sometimes people don't mean exactly what they say; context clues come in handy when this happens. he was talking about people using encryption even when it's only more overhead because they're afraid of legal prosecution. although i'm finding that it's much easier to avoid breaking the law than it is to break the law and cover it up properly
focus follows mouse, shift workspace on scroll over desktop, 2 17" monitors. it's amazing...
i like to use workspaces when i have to non related things going on.. if i'm switching between them i have time to scroll over the desktop
i'm also a very big fan of icons that only require one click, but i also like a menu that pops up when i click or right-click the background (takes less space than icons, and it's right there just a little down)
there are a few problems in my mind with having that type of design. the first is that upgradability is lower since it's hard to take the thing apart to get to the hd/cdrom and it can't have that many slots for expansion. you're also stuck with the same monitor for the life of the machine -- which is the second problem. if the screen dies, the computer is dead. imagine if someone scratched one...
the best part about this is that all your disaster scenarios with the u.s. and DNS are speculative. furthermore, the government did not take gta:sa off the shelf, the esrb changed its rating based on its content and suppliers deshelved the thing on their own.
the suit against microsoft was to lessen unfair competition against netscape (they used to sell their browser). microsoft was giving incentives to computer sellers who put windows on the computers they sold but did not put netscape on. since internet explorer is included in windows, and windows had such a large market share, the majority of people would not install netscape on thier own. this was seen as microsoft using their position in the market to quash competition (the incentives to cooperating resellers, not simply including i.e.)
the digital signals thing might have merit to it, such as freeing up frequencies that used to be used for analog tv transmissions since the trend is toward digital anyway. converter boxes will be available, and i'm really happy that they didn't allow whoever was pushing the broadcast flag to get their way. (i'm also not too bummed about much regarding tv because i don't like it. the no broadcast flag issue is more of a freedom thing)
i think the u.s. has a great track record going for it as far as DNS goes. they haven't done much in the way of censorship of domains, and i think this little argument thing will help keep them in line.
as a disclaimer, that above comment is just to say that doing anything to stay in business is not always admirable. i see that the grandparent has a point that it's a business decision by apple to couple their software to their hardware (whether to sell more hardware or make it easier to provide good drivers or whatever). on the other hand, i don't think it's all that great of a decision, because they could offer up some serious competition to microsoft. i mean, how cool would it be to have the ability to dual boot windows and os x on a normal pc?
as an aside, one of my theories is that business decisions tend to have little technical merit.
2 H2O -> 2 H2 + O2 (electrolysis of water) 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O (combustion of hydrogen in air)
you get the water back. i was worried about that too initially, but i think i've read somewhere that the only emission from hydrogen vehicles is water. the combustion reaction works out that way, and i'll bet that fuel cells put out water too.
"That sounds like the theory has holes with an "insert preferred explaination" sticker on them. The theory is supposed to explain, not to ask."
for intelligent design as a whole, yeah. there are many different theories that fall under the category of intelligent design and explain more thoroughly.
"That makes the assumption of life being something different. The distinction between living and dead matter is only in our heads, life is merely a set of physical and chemical processes."
we have observed living things to behave much differently than nonliving things. saying this distinction is only in our heads and to be disgregarded implies glossing over many other observations.
"What is that designer? Where is he? How does he function? Why would he want to fake fossil records to suggest a different history?"
the first three are a matter of belief, and the fourth lies in how you interpret the fossil records.
"hides from us"
again a matter of belief. maybe this designer thought human beings were capable of figuring it out from all the things he made. perhaps he even dictated a book or something to tell us what he's like.
i just reinstalled and went 32bit x86. while the extra registers would be nice, it doesn't matter enough to forego all that software. to add to that, my board only supports 2gb ram max anyway. i set -march=athlon-xp -msse2 -mfpmath=sse to use the sse fp computations in place of 387, so i still get some benefit from having an athlon64 besides the good memory latency/bandwidth.
if i format a theory that states the universe had just always existed (of course it has changed since its institution), with life in several forms and everything, will that be more valid than evolution?
assuming that all attribues can change over time is one very large assumption. where did the initial matter come from? can life come from nonliving things? can organisms really cross between families, orders, classes, and kingdoms? has the earth really had life-sustaining conditions for billions of years? where is the evidence to support all of this?
some branches of ID do not predict any rule change, but instead predict that the rules don't change and the designer is always around.
some branches of ID also claim that a large-scale catastrophic flood (also recorded in some non-biblical history texts) caused a lot of fossilization fairly quickly. as opposed to evolution which seems to say that this set of fossils is x years old because they are in this layer of sediment, and that this layer of sediment was deposited x years ago because it contains this set of fossils.
i think it's family. you still have tomatoes, dogs, and roses. selection is certainly going on all around us, but i don't agree with the part of evolution that has to do with crossing between families of organisms.
although it's not all bad. creationists believe that studying the work of God is a noble thing to do. they may have a different perspective on certain situations, but if everybody goes at their research scientifically, it shouldn't matter. of creationism and evolution, neither has been proven, and both take some faith to believe.
oh the decay is scientific fact. finding the amount of C-14 that was in the life form when it died is a whole lot more touchy than running a decay calculation. we have a good idea of how carbon 14 decays, and a way to measure how much is left in a sample to be dated. the only other variables are the amount that was initially in the sample, and the time it took to decay to the present amount. since we can only solve for one of those, and we don't usually know how long the sample has been dead, we have to figure out how much C-14 was in the sample at death (when life forms stop taking in new C-14). this is more difficult because C-14 decays into N-14 which escapes to the atmosphere. in the end we have to estimate the starting amount based on other data.
natural selection is observable, but things only tend to reproduce in their own kind. you still get an apple tree or a rose bush at the end of the day / month / decade / etc. that's one issue i have with evolution. it would take a lot less faith to believe if there were more evidence of missing links
Slashdot Mirror
everyone should use the kernel... otherwise their system won't run.
you need some persistence at first, but once you get good at finding howtos and following directions it gets easier.
nah, i don't smoke.
sometimes people don't mean exactly what they say; context clues come in handy when this happens. he was talking about people using encryption even when it's only more overhead because they're afraid of legal prosecution. although i'm finding that it's much easier to avoid breaking the law than it is to break the law and cover it up properly
doesn't public access go against the definition of a dark net?
assuming the authors die in 2010...
are you planning something?
i like to remove other tags. they typically have some company's name on them.
i think he bought two because one has a hard drive in it, and that's bad if you move around a lot or drop it
;)
so he's really telling you to get a flash based player with an expandable memory slot
focus follows mouse, shift workspace on scroll over desktop, 2 17" monitors. it's amazing...
i like to use workspaces when i have to non related things going on.. if i'm switching between them i have time to scroll over the desktop
i'm also a very big fan of icons that only require one click, but i also like a menu that pops up when i click or right-click the background (takes less space than icons, and it's right there just a little down)
they could start a fire or use a gas stove. sun tea is also an option (esp. for herbal teas)
there are a few problems in my mind with having that type of design. the first is that upgradability is lower since it's hard to take the thing apart to get to the hd/cdrom and it can't have that many slots for expansion. you're also stuck with the same monitor for the life of the machine -- which is the second problem. if the screen dies, the computer is dead. imagine if someone scratched one...
i don't think it's possible to win any war gracefully.
the best part about this is that all your disaster scenarios with the u.s. and DNS are speculative. furthermore, the government did not take gta:sa off the shelf, the esrb changed its rating based on its content and suppliers deshelved the thing on their own.
the suit against microsoft was to lessen unfair competition against netscape (they used to sell their browser). microsoft was giving incentives to computer sellers who put windows on the computers they sold but did not put netscape on. since internet explorer is included in windows, and windows had such a large market share, the majority of people would not install netscape on thier own. this was seen as microsoft using their position in the market to quash competition (the incentives to cooperating resellers, not simply including i.e.)
the digital signals thing might have merit to it, such as freeing up frequencies that used to be used for analog tv transmissions since the trend is toward digital anyway. converter boxes will be available, and i'm really happy that they didn't allow whoever was pushing the broadcast flag to get their way. (i'm also not too bummed about much regarding tv because i don't like it. the no broadcast flag issue is more of a freedom thing)
i think the u.s. has a great track record going for it as far as DNS goes. they haven't done much in the way of censorship of domains, and i think this little argument thing will help keep them in line.
as a disclaimer, that above comment is just to say that doing anything to stay in business is not always admirable. i see that the grandparent has a point that it's a business decision by apple to couple their software to their hardware (whether to sell more hardware or make it easier to provide good drivers or whatever). on the other hand, i don't think it's all that great of a decision, because they could offer up some serious competition to microsoft. i mean, how cool would it be to have the ability to dual boot windows and os x on a normal pc?
as an aside, one of my theories is that business decisions tend to have little technical merit.
the comment above his mentioned combustion, and when taken in context is still insightful.
2 H2O -> 2 H2 + O2 (electrolysis of water)
2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O (combustion of hydrogen in air)
you get the water back. i was worried about that too initially, but i think i've read somewhere that the only emission from hydrogen vehicles is water. the combustion reaction works out that way, and i'll bet that fuel cells put out water too.
whatever happened to the quote at the bottom of the page?
"That sounds like the theory has holes with an "insert preferred explaination" sticker on them. The theory is supposed to explain, not to ask."
for intelligent design as a whole, yeah. there are many different theories that fall under the category of intelligent design and explain more thoroughly.
"That makes the assumption of life being something different. The distinction between living and dead matter is only in our heads, life is merely a set of physical and chemical processes."
we have observed living things to behave much differently than nonliving things. saying this distinction is only in our heads and to be disgregarded implies glossing over many other observations.
"What is that designer? Where is he? How does he function? Why would he want to fake fossil records to suggest a different history?"
the first three are a matter of belief, and the fourth lies in how you interpret the fossil records.
"hides from us"
again a matter of belief. maybe this designer thought human beings were capable of figuring it out from all the things he made. perhaps he even dictated a book or something to tell us what he's like.
i just reinstalled and went 32bit x86. while the extra registers would be nice, it doesn't matter enough to forego all that software. to add to that, my board only supports 2gb ram max anyway. i set -march=athlon-xp -msse2 -mfpmath=sse to use the sse fp computations in place of 387, so i still get some benefit from having an athlon64 besides the good memory latency/bandwidth.
if i format a theory that states the universe had just always existed (of course it has changed since its institution), with life in several forms and everything, will that be more valid than evolution?
assuming that all attribues can change over time is one very large assumption. where did the initial matter come from? can life come from nonliving things? can organisms really cross between families, orders, classes, and kingdoms? has the earth really had life-sustaining conditions for billions of years? where is the evidence to support all of this?
some branches of ID do not predict any rule change, but instead predict that the rules don't change and the designer is always around.
some branches of ID also claim that a large-scale catastrophic flood (also recorded in some non-biblical history texts) caused a lot of fossilization fairly quickly. as opposed to evolution which seems to say that this set of fossils is x years old because they are in this layer of sediment, and that this layer of sediment was deposited x years ago because it contains this set of fossils.
i think it's family. you still have tomatoes, dogs, and roses. selection is certainly going on all around us, but i don't agree with the part of evolution that has to do with crossing between families of organisms.
although it's not all bad. creationists believe that studying the work of God is a noble thing to do. they may have a different perspective on certain situations, but if everybody goes at their research scientifically, it shouldn't matter. of creationism and evolution, neither has been proven, and both take some faith to believe.
oh the decay is scientific fact. finding the amount of C-14 that was in the life form when it died is a whole lot more touchy than running a decay calculation. we have a good idea of how carbon 14 decays, and a way to measure how much is left in a sample to be dated. the only other variables are the amount that was initially in the sample, and the time it took to decay to the present amount. since we can only solve for one of those, and we don't usually know how long the sample has been dead, we have to figure out how much C-14 was in the sample at death (when life forms stop taking in new C-14). this is more difficult because C-14 decays into N-14 which escapes to the atmosphere. in the end we have to estimate the starting amount based on other data.
natural selection is observable, but things only tend to reproduce in their own kind. you still get an apple tree or a rose bush at the end of the day / month / decade / etc. that's one issue i have with evolution. it would take a lot less faith to believe if there were more evidence of missing links
"if the bit of creationism undermines the entire scientific method?"
elaborate on this one, it should make for interesting reading.