I'm not sure what you mean by a website that can show off what the language can do. Ruby, the language is independent of the Ruby on Rails framework.
But if you do mean that you want to see Ruby executed, an online interpreter is available.
If you're asking for examples of what Rails can do, it can do only what you can do using any other language on the server-side, only much faster and with cleaner code.
The first edition is available online. You don't need to buy the second edition unless you are really serious about learning Ruby. The first will do for evaluating the language and playing around with Rails. And if you really want to learn Rails (after going through the tutorials), Agile Web Development with Rails is the book I recommend.
I actually thought Bill Hilf was suggesting that the popular perception was that Open Source is David (The Good Guys) and Microsoft is Goliath (The Bad Guys) and their challenge is to change this perception. Now I'm not sure.
The whole idea of a god or a spiritual world is ridiculous. Wishful thinking is what it is. I don't see why you are telling _me_ this. You should be replying to As_I_Please's comments
The question of whether or not we have a soul is a real one. With a yes/no answer. Whether we will ever know for sure is irrelevant. You can't ask people to not argue about it just because believing in a soul lends value to your life. (It's that whole "This is religion. Science does not apply" approach. Which is the same as saying: "I am delusional. Science does not apply.")
Most of the popular theories about the origin of life are about simple chemicals being responsosible for creating copies, some of which may be slightly different from other copies of which some would be more likely to survive and create more copies. These simple chemicals I'm talking about are not hydrogen or plain elements (I have no idea what you mean by "Hydrogen" being the most "fit". Being "fit" in the context of Evolution means being "able to reproduce") but "non-living" organic compounds.
Abiogenesis is nothing but chemical evolution. Which is the same as biological evolution as far as Survival Of The Fittest and Natural Selection are concerned. The difference is a matter of at which scale these two activities are occurring. The divide between these two has been made in academic circles. But at the level at which we are discussing these ideas, they are the same. Any distinction between chemical and biological evolution you try to make here is artifical.
Only an ignorant asshole would say that science "proves" that there is no such thing as a soul.
Which is why I didn't say that science "proves" that there is no soul. I meant that there wouldn't be any reason to think a soul exists. A soul would be superfluous.
In fact, creationists try to make this same link in order to scare Christians into believing that evolution contradicts God.
That doesn't mean that they are wrong.
I think the people who wrote this letter and the 10,000 undersigned clergy would agree with me.
Why do you think that is going to impress me?
Nothing but FUD and I'm getting sick of it.
Remember what I said about the general public going nuts?
What does this mean? Makes no sense. Natural Selection just is.
If you are suggesting that those who commit suicide are idiots, I disagree. We have evolved to think that life is worth living. That does not necessarily make it true.
Is there really a well-defined line between living and non-living things? Evolution also explains the creation of "life" from "non-life". It's just that we don't really talk about this because if we do the basis of the idea of morality gets shaky. Which is why even evolutionists kind of hold back when they argue with creationists because they know that getting the general public to go with the idea of there being no "soul" is impossible. It's never going to happen. And talking about it might lead to popular rejection of the theory of evolution itself. Might as well gain half-a-victroy than none at all.
We can't legally go to Thailand and have sex with eleven year old prostitutes.
I keep reading this Thailand-eleven-year-old-prostitutes-thing all the time on/. as if it is legal in Thailand for eleven year olds to be prostitutes. Though the age of consent in Thailand is 15, sex workers need to be at least 18.
Re:"-1 troll" utterance gets +5 Insightful
on
How Songs Get Popular
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Maybe it's only the ones that get +5 insightful/interesting that you see. The ones that say this will probably get moderated -1 troll and then actually do get modded down -1 Troll you don't see because they are "beneath your current threshold"
I have slaughtered a number of animals over the years. I do not consider it cruel at all. Why? Because I compare it to reality. If I were a deer, I would want to die by a hunter's gun. The alternatives generally consist of some combination of starving, disease, and getting eaten alive. I'd prefer the bullet.
By "slaughter" I was actually refering to those torture camps we call poultry farms. I just got a bit worked up when you decided (just so you could have a consistent theory) that it's okay to run rabbits over.
I agree about the deer, but as I said I was actually refering to the prolonged life-long torture inflicted on poultry.
I guess I am not sure what you mean by cruel. Do you mean "causing physical pain and/or mental anguish"? In that case, I do not think cruel is synonomous with either unjust or immoral. If I poisoned you in your sleep to night, would that be cruel? You would never know what you were missing and would not feel a thing. Wouldn't this be an example of immoral but not cruel?
Poultry farm cruelty was in my mind. Sorry to have pounced on you. I see a lot of slashdotters who assume (without any basis at all) that only human beings' suffering matters. I thought that you were one of them. For that, I apologise. I'm sure you take animal cruelty seriously.
I love how your blog claims "socially adjusted" when you enter a discussion with the word "fucking". You are an interesting exercise in irony.
"Socially Well Adjusted Human Being" is supposed to be ironic. If I really were well-adjusted, would I name my journal that?.....I might. That would be funny too.
P.S: I'm not a vegan. But that's not the point here. The point is that I don't build elaborate theories to support my lifestyle and then use those theories to prove another theory forgetting all along that the original theory was based on nothing but my own convenience.
Oh okay, I get it now. Since it's soooo difficult to not run over rabbits, let's just make a consistent theory (although you know full well slaughtering a full-grown animal is more cruel and morally depraved than an abortion). So all you need is a consistent theory?
I'm sure I could make one for you. In all your cases where there was potential life involved (someone who is sleeping, unconscious etc.) there was already a self-aware entity that had visualised its future. An embryo does not have hopes and dreams. It is not planning its next year's vacation.
I believe (it is my opinion based on logic) that it is a *potential* person, because it contains the elements of human life, and since we cannot say with certainty which potential people will become people, we must give all potential people the rights that people have.
The fact that there is a potential person in an embryo is not any more significant than the fact that there is a potential person in me having sex tonight. Oh no! Now I _have_ to do it. Think of the potential person that never gets the right to live if I don't!
Slashdot Mirror
It's not original though
p ril_fools_you_morons
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=a
Those tags are created by users. It's not the official word. It could be wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean by a website that can show off what the language can do. Ruby, the language is independent of the Ruby on Rails framework.
But if you do mean that you want to see Ruby executed, an online interpreter is available.
If you're asking for examples of what Rails can do, it can do only what you can do using any other language on the server-side, only much faster and with cleaner code.
The book is Programming Ruby. That's the second edition.
The first edition is available online. You don't need to buy the second edition unless you are really serious about learning Ruby. The first will do for evaluating the language and playing around with Rails. And if you really want to learn Rails (after going through the tutorials), Agile Web Development with Rails is the book I recommend.
American SF has always been of uniform high quality, if only because there was so much of it
How could the quality have been uniformly high when you claim that the high quality stuff exists because the sample is so big?
Livejournal is open-source.
1) I don't think Google considers gmail to be an SOA client that makes web service calls.
2) Gmail is an AJAX application.
Your skewed perspective is very attractive though.
The speculation about what the Government might do was from the original submitter, not Zonk. Maybe Zonk should have edited it though.
You just made that up.
It's CDs, not CD's
gmail provides a "preview" of each mail (first few words from the body of the mail) in the inbox.
Nice. Related: Relerank? How original.
I actually thought Bill Hilf was suggesting that the popular perception was that Open Source is David (The Good Guys) and Microsoft is Goliath (The Bad Guys) and their challenge is to change this perception.
Now I'm not sure.
Forget "politicization". I'm still trying to understand what "very average" means.
The whole idea of a god or a spiritual world is ridiculous. Wishful thinking is what it is. I don't see why you are telling _me_ this. You should be replying to As_I_Please's comments
The question of whether or not we have a soul is a real one. With a yes/no answer. Whether we will ever know for sure is irrelevant. You can't ask people to not argue about it just because believing in a soul lends value to your life. (It's that whole "This is religion. Science does not apply" approach. Which is the same as saying: "I am delusional. Science does not apply.")
Most of the popular theories about the origin of life are about simple chemicals being responsosible for creating copies, some of which may be slightly different from other copies of which some would be more likely to survive and create more copies. These simple chemicals I'm talking about are not hydrogen or plain elements (I have no idea what you mean by "Hydrogen" being the most "fit". Being "fit" in the context of Evolution means being "able to reproduce") but "non-living" organic compounds.
Abiogenesis is nothing but chemical evolution. Which is the same as biological evolution as far as Survival Of The Fittest and Natural Selection are concerned. The difference is a matter of at which scale these two activities are occurring. The divide between these two has been made in academic circles. But at the level at which we are discussing these ideas, they are the same. Any distinction between chemical and biological evolution you try to make here is artifical.
Only an ignorant asshole would say that science "proves" that there is no such thing as a soul.
Which is why I didn't say that science "proves" that there is no soul. I meant that there wouldn't be any reason to think a soul exists. A soul would be superfluous.
In fact, creationists try to make this same link in order to scare Christians into believing that evolution contradicts God.
That doesn't mean that they are wrong.
I think the people who wrote this letter and the 10,000 undersigned clergy would agree with me.
Why do you think that is going to impress me?
Nothing but FUD and I'm getting sick of it.
Remember what I said about the general public going nuts?
Natural Selection sure works wonders
What does this mean? Makes no sense. Natural Selection just is.
If you are suggesting that those who commit suicide are idiots, I disagree. We have evolved to think that life is worth living. That does not necessarily make it true.
Is there really a well-defined line between living and non-living things? Evolution also explains the creation of "life" from "non-life". It's just that we don't really talk about this because if we do the basis of the idea of morality gets shaky. Which is why even evolutionists kind of hold back when they argue with creationists because they know that getting the general public to go with the idea of there being no "soul" is impossible. It's never going to happen. And talking about it might lead to popular rejection of the theory of evolution itself. Might as well gain half-a-victroy than none at all.
We can't legally go to Thailand and have sex with eleven year old prostitutes.
/. as if it is legal in Thailand for eleven year olds to be prostitutes. Though the age of consent in Thailand is 15, sex workers need to be at least 18.
I keep reading this Thailand-eleven-year-old-prostitutes-thing all the time on
Maybe it's only the ones that get +5 insightful/interesting that you see. The ones that say this will probably get moderated -1 troll and then actually do get modded down -1 Troll you don't see because they are "beneath your current threshold"
(searching in UPPERCASE, adding a period, ...)
e n&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&sa=N&tab=wi
l r=&cr=countryCN&q=tiananmen.&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4% A2
l r=&cr=countryCN&q=TIANANMEN&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A 2
Bullshit.
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananm
http://images.google.cn/images?svnum=10&hl=zh-CN&
http://images.google.cn/images?svnum=10&hl=zh-CN&
I have slaughtered a number of animals over the years. I do not consider it cruel at all. Why? Because I compare it to reality. If I were a deer, I would want to die by a hunter's gun. The alternatives generally consist of some combination of starving, disease, and getting eaten alive. I'd prefer the bullet.
By "slaughter" I was actually refering to those torture camps we call poultry farms. I just got a bit worked up when you decided (just so you could have a consistent theory) that it's okay to run rabbits over.
I agree about the deer, but as I said I was actually refering to the prolonged life-long torture inflicted on poultry.
I guess I am not sure what you mean by cruel. Do you mean "causing physical pain and/or mental anguish"? In that case, I do not think cruel is synonomous with either unjust or immoral. If I poisoned you in your sleep to night, would that be cruel? You would never know what you were missing and would not feel a thing. Wouldn't this be an example of immoral but not cruel?
Poultry farm cruelty was in my mind. Sorry to have pounced on you. I see a lot of slashdotters who assume (without any basis at all) that only human beings' suffering matters. I thought that you were one of them. For that, I apologise. I'm sure you take animal cruelty seriously.
I love how your blog claims "socially adjusted" when you enter a discussion with the word "fucking". You are an interesting exercise in irony.
"Socially Well Adjusted Human Being" is supposed to be ironic. If I really were well-adjusted, would I name my journal that?.....I might. That would be funny too.
P.S: I'm not a vegan. But that's not the point here. The point is that I don't build elaborate theories to support my lifestyle and then use those theories to prove another theory forgetting all along that the original theory was based on nothing but my own convenience.
Oh okay, I get it now. Since it's soooo difficult to not run over rabbits, let's just make a consistent theory (although you know full well slaughtering a full-grown animal is more cruel and morally depraved than an abortion). So all you need is a consistent theory?
I'm sure I could make one for you.
In all your cases where there was potential life involved (someone who is sleeping, unconscious etc.) there was already a self-aware entity that had visualised its future.
An embryo does not have hopes and dreams. It is not planning its next year's vacation.
Pretty fucking simple.
I believe (it is my opinion based on logic) that it is a *potential* person, because it contains the elements of human life, and since we cannot say with certainty which potential people will become people, we must give all potential people the rights that people have.
The fact that there is a potential person in an embryo is not any more significant than the fact that there is a potential person in me having sex tonight. Oh no! Now I _have_ to do it. Think of the potential person that never gets the right to live if I don't!