Christians believe that killing will condemn them to an eternity of hellfire.
No, only killing "good" people will get you in trouble. Killing "bad" people is perfectly okay. Witness all the people killed by Christians through the centuries, in addition to the current conflict in Iraq.
Atheists believe the only consequence to actions in life is if you get caught or at the very worst, guilt.
The only thing atheists have in common is that they don't have a belief in a god. It is impossible to generalize anything more about atheists or their beliefs. Although, I will say that for my part the knowledge that (as far as I can tell) this is the only life and existence that I will ever have motivates me to live it the best that I can. I feel that this is a stronger source of morals than fear of punishment.
People who have an absolute hatred of a mass group as a whole scare me. It's worse than racism.
People who denigrate mass groups of people without attempting to understand anything about them scare me as well. Bigotry is bad, m'kay?
It's because the hottest and coldest days of the year do not correspond with the solstices. Local temperatures have state, and it takes a while to heat and cool the atmosphere, surface, and oceans.
Who mentioned weather? The definition of the seasons has nothing to do with weather, it is purely astronomical. Try reading the Bad Astronomer's take on this.
I caught myself by surprise this morning by being a pedantic fuck when my son said something about "it is cold this winter". I replied "Actually, winter is not for another couple of days." He stared at me, as only the spoils of your loins can, with a look that said "you, dada, are a complete dumbfuck."
December 22nd is the Winter Solstice, which is actually mid-winter, not the beginning of winter. I can't figure out why the US mistakenly calls this the beginning of winter, other then the fact that it is a nice, measurable event.
Now, what top-shelf open source programs got there by trying to emulate a dominant proprietary application? Maybe Samba. Any others?
How about Linux for starters, arguably the most popular and well known open source program ever. At its core it is just a UNIX clone. For that matter, pretty much the entire GNU userland was created as clones of the existing UNIX userland tools. Some of your examples are likewise suspect. Vim: this is a clone of vi. X: X is a specification, not a program. The open source X servers were started to basically clone the existing proprietary ones. Now, in many of these examples, the programs have gone on to significantly expand and add features compared to the original proprietary programs, but it doesn't change the fact that they were originally created as clones.
If you look at the OSS packages that are clones, they're mostly only moderately successful and have only limited penetration into the target markets. (snip) The places where OSS has been most successful is where it's not emulating another product.
Yea, like that silly UNIX clone I heard about, Leenucks or something.
I'm not disparaging the efforts of those developers, but you can't lead and follow at the same time.
Maybe you need to catch up (follow) first before you can start to lead? Maybe OO.o hasn't finished catching up yet? Or maybe it is possible to do both at the same time (OO.o offers pdf export and is cross platform, to give two examples how they lead MS Office, yet they are still behind in other features). Or maybe it's just stupid to make general statements like this.
You can use GCC to compile proprietary apps. I think that even Apple uses it to compile OS X, and it is the default compiler for Xcode. All the BSDs use it as well. Heck, you can even compile Windows apps using MinGW. I don't expect that GPLv3 will change this situation at all.
How do you know that this is true? Haven't there been several experiments in quantum physics which appear to violate causality? In any rate, your argument is very old and tired. If everything must have a cause, then what is the cause of God? What is the cause of that cause? Is it turtles all the way down? Or if it is true that you can posit something (God) existing without a cause, then why can't the universe exist without a cause as well? Why needlessly invent a "god" when it is not required, and adds nothing to our understanding?
And that *something* is inaccessible from scientific analysis.
No Konqueror uses KHTML, and is not related to Firefox, Mozilla, or Gecko in any way. Maybe you're thinking of Safari, Apple's browser which is based off KHTML.
LinuxBIOS is not compatible with legacy DOS-based PC operating systems
According to the ADLO page there is no reason that LinuxBIOS couldn't boot up DOS-based OSes with a bit of tweaking, it just seems that no one has bothered yet.
Point of order: trademarked logo. Logos are trademarked, not copyrighted.
Actually, the issue IS with the logo's copyrights. The copyright on the logos is non-free (does not allow users to change them). Logos can be both trademarked AND copyrighted, and frequently are.
I'd say that he shouldn't have got the refund since the laptop was sold as a turnkey package. I mean, if you buy a car but never use the back seat, can you just give the seat back to the dealer and get a refund for the cost of the part?
What if the seat came with a license that said "if you do not accept the terms of this license return it for a refund"? I understand that Microsoft's EULAs do contain a term such as this.
Ok, so complex Windows 32-bit software on Linux sounds farfetched.
Not really. People have been running MS Office & Photoshop in Wine for years. Where have you been?
I haven't gotten a DOS emulator to work. I have to use 2 of them, one for FCB legacy programs and another to run programs the first won't run.
I assume you've heard of both DOSBox and DOSEmu. I haven't played with DOSEmu very much, but DOSBox is compatible enough to run Win3.1. What are these emulators missing that you need?
Let's get the simple, single-tasking DOS emulation working, THEN worry about Win32...
Since it's not likely to be the same people working on DOS emulation and Windows emulation, there is nothing lost by working on them concurrently.
I'm not christian, and find this type of debate generally annoying, but given that humanity has free will, nobody should be blaming anyone but humanity for human suffering, and that goes twice as much with atheists using as it a reason there is no god.
I also find this type of debate annoying and pointless, but since you chimed in so will I. The free will "argument" is trivially easy to demolish, but I'm too bored right now to expend the effort. I will point out that the free will argument completely ignores human suffering and death caused by natural disasters (tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, lightning, diseases and plagues, etc.). You know, all those things sometimes called "Acts of God."
However, it is important to point out that the Argument from Evil does not disprove all gods, only a benevolent omnipotent one (as the Christian God is supposed to be). It doesn't do a thing to disprove gods which are evil or neutral (such as Yahweh), or gods which aren't omnipotent.
Yes. Making some region more habitable to humans or life in general. Irrigation is a classic example of Earth-based terraforming. So are cities.
No. Try reading http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terraform and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming. From dictionary.com: "To transform (a landscape) on another planet into one having the characteristics of landscapes on Earth." It comes from "terra" (Earth) "form" (to make). You can't "terraform" Earth, since Earth is what you are comparing to in the first place.
Mars has water, ground, and plenty of solid matter near at hand. Ground means no mass restrictions on your colony other than what the ground can structurally bear.
The restrictions on colony building are limitations on resources, of which "ground" is only one factor, and probably not really an important one. Having "solid matter" isn't the same as having processed raw materials, such as metals. Some of the real questions to ask are which type of colony "takes more resources," "how cheap/available are these resources" and "are there other benefits (higher/lower gravity, temperature, pressure, etc.) which may offset any resource advantage"? This will take more study and evaluation, and is really more of a long term self-sustaining question.
For the short term, initial colony founding, and probably for a relatively long time thereafter, raw materials will most likely need to be shipped in from off-planet, for both Venus and Mars. Filtering and processing gasses from the atmosphere is one thing, mining, smelting, and ore-processing in an extraterrestrial environment is quite another. While it's true that this will almost certainly be easier on Mars, it probably won't be a concern for quite some time.
For a Venus habitat to make sense, you'll either have to move mass to Venus from elsewhere, or mine it on the surface or from the atmosphere. Metals in particular will be difficult to come by on Venus.
As I said, you'll have to import mass from off-planet for a good long while with any extraterrestrial colony. Mining metals from asteroids may be a good idea here. Mining on Venus is not currently technologically feasible, but I'm sure it will be at some point. Perhaps the high temperature and pressure will actually make smelting and processing easier? Again, more study is needed. "Mining" the atmosphere is technologically feasible, at least for some materials. The largest component of the Venusian atmosphere is CO2, from which you can extract carbon, useful for carbon fiber structures, nanotubes & similar (once the technology is further developed), even diamond for integrated circuits (with even more technological development).
Venus also has sulfuric acid, including the altitude you want.
The sulfuric acid is really a double-edged sword. Yes it is corrosive, and will need to be protected against, however it is also a very useful industrial chemical. You can even generate water and hydrogen from it, making it quite useful indeed.
The increase solar flux means that anyone outside the Venusian atmosphere (eg, people traveling to Venus) would experience increased exposure to radiation for what that's worth.
At least the trip is shorter to Venus than Mars, although we will need to develop good methods for shielding for trips to both planets. It's doubtful that we can develop shielding which makes it possible to go to Mars safely, but not Venus.
Mars is somewhat easier to obtain useful rocket fuels since CO2 and H2O can be readily decomposed into methane and oxygen
CO2 is certainly plentiful on Venus, and H2O can be generated from H2SO4.
Humans have become quite adept at terraforming Earth.
Not to be rude, but do you even know what the word "terraforming" means?
And it's a non sequitur to claim that building floating cities, a task which has never been accomplished on Earth, is somehow easier than building traditional ground habitats on Mars.
Your reading comprehension skills are similarly lacking. I never said it would be easier to built floating habitats, I said that Venus' atmosphere about 50 km up is more hospitable than anywhere on Mars, indeed, it is more Earth-like than anywhere else in the Solar System (other than Earth itself, of course). The temperature is Earth-like, the air pressure is Earth-like (meaning that if your habitat leaks, it will leak at atmospheric diffusion rates. Try that in the thin atmosphere of Mars! In addition, structures do not need to be built as pressure vessels.), and gravity is near-Earth-like. Also, solar energy is abundant in this area, you can fly around the planet (or let the wind carry you) to generate close to a 24 hour day, and to top it off Venus is closer than Mars!
I'm not sure what you consider "traditional" about building sealed ground habitats on a planet with very little atmosphere, 1/3 of Earth gravity, and where it is very cold. It's true we've never built a permanent floating habitat on Earth, but that is more because there's never been a perceived need, not because it's technically difficult. We have been building Aerostats and balloons for hundreds of years, plus breathable air is a lifting gas in the Venusian atmosphere. While it may be more difficult to build floating habitats on Venus than ground habitats on Mars, this is only one aspect of colonization. Dealing with Mars' differences in temperature, pressure, gravity, lower solar energy, etc. may make it a far more difficult proposition overall.
Mars is a far better candidate for terraforming than Venus.
While perhaps true, terraforming anything is so far ahead of our technological curve it is staggering. Far more interesting to me is initial colonization, and of the two, Venus is actually far more hospitable that Mars, at least as long as you don't mind living in floating cities about 50 km up. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus for the basics.
IBM has just release something similar for their high end tape drive products, check out http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/enewscast/da ta_encryption/. I know that on their offering the encryption is done by hardware on the drive itself, is the Seagate hard drive similar in this regard?
The big showstopper for me, and most people, is the lack of Microsoft Word support.
KWord can import MS Word docs, I just tried and it works, although I have no idea why your link doesn't list it. It can't export to doc, but it can save to rtf (which is what AbiWord does to achieve doc export, they just save rtf output with a doc extension).
Re:Yes: I, a KDE fan, can't use KWord: no Word imp
on
KOffice 1.6 Released
·
· Score: 1
As an aside, I use AbiWord. It's free, and it has a passable MS Word import/export facility.
As I responded to another poster below, AbiWord doesn't export to.doc, they save as rtf with a doc extension (exactly as the parent recommended). Also, KWord can import docs and save to rtf. I have no idea if the import is better/worse than AbiWord or OpenOfice.org, but I would suspect that they are all very similar.
Slashdot Mirror
You can use GCC to compile proprietary apps. I think that even Apple uses it to compile OS X, and it is the default compiler for Xcode. All the BSDs use it as well. Heck, you can even compile Windows apps using MinGW. I don't expect that GPLv3 will change this situation at all.
No Konqueror uses KHTML, and is not related to Firefox, Mozilla, or Gecko in any way. Maybe you're thinking of Safari, Apple's browser which is based off KHTML.
Try starting with the Products page at LinuxBIOS.
Don't forget a link to the OpenBios project, which aims to create a FLOSS implementation of the Open Firmware standard.
I also find this type of debate annoying and pointless, but since you chimed in so will I. The free will "argument" is trivially easy to demolish, but I'm too bored right now to expend the effort. I will point out that the free will argument completely ignores human suffering and death caused by natural disasters (tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, lightning, diseases and plagues, etc.). You know, all those things sometimes called "Acts of God."
However, it is important to point out that the Argument from Evil does not disprove all gods, only a benevolent omnipotent one (as the Christian God is supposed to be). It doesn't do a thing to disprove gods which are evil or neutral (such as Yahweh), or gods which aren't omnipotent.
See http://antipolygraph.org/. The polygragh is junk science at its worst, particularly since it can ruin peoples lives.
No. Try reading http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terraform and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming. From dictionary.com: "To transform (a landscape) on another planet into one having the characteristics of landscapes on Earth." It comes from "terra" (Earth) "form" (to make). You can't "terraform" Earth, since Earth is what you are comparing to in the first place.
The restrictions on colony building are limitations on resources, of which "ground" is only one factor, and probably not really an important one. Having "solid matter" isn't the same as having processed raw materials, such as metals. Some of the real questions to ask are which type of colony "takes more resources," "how cheap/available are these resources" and "are there other benefits (higher/lower gravity, temperature, pressure, etc.) which may offset any resource advantage"? This will take more study and evaluation, and is really more of a long term self-sustaining question.
For the short term, initial colony founding, and probably for a relatively long time thereafter, raw materials will most likely need to be shipped in from off-planet, for both Venus and Mars. Filtering and processing gasses from the atmosphere is one thing, mining, smelting, and ore-processing in an extraterrestrial environment is quite another. While it's true that this will almost certainly be easier on Mars, it probably won't be a concern for quite some time.
As I said, you'll have to import mass from off-planet for a good long while with any extraterrestrial colony. Mining metals from asteroids may be a good idea here. Mining on Venus is not currently technologically feasible, but I'm sure it will be at some point. Perhaps the high temperature and pressure will actually make smelting and processing easier? Again, more study is needed. "Mining" the atmosphere is technologically feasible, at least for some materials. The largest component of the Venusian atmosphere is CO2, from which you can extract carbon, useful for carbon fiber structures, nanotubes & similar (once the technology is further developed), even diamond for integrated circuits (with even more technological development).
The sulfuric acid is really a double-edged sword. Yes it is corrosive, and will need to be protected against, however it is also a very useful industrial chemical. You can even generate water and hydrogen from it, making it quite useful indeed.
At least the trip is shorter to Venus than Mars, although we will need to develop good methods for shielding for trips to both planets. It's doubtful that we can develop shielding which makes it possible to go to Mars safely, but not Venus.
CO2 is certainly plentiful on Venus, and H2O can be generated from H2SO4.
Not to be rude, but do you even know what the word "terraforming" means?
Your reading comprehension skills are similarly lacking. I never said it would be easier to built floating habitats, I said that Venus' atmosphere about 50 km up is more hospitable than anywhere on Mars, indeed, it is more Earth-like than anywhere else in the Solar System (other than Earth itself, of course). The temperature is Earth-like, the air pressure is Earth-like (meaning that if your habitat leaks, it will leak at atmospheric diffusion rates. Try that in the thin atmosphere of Mars! In addition, structures do not need to be built as pressure vessels.), and gravity is near-Earth-like. Also, solar energy is abundant in this area, you can fly around the planet (or let the wind carry you) to generate close to a 24 hour day, and to top it off Venus is closer than Mars!
I'm not sure what you consider "traditional" about building sealed ground habitats on a planet with very little atmosphere, 1/3 of Earth gravity, and where it is very cold. It's true we've never built a permanent floating habitat on Earth, but that is more because there's never been a perceived need, not because it's technically difficult. We have been building Aerostats and balloons for hundreds of years, plus breathable air is a lifting gas in the Venusian atmosphere. While it may be more difficult to build floating habitats on Venus than ground habitats on Mars, this is only one aspect of colonization. Dealing with Mars' differences in temperature, pressure, gravity, lower solar energy, etc. may make it a far more difficult proposition overall.
While perhaps true, terraforming anything is so far ahead of our technological curve it is staggering. Far more interesting to me is initial colonization, and of the two, Venus is actually far more hospitable that Mars, at least as long as you don't mind living in floating cities about 50 km up. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus for the basics.
IBM has just release something similar for their high end tape drive products, check out http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/storage/enewscast/da ta_encryption/. I know that on their offering the encryption is done by hardware on the drive itself, is the Seagate hard drive similar in this regard?
Ni!
They're going to write an error message in German using very small pens?
For the lazy:
Application/ Import/ Export
Abiword/ Yes/ Yes
AmiPro/ Yes/ Yes
Applixword/ Yes/ No
HTML/ Yes/ Yes
KPresenter/ Yes/ No
Hancom Word/ Yes/ No
Magic Point Presentation/ Yes/ No
Microsoft® Powerpoint/ Yes/ No
Microsoft® Word/ Yes/ No
Microsoft® Write/ Yes/ Yes
Oasis OpenDocument/ Yes/ Yes
Openoffice.org Presentation/ Yes/ No
Openoffice.org Text Document/ Yes/ Yes
Palm Document/ Yes/ Yes
PDF/ Yes/ No
Plain Text/ Yes/ Yes
RTF/ Yes/ Yes
SGML/ No/ Yes
TeX Document/ No/ Yes
WML/ Yes/ Yes
Wordperfect/ Yes/ Yes
XML/ Yes/ No
KWord can import MS Word docs, I just tried and it works, although I have no idea why your link doesn't list it. It can't export to doc, but it can save to rtf (which is what AbiWord does to achieve doc export, they just save rtf output with a doc extension).
As I responded to another poster below, AbiWord doesn't export to .doc, they save as rtf with a doc extension (exactly as the parent recommended). Also, KWord can import docs and save to rtf. I have no idea if the import is better/worse than AbiWord or OpenOfice.org, but I would suspect that they are all very similar.