What I'm wondering is, what kind of self-test requires chips and power to work? We already have pregnancy tests, and they already work to some extent. Is accuracy the target here?
Aha, so it's a filter into different boxes thing. I simply use views/filters in Opera's M2, not sure if Thunderbird has something similar, GMail seems to have at least.
In fact, I find that I don't care about different boxes anymore, filtering at the end point provides all the management needed. Although, using the '+'-convention would be more convenient when signing up for something new, à la spamgourment.
Except we don't have much of a need to perpetuate ourselves at the moment. Or perhaps you have, but some other parts of the world don't. We are already aplenty.
So Jesus tries to teach us to be civilised, right? But why must we choose Jesus' version of civilisation? How about this one: All relationships are homosexual, except when the purpose is procreation. Quite a radical view, and not really in tune with reality. So how about another view: 10% of humans have homosexual relationships, except for the purpose of procreation, although no-one actually has to procreate if they don't want to.
I'm not sure if you understand why this is an equally valid view (though I just made it up without much thought), but I'll give it a quick go:
(I'll make some assumptions) Your view of Everything consists of God, the Holy Trinity, and the Bible. These describe the universe, and everything can be seen as falling under these hierarchically.
My view of Everything cosists of the Universe. In it, there's humans, and some of them have beliefs and a book, that teach them important things. Some other humans get important teachings from other sources, but ultimately it's all contained within the universe.
See, one contains the other, and vice versa. In your world view, what I think can be explained. In my world view, what you think can also be explained. Additionally, both of these are valid views of the world, even though they are mutually exclusive to some extent. From a scientific point of view, one of these happen to be more probable, but I digress...
We can argue about the correct-itude of homosexuality endlessly, but the question will never be mutually answered. Better to think about this:
Can homosexuality be 'cured'? Is it a disease? I don't think so, and I think if you claim they should be treated, then you're choosing not to listen to the arguments of the other side.
If you don't claim it can be treated, then the discussion is effectively over. Unless an argument against homosexuality can be brought forward that is both non-biblibal, but supported by the Bible, there is nothing more that can be added to the discussion.
No need. I hot-swap two old 6GB and 4GB Quantum Fireballs and use them as portable storage. I simply plug the power, plug the IDE connector, and start the "Detect new hardware" wizard. Moments later, Windows cheerfully finds the drive and assigns a drive letter. When removing, simply uninstall the hardware, and you can unplug it right away. This is on Win2K, btw.
I know I wasn't primed to like it, so who the hell am I to judge?
Let me chime in with that: I think that sex drive is not a choice. I may think a particular woman is not someone I want to do anything with, then things happen. I still don't feel like doing anything, and some more things happen. All of a sudden, I want to screw the living daylights out of her! Where did this change occur, and why couldn't I prevent it?
I think it's simply because that's what I am, as you say, 'primed to do'. I don't get a choice in the matter (your point nr.3). And if I happen to be primed to bump up a guy instead of a girl, then I still don't have a choice in the matter. Of course I could try to take the (allegedly) moral high ground and forcefully direct myself towards women, but that does not bode well for the future, as we all should know by now. If you're a heterosexual that can't comprehend this, try this:
Imagine a really good sex session, with all the toppings, lasting through the night in the candlelight. Now imagine the same thing with the same sex. Feel disgusted? That's what it's like for a homosexual to imagine having sex with the other half of mankind. Yes, this is simplified, but anyway...
I'd like for the Bible to explain why 10% of humans are primed towards the same sex.
Notice however, that the Bible does not factor into the discussion if we talk about homosexual people who do not believe in Jesus. You can interpret the Bible whichever way, but those people don't have to care. I know that the Bible is very much against homosexuality (mostly?, totally?), but that's a moot point. Now, a homosexual who does believe in Jesus is another matter, lecture that person all you want, but you can't use the Bible as an argument for a person who doesn't believe in it. That simply does not compute.
Much more valuable would be to show some reasoning behind biblical texts that reject homosexuality. I think, if it's a text made up by a/the God, there's got to be something that does compute in there. Notice also, that an argument that was reasonable during the writing of the Bible may not be all that reasonable anymore, if it was aimed at the society of then.
Now, I can understand if you believe the Bible teaches absolute truth. There's many things to believe in, and the Bible isn't a bad choice (note I use the word 'choice'). But in order to convince someone who has made a different choice, you need to understand that choice. Namely, that the Bible is YABAL - Yet Another Book About Life - sitting like other books on a shelf. You need to ditch the Bible for a moment, then come up with a convincing argument.
Lastly, about your last paragraph: have you ever considered whether absolute truth can even exist at all? Or perhaps to be more provocating, have you ever considered that the Bible may need some rewriting?
Disclaimer: I don't even want to think about rewriting the Big Book. I'd rather rewrite a COBOL 3d-engine in PHP.
1. A method for emphasizing alphabetical data contained in an electronic document, the method comprising: determining whether a request to emphasize specified alphabetical data in the electronic document has been received; and in response to receiving the request, locating all of the specified data contained within the electronic document and emphasizing the located alphabetical data.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the electronic document comprises both text data and numerical data and wherein the request comprises a request to emphasize only the alphabetical data.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the alphabetical data comprises letters and characters expressed as text data and the character $.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the alphabetical data may be expressed in any of a plurality of natural languages.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the specified letters and characters expressed as text data may comprise the strings "Fuck Microsoft", "Fuck MicroSoft", or "Fuck Micro$oft".
6. The method of claim 5, wherein emphasizing only the strings of claim 5 comprises adding an exceptionally strong highlighting attribute to the located alphabetical data.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the highlighting attribute comprises a color attribute with a value of bright red.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein one string or a plurality of strings may be processed after the user performs at most 1 (one) clicks of a computer mouse.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the processing comprises submission as a comment to the website www.slashdot.org.
...Get out of my way, I'm going to fill in some forms.
I've been trying to find an explanation for the original meaning, but haven't found one that makes logical sense (I'm not a native speaker). Any pointers? I can understand circular logic, but my brain cannot twist that from the phrase "beg the question"...
Whoa, you invoked Godwin's Law without using the N-word. Besides, if you want to talk about silly warfare in Europe, how about silly warfare in (from) the U.S.?
Slashdot Mirror
What I'm wondering is, what kind of self-test requires chips and power to work? We already have pregnancy tests, and they already work to some extent. Is accuracy the target here?
Besides, equations spit mostly on the students who try to study them anyway.
Wait, do you mean bandwidth would be saved by using XHTML, or by separating content and style?
Actually it triggers the Kilrathi theme (since it's a Kilrathi fighter).
Maybe they're simply not counting Safari. Also, I'm wondering about Opera's always-low statistic. Though some sourfes claim 1,2% but still.
No, he talked himself out of listening to boring audio files from a server and talking with random strangers of no significance.
If my control rod should touch the central core interface of a BREST, it would cause my reactant fluids to eject rapidly.
Everyone knows you get more radiation when outside. That's why we geeks are so smart!
In fact, I find that I don't care about different boxes anymore, filtering at the end point provides all the management needed. Although, using the '+'-convention would be more convenient when signing up for something new, à la spamgourment.
I looked in RFC 2822 but couldn't find anything specific about + characters in the address. What's the deal?
Except we don't have much of a need to perpetuate ourselves at the moment. Or perhaps you have, but some other parts of the world don't. We are already aplenty.
All relationships are homosexual, except when the purpose is procreation. Quite a radical view, and not really in tune with reality. So how about another view:
10% of humans have homosexual relationships, except for the purpose of procreation, although no-one actually has to procreate if they don't want to.
I'm not sure if you understand why this is an equally valid view (though I just made it up without much thought), but I'll give it a quick go:
(I'll make some assumptions) Your view of Everything consists of God, the Holy Trinity, and the Bible. These describe the universe, and everything can be seen as falling under these hierarchically.
My view of Everything cosists of the Universe. In it, there's humans, and some of them have beliefs and a book, that teach them important things. Some other humans get important teachings from other sources, but ultimately it's all contained within the universe.
See, one contains the other, and vice versa. In your world view, what I think can be explained. In my world view, what you think can also be explained. Additionally, both of these are valid views of the world, even though they are mutually exclusive to some extent. From a scientific point of view, one of these happen to be more probable, but I digress...
We can argue about the correct-itude of homosexuality endlessly, but the question will never be mutually answered. Better to think about this:
Can homosexuality be 'cured'? Is it a disease? I don't think so, and I think if you claim they should be treated, then you're choosing not to listen to the arguments of the other side.
If you don't claim it can be treated, then the discussion is effectively over. Unless an argument against homosexuality can be brought forward that is both non-biblibal, but supported by the Bible, there is nothing more that can be added to the discussion.
No need. I hot-swap two old 6GB and 4GB Quantum Fireballs and use them as portable storage. I simply plug the power, plug the IDE connector, and start the "Detect new hardware" wizard. Moments later, Windows cheerfully finds the drive and assigns a drive letter. When removing, simply uninstall the hardware, and you can unplug it right away. This is on Win2K, btw.
I think it's simply because that's what I am, as you say, 'primed to do'. I don't get a choice in the matter (your point nr.3). And if I happen to be primed to bump up a guy instead of a girl, then I still don't have a choice in the matter. Of course I could try to take the (allegedly) moral high ground and forcefully direct myself towards women, but that does not bode well for the future, as we all should know by now. If you're a heterosexual that can't comprehend this, try this:
Imagine a really good sex session, with all the toppings, lasting through the night in the candlelight.
Now imagine the same thing with the same sex.
Feel disgusted? That's what it's like for a homosexual to imagine having sex with the other half of mankind.
Yes, this is simplified, but anyway...
I'd like for the Bible to explain why 10% of humans are primed towards the same sex.
Agnostic -> Atheist -> Nontheist
..or am I just making things complicated? :)
Notice however, that the Bible does not factor into the discussion if we talk about homosexual people who do not believe in Jesus. You can interpret the Bible whichever way, but those people don't have to care. I know that the Bible is very much against homosexuality (mostly?, totally?), but that's a moot point. Now, a homosexual who does believe in Jesus is another matter, lecture that person all you want, but you can't use the Bible as an argument for a person who doesn't believe in it. That simply does not compute.
Much more valuable would be to show some reasoning behind biblical texts that reject homosexuality. I think, if it's a text made up by a/the God, there's got to be something that does compute in there. Notice also, that an argument that was reasonable during the writing of the Bible may not be all that reasonable anymore, if it was aimed at the society of then.
Now, I can understand if you believe the Bible teaches absolute truth. There's many things to believe in, and the Bible isn't a bad choice (note I use the word 'choice'). But in order to convince someone who has made a different choice, you need to understand that choice. Namely, that the Bible is YABAL - Yet Another Book About Life - sitting like other books on a shelf. You need to ditch the Bible for a moment, then come up with a convincing argument.
Lastly, about your last paragraph: have you ever considered whether absolute truth can even exist at all? Or perhaps to be more provocating, have you ever considered that the Bible may need some rewriting?
Disclaimer: I don't even want to think about rewriting the Big Book. I'd rather rewrite a COBOL 3d-engine in PHP.
1. A method for emphasizing alphabetical data contained in an electronic document, the method comprising: determining whether a request to emphasize specified alphabetical data in the electronic document has been received; and in response to receiving the request, locating all of the specified data contained within the electronic document and emphasizing the located alphabetical data.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the electronic document comprises both text data and numerical data and wherein the request comprises a request to emphasize only the alphabetical data.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the alphabetical data comprises letters and characters expressed as text data and the character $.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the alphabetical data may be expressed in any of a plurality of natural languages.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the specified letters and characters expressed as text data may comprise the strings "Fuck Microsoft", "Fuck MicroSoft", or "Fuck Micro$oft".
6. The method of claim 5, wherein emphasizing only the strings of claim 5 comprises adding an exceptionally strong highlighting attribute to the located alphabetical data.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the highlighting attribute comprises a color attribute with a value of bright red.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein one string or a plurality of strings may be processed after the user performs at most 1 (one) clicks of a computer mouse.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the processing comprises submission as a comment to the website www.slashdot.org.
...Get out of my way, I'm going to fill in some forms.
A troll, man! All blue and shit...
I've been trying to find an explanation for the original meaning, but haven't found one that makes logical sense (I'm not a native speaker). Any pointers? I can understand circular logic, but my brain cannot twist that from the phrase "beg the question"...
I can attest to being eligible for handing out certificates, seeing as I only glanced at TFA.
Whoa, you invoked Godwin's Law without using the N-word. Besides, if you want to talk about silly warfare in Europe, how about silly warfare in (from) the U.S.?
What debate?
Anyone have any actual scientific input on this?
Nope, still not on Slashdot.
'Järve' already means lake :)
Anyway, no-one should diss bogs: cloudberries thrive in them. Del-licious!
Why only germanic characters? You fórgòt thôsé othër oñês.