Again, Apple probably made a design choice for those of us who don't understand hardlinks to write Cocoa and Carbon to break hardlinks. Create a text file, and call it link1.txt. Then
link link1.txt link2.txt
. Then
ls -i
and you'll see that link1.txt and link2.txt have the same inumber. Now, if you change link2.txt in pico, they are still hardlinked, but if you change it in TextEdit, they aren't. You can verify this though
ls -i
as well as through changing one and seeing the other not change.
You're still not giving me an argument that has any backing, you're quoting the Bible. How the hell is that supposed to convince me? Stop wasting my time and give me a real argument I would have reason to pay attention to.
It's all good and well that scientists have studied and, to some extent, can understand some of the processes of gestation, but as I was saying in my previous post, scientists are not capable of creating "new life".
You seem to believe that humans will never have the ability to create new life. But you only have that belief as a consequence of your religious beliefs. That's circular reasoning. As an atheist, I already have no reason to believe your religious views, and you haven't given me any other reason why I should believe that humans will never be able to create new life. I guess the next question to ask is why you're even wasting my time. No one in this discussion ever solicited an expression of faith from you, and yet all we have is unbacked assertions of what you believe. My understanding was that we were having a civil argument, yet in an argument, one is supposed to give reasons to back their viewpoint, reasons that the other person would have reason to agree with. You haven't done that.
I know you have a religious imperative to spread your beliefs, but just showing up, stating a belief (without any backing), and then contradicting (without any backing) any argument that disagrees with you accomplishes nothing. You are indeed a troll--not because you say things people disagree with, but because you state controversial opinions, refuse to provide any arguments for them, and continue to restate those opinions to anyone who dares argue against you.
They might not have full-time on-site customs, but if someone files an international flight plan to or from that airport there's probably a mechanism for customs to show up. Whereas you try to file an international flight plan to or from a non-international airport, the FAA will refuse to let you fly.
A chap on a desert island could rebuild much of civilization if he had this book with him. If I was on a desert island, this book would come second on my list, right after the Bible.
I would simply rebuild my civilization so that mathematics was its religion.
I just watch it for Katee Sackhoff. If she doesn't get a lead role after BSG is finished (or, alternately, if the series doesn't become Lesbionic Woman), I'm probably going to lose interest.
I was using Orkut before I was using Facebook or MySpace. Orkut was great for awhile, but when the Brazilians took over everything was in Portuguese and I just got sick of it.
That's a charitable account. Mine would have been, "the theory was that large quantities of large people would intimidate dissatisfied customers, making it easier for us to avoid dealing with them".
My argument was that we do, in large part, understand gestation. I mention the prime mover idea to illustrate that, even if our understanding of a natural process is incomplete, that is rarely a reason to leap to theistic explanations. It was an analogy--if you have difficulty comprehending them, perhaps abstract reasoning is a little beyond you.
Also, having a limited understanding of how the process works, and actually being able to recreate (not modify) that process is something humans can't achieve, simply because humans cannot create life.
I wish we were having this argument just over 50 years ago. After all, 50 years and 1 month ago, actually being able to recreate the process of orbit around the earth was something humans couldn't achieve either. If God's existence is contingent upon human technology being insufficient to replicate some natural process, wouldn't the advancement of technology destroy God?
Here's how it works. You invent agriculture. Work hard at it. You might fail. You might succeed. If you fail, nuts to you. If you succeed, I'll gather up my hunter-gatherer tribe, kill you, and take all your harvest. Nuts to you. The real advance probably came when the hunters and gatherers realized the farmers were trapped, and that they could probably just ride in on horseback and figured out how to enslave the farmers instead of just killing and looting them. Fast forward to the middle ages and you have essentially the same system still in operation.
Now, you might ask why we didn't discover agriculture and settle down sooner, given how much benefit we've derived from it. But the answer to that is lack of foresight - we had no idea what we were getting into when we first starting planting crops and taming herds. Ancient man wasn't interested in agriculture as a means of progress, he was interested in it as a means to an end, namely dinner. And the change from hunter-gatherer to farmer-settler would have been a risk that went against evolved behavior and cultural tradition, meaning there's a sort of bump of reluctance we had to overcome. Had some of us not taken that risk, we might still be at the level we were in the paleolithic.
It's more than that. In most human-inhabited parts of the world at the time, hunting and gathering got you more exercise, a better diet, a better social system, and so forth. Agriculture was a desperation move made by people living in environments that did not naturally have enough food to sustain them. And since usually you could only sustain one or two crops, you had a monotonous diet. And if you were successful at all, hunter-gatherers could just drop by and make you give them a share, and since they still knew how to run around (often on horseback) and throw spears at things, they could kick your ass.
When you consider the advances that mankind has made in technology over the past 5000 years, it is astounding. It is even more astounding to think that for the preceding 35,000 years, there was virtually no technological advancement at all! Now we hear that the date may be pushed back even further, and my incredulity grows.
This is a pretty serious puzzle in anthropology. But consider that until very recently, there was almost no benefit to civilization, and within recorded history nomadic hunter-gatherers were still having a good time of it. Sure, today we drive to the supermarket and can buy a balanced diet grown and harvested from around the world, but that's a recent development. Civilization was really an act of desperation, and a raw deal, to begin with--poor, monotonous diets, dull work, constant raids by hunter-gatherer tribes. There's a long period of hunter-gatherer tribes conquering advanced civilizations and building empires, including the Mongols and the Macedonian Greeks. It wasn't until the late 20th century that the San bushmen, who until that point had been happily hunting and gathering in southern Africa for millenia, were relocated to reservations by a paternalistic civilization.
If we religious people are just sheep blindly following what we've been taught, I really think you have to forgive us. Because if there is no spiritual world, then "belief" and "knowledge" really must boil down to chemical reactions in animal brain tissue - which makes all of our reasoning very limited and potentially very error-prone.
Too many leaps in logic. Here are all the possibilities you don't account for:
Although the spiritual world exists, it cannot be fully understood by the human intellect. Religion is the flawed attempt of flawed humans to say what cannot be said, and debases true spirituality by replacing it with dogma and superstition.
The spiritual world does not exist, but the mental world does, outside of the physical.
The spiritual and mental worlds do not exist. Nonetheless, belief and knowledge are emergent patterns that arise in our brain processes, much as other abstract patterns appear in nature. On the level that ultimately presents itself to us, belief and knowledge still work the way they seem to work. So does free will, whatever that means. (This isn't very odd--sophisticated patterns arise in far less complicated physical processes.)
Since science is based upon finding patterns in our experiences of the world, based upon certain fundamental assumptions, it is on an unsure footing to begin with and cannot rightly supersede other forms of knowledge.
Conversely, you make all of the following assumptions implicitly, assumptions which are still contested among the people who seriously discuss these issues:
Religious dogma and practice faithfully capture the spiritual world.
The mental world cannot exist without the spiritual world.
Compatibilism is bullshit.
Science accurately captures the world as it is, and is more than just a pragmatic tool to help us make predictions.
This message is brought to you by the commission against lazy thought and bad philosophy.
The parents of the baby are involved in the reproduction process, and the mother carries the child during the baby's development, but the process up to and including the birth can really be explained as nothing else but miraculous.
No, actually, it can be explained far better than that. Read a biology textbook. Sure, to have a full understanding you'd have to understand some pretty heavy biochemistry and genetics, and there are some details we don't know yet, but the same is true about the orbit of the moon around the earth--that doesn't mean there's a "prime mover" shoving the moon around.
You turn on the computer. You are greeted by an angelic chime that gets progressively louder until your speakers shake. You attempt to adjust the volume but it only gets louder still.
OSX was loosly based on NeXT. It's kernel is Darwin which is based on NetBSD.
No, Darwin is directly based on NeXTStep (with some adaptations from FreeBSD) while Mac OS X's Cocoa API is directly based on NeXT's OPENSTEP API, which pioneered on the NeXTStep OS. The Quartz graphics engine was new (due to licensing issues with Display PostScript, among others), Aqua was an adaptation of both the Mac OS and the NeXT UI, Classic was a VM for running Mac OS 9 within Mac OS X, and Carbon was an adaptation of the Copland API to run on Darwin.
Kirk regularly went against the high-minded principles of the Federation. He was a swash-buckling rebel while Picard, Janeway, and--to a much smaller extent--Sisko were all straight-laced robots that couldn't wait to quote Federation laws and uphold Federation principles at every possible opportunity.
Show me one place where Kirk violates the Federation's principles. Sure, he violates regulations, but it's almost always to uphold some high-minded principle (loyalty to your best friend, etc.) Then watch perhaps the greatest of all DS9 episodes, "In The Pale Moonlight", where Sisko outright betrays the principles of the Federation and adopts the methods of one of Star Trek's "villainous" races, simply because he needed to.
Slashdot Mirror
I just tested it in Tiger. GUI apps do break hardlinks, although command-line apps do not.
You're still not giving me an argument that has any backing, you're quoting the Bible. How the hell is that supposed to convince me? Stop wasting my time and give me a real argument I would have reason to pay attention to.
You seem to believe that humans will never have the ability to create new life. But you only have that belief as a consequence of your religious beliefs. That's circular reasoning. As an atheist, I already have no reason to believe your religious views, and you haven't given me any other reason why I should believe that humans will never be able to create new life. I guess the next question to ask is why you're even wasting my time. No one in this discussion ever solicited an expression of faith from you, and yet all we have is unbacked assertions of what you believe. My understanding was that we were having a civil argument, yet in an argument, one is supposed to give reasons to back their viewpoint, reasons that the other person would have reason to agree with. You haven't done that.
I know you have a religious imperative to spread your beliefs, but just showing up, stating a belief (without any backing), and then contradicting (without any backing) any argument that disagrees with you accomplishes nothing. You are indeed a troll--not because you say things people disagree with, but because you state controversial opinions, refuse to provide any arguments for them, and continue to restate those opinions to anyone who dares argue against you.
They might not have full-time on-site customs, but if someone files an international flight plan to or from that airport there's probably a mechanism for customs to show up. Whereas you try to file an international flight plan to or from a non-international airport, the FAA will refuse to let you fly.
There's probably some FAA regulations, but basically, it has to have customs services.
That's not true. In fact, even boxcutter knives were permitted before 9/11. More to the point, boxcutter knives were permitted on 9/11.
I would simply rebuild my civilization so that mathematics was its religion.
From everything I've read about Steve Jobs, I can't imagine Apple having that much factionalism.
No, bionics is when we rescue people from disfiguring accidents and rebuild them with robotic parts. Haven't you ever watched television?
I just watch it for Katee Sackhoff. If she doesn't get a lead role after BSG is finished (or, alternately, if the series doesn't become Lesbionic Woman), I'm probably going to lose interest.
How do you apply this treatment? Directly to the forehead?
I was using Orkut before I was using Facebook or MySpace. Orkut was great for awhile, but when the Brazilians took over everything was in Portuguese and I just got sick of it.
That's a charitable account. Mine would have been, "the theory was that large quantities of large people would intimidate dissatisfied customers, making it easier for us to avoid dealing with them".
My argument was that we do, in large part, understand gestation. I mention the prime mover idea to illustrate that, even if our understanding of a natural process is incomplete, that is rarely a reason to leap to theistic explanations. It was an analogy--if you have difficulty comprehending them, perhaps abstract reasoning is a little beyond you.
Also, having a limited understanding of how the process works, and actually being able to recreate (not modify) that process is something humans can't achieve, simply because humans cannot create life.I wish we were having this argument just over 50 years ago. After all, 50 years and 1 month ago, actually being able to recreate the process of orbit around the earth was something humans couldn't achieve either. If God's existence is contingent upon human technology being insufficient to replicate some natural process, wouldn't the advancement of technology destroy God?
Here's how it works. You invent agriculture. Work hard at it. You might fail. You might succeed. If you fail, nuts to you. If you succeed, I'll gather up my hunter-gatherer tribe, kill you, and take all your harvest. Nuts to you. The real advance probably came when the hunters and gatherers realized the farmers were trapped, and that they could probably just ride in on horseback and figured out how to enslave the farmers instead of just killing and looting them. Fast forward to the middle ages and you have essentially the same system still in operation.
It's more than that. In most human-inhabited parts of the world at the time, hunting and gathering got you more exercise, a better diet, a better social system, and so forth. Agriculture was a desperation move made by people living in environments that did not naturally have enough food to sustain them. And since usually you could only sustain one or two crops, you had a monotonous diet. And if you were successful at all, hunter-gatherers could just drop by and make you give them a share, and since they still knew how to run around (often on horseback) and throw spears at things, they could kick your ass.
This is a pretty serious puzzle in anthropology. But consider that until very recently, there was almost no benefit to civilization, and within recorded history nomadic hunter-gatherers were still having a good time of it. Sure, today we drive to the supermarket and can buy a balanced diet grown and harvested from around the world, but that's a recent development. Civilization was really an act of desperation, and a raw deal, to begin with--poor, monotonous diets, dull work, constant raids by hunter-gatherer tribes. There's a long period of hunter-gatherer tribes conquering advanced civilizations and building empires, including the Mongols and the Macedonian Greeks. It wasn't until the late 20th century that the San bushmen, who until that point had been happily hunting and gathering in southern Africa for millenia, were relocated to reservations by a paternalistic civilization.
Too many leaps in logic. Here are all the possibilities you don't account for:
Conversely, you make all of the following assumptions implicitly, assumptions which are still contested among the people who seriously discuss these issues:
This message is brought to you by the commission against lazy thought and bad philosophy.
No, actually, it can be explained far better than that. Read a biology textbook. Sure, to have a full understanding you'd have to understand some pretty heavy biochemistry and genetics, and there are some details we don't know yet, but the same is true about the orbit of the moon around the earth--that doesn't mean there's a "prime mover" shoving the moon around.
Windows 7 is going to be THX certified?
Actually, Cougar is equivalent to Puma (which they've already done), not that it'll stop them. There's also Ocelot, Margay, Bobcat, Lynx...
No, Darwin is directly based on NeXTStep (with some adaptations from FreeBSD) while Mac OS X's Cocoa API is directly based on NeXT's OPENSTEP API, which pioneered on the NeXTStep OS. The Quartz graphics engine was new (due to licensing issues with Display PostScript, among others), Aqua was an adaptation of both the Mac OS and the NeXT UI, Classic was a VM for running Mac OS 9 within Mac OS X, and Carbon was an adaptation of the Copland API to run on Darwin.
Show me one place where Kirk violates the Federation's principles. Sure, he violates regulations, but it's almost always to uphold some high-minded principle (loyalty to your best friend, etc.) Then watch perhaps the greatest of all DS9 episodes, "In The Pale Moonlight", where Sisko outright betrays the principles of the Federation and adopts the methods of one of Star Trek's "villainous" races, simply because he needed to.
My condolences.