in the same building? Do buildings in your city typically have streets running through them? I have seen Starbucks across the street from each other, and I find it rather absurd too, but they definitely weren't in the same building.
an extremely large number of business now refuse to accept $50 or $100 bills. I assume they would cite counterfeiting as the concern,
The $20 is actually the most commonly counterfeited bill, and everyone accepts those. I think it's more that they don't want to have to keep enough cash in the register to make change for every idiot who wants to use a $100 bill to pay for a $0.75 candy bar. The logic of the quite informative post below regarding UK rules probably applies here, too.
After all there's a reason you're not actually working in enginerring, when you're such a great engineer...
Or because in addition to understanding the technical details of the work, some people are also skilled at communicating the relevant aspects in an accessible manner. Not all engineers stay in "enginerring" - some, like Milton, have people skills!
Seriously though, as a research engineer, I'm quite glad that my thesis/dissertation advisor emphasized development of writing and presenting skills in addition to expecting good technical analysis. It's served me well, even as someone who's stayed as far towards the technical side of things as possible. On the other hand, plowing through the technical papers that some engineers and scientists publish, the language skills are simply terrible. When someone has the background and intelligence to understand the material, and is capable of writing it so as to have some effect other than inducing a coma in the readers, that's a valuable thing indeed! If some of them choose to work in sales and marketing, that's a plus for all of us. We can get more accurate information than a business or English major would likely be able to give us, but written so that lay people can understand the gist of it.
When a small percentage of engineers are good writers, and there are a great many engineers available, it makes sense that those few who can write well would do that while those who can't fill other jobs. Just because someone can do one job well doesn't mean he shouldn't do another job that he may enjoy more, and which many of his peers couldn't do as well as he can.
After Windows 3.0, Microsoft split the code base and released both Windows 3.1 (DOS-based) and Windows NT 3.1 (NT-based, native GUI). Windows for Workgroups (3.11) and Windows NT 3.5 and 3.51 came out next. Then there were the parallel Windows 95 (version 4.0 in the DOS-based lineup) and Windows NT 4.0. Windows 98 and Windows ME were versions 4.1 and 4.9 in the non-NT consumer line. Windows 2000 was NT version 5.0, and Windows XP was version 5.1, etc. as listed above. NT starting with 3.1 was to keep the numbering synchronous with the current non-NT Windows when it was released.
CS Lewis did the same thing so many hypocritical christians do - they say "well, that was BEFORE I became a christian." So much for the ideals of accepting responsibility for one's actions. Being "born again" or "retreaded" or whatever, does NOT give one license towards one's fellow beings, ever.
I'm not sure whether this is an intentional straw man or you completely fail to understand the teachings of Christianity, but the idea that anything gives license to sin is absurd. The whole point of Christianity is eliminating sinfulness, not encouraging it.
He was a devout and well-known Christian, yet he had been living in semi-secrecy with a married woman since he was 19.
... a mother of his friend, who was a sort of surrogate mother to him. What this has to do with his rationality I cannot begin to guess.
A hypocrite through and through... trying to deny his bi/homosexuality even from himself (and let me make clear here that there's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay - its normal for humans, just like many other mammals - what's wrong is being a hypocrite and throwing rocks at others as a way to hide your own proclivities).
One gay guy inferring secret homosexual temptations does not exactly constitute a resounding proof of Lewis' hypocrisy, but even if it did, it would still be completely irrelevant unless you're claiming that it is impossible for someone who did something he acknowledged was not morally right to be rational, which is rather an absurd idea. You do remember that this whole discussion is about your statement:
critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
... don't you? Perhaps I put too much credit in the idea that you might be capable of rational discussion. It's beginning to appear you have a chip on your shoulder about some aspect of God's existence and aren't approaching this discussion with a clear mind. The whole point here is that regardless of your emotional state, those who disagree with you on this issue (who are the majority of humanity throughout history) are perfectly capable of logic and critical thinking. Irrelevant ad hominem attacks against examples I raise of people who are clearly skilled at logic are not helping your case.
His marriage to Joy Davidman Gresham was mostly a scam of the British immigration system and then later of that nation's socialized medicine.
Not that it's any more relevant than the rest, but it is rather ridiculous if you've ever read A Grief Observed or are at all aware of his relationship with the Greshams.
Your examples of "people of science" who are theists, as justification is an "argument from authority", and fails Sagan's bullshit meter, or more politely, "Baloney Meter"
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
A counterexample to your claim is hardly an argument from authority. Regardless, arguments from authority make up nearly everything you "know"... certainly everything historical. And we're not discussing scientific observations, but critical thinking and logic. Even within scientific inquiry, there is an element of authority - you'll never read a technical paper without a review of the relevant literature at the beginning to give a background of what others have discovered that's relevant.
People believe because they choose to believe. There is no hard evidence to back up their beliefs. Just opinion, formed by cultural and social forces.
What a relief that you're here to tell us all that most apparently rational philosophers and writers or average people who claim to have based their opinions on some form of evidence are liars.
Also, "I reboot my computer... why should I have to reboot my computer?" I find it hard to realize that he wouldn't know the technical difficulties in replacing a dll while the system is running, and possible ways around this, and the current state of affairs. However, maybe I'm giving too much credit here.
Perhaps... but I remember Gates releasing statements pushing for drastically fewer reboots for updates, drivers, etc. when Windows 2000 (NT5) was in beta. I don't read the statement there to indicate a lack of ability to understand the technical difficulties, but rather to be emphasizing the ridiculousness of the required reboot from a user perspective. He's been advocating elimination of such reboots for years, not claiming that there are no technical difficulties, but that those difficulties should be overcome in order to provide a better user experience.
I should say examples abound, especially among the best and brightest in the sciences... Nearly all of the great minds in human history have been theists in one form or another.
Surprised by Joy is one of the few Lewis books I don't have a copy of. However, his description of his time at Malvern College (which his brother also attended and claimed Jack's description was exaggerated) was a recounting of a time before his conversion to Christianity. He was an atheist at that point in his life. His later writing makes it quite clear that he sees homosexuality as a perversion, and does not approve of such behaviors. He makes it clear throughout his writing that (consistent with Christianity) he does not consider himself to be a good man, but relies on Christ to transform him into one.
So, even if your interpretation is correct and your allegations were valid (though I can't even find other such allegations on the internet, let alone anywhere reliable), it's rather a moot point. He didn't approve of such behavior, and an ad hominem attack such as saying "but he was a secret gay rapist" does not speak to the logic of his arguments, even if such an absurd allegation were accepted as true. (I have some confidence in labeling the allegation as absurd, since even the most "homophobic" of those who disagree with him never accuse him of anything more than being friends with Arthur Graves, who was a homosexual.) Even if you have such a low view of Lewis, though, it is clearly absurd to say that critical thinking and logic were anathema to him.
If you don't like the example of C.S. Lewis though, any number of others exist. A sizable percentage of modern scientists (especially in the physical sciences) and engineers believe in God. Many even find evidence of God in their scientific discoveries. Take, for example, Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project, or Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a Jewish physicist who wrote The Science of God, or Dr. Albert Einstein, who was a theist if not a practicing Jew. Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and nearly all of the great early scientists were at least theists if not practicing Christians. Examples abound, even among the best and brightest in the sciences, both then and now.
Or, since "critical thinking and logic" are what's in question, take ancient examples within the Church such as the apostle Paul or Saint Augustine of Hippo - both of them could run circles around their opponents, when it came to logic. The thinkers of the Reformation, including Dr. Martin Luther and John Calvin could not be said to be illogical or lack critical thinking skills either. Nor could modern examples such as G.K Chesterton, Dr. C.S. Lewis (previously mentioned), et al. The proposition that theists find critical thinking or logic to be anathema is simply ridiculous.
Of course, critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
For that to be true, the majority of people throughout most of human history would have to have been incapable of critical thinking and logic. Perhaps you should reconsider your conclusion and consider the possibility that many of those who believe in God arrive at their belief based on evidence and logical arguments that they find convincing. An obvious, well-known apologist of this would be C.S. Lewis. Many modern scientists (especially in physics and cosmology) have also written on the topic of being led to some form of theism by the evidence they observe in their fields.
Rather than disabling version compatibility checking on Firefox for all extensions, edit the install.rdf file for the extension of interest. Find and change the value of maxVersion for the appropriate targetApplication. That way, you can force-enable extensions on a case-by-case basis without taking away the protection of checking versions in general.
I generally share your annoyance at the misuse of words.
You can be an open source fanatic, but you cannot be an open-source fundamentalist.
However, you can be an open source fundamentalist, and it might be exactly what he meant. A fundamentalist is someone who stresses strict and literal adherence to a set of basic (fundamental) principles (see Merriam-Webster's second definition - the one that doesn't specifically refer to modern American Evangelical Christianity). So, an open-source fundamentalist would be a person who stresses strict adherence to the basic principles of "open source." I suppose what principles those are is somewhat debatable, but if they include the idea that all software should be open source (or at least a preference that it should be if not a mandate), then his use of "fundamentalist" could be appropriate, if what he means is that they advocate strict adherence to these principles.
A "fanatic," on the other hand, is a person "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion." An "open-source fanatic" would be someone who is very enthusiastic about open source, and is uncritically devoted to it, not necessarily someone who advocates strict adherence to its basic principles.
Stop. Think about the meaning of the words you are using. Select correct words. Continue.
Exactly.
However, since you're pointing out flaws in others' vocabulary, I hope it will not be rude of me to point out a flaw in your own: an open source fundamentalist without the hyphen between open and source would be a "source fundamentalist" who is open. With the hyphen, "open-source" modifies fundamentalist. Without it, "open" modifies "source fundamentalist."
And what happens when someone who has downloaded the encrypted patch has his system compromised because you're waiting for some idiot who hasn't to do so before you'll release the key that unlocks it? In a worst case scenario, you could end up facing a class action suit for not enabling the patch. I don't know if such a suit could be successful, but I'd bet someone would try it. At present, if someone has failed to update his system with the latest patch, it's not Microsoft's fault. Under this system, if Microsoft was refusing to actually make the patch available to one until others have it, that poses ethical and legal questions. I'm not a lawyer, and can't say what the legal answer would be, but I'm sure the question would arise.
Where you got your degree may not matter much on the resume, but it can make a big difference in finding job opportunities, at least early on. Major companies recruit at the schools with large and good programs, and it's much easier to get an internship during school or a permanent job once out if you're in a place where a lot of people are looking to hire.
I'm an engineer, not a CS guy, but CS is the largest non-engineering department (3rd overall I think, behind ME and EE) at the university I graduated from (Missouri S&T in Rolla, MO). The career fairs they have every semester regularly draw over 200 employers, nearly all of whom are looking for engineering and CS majors, and the career center on campus is very effective. The placement rate within a few months of graduation is consistently between 95 and 100%.
The key factor there isn't just that people doing the hiring recognize the name of the school (though I'm sure it helps in some cases), but more importantly that you have the opportunity to make contact with the people who might hire you.
The Mustang debuted in 1965. Parts can be purchased for cars that old, but they're generally supplied by aftermarket companies, and only for cars where there's demand. The Mustang is very popular, but you'd have more difficulty finding parts for a 1960 Edsel, even though it's only 5 years older.
No one is saying that people have to stop using Windows XP any more than that people have to stop driving 1960's automobiles. This is more along the lines of the warranty running out, so the manufacturer doesn't provide free fixes any more.
It's not as if they're trying to invalidate XP licenses. They're simply saying "We're going to stop selling the previous generation product at this date, then stop supporting it at some date a few years later." This is what all companies do. You can't still go buy a new 2004 Mustang because you like the old bodystyle better than the new one. You can't generally go buy the old version of other software either, though there are some exceptions.
Likewise with support. The manufacturers don't supply parts for antique cars, and software companies regularly supply support only for recent versions of their products, with the answer "upgrade to the newest release" if people with old editions have problems.
Why would we not expect Microsoft to phase out Windows 5.x (2000/XP/2003) since Windows 6.x (Vista/2008) has been released? They'd be going against the norm for not only the software industry, but humanity in general, if they continued to offer the old versions indefinitely. Whether you like the changes in the new edition or not, it's hardly surprising that they'd phase out the old one.
If we're going with anecdotal evidence here, Einstein was a renowned pipe smoker, so... smoking must be the new wonder-drug for intellectuals. Maybe soon we'll see nicotene tests on college campuses just like we see steroid tests in MLB.
There was a celebration of the Resurrection long before the Church of Rome gained primacy in the West. Likewise with the celebration of the Advent. The English name of Easter comes from accommodation, in telling the pagans to celebrate the Resurrection at the time of their Easter holiday, perhaps, and the timing matters little to those who are primarily concerned with the content, anyway. But either way, it's not as if what is being celebrated by Christians is not Christian in origin; the Church simply made it easy for former pagans to adapt their culture to its beliefs. That's hardly an argument against a religion that is based on the premise that its beliefs are Truth, nor is it an argument against the celebration of its holidays. What does it really matter how much accommodation they made for other cultures to make it easier for pagans to convert?
The date of Easter is approximately "The Sunday in Passover" Absolutely correct regarding the origins. Unfortunately, we don't calculate the date based on the Jewish Calendar, so some years (like this one), their observances are separated from each other by up to a month. Passover doesn't begin until April 20 in 2008.
Slashdot Mirror
Who decides that a server farm called "Danger" is a safe place to store backups?
I don't think, though, that the default position is "use cloud computing unless you have a good reason not to," but rather should be "manage your data wisely," which cloud computing could fit into if there's a compelling reason to use it. Sure, I could set up offline synchronization and data encryption to put my data out on the web ... but why should I? I don't think his concerns should be so easily dismissed.
Cloud computing makes sense for many web applications, etc. but I really don't see "it's the newest fad" as a compelling reason to assume that it also makes sense to fill every role. By comparison to traditional approaches, it's slow, dubiously reliable, and inherently less secure as a backup option. And it's slow, cumbersome, and less user-friendly than locally hosted apps as a client software option in most cases. Really, I think the biggest problem is trying to stretch it to applications it's not well suited for. Reminds me of the whole thin-client fad in the '90s.
Wouldn't it be great if someone came up with a way to take advantage of the value of your house to allow you to pay for improvements over time? We could call it a "home equity loan" ... Seriously, I don't see the need for the state to subsidize home improvements, especially ones that will provide an economic benefit to the home owner over time.
What I don't get is why these features aren't more popular on new builds: at that stage, the added cost is minimized and will naturally be included in the buyer's mortgage and thus paid for over time. Maybe not always solar per se, but new homes built with insulated concrete forms and having geothermal-heatsink HVAC systems installed when the foundation is dug are becoming quite price competitive with traditional "stick-built" homes (dramatically reduced labor costs offset the increased material costs, or so I hear from a friend who's a home builder). The solar roof would still be a bit of an upgrade, but the energy bills are so much lower that the extra cost of such houses can be quickly recovered.
And directly across the street — in the exact same building as that Starbucks — there is another Starbucks.
Both across the street and in the same building? Do buildings in your city typically have streets running through them? I have seen Starbucks across the street from each other, and I find it rather absurd too, but they definitely weren't in the same building.
an extremely large number of business now refuse to accept $50 or $100 bills. I assume they would cite counterfeiting as the concern,
The $20 is actually the most commonly counterfeited bill, and everyone accepts those. I think it's more that they don't want to have to keep enough cash in the register to make change for every idiot who wants to use a $100 bill to pay for a $0.75 candy bar. The logic of the quite informative post below regarding UK rules probably applies here, too.
Or "elemental transformation" - powered by ET. You could even use the glowing finger as a symbol.
And you may even get a real office rather than being herded into a cubicle/stall as if you were livestock.
After all there's a reason you're not actually working in enginerring, when you're such a great engineer...
Or because in addition to understanding the technical details of the work, some people are also skilled at communicating the relevant aspects in an accessible manner. Not all engineers stay in "enginerring" - some, like Milton, have people skills!
Seriously though, as a research engineer, I'm quite glad that my thesis/dissertation advisor emphasized development of writing and presenting skills in addition to expecting good technical analysis. It's served me well, even as someone who's stayed as far towards the technical side of things as possible. On the other hand, plowing through the technical papers that some engineers and scientists publish, the language skills are simply terrible. When someone has the background and intelligence to understand the material, and is capable of writing it so as to have some effect other than inducing a coma in the readers, that's a valuable thing indeed! If some of them choose to work in sales and marketing, that's a plus for all of us. We can get more accurate information than a business or English major would likely be able to give us, but written so that lay people can understand the gist of it.
When a small percentage of engineers are good writers, and there are a great many engineers available, it makes sense that those few who can write well would do that while those who can't fill other jobs. Just because someone can do one job well doesn't mean he shouldn't do another job that he may enjoy more, and which many of his peers couldn't do as well as he can.
After Windows 3.0, Microsoft split the code base and released both Windows 3.1 (DOS-based) and Windows NT 3.1 (NT-based, native GUI). Windows for Workgroups (3.11) and Windows NT 3.5 and 3.51 came out next. Then there were the parallel Windows 95 (version 4.0 in the DOS-based lineup) and Windows NT 4.0. Windows 98 and Windows ME were versions 4.1 and 4.9 in the non-NT consumer line. Windows 2000 was NT version 5.0, and Windows XP was version 5.1, etc. as listed above. NT starting with 3.1 was to keep the numbering synchronous with the current non-NT Windows when it was released.
CS Lewis did the same thing so many hypocritical christians do - they say "well, that was BEFORE I became a christian." So much for the ideals of accepting responsibility for one's actions. Being "born again" or "retreaded" or whatever, does NOT give one license towards one's fellow beings, ever.
I'm not sure whether this is an intentional straw man or you completely fail to understand the teachings of Christianity, but the idea that anything gives license to sin is absurd. The whole point of Christianity is eliminating sinfulness, not encouraging it.
He was a devout and well-known Christian, yet he had been living in semi-secrecy with a married woman since he was 19.
... a mother of his friend, who was a sort of surrogate mother to him. What this has to do with his rationality I cannot begin to guess.
A hypocrite through and through ... trying to deny his bi/homosexuality even from himself (and let me make clear here that there's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay - its normal for humans, just like many other mammals - what's wrong is being a hypocrite and throwing rocks at others as a way to hide your own proclivities).
One gay guy inferring secret homosexual temptations does not exactly constitute a resounding proof of Lewis' hypocrisy, but even if it did, it would still be completely irrelevant unless you're claiming that it is impossible for someone who did something he acknowledged was not morally right to be rational, which is rather an absurd idea. You do remember that this whole discussion is about your statement:
critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
... don't you? Perhaps I put too much credit in the idea that you might be capable of rational discussion. It's beginning to appear you have a chip on your shoulder about some aspect of God's existence and aren't approaching this discussion with a clear mind. The whole point here is that regardless of your emotional state, those who disagree with you on this issue (who are the majority of humanity throughout history) are perfectly capable of logic and critical thinking. Irrelevant ad hominem attacks against examples I raise of people who are clearly skilled at logic are not helping your case.
His marriage to Joy Davidman Gresham was mostly a scam of the British immigration system and then later of that nation's socialized medicine.
Not that it's any more relevant than the rest, but it is rather ridiculous if you've ever read A Grief Observed or are at all aware of his relationship with the Greshams.
Your examples of "people of science" who are theists, as justification is an "argument from authority", and fails Sagan's bullshit meter, or more politely, "Baloney Meter"
A counterexample to your claim is hardly an argument from authority. Regardless, arguments from authority make up nearly everything you "know" ... certainly everything historical. And we're not discussing scientific observations, but critical thinking and logic. Even within scientific inquiry, there is an element of authority - you'll never read a technical paper without a review of the relevant literature at the beginning to give a background of what others have discovered that's relevant.
People believe because they choose to believe. There is no hard evidence to back up their beliefs. Just opinion, formed by cultural and social forces.
What a relief that you're here to tell us all that most apparently rational philosophers and writers or average people who claim to have based their opinions on some form of evidence are liars.
Also, "I reboot my computer ... why should I have to reboot my computer?" I find it hard to realize that he wouldn't know the technical difficulties in replacing a dll while the system is running, and possible ways around this, and the current state of affairs. However, maybe I'm giving too much credit here.
Perhaps ... but I remember Gates releasing statements pushing for drastically fewer reboots for updates, drivers, etc. when Windows 2000 (NT5) was in beta. I don't read the statement there to indicate a lack of ability to understand the technical difficulties, but rather to be emphasizing the ridiculousness of the required reboot from a user perspective. He's been advocating elimination of such reboots for years, not claiming that there are no technical difficulties, but that those difficulties should be overcome in order to provide a better user experience.
I should say examples abound, especially among the best and brightest in the sciences ... Nearly all of the great minds in human history have been theists in one form or another.
Surprised by Joy is one of the few Lewis books I don't have a copy of. However, his description of his time at Malvern College (which his brother also attended and claimed Jack's description was exaggerated) was a recounting of a time before his conversion to Christianity. He was an atheist at that point in his life. His later writing makes it quite clear that he sees homosexuality as a perversion, and does not approve of such behaviors. He makes it clear throughout his writing that (consistent with Christianity) he does not consider himself to be a good man, but relies on Christ to transform him into one.
So, even if your interpretation is correct and your allegations were valid (though I can't even find other such allegations on the internet, let alone anywhere reliable), it's rather a moot point. He didn't approve of such behavior, and an ad hominem attack such as saying "but he was a secret gay rapist" does not speak to the logic of his arguments, even if such an absurd allegation were accepted as true. (I have some confidence in labeling the allegation as absurd, since even the most "homophobic" of those who disagree with him never accuse him of anything more than being friends with Arthur Graves, who was a homosexual.) Even if you have such a low view of Lewis, though, it is clearly absurd to say that critical thinking and logic were anathema to him.
If you don't like the example of C.S. Lewis though, any number of others exist. A sizable percentage of modern scientists (especially in the physical sciences) and engineers believe in God. Many even find evidence of God in their scientific discoveries. Take, for example, Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project, or Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a Jewish physicist who wrote The Science of God, or Dr. Albert Einstein, who was a theist if not a practicing Jew. Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and nearly all of the great early scientists were at least theists if not practicing Christians. Examples abound, even among the best and brightest in the sciences, both then and now.
Or, since "critical thinking and logic" are what's in question, take ancient examples within the Church such as the apostle Paul or Saint Augustine of Hippo - both of them could run circles around their opponents, when it came to logic. The thinkers of the Reformation, including Dr. Martin Luther and John Calvin could not be said to be illogical or lack critical thinking skills either. Nor could modern examples such as G.K Chesterton, Dr. C.S. Lewis (previously mentioned), et al. The proposition that theists find critical thinking or logic to be anathema is simply ridiculous.
Of course, critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
For that to be true, the majority of people throughout most of human history would have to have been incapable of critical thinking and logic. Perhaps you should reconsider your conclusion and consider the possibility that many of those who believe in God arrive at their belief based on evidence and logical arguments that they find convincing. An obvious, well-known apologist of this would be C.S. Lewis. Many modern scientists (especially in physics and cosmology) have also written on the topic of being led to some form of theism by the evidence they observe in their fields.
Rather than disabling version compatibility checking on Firefox for all extensions, edit the install.rdf file for the extension of interest. Find and change the value of maxVersion for the appropriate targetApplication. That way, you can force-enable extensions on a case-by-case basis without taking away the protection of checking versions in general.
So we also need to build cars that are shaped like the F-117. New generation Dodge Stealth that actually is?
I generally share your annoyance at the misuse of words.
You can be an open source fanatic, but you cannot be an open-source fundamentalist.However, you can be an open source fundamentalist, and it might be exactly what he meant. A fundamentalist is someone who stresses strict and literal adherence to a set of basic (fundamental) principles (see Merriam-Webster's second definition - the one that doesn't specifically refer to modern American Evangelical Christianity). So, an open-source fundamentalist would be a person who stresses strict adherence to the basic principles of "open source." I suppose what principles those are is somewhat debatable, but if they include the idea that all software should be open source (or at least a preference that it should be if not a mandate), then his use of "fundamentalist" could be appropriate, if what he means is that they advocate strict adherence to these principles.
A "fanatic," on the other hand, is a person "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion." An "open-source fanatic" would be someone who is very enthusiastic about open source, and is uncritically devoted to it, not necessarily someone who advocates strict adherence to its basic principles.
Stop. Think about the meaning of the words you are using. Select correct words. Continue.Exactly.
However, since you're pointing out flaws in others' vocabulary, I hope it will not be rude of me to point out a flaw in your own: an open source fundamentalist without the hyphen between open and source would be a "source fundamentalist" who is open. With the hyphen, "open-source" modifies fundamentalist. Without it, "open" modifies "source fundamentalist."
And what happens when someone who has downloaded the encrypted patch has his system compromised because you're waiting for some idiot who hasn't to do so before you'll release the key that unlocks it? In a worst case scenario, you could end up facing a class action suit for not enabling the patch. I don't know if such a suit could be successful, but I'd bet someone would try it. At present, if someone has failed to update his system with the latest patch, it's not Microsoft's fault. Under this system, if Microsoft was refusing to actually make the patch available to one until others have it, that poses ethical and legal questions. I'm not a lawyer, and can't say what the legal answer would be, but I'm sure the question would arise.
Where you got your degree may not matter much on the resume, but it can make a big difference in finding job opportunities, at least early on. Major companies recruit at the schools with large and good programs, and it's much easier to get an internship during school or a permanent job once out if you're in a place where a lot of people are looking to hire.
I'm an engineer, not a CS guy, but CS is the largest non-engineering department (3rd overall I think, behind ME and EE) at the university I graduated from (Missouri S&T in Rolla, MO). The career fairs they have every semester regularly draw over 200 employers, nearly all of whom are looking for engineering and CS majors, and the career center on campus is very effective. The placement rate within a few months of graduation is consistently between 95 and 100%.
The key factor there isn't just that people doing the hiring recognize the name of the school (though I'm sure it helps in some cases), but more importantly that you have the opportunity to make contact with the people who might hire you.
The Mustang debuted in 1965. Parts can be purchased for cars that old, but they're generally supplied by aftermarket companies, and only for cars where there's demand. The Mustang is very popular, but you'd have more difficulty finding parts for a 1960 Edsel, even though it's only 5 years older.
No one is saying that people have to stop using Windows XP any more than that people have to stop driving 1960's automobiles. This is more along the lines of the warranty running out, so the manufacturer doesn't provide free fixes any more.
It's not as if they're trying to invalidate XP licenses. They're simply saying "We're going to stop selling the previous generation product at this date, then stop supporting it at some date a few years later." This is what all companies do. You can't still go buy a new 2004 Mustang because you like the old bodystyle better than the new one. You can't generally go buy the old version of other software either, though there are some exceptions.
Likewise with support. The manufacturers don't supply parts for antique cars, and software companies regularly supply support only for recent versions of their products, with the answer "upgrade to the newest release" if people with old editions have problems.
Why would we not expect Microsoft to phase out Windows 5.x (2000/XP/2003) since Windows 6.x (Vista/2008) has been released? They'd be going against the norm for not only the software industry, but humanity in general, if they continued to offer the old versions indefinitely. Whether you like the changes in the new edition or not, it's hardly surprising that they'd phase out the old one.
If we're going with anecdotal evidence here, Einstein was a renowned pipe smoker, so ... smoking must be the new wonder-drug for intellectuals. Maybe soon we'll see nicotene tests on college campuses just like we see steroid tests in MLB.
There was a celebration of the Resurrection long before the Church of Rome gained primacy in the West. Likewise with the celebration of the Advent. The English name of Easter comes from accommodation, in telling the pagans to celebrate the Resurrection at the time of their Easter holiday, perhaps, and the timing matters little to those who are primarily concerned with the content, anyway. But either way, it's not as if what is being celebrated by Christians is not Christian in origin; the Church simply made it easy for former pagans to adapt their culture to its beliefs. That's hardly an argument against a religion that is based on the premise that its beliefs are Truth, nor is it an argument against the celebration of its holidays. What does it really matter how much accommodation they made for other cultures to make it easier for pagans to convert?
... not that this has stopped Congress in the past, of course.