Well, honestly you failed on step #2. We could argue about it, but it would really just you arguing that a God you don't believe exists must display a certain property in a certain way, in order for you to prove that he doesn't exist. It gets circular, and really just ends up with you defining a God you don't want to exist, and I certainly wouldn't want to exist ( believer that I am). its stupid and a waste of time, as all proofs and disproofs of God are. Lets just grab a beer and watch football, Okay?
True. But what would people say if someone went around writing books about how they didn't collect stamps, and everyone who did was crazy. Then they'd start enumerating which of the stamps other people had were the silliest ones to collect, and explain away any things that resembled stamps in their house.
Not collecting stamps might not be a hobby, but bashing another's hobby can certainly turn into one.
Yeah, that was a poke in the eye for sure. As the others have commented, you aren't universally hated here. That's the first reference to their being a group of people not liking you.
You're good people, don't let the AC's getcha down.
I have. It and several duplicates were already there. It will be fixed, as all of my issues I've found on have been. I have no doubt of that. However, I've never been able to reproducibly crash Gnome. I've found three such bugs with different causes in KDE since 4.3
Disagree. Kde is awesome in its goals and has been very ambitious in the kde 4 redesign. I love where they are going and use it every day.
However... Its not as polished under the hood. At by that I simply mean kwin is much more finicky than metacity. I can crash kwin at will sometimes. When it does work, the display is less likely to be as smooth with or without the compositing. I'm looking forward to trying 4.6 as they say kwin's been fixed up quite a bit.
Plus, I have no hate for Gnome 3. I think I like where they are going. Its fast and seems to just focus on workflow improvements. KDE I feel like it still isn't quite there. Its very flexible, sure. But I have yet to see that flexibility pay off in such a dramatic way as gnome 3 does by default.
I don't agree with his politics and absolutely none of his "outrages" were that outrageous. The speech is long and boring as it is, to include enough info so the author wouldn't be "outraged", it would be a month long speech. I hope he at least has some broken pieces of furniture or hole sin his walls where he can point to as evidence the he's really outraged. Otherwise it sounds like he's mad a s hell and not going to do anything about it except write about how mad as hell he is.
That does not mean it was not and is not still evil.
How is that evil? Aren't you imposing your beliefs on me ?
Once you start imparting your value onto something, you're repeating the actions of those who you disagree with. You're universalizing your personal beliefs, which isn't wrong, but exactly what the rating system is trying to do ( more or less). This is why we have a ratings board in the first place, people assume a single set of morals. So, if you want to go to a world where there isn't a ratings board, you have to stop making the same assumptions as them, such as the universality of certain evils.
While I do believe in the universality of certain evils, I would be fine without a mandatory rating system. There are, in fact, alternative third party rating systems run by others that disagree or are not satisfied with the established one.
F that noise. If it was so great there wouldn't be an improved version. Having said that, Emacs has never been improved. Thus Vim is the best of all. QED.
The point is your argument sucked. That one above, is better, but not convincing. A status bar makes more sense in a web browser than pandora. Just like raisins belong in cereal more than dried scorpion bits. You can have a browser with out a status bar. You can have a cereal without raisins.
Plus, man. too much of a good thing can obviously be a bad thing. Ever try reversing the ratio of raisins to bran? Not very good at all.
Honestly, its a terrible, inexcusable, unarguable point. Give up now.
Its as if raisin bran removed the raisins, replaced them with dried scorpion bits. Your argument sounds just as good in this situation.
No, in raisin bran you should not have to add everything you want. It should have enough ingredients so that most users never need to add any ingredients. I'm sure that someone can always argue that some ingredients that are included should be optional, and that some ingredients that are optional should be included. You can't please everyone. The bottom line is that if you want raisins, you can add them. Quit whinging and nitpicking.
Basically, he said the current value of the cosmological constant does not maximise the potential for life.
Assuming that an omnipotent would seek to create as much life as possible, then the Omnipotent did not set that value. That shows us one of two things:
1) The omnipotent does not exist
2) The omnipotent did not want to maximize the chances of life, but instead did what he/she/it wanted to: which is pretty much the definition of an omnipotent.
So either this omnipotent does not exist, or it is omnipotent. Yeah...
Yeah, I can sympathise with your plot in life, however, I am unable to change fundamental aspects of my nature. When I am concentrating on it I can type US, but I'm not likely to concentrate on it every time. Its also not as if my post was completely coming out of left field attempting to explain quantum electro dynamics, or the extraction of zero point energy. There was a linked article which did a pretty good job explaining it. When that's the case, I just naturally care less about getting every i crossed and t dotted.
The missing part of the statement as reported by the wallstreet journel
Goldman Sachs concluded the level of media attention might not be consistent with the proper completion of a U.S. private placement under U.S. law.
Basically they think that offering it to us based investors may break a securities law. While they might be lying, it should have at least been in the summary.
1) If Iran has a beef with you that shouldn't give you immunity form all crimes you could commit in Russia.
2) Its only a comparable situation if Iran is as good of a friend of the UK as Russia is. If the US want's Assange they can probably get him easier from the UK, than Sweden.
That's what I should be saying. He hasn't been charged with anything by the Untied states. There isn't even a formal request that he come in for an interview. If the US wanted to extradite him, they could do it just as easily from the UK.
We really are speaking two different languages. It really appears to me as if your feelings towards Wikileaks are clouding your judgement on this matter. There is no way to generalize this into anything that makes any kind of rational sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, honestly you failed on step #2. We could argue about it, but it would really just you arguing that a God you don't believe exists must display a certain property in a certain way, in order for you to prove that he doesn't exist. It gets circular, and really just ends up with you defining a God you don't want to exist, and I certainly wouldn't want to exist ( believer that I am). its stupid and a waste of time, as all proofs and disproofs of God are. Lets just grab a beer and watch football, Okay?
True. But what would people say if someone went around writing books about how they didn't collect stamps, and everyone who did was crazy. Then they'd start enumerating which of the stamps other people had were the silliest ones to collect, and explain away any things that resembled stamps in their house.
Not collecting stamps might not be a hobby, but bashing another's hobby can certainly turn into one.
I liked this computer before, when it was called a beowolf cluster.
Yeah, that was a poke in the eye for sure. As the others have commented, you aren't universally hated here. That's the first reference to their being a group of people not liking you.
You're good people, don't let the AC's getcha down.
Never mind about that whole "gnome never crashes" bit. Just found a case that crashes nautilus :)
I have. It and several duplicates were already there. It will be fixed, as all of my issues I've found on have been. I have no doubt of that. However, I've never been able to reproducibly crash Gnome. I've found three such bugs with different causes in KDE since 4.3
Disagree. Kde is awesome in its goals and has been very ambitious in the kde 4 redesign. I love where they are going and use it every day.
However ... Its not as polished under the hood. At by that I simply mean kwin is much more finicky than metacity. I can crash kwin at will sometimes. When it does work, the display is less likely to be as smooth with or without the compositing. I'm looking forward to trying 4.6 as they say kwin's been fixed up quite a bit.
Plus, I have no hate for Gnome 3. I think I like where they are going. Its fast and seems to just focus on workflow improvements. KDE I feel like it still isn't quite there. Its very flexible, sure. But I have yet to see that flexibility pay off in such a dramatic way as gnome 3 does by default.
I don't agree with his politics and absolutely none of his "outrages" were that outrageous. The speech is long and boring as it is, to include enough info so the author wouldn't be "outraged", it would be a month long speech. I hope he at least has some broken pieces of furniture or hole sin his walls where he can point to as evidence the he's really outraged. Otherwise it sounds like he's mad a s hell and not going to do anything about it except write about how mad as hell he is.
I know I'm the only one ever to say this, but I loved the second two. Except the chase. That was weak.
Well, I'm on slashdot, therefore you care about my opinion.
I'm recommending that you care about the opinions of other people not on slashdot.
Tada! now you care about people's opinions who are not on facebook. Dilemma solved. You may start worrying like everyone else.
How is that evil? Aren't you imposing your beliefs on me ?
Once you start imparting your value onto something, you're repeating the actions of those who you disagree with. You're universalizing your personal beliefs, which isn't wrong, but exactly what the rating system is trying to do ( more or less). This is why we have a ratings board in the first place, people assume a single set of morals. So, if you want to go to a world where there isn't a ratings board, you have to stop making the same assumptions as them, such as the universality of certain evils.
While I do believe in the universality of certain evils, I would be fine without a mandatory rating system. There are, in fact, alternative third party rating systems run by others that disagree or are not satisfied with the established one.
F that noise. If it was so great there wouldn't be an improved version. Having said that, Emacs has never been improved. Thus Vim is the best of all. QED.
When it was called "Godzilla".
The point is your argument sucked. That one above, is better, but not convincing. A status bar makes more sense in a web browser than pandora. Just like raisins belong in cereal more than dried scorpion bits. You can have a browser with out a status bar. You can have a cereal without raisins.
Plus, man. too much of a good thing can obviously be a bad thing. Ever try reversing the ratio of raisins to bran? Not very good at all.
It always does... It always does.
Well, except this one. Kinda.
No ... Wait .. Now it fits.
Basically, he said the current value of the cosmological constant does not maximise the potential for life.
Assuming that an omnipotent would seek to create as much life as possible, then the Omnipotent did not set that value. That shows us one of two things:
1) The omnipotent does not exist
2) The omnipotent did not want to maximize the chances of life, but instead did what he/she/it wanted to: which is pretty much the definition of an omnipotent.
So either this omnipotent does not exist, or it is omnipotent. Yeah...
Yeah, I can sympathise with your plot in life, however, I am unable to change fundamental aspects of my nature. When I am concentrating on it I can type US, but I'm not likely to concentrate on it every time. Its also not as if my post was completely coming out of left field attempting to explain quantum electro dynamics, or the extraction of zero point energy. There was a linked article which did a pretty good job explaining it. When that's the case, I just naturally care less about getting every i crossed and t dotted.
Yup, the poster was confusing an explanation of popularity for a justification there of.
Basically they think that offering it to us based investors may break a securities law. While they might be lying, it should have at least been in the summary.
Your definition of epic, makes Gilgamesh weep for our children.
1+1!=11
No for two reasons:
1) If Iran has a beef with you that shouldn't give you immunity form all crimes you could commit in Russia.
2) Its only a comparable situation if Iran is as good of a friend of the UK as Russia is. If the US want's Assange they can probably get him easier from the UK, than Sweden.
That's what I should be saying. He hasn't been charged with anything by the Untied states. There isn't even a formal request that he come in for an interview. If the US wanted to extradite him, they could do it just as easily from the UK.
We really are speaking two different languages. It really appears to me as if your feelings towards Wikileaks are clouding your judgement on this matter. There is no way to generalize this into anything that makes any kind of rational sense.