Mozilla was a project under the Netscape umbrella, but it was recently set up as a separate non-profit entity (with a healthy coupla million from netscape/AOL). The current version of Netscape is based on the Mozilla browser, with a buncha AOL specific branding and some minor features stripped out (like pop-up blocking, I believe).
Well... there's "knowing how to use" and "knowing how it works". Many computer tasks (especially as regards security) require some knowledge of how the damned thing works. We blame user for 'stupidly using software that has security holes' that they know nothing about; We'd never make the analogous complaint that 'that fool crashed because his axle was made of bad steel', we'd blame the manufacturer, and rightly so.
My understanding is that the W3C has stated that they intend 4.x to be the last version of HTML. We've about exhausted the markup realm, all extensions will probably be handled with CSS and DHTML.
Unfortunately, when browsers (MSIE is the worst of these, and it's getting better) do outright non-standard things, you have to accomodate them. Telling the user that 'well, the unenforceable standard wasn't followed' doesn't make them happy.
That said, I LOVE standards, but you have to fudge it a lot. I've always coded my HTML a coupla years behind the bleeding edge, and I don't have too many problems.
True, but this is a statement about a subjective opinion (i.e. that your child is lovable, etc.) and thus you don't have to prove it to anyone. If it were a dispute over the existence of your child, a higher criterion would have to be met.
Indeed, all of our philosophies are lacking. Thus the value of discourse, kind sir.
Sorry, I try to be very rational in my thinking. There's not a lot of difference between 'conclusion' and 'belief' to me, so I guess it was poor word choice.
Sure, god could be faking us out, hence the 'inherently deceptive' comment.
You're right about astrology, my bad... didn't think about that.
In all matters other than religious, people expect proof for believing something to be true (or at least rational ones do. Lots of folks believe only things that make them happy. Such is the human animal). Because it is so pervasive, belief in some higher power is considered by many the 'default' state. It is certainly the accepted. I have never found concensus to be particularly cinvincing though. Lots of people believe weird things.
I am suggesting that, logically, this is a mistake. Most likely, we hold on to religion because it is tradition and it conforts us in a confusing universe. Emotionally satisfying, but not very rational.
[Do you really believe that?] Yup, nice thing about science, it tends to self correct. Actually, the ultimate dispelling of these incorrect beliefs kinda make my point. Incidently, quarks have been (indirectly) observed many times. It's impossible to see one, due to the nature of light.
[Other stuff] Ok, stating that a bunch of possible things were once consider impossible doesn't prove anything. Arguing the contrapositive doesn't add much to the argument.
Nope, bad TV is evil. Universal truth:)
Methinks you are confusing complicated/confusing with deceptive. Now, if energy was particulate yet always appears like a wave, _that_ would be deceptive. Sadly, we'd never know.
And I know that Arthur is french, inspired Mr. Tolkein as I recall... so it was worth something.
God: In order to have a reasonable belief in something, the standard is evidence. There is no objective evidence for the existence of a god. Therefore the issue is not 'you can't prove that there is not a god', but 'what proof is there that god exists?'. Since the one proposing a change from the accepted status must prove his point, the latter question is the only one relevant.
Now, if we had some real evidence for a god, then the argument against it would have the burden of proof. Unfortunately people get convinced that the 'default position' is the presence of a god, although this kind of assumption is only considered valid in religion. No other field would allow such unfounded beliefs.
Astrology: Same case, Those arguing the existence of a phenomenon with no evidence have the burden of proof.
Talking to the dead: Have fun, but no whining when they ignore you.
Friends: If there's a universal truth, it's that insipid TV is evil:) Write a book, found a religion on that:)
Basic assumptions are VERY important, as you stated so well. Given the assumption that the universe is not inherently deceptive, these arguments stand.
Yeah, and I want hot japanese women to swoon over me. Life's a bitch:)
No, seriously... having the ability to program a remote is about the only way you can get it to work with all devices. Even the best non-programmable remote doesn't cover all makes and models.
You know... I've had this conversation a few too many times... and I don't think I want to have it again.
Unlike most anti-evolution folks, you've a well thought out position, which I respect. I don't agree with it (again, don't wanna do this debate again), but I wish you luck in your search for truth (capital "T" optional). Thanks.
About the one remote... it's handy, but sometimes turning stuff on is like playing a damned instrument. I have a 8 way programmable RCA job (low end, maybe $60), and to watch a DVD I have to push.
1.TV mode 2. TV power 3. DVD mode 4. DVD power 5. Tuner mode 6. Tuner power 7. Tuner, select DVD input 8. DVD play 9. Tuner, adjust volume as needed
That said, I still keep my DVD remote handy, as it has a buncha speeds of ffW/rew that I never programmed.
One really cool thing my remote has is macros. I hit one button and (for example) it powers on the tuner and switches it to CD input, powers on the CD player and hits play. 1 click tunes...
Gonna assume this isn't a troll... Off topic anyway.
No one is suggesting that we went from chemical soup to a cell in one step. Much more like 1000000, each a slightly more complicated chemical combination. For that matter, we can create (using a best guess of the environment 4 billion years ago) these first molecules (or very similar ones).
Abiogenesis isn't the same thing as a massive series of chemical interactions (trillions upon trillions of them, involving at least as many organisms and proto-organisms/molecules).
Evolution has some pretty good evidence. Yes, there are some holes, yes, we refine our understanding all the time. Does this mean that it makes sense to refuse the whole concept? Not really.
The only faith that this (or any science requires) is that the universe is not a basically deceptive place (i.e. God is not faking us out). If what we observe is somehow related to the truth, then everything else follows.
GPS has considerably more accuracy than a 10m fix, but it is typically limited to military type folks. I'd imagine that airlines have/could get the same access.
Uh huh. And being an ass to whomever disagrees with you is telltale of what? Those balls sure feel a lot bigger hiding behind a monitor, don't they? Let's grow up a tad.
No, I don't use pine anymore, unless I can't get my hands on a decent gui app. It's a fine program, but I've moved on.
And it was 'copy con' as I recall. as in 'copy to console', something even the vi guys would look at and go 'eww...'
Slashdot Mirror
It was a slashdotting joke my man... not a Mac joke.
"mac joke" is redundant! (ducking)
Impressively, you added less value than I to the conversation...
Since no one will give you a decent answer...
Mozilla was a project under the Netscape umbrella, but it was recently set up as a separate non-profit entity (with a healthy coupla million from netscape/AOL). The current version of Netscape is based on the Mozilla browser, with a buncha AOL specific branding and some minor features stripped out (like pop-up blocking, I believe).
They share the same render engine, Gecko.
Perhaps because he does something other than making anonymous personal attacks, asshole...
Well... there's "knowing how to use" and "knowing how it works". Many computer tasks (especially as regards security) require some knowledge of how the damned thing works. We blame user for 'stupidly using software that has security holes' that they know nothing about; We'd never make the analogous complaint that 'that fool crashed because his axle was made of bad steel', we'd blame the manufacturer, and rightly so.
you lost all credibility when you admitted to drinking code red... that stuff is crap.
Live Wire on the other hand is great.
My understanding is that the W3C has stated that they intend 4.x to be the last version of HTML. We've about exhausted the markup realm, all extensions will probably be handled with CSS and DHTML.
Unfortunately, when browsers (MSIE is the worst of these, and it's getting better) do outright non-standard things, you have to accomodate them. Telling the user that 'well, the unenforceable standard wasn't followed' doesn't make them happy.
That said, I LOVE standards, but you have to fudge it a lot. I've always coded my HTML a coupla years behind the bleeding edge, and I don't have too many problems.
Studio security was being picky... they didn't have the right ID badge, property removal tags for the LEM, etc...
True, but this is a statement about a subjective opinion (i.e. that your child is lovable, etc.) and thus you don't have to prove it to anyone. If it were a dispute over the existence of your child, a higher criterion would have to be met.
Indeed, all of our philosophies are lacking. Thus the value of discourse, kind sir.
Sorry, I try to be very rational in my thinking. There's not a lot of difference between 'conclusion' and 'belief' to me, so I guess it was poor word choice.
Sure, god could be faking us out, hence the 'inherently deceptive' comment.
You're right about astrology, my bad... didn't think about that.
In all matters other than religious, people expect proof for believing something to be true (or at least rational ones do. Lots of folks believe only things that make them happy. Such is the human animal). Because it is so pervasive, belief in some higher power is considered by many the 'default' state. It is certainly the accepted. I have never found concensus to be particularly cinvincing though. Lots of people believe weird things.
:)
I am suggesting that, logically, this is a mistake. Most likely, we hold on to religion because it is tradition and it conforts us in a confusing universe. Emotionally satisfying, but not very rational.
[Do you really believe that?]
Yup, nice thing about science, it tends to self correct. Actually, the ultimate dispelling of these incorrect beliefs kinda make my point. Incidently, quarks have been (indirectly) observed many times. It's impossible to see one, due to the nature of light.
[Other stuff]
Ok, stating that a bunch of possible things were once consider impossible doesn't prove anything. Arguing the contrapositive doesn't add much to the argument.
Nope, bad TV is evil. Universal truth
Methinks you are confusing complicated/confusing with deceptive. Now, if energy was particulate yet always appears like a wave, _that_ would be deceptive. Sadly, we'd never know.
And I know that Arthur is french, inspired Mr. Tolkein as I recall... so it was worth something.
What is a 'sexual intellectuals', please?
And since 1996, the internet (mostly the web) has filled that role nicely...
I'll take a shot at these:
:) Write a book, found a religion on that :)
God: In order to have a reasonable belief in something, the standard is evidence. There is no objective evidence for the existence of a god. Therefore the issue is not 'you can't prove that there is not a god', but 'what proof is there that god exists?'. Since the one proposing a change from the accepted status must prove his point, the latter question is the only one relevant.
Now, if we had some real evidence for a god, then the argument against it would have the burden of proof. Unfortunately people get convinced that the 'default position' is the presence of a god, although this kind of assumption is only considered valid in religion. No other field would allow such unfounded beliefs.
Astrology: Same case, Those arguing the existence of a phenomenon with no evidence have the burden of proof.
Talking to the dead: Have fun, but no whining when they ignore you.
Friends: If there's a universal truth, it's that insipid TV is evil
Basic assumptions are VERY important, as you stated so well. Given the assumption that the universe is not inherently deceptive, these arguments stand.
Yeah, and I want hot japanese women to swoon over me. Life's a bitch :)
No, seriously... having the ability to program a remote is about the only way you can get it to work with all devices. Even the best non-programmable remote doesn't cover all makes and models.
only 3 macro buttons :( Like I said, it's a low end remote.
You know... I've had this conversation a few too many times... and I don't think I want to have it again.
Unlike most anti-evolution folks, you've a well thought out position, which I respect. I don't agree with it (again, don't wanna do this debate again), but I wish you luck in your search for truth (capital "T" optional). Thanks.
That's not fair man... make me drool over the waaaaay nicer receiver...
About the one remote... it's handy, but sometimes turning stuff on is like playing a damned instrument. I have a 8 way programmable RCA job (low end, maybe $60), and to watch a DVD I have to push.
1.TV mode
2. TV power
3. DVD mode
4. DVD power
5. Tuner mode
6. Tuner power
7. Tuner, select DVD input
8. DVD play
9. Tuner, adjust volume as needed
That said, I still keep my DVD remote handy, as it has a buncha speeds of ffW/rew that I never programmed.
One really cool thing my remote has is macros. I hit one button and (for example) it powers on the tuner and switches it to CD input, powers on the CD player and hits play. 1 click tunes...
Gonna assume this isn't a troll... Off topic anyway.
No one is suggesting that we went from chemical soup to a cell in one step. Much more like 1000000, each a slightly more complicated chemical combination. For that matter, we can create (using a best guess of the environment 4 billion years ago) these first molecules (or very similar ones).
Abiogenesis isn't the same thing as a massive series of chemical interactions (trillions upon trillions of them, involving at least as many organisms and proto-organisms/molecules).
Evolution has some pretty good evidence. Yes, there are some holes, yes, we refine our understanding all the time. Does this mean that it makes sense to refuse the whole concept? Not really.
The only faith that this (or any science requires) is that the universe is not a basically deceptive place (i.e. God is not faking us out). If what we observe is somehow related to the truth, then everything else follows.
Doesn't matter, as soon as you turn it on, you don't know if it IS on...
GPS has considerably more accuracy than a 10m fix, but it is typically limited to military type folks. I'd imagine that airlines have/could get the same access.
Blue Screen of Debt!
You called me, I just confirmed that, yes, I am very good at it.
I don't need to justify anything, it's a simple program that does what I need. That's sufficient.
Yeah, you're on my foes list, so I can filter your stupidity out. If I'm so stupid and you're so great, why do you care?
I know what copycon was. It was useful as a last ditch tool, when all else (even edlin) was hosed from the system.
I don't understand this penchant people have for being nasty. Kinda stupid to badmouth a stranger, I think.
We're done here dude, step away from the PC and learn a social skill or something.
Uh huh. And being an ass to whomever disagrees with you is telltale of what? Those balls sure feel a lot bigger hiding behind a monitor, don't they? Let's grow up a tad.
No, I don't use pine anymore, unless I can't get my hands on a decent gui app. It's a fine program, but I've moved on.
And it was 'copy con' as I recall. as in 'copy to console', something even the vi guys would look at and go 'eww...'