Also Windows XP the operating system is 10 years old. A particular computer running windows XP could be as young as 3 years.( net books didn't take kindly to Vista style bloat). So you're asking everyone who bought a netbook, to upgrade their os ( with their non existent Optical drive? ) Just to play a video? Really?
. Besides, those OS won't be able to show H.264 video in other browsers either, unless you install third party plugin. It would be no different between your new fancy browser and the existing browsers.
Uhm, that's a reason to use a free codec like vp8/WebM. Install a fancy new browser called Chrome or Firefox and the video works fine on that 10 year old operating system sans plugin.
More accurately and appropriately, you'd have to approach it like an intro to world religions class. This is what people believe, without saying this is true, or this is a fairly tail. By an large, most universities do a pretty good job teaching it without requiring or prohibiting any belief from the students.
The Earth is more than six thousand years old, by overwhelming scientific consent, as is the fact that Darwinism is the best explanation of evolution. Therefore, we should ban the promotion of Creationism from our schools, except as part of the study of fairy tales and outmoded myths
Oh... so... close to the truth it hurts... Everything except the bolded part is not political. Everything in the bolded section is, as its making a value judgement on religious beliefs who are protected under the constitution: a political document. Public schools *can* teach science. They cannot tell students which, if any religion is true or false.
Yeah, it sounds like they were assuming a worst case scenario: every household has a single internet device with all data being written to a rotating disk designed for low power consumption. In my mind, you only do that on purpose for one reason: page clicks from outraged people who see the obvious flaws in your analogy.
I think the gist of the article is that we don't need gigabit connections from an isp to the home. While that's debatable, that's not the same as saying that gigbit networks within a home or office are not necessary.
Mod up 1000 times. More over some lies are actually the Truth with a capital T. Ask a conspiracy theorist to lie and say that we did land on the moon. To him, its a lie, but its really True.
So the counter intelligence angle to this is to tell agents 20 things that the enemy may be interested in 19 of which are false.
In fact, I'm not sure why they don't do more of that to detect leaks.
Maybe that's because Taiwan isn't under the control of the Chinese Government? Maybe we can get one from the Mainland, or if the Taiwanese wiz kid is worth it we could have China fund a war where we take over Taiwan and give it to them?
The last site upgrade made it pretty much unusable. I took a six month break from actively participating. it seems to be more usable now. If It still takes me 1 minute to post, I'll disappear for another year. But yes, some of the spam was pretty annoying. It was cute for the first ten years, but its been getting old. Fewer good stories, fewer insightful comments. Less reason to spend time here.
Not to mention that slashdot's interface has progressively gotten worse, making it a real pain to use. Although, it did get better recently. I boycotted until it got usable again. It seems a lot faster recently.
We care because it indicates, as the summary says, that a large software company believes in the Azure cloud offering. I've never heard anyone even consider it. That is the news.
I actually took general relativity these are the requirements:
Calc 1, 2, 3 Foundations of Math Linear Algebra Ordinary Differential Equations ( ours also covered Partial differential equations, despite the name) Foundations of Algebra I & II Foundations of Calc I & II Set Theory Topology Ring Algebra ( covered some what in Foundations of Algebra, not 100% ) Differential Geometry ( we actually used the same book for Differential Geometry and General Relativity)
Now, I, myself begged the prof to let me take the class as it was only offered once every 3 years or so. I didn't have the Topology, Set theory, Ring Algebra, or foundations of Algebra requirements. He let me in, but I had to struggle to get a C. If you are doing it on your own, read up. I kept reminding myself, It took Einstein a decade to learn the math to formulate his theory, struggling in a single year to learn it all isn't that bad.
Yeah... but its not a part for an Atari product. Its a thing that can use an Atari product. Its closer to a scenario where you build a replica of a Ford V8 and advertise that it accepts all the same parts as a Ford V8.
No, it isn't which is why Apple's trademark for an app store is stupid and wrong. They may think of it more as of an application for a phone or tablet, but not specifically an Apple labelled product. And Windows 8 is going to be for Microsoft Tablets, so the description still wouldn't be far off for the mainstream user who thinks of apps in the more modern parlance.
If by "pushing of the problem" you mean efficiently coming up with solutions to our problems using the best technology available, then yes that's exactly what we would be doing. If they had tried to come up with a renewable energy source before unleashing the auto mobile, we still would be riding horses around. research and development of renewable energy sources is important and should be on going, but that doesn't mean that we don't use the best solution currently available.
Well, ok. I promise this is my last post. I understand its not very fair to you to just wave my hands and tell you how stupid this argument is, if you've never had it. Its the theological equivalent of talking to a intro to physics student about the absolute speed of light. They always propose hypothetical situations, which you already know they are going to be wrong without them asking. I just thought I'd head you off at the pas and give you some time to reflect on the flaw before getting into a heated debate. But given the way our discussion has already gone, you don't seem to be picking it up, or understanding 80 % of my posts. If you don't understand Calculus, its tough to teach ODE, no? So consider this the physics for poets digest.
Grasp the concepts, ignore the details ( which, if you're an atheist can be ignored as devils are not to be found there either;)
Me: #2 fails because I believe an All knowing, All loving God can have reasonable people who do not believe in him. A principle in many denominations of Christianity is that of God granting us free will. If we have free will, we can choose or not choose to believe in God. Additionally, he has given us testimonials form other credible sources, but prefers to let other humans do the Evangelization. It does not logically follow that an all Loving Creator God must directly communicate with his creation.
You: An All loving God would want everyone to know he exists, so they could love him too!
Me: No. An All Loving God wouldn't necessarily want to be so direct. Only in your definition ( which is necessary for you to believe in order for you to prove that he does not exist). This is what I'm saying #2 depends upon your conclusion, instead of your conclusion being based on the reasoning.
You: No, I can't imagine an All Loving god that doesn't directly communicate with each and every one. That would be stupid [ my note: you think its stupid because you don't believe in it].
And it would just go on like that. Stupid right? You just keep on trying to define How God would work, in order to prove that he does not exist. All you are really defining, is the God that Cannot exist in order to prove that he does not exist.
No, I mean there is no point. The argument is pointless. You do not believe what I do. It will end up being a circular argument. I've had it many times before. Its a stupid, pointless argument.
No, I do understand God to be a prefect, unsurpassed being. I disagree that implies that unbelief cannot reasonably occur. But, warning you again, you're temptation is to continue this by arguing why I'm wrong by further defining the God you don't believe in, again being careful such that it meets your end conditions of his"provable" lack of existence.
Congratulations, you have demonstrated that atheism can be a hobby!
Sweet! That's exactly what I was trying to do! I win the internet!
Unfortunately the statement you were supposed to disprove is that atheism is not a religion. Hobbies were mentioned as a point for comparison, otherwise irrelevant to any arguments.
Didn't get that memo? Did you send that to Bob, Shooter Of Bul in accounting by mistake? That lazy guy never forwards me the topic of the post I'm supposed to write when it's accidentally sent to him. The Jerk!
I am sure, you think of your expression as clever, but in reality it's either a poor attempt of deception, or lack of reasonong ability -- either qualifies you to get the fuck out of any intellectual discussion.
Well, the *fuck* out huh? Well, if not participating in every conversation you consider to be intellectual entitles me to copulation with a female. We need to get you into Mensa, Stat! Well, maybe a copy of Websters first. But, then man, its intellectual conversations for you twice a day, sometimes three on the weekends.
Slashdot Mirror
It pains me to say this, but Homestarrunner is dead. There were a total of three videos put out in 2010, and none so far in 2011.
Also Windows XP the operating system is 10 years old. A particular computer running windows XP could be as young as 3 years.( net books didn't take kindly to Vista style bloat). So you're asking everyone who bought a netbook, to upgrade their os ( with their non existent Optical drive? ) Just to play a video? Really?
Uhm, that's a reason to use a free codec like vp8/WebM. Install a fancy new browser called Chrome or Firefox and the video works fine on that 10 year old operating system sans plugin.
Sure. I guess they just weren't serious enough with larrabee.
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/12/intels-larrabee-gpu-put-on-ice-more-news-to-come-in-2010.ars
More accurately and appropriately, you'd have to approach it like an intro to world religions class. This is what people believe, without saying this is true, or this is a fairly tail. By an large, most universities do a pretty good job teaching it without requiring or prohibiting any belief from the students.
The Earth is more than six thousand years old, by overwhelming scientific consent, as is the fact that Darwinism is the best explanation of evolution. Therefore, we should ban the promotion of Creationism from our schools, except as part of the study of fairy tales and outmoded myths
Oh... so ... close to the truth it hurts... Everything except the bolded part is not political. Everything in the bolded section is, as its making a value judgement on religious beliefs who are protected under the constitution: a political document. Public schools *can* teach science. They cannot tell students which, if any religion is true or false.
Yeah, it sounds like they were assuming a worst case scenario: every household has a single internet device with all data being written to a rotating disk designed for low power consumption. In my mind, you only do that on purpose for one reason: page clicks from outraged people who see the obvious flaws in your analogy.
I think the gist of the article is that we don't need gigabit connections from an isp to the home. While that's debatable, that's not the same as saying that gigbit networks within a home or office are not necessary.
Mod up 1000 times. More over some lies are actually the Truth with a capital T. Ask a conspiracy theorist to lie and say that we did land on the moon. To him, its a lie, but its really True.
So the counter intelligence angle to this is to tell agents 20 things that the enemy may be interested in 19 of which are false.
In fact, I'm not sure why they don't do more of that to detect leaks.
Just re-route main power to the deflector shields. That shit works.
Well, not with that attitude.
Maybe that's because Taiwan isn't under the control of the Chinese Government? Maybe we can get one from the Mainland, or if the Taiwanese wiz kid is worth it we could have China fund a war where we take over Taiwan and give it to them?
The last site upgrade made it pretty much unusable. I took a six month break from actively participating. it seems to be more usable now. If It still takes me 1 minute to post, I'll disappear for another year. But yes, some of the spam was pretty annoying. It was cute for the first ten years, but its been getting old. Fewer good stories, fewer insightful comments. Less reason to spend time here.
Not to mention that slashdot's interface has progressively gotten worse, making it a real pain to use. Although, it did get better recently. I boycotted until it got usable again. It seems a lot faster recently.
We care because it indicates, as the summary says, that a large software company believes in the Azure cloud offering. I've never heard anyone even consider it. That is the news.
I actually took general relativity these are the requirements:
Calc 1, 2, 3
Foundations of Math
Linear Algebra
Ordinary Differential Equations ( ours also covered Partial differential equations, despite the name)
Foundations of Algebra I & II
Foundations of Calc I & II
Set Theory
Topology
Ring Algebra ( covered some what in Foundations of Algebra, not 100% )
Differential Geometry ( we actually used the same book for Differential Geometry and General Relativity)
Now, I, myself begged the prof to let me take the class as it was only offered once every 3 years or so. I didn't have the Topology, Set theory, Ring Algebra, or foundations of Algebra requirements. He let me in, but I had to struggle to get a C. If you are doing it on your own, read up. I kept reminding myself, It took Einstein a decade to learn the math to formulate his theory, struggling in a single year to learn it all isn't that bad.
Ah, now that's a closer comparison. However, IBM was also staring down an anti trust lawsuit from the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IBM#1969:_Antitrust.2C_the_Unbundling_of_software_and_services
So they many not have wanted to squash competition too much, lest the gov get trigger happy AT&T style.
Yeah... but its not a part for an Atari product. Its a thing that can use an Atari product. Its closer to a scenario where you build a replica of a Ford V8 and advertise that it accepts all the same parts as a Ford V8.
No, it isn't which is why Apple's trademark for an app store is stupid and wrong. They may think of it more as of an application for a phone or tablet, but not specifically an Apple labelled product. And Windows 8 is going to be for Microsoft Tablets, so the description still wouldn't be far off for the mainstream user who thinks of apps in the more modern parlance.
If by "pushing of the problem" you mean efficiently coming up with solutions to our problems using the best technology available, then yes that's exactly what we would be doing. If they had tried to come up with a renewable energy source before unleashing the auto mobile, we still would be riding horses around. research and development of renewable energy sources is important and should be on going, but that doesn't mean that we don't use the best solution currently available.
If only Karma was redeemable for bitcoin ... that sweet daily dose of bitcoin spam would taste all the more sweet.
Well, ok. I promise this is my last post. I understand its not very fair to you to just wave my hands and tell you how stupid this argument is, if you've never had it. Its the theological equivalent of talking to a intro to physics student about the absolute speed of light. They always propose hypothetical situations, which you already know they are going to be wrong without them asking. I just thought I'd head you off at the pas and give you some time to reflect on the flaw before getting into a heated debate. But given the way our discussion has already gone, you don't seem to be picking it up, or understanding 80 % of my posts. If you don't understand Calculus, its tough to teach ODE, no? So consider this the physics for poets digest.
Grasp the concepts, ignore the details ( which, if you're an atheist can be ignored as devils are not to be found there either;)
Me: #2 fails because I believe an All knowing, All loving God can have reasonable people who do not believe in him. A principle in many denominations of Christianity is that of God granting us free will. If we have free will, we can choose or not choose to believe in God. Additionally, he has given us testimonials form other credible sources, but prefers to let other humans do the Evangelization. It does not logically follow that an all Loving Creator God must directly communicate with his creation.
You: An All loving God would want everyone to know he exists, so they could love him too!
Me: No. An All Loving God wouldn't necessarily want to be so direct. Only in your definition ( which is necessary for you to believe in order for you to prove that he does not exist). This is what I'm saying #2 depends upon your conclusion, instead of your conclusion being based on the reasoning.
You: No, I can't imagine an All Loving god that doesn't directly communicate with each and every one. That would be stupid [ my note: you think its stupid because you don't believe in it].
And it would just go on like that. Stupid right? You just keep on trying to define How God would work, in order to prove that he does not exist. All you are really defining, is the God that Cannot exist in order to prove that he does not exist.
No, I mean there is no point. The argument is pointless. You do not believe what I do. It will end up being a circular argument. I've had it many times before. Its a stupid, pointless argument.
No, I do understand God to be a prefect, unsurpassed being. I disagree that implies that unbelief cannot reasonably occur. But, warning you again, you're temptation is to continue this by arguing why I'm wrong by further defining the God you don't believe in, again being careful such that it meets your end conditions of his"provable" lack of existence.
Congratulations, you have demonstrated that atheism can be a hobby!
Sweet! That's exactly what I was trying to do! I win the internet!
Unfortunately the statement you were supposed to disprove is that atheism is not a religion. Hobbies were mentioned as a point for comparison, otherwise irrelevant to any arguments.
Didn't get that memo? Did you send that to Bob, Shooter Of Bul in accounting by mistake? That lazy guy never forwards me the topic of the post I'm supposed to write when it's accidentally sent to him. The Jerk!
I am sure, you think of your expression as clever, but in reality it's either a poor attempt of deception, or lack of reasonong ability -- either qualifies you to get the fuck out of any intellectual discussion.
Well, the *fuck* out huh? Well, if not participating in every conversation you consider to be intellectual entitles me to copulation with a female. We need to get you into Mensa, Stat! Well, maybe a copy of Websters first. But, then man, its intellectual conversations for you twice a day, sometimes three on the weekends.