Actually, as it turns out, I do prefer the occasional space-craft crash. It keeps things interesting, demonstrates problems, gives mistakes, and at most cost about as many lives as a pair of bad car accidents. And don't bitch about the money, because money really isn't that important to me.
Wow, you take that stuff a little too far. Yeah, America is a dick pretty often, but there are reasons for some of it. A lot of standards suck, and there is no reason to change retroactively to meet them.
Usually, only one of those is the case, as with metric vs. standard. It's a helluva lot of hassle to convert a lot of people to using metric when everything is done a different way.
And, yes America is different for the sake of being different. It may be brutish and idiotic, but it also results in diversity which avoids having a single universal flaw in humanity. I prefer slightly worse stuff to perfectly consistent stuff in many ways. It forces constant change, fights off stagnation, etcetera.
I suspect that they would listen to it, because then they can put a sticker on the front of the box which says 'Conforms to IEEE Security Standards'. And that will be a big selling point, because people are really starting to get pissed.
I expect it will raise their security level, but raise expectations even higher, and increase the general danger brought about by virii and so-such due to user over-confidence.
I beg to differ. IEEE won't take them down, but it will bug them a bit. It is somewhat like MS being a rampaging bear, Linux being a horde of bunny-rabbits, and IEEE being a bunch of thorny trees.
Linux hits the trees less, but it irritates the bear and prevents it from rears up. Eventually, after the Linux bunnies all mate like crazy, one bunny rabbit is born that is somewhat like the bunny in Monty Python's The Search for the Holy Grail. The point here is to mate Linux distros with each other until the perfect bunny emerges.
Not just confusing, I would say it's a little rude. Everyone will pronounce them the same, so Gnoppix essentially has the same spoken name. It should be common curtisy to not overlap names with another project.
If their push is GNOME, maybe they should call it 'Gnomix' or something equally stupid to all their 'G-crap' and 'K-shit'
Because it costs 400 bucks, runs slowly, crashes consistently, and has so many features it's liable to cause seizures, but still manages to not be customizeable.
Re:64bit performance gains...
on
AMD64 Preview
·
· Score: 1
This product facilitates communication. As with all methods of communication, it may enable communication that you don't like, similar to speech, photography, and skywriting.
What I find equally amusing is that porn (not child-porn) is one of the few things commonly placed on those that is also commonly legal. Sure, lots of it is stolen, but there's about a million home-videos up there, making that a perfectly legitemate use of Kazaa.
Quite True. I got in a lot of trouble while in highschool when my mom found a pornographic e-mail I had received. It took quite a while to explain that it was just some asshole sending crap I didn't ask for.
You can actually sit there and say that MEncoder is bad. Sure, it isn't the simplest interface, and doesn't make some tasks easy, but it does encode high quality almost every time, encodes plenty fast, and can encode with about every option you could want. It could do with a good frontend and a few nifty features, but it's pretty damn good in general.
You are the reason the world is full of morons, and it's all the moron's fault. Honestly, I'm a lot the same (although I'm younger, so I can't give as many examples). I might never reproduce. On the other hand, millions of mindless drones reproduce daily, and that's the population of the world.
Well, they may have been going for the IP and the tech involved in the chip as well. They may scrap it, then make something similar that doesn't suck, especially if there are patents involved.
If Media-GX is the only single-chip computer really out there, there most likely are some patents in it.
The issue with forcing evolution as a theory for the beginning of the world in classrooms is not only that it conflicts with many theologies, but also that it is impossible to prove. We cannot prove who the world began. We can prove how it is and how it will continue, and even how it has been for a while.
Evolution is very useful as a theory for the current world. The issue many Christian teachers have with it is that, in schools, it is taught as the way in which the world Did begin, even though it has less evidence than any other theory we readily accept.
Evolution is a useful theory which should be taught as such. That is all.
Evolution, the Big Bang, and those other theories have testable predictions. However, The Big Bang, Evolution, and all that are not testable as theories For the Beginning of the World. Intelligent Design is equally testable for how the world began. Evolution has other uses as a theory, but we cannot well theorize about how the world began.
On a side not, and not meant as an important point, I Can test if God created the world. If I die, I will know, one way or another.
That's only if you are a literalist. There is plenty of room to have faith in God and still believe some translations have been fucked up. I'd say the King James Version is a damn good reason to start with such a belief.
Also, you can perfectly well need a god and still have evolution give
href="http://www2.gvsu.edu/~abreschm/essays/godexi sts.html a look. That's a somewhat biased essay attempting prove the existence of some Godlike being of an unknown type.
Also, as far as falsifiable, evolution is damn close to impossible to falsify either. All you can prove is that We Can't Do It, not that it can't happen. Well, not until a couple thousand years from now. Until then, it's just a vaguely backed theory
And, yes, I did say vaguely. The backing for evolution is weaker than for most theories. It has many good points and good ideas, but cannot be tested. Many theories are proven false even after being used successfully on many occasions.
I would say it takes an open mind to attempt to prove or disprove God's existence and take the logical path you determine. It takes a closed mind to either believe what you were raised to believe or what everyone says is right. Even if I accept all scientific theory, that's pretty closed minded when I never bother to check it for shit.
> Proponents of ID and other some such notions love to brutally abuse the term theory to confuse the issues.
Proponents of ID are pushing Theories, not Scientific Theories. They can call whatever they want to a theory, just not a scientific theory. Likewise, Creationism is a theory, and I believe it is a scientific theory, we just aren't to the point yet of being able to prove/disprove it and tell others about it. I could just go die and get a pretty good idea of how it works out. Or not, but it would be conclusive one way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, as it turns out, I do prefer the occasional space-craft crash. It keeps things interesting, demonstrates problems, gives mistakes, and at most cost about as many lives as a pair of bad car accidents. And don't bitch about the money, because money really isn't that important to me.
Wow, you take that stuff a little too far. Yeah, America is a dick pretty often, but there are reasons for some of it. A lot of standards suck, and there is no reason to change retroactively to meet them.
Usually, only one of those is the case, as with metric vs. standard. It's a helluva lot of hassle to convert a lot of people to using metric when everything is done a different way.
And, yes America is different for the sake of being different. It may be brutish and idiotic, but it also results in diversity which avoids having a single universal flaw in humanity. I prefer slightly worse stuff to perfectly consistent stuff in many ways. It forces constant change, fights off stagnation, etcetera.
I suspect that they would listen to it, because then they can put a sticker on the front of the box which says 'Conforms to IEEE Security Standards'. And that will be a big selling point, because people are really starting to get pissed.
I expect it will raise their security level, but raise expectations even higher, and increase the general danger brought about by virii and so-such due to user over-confidence.
I beg to differ. IEEE won't take them down, but it will bug them a bit. It is somewhat like MS being a rampaging bear, Linux being a horde of bunny-rabbits, and IEEE being a bunch of thorny trees.
Linux hits the trees less, but it irritates the bear and prevents it from rears up. Eventually, after the Linux bunnies all mate like crazy, one bunny rabbit is born that is somewhat like the bunny in Monty Python's The Search for the Holy Grail. The point here is to mate Linux distros with each other until the perfect bunny emerges.
Not just confusing, I would say it's a little rude. Everyone will pronounce them the same, so Gnoppix essentially has the same spoken name. It should be common curtisy to not overlap names with another project.
If their push is GNOME, maybe they should call it 'Gnomix' or something equally stupid to all their 'G-crap' and 'K-shit'
Not quite the same. Ballmer's more of a comedian, so they'll just lose a bit on the relaxation end of things. Some Seinfeld tapes should cover it.
Because it costs 400 bucks, runs slowly, crashes consistently, and has so many features it's liable to cause seizures, but still manages to not be customizeable.
I am sorry that you are stupid.
Really, I am.
You're pretty close. They also wear some mascara and usually shave.
This product facilitates communication. As with all methods of communication, it may enable communication that you don't like, similar to speech, photography, and skywriting.
What I find equally amusing is that porn (not child-porn) is one of the few things commonly placed on those that is also commonly legal. Sure, lots of it is stolen, but there's about a million home-videos up there, making that a perfectly legitemate use of Kazaa.
Quite True. I got in a lot of trouble while in highschool when my mom found a pornographic e-mail I had received. It took quite a while to explain that it was just some asshole sending crap I didn't ask for.
Wow!
You can actually sit there and say that MEncoder is bad. Sure, it isn't the simplest interface, and doesn't make some tasks easy, but it does encode high quality almost every time, encodes plenty fast, and can encode with about every option you could want. It could do with a good frontend and a few nifty features, but it's pretty damn good in general.
You are the reason the world is full of morons, and it's all the moron's fault. Honestly, I'm a lot the same (although I'm younger, so I can't give as many examples). I might never reproduce. On the other hand, millions of mindless drones reproduce daily, and that's the population of the world.
Well, they may have been going for the IP and the tech involved in the chip as well. They may scrap it, then make something similar that doesn't suck, especially if there are patents involved.
If Media-GX is the only single-chip computer really out there, there most likely are some patents in it.
Try the eMotion frontend. It's kinda new (about a week old) and still adding stuff, but it's already pretty good.
You know, you should read someone's post. Maybe I don't agree with the *entire* ID movement.
I do believe that's the first laundry list where the "# ..." could have been omitted and it would have been a sound (if illegal) plan.
That's a funny thing. I never said ID should be in a textbook.
You know, I've been planning just that, but the post-mortem journals just aren't up to snuff
(Meant in no seriousness)
The issue with forcing evolution as a theory for the beginning of the world in classrooms is not only that it conflicts with many theologies, but also that it is impossible to prove. We cannot prove who the world began. We can prove how it is and how it will continue, and even how it has been for a while.
Evolution is very useful as a theory for the current world. The issue many Christian teachers have with it is that, in schools, it is taught as the way in which the world Did begin, even though it has less evidence than any other theory we readily accept.
Evolution is a useful theory which should be taught as such. That is all.
Evolution, the Big Bang, and those other theories have testable predictions. However, The Big Bang, Evolution, and all that are not testable as theories For the Beginning of the World. Intelligent Design is equally testable for how the world began. Evolution has other uses as a theory, but we cannot well theorize about how the world began.
On a side not, and not meant as an important point, I Can test if God created the world. If I die, I will know, one way or another.
That's only if you are a literalist. There is plenty of room to have faith in God and still believe some translations have been fucked up. I'd say the King James Version is a damn good reason to start with such a belief.
i sts.html a look. That's a somewhat biased essay attempting prove the existence of some Godlike being of an unknown type.
Also, you can perfectly well need a god and still have evolution give href="http://www2.gvsu.edu/~abreschm/essays/godex
Also, as far as falsifiable, evolution is damn close to impossible to falsify either. All you can prove is that We Can't Do It, not that it can't happen. Well, not until a couple thousand years from now. Until then, it's just a vaguely backed theory
And, yes, I did say vaguely. The backing for evolution is weaker than for most theories. It has many good points and good ideas, but cannot be tested. Many theories are proven false even after being used successfully on many occasions.
I would say it takes an open mind to attempt to prove or disprove God's existence and take the logical path you determine. It takes a closed mind to either believe what you were raised to believe or what everyone says is right. Even if I accept all scientific theory, that's pretty closed minded when I never bother to check it for shit.
t ml. It doesn't argue for or against creationism or any religions.
If you want an explanation for why a Godlike being of some sort exists, try this: http://www2.gvsu.edu/~abreschm/essays/godexists.h
Just a point:
> "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
You mentioned later that
> Proponents of ID and other some such notions love to brutally abuse the term theory to confuse the issues.
Proponents of ID are pushing Theories, not Scientific Theories. They can call whatever they want to a theory, just not a scientific theory. Likewise, Creationism is a theory, and I believe it is a scientific theory, we just aren't to the point yet of being able to prove/disprove it and tell others about it.
I could just go die and get a pretty good idea of how it works out. Or not, but it would be conclusive one way or another.