I think you're a bit too optimistic when it comes to Europe. It's not a huge secret that the vast majority of immigrants into countries like, say, France, are from Muslim majority countries and the reason it continues is that left leaning parties wish this to continue as the vast majority of Muslims vote Socialist. In essence they're importing their own voters at the expense of the native population and the right (except the far-right and often racist FN) doesn't generally challenge this as they're hoping they can tap into some of those voters and don't want to alienate the center by making alliances with the far right. As Muslims have far higher birth rates, immigration continues, and the native population stays steady, I can't see things getting better. It wouldn't be so bad if the Muslims integrated well (and many do... at least a lot better than the UK), but the newer immigrants don't seem to see the need to. And as they mingle with the native, much less radical, French muslims, I can see a lot of that radicalism rubbing off. That and Saudi, Wahhabi mosque funding is what's caused the UK to be in such a shitty situation. It's only a matter of time before the rest of Europe follows suit.
It annoyed the heck out of me with my iPad until I sold the thing for a nexus 7 after Apple screwed me out of my entire purchase library. It's not so bad when you have a case with microfiber that cleans the screen, but I can't imagine having to reach forward every hour or so to do that to a device with a keyboard that does not self-clean when stowed.
Only the market is addressed. There are magnetic, clip-on, bluetooth keyboards for iPad as well as case+keyboard combinations for other tablets. Microsoft is doing nothing at all new. Take a look at this Logitech design and tell me how it differs that much from MS's design.
If I were you, i'd get a Nexus 10 incher when it comes out and get a bluetooth case+keyboard combo (they exist for many tablets out there). Nexus devices get supported for years and years while Windows Mobile 7 devices don't generally even get an upgrade to windows 8.
But identical products already exist for the iPad. Magnetic, clipable, bluetooth keyboards with built in iOS function keys. Logitech makes one. Ever seen anybody use one? Me neither. If it was a good idea, it would already have caught on.
But one doesn't necessarily have had to. There are bluetooth keyboard magnetic clip-ons for iPad with an almost identical design. I'm sure Apple internally experimented with the idea. There are loads of problem with the idea. For one, you have to reach up and forward with some degree of repetition and accuracy which is a lot more awkward and cumbersome than reaching your thumb an inch down to the track-pad or your arm right or left to a mouse. In addition, your screen gets dirty very rapidly when you're touching it constantly. It's not such a huge problem in the dark, but in a well lit room or sunlight, it makes an otherwise readable screen impossible to make out. It's not so bad when your cover has built in microfiber and cleans the thing every time you shut the lid but with a lid that's a keyboard, that won't happen. On the contrary. It's more likely the keyboard will leave a rather distinctive pattern in the finger oil. I predict a lot of people are going to complain about these issues and as a result, Microsoft is not going to have the sort of success they might like. Hey. Maybe i'll pick up one in a year or so in a fire sale like with the HP touch-pads -- and only then if I can put CyanogenMod on it.
I was making an analogy not commenting on ethics. I was merely trying to point out that education will only work on some (the young and some older receptive individuals who might already have doubts and are open to new ideas). As you imply, "re-education" would become necessary for some and even then would likely fail in a portion of those cases.
Most Americans define? I beg to differ. 78% is also about the percentage of Christians in the US so it shows, with a margin of error of 1 or two points, that most Christians believe exactly what I claimed. Going to church once a year makes an agnostic/apathetic a christian no more than visiting Japan would make me Japanese (or likely to claim to be). 99% of people who self identify as Christians not surprisingly believe what the bible says: that Jesus was the son of God. Hitler did not believe it, wanted to destroy Christianity (read the wiki on his beliefs) and therefore wasn't a Christian by any stretch of any definition (other than birth and occasional lip service).
Of course religion can be used as an arbitrary label to define people as can anything else but it doesn't mean the underlying ideology doesn't matter or can be completely separated. Hitler's "Christianity" didn't reveal it's underlying ideology. It ran counter to it and with only limited success. Even Hitler realized it couldn't last too long and stopped pushing his version of Christianity in the 40s. Even he realized that although he could temporarily push a violent Christianity identity (as Breivik tried, calling it "Cultural Christianity"), it would not work in the long run as people can only deal with that level of cognitive dissonance for so long. Eventually people will want to read the book and if it doesn't line up with what is publicly pushed, people will always take the "Holy Book" (immutable word of god) over some preacher (man). In other words, religion can only be stretched so far as an identity and as such can only be blamed for causing separation as much as any other arbitrary label (political, philosophical, etc...). Often you can stretch it a little here and there without many people noticing or complaining, but the more you stretch it, the more you run the risk of a "reformation" where the followers bounce back to scripture. It can also work well when your people have no access to the holy book (EG. back in the crusades). Where religion can be blamed is when people follow what's in the book and either commit violence of abstain from it. Apart from that, it's as much to blame for violence as any other superficial identity.
If only. It works with some people but not all. If you want to wipe out religion you need to start with the children. Some are too addicted to the opiate and without extreme measures will never reject their religion.
Yet those same SS soldiers were also forbidden to believe in a god (other than Hitler). Hitler wanted to portray his forces as "against the atheist communist menace" while simultaneously preparing a final solution to Christianity. Just one example: In 1933, Hitler said, 'It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'" In addition, he also removed the bible from schools and replaced it with Mein Kampf. Christiantity might not be a good religion (though there are worse and I can't really think of one i'd consider "good"), but what Hitler did, he did for his own reasons and only gave Christianity the bare minimum lip service to gain power, and only then in order to wipe it out.
Depends. If you define Christian as "one who believes christ was the son of god and came to save mankind", then Hitler was most definately not a Christian. He used his reworked version of Christianity to get his foot in the door but had every intention of wiping Christianity out entirely once he got the chance. He had quite a positive view of Islam, on the other hand. Seems the Jew hatred outlined in the Qur'an mixed well with his own views.
There were protests in almost every single Muslim majority country without few exceptions (such as Singapore, which had it blocked), as well as some western ones, such as France, where violence also broke out. Was it because of the video? I'm not so sure. A week after the video was released the french satirical paper Charlie Hebdo released cartoons that were by far more vulgar than Innocence of Muslims (for example, depicting Muhammad naked). There was almost no response at all to that. Either they're becoming desensitized to cartoons or as many have commented, this was just yet another excuse to blame the foreign devil yell "death to America", "itbach al yahud" and run rampage burning stuff down.
The problem is: How do you not only defeat a society of ~1.5 billion people, but also subjugate them and remove their religion? No army or combination of armies that I can think of would be up to the task, nor would those in the west have the stomach for all it would entail (thought reform camps, killing the *entire* religious caste, making examples to keep the people in line). And we would do this while still addicted to their oil? Ethics aside, i'm just not sure we *can* win in a direct, straight up, fight. The only scenario I can think of where we first fully exploit our own oil resources, develop alternative energy, build more nuclear plants, and only then start to isolate our societies from theirs until they collapse from within.
Really? Because my partner's smoker brother (teen) keeps them as souvenirs on his wall, and so does his friends. Now he wants to make sure he has all the unique warnings. They're like trading cards. Beware unintended consequences. By trying to ban something or make it un-cool you man accidentally create a fad.
They probably thought what the nuns thought: that they would fail. Plus -- all the nuns ever did was make it to a locked building. Getting nuclear material out of that building without being detected and getting away would probably not be so easy. Even if you had such material, what could you do with it? From a terrorist's perspective, it's a lot easier to do something random, that costs a lot less, and takes a lot less planning -- shoot up a building or blow something up.
According to the nun, if you read the article, he did not turn his back. It is a contested point and I wonder where they're getting that information. I tend to believe the nun over the government contractor.
Thanks. I appreciate it. I haven't updated that site in about 3 years (busy with work and other stuff), but might do it in the future. Check back in a few months.
The problem is if everybody writes stuff for DirectCompute it'll all wind up in the same situation as Direct3D where everything is written for windows and then never ever ported because it's too much work. Ideally i think it would be better if everything was written in OpenCL and hardware manufacturers actually did a decent job with drivers. DirectCompute still requires hardware manufacturers to make decent drivers so I don't really see the difference other than DC being MS only and OpenCL being cross platform and hardware independent.
The current docs are mostly available here. As to your first two questions, they are pretty well covered in the manual. As to the third question, there is really no good way to do it while preserving decent topology and UVs. If you have a messy mesh, you probably want to retopologize it and lay out new UVs. You might want to use 2.4 for this and, when you're done, import it into 2.6. I say this becuase I know the tools in 2.4 are good and haven't yet used the 2.6 tools for this (they went through a massive redesign and the documentation was apparently never written). If you're lucky you can bake/project your old mesh's texture onto the new mesh but i'm not sure if Blender can do that (there are, however, programs that can, although I can't think of any open source at the moment).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're a bit too optimistic when it comes to Europe. It's not a huge secret that the vast majority of immigrants into countries like, say, France, are from Muslim majority countries and the reason it continues is that left leaning parties wish this to continue as the vast majority of Muslims vote Socialist. In essence they're importing their own voters at the expense of the native population and the right (except the far-right and often racist FN) doesn't generally challenge this as they're hoping they can tap into some of those voters and don't want to alienate the center by making alliances with the far right. As Muslims have far higher birth rates, immigration continues, and the native population stays steady, I can't see things getting better. It wouldn't be so bad if the Muslims integrated well (and many do... at least a lot better than the UK), but the newer immigrants don't seem to see the need to. And as they mingle with the native, much less radical, French muslims, I can see a lot of that radicalism rubbing off. That and Saudi, Wahhabi mosque funding is what's caused the UK to be in such a shitty situation. It's only a matter of time before the rest of Europe follows suit.
Never had a problem with that. Then again, I have girlish skinny fingers.
It annoyed the heck out of me with my iPad until I sold the thing for a nexus 7 after Apple screwed me out of my entire purchase library. It's not so bad when you have a case with microfiber that cleans the screen, but I can't imagine having to reach forward every hour or so to do that to a device with a keyboard that does not self-clean when stowed.
Only the market is addressed. There are magnetic, clip-on, bluetooth keyboards for iPad as well as case+keyboard combinations for other tablets. Microsoft is doing nothing at all new. Take a look at this Logitech design and tell me how it differs that much from MS's design.
If I were you, i'd get a Nexus 10 incher when it comes out and get a bluetooth case+keyboard combo (they exist for many tablets out there). Nexus devices get supported for years and years while Windows Mobile 7 devices don't generally even get an upgrade to windows 8.
But identical products already exist for the iPad. Magnetic, clipable, bluetooth keyboards with built in iOS function keys. Logitech makes one. Ever seen anybody use one? Me neither. If it was a good idea, it would already have caught on.
But one doesn't necessarily have had to. There are bluetooth keyboard magnetic clip-ons for iPad with an almost identical design. I'm sure Apple internally experimented with the idea. There are loads of problem with the idea. For one, you have to reach up and forward with some degree of repetition and accuracy which is a lot more awkward and cumbersome than reaching your thumb an inch down to the track-pad or your arm right or left to a mouse. In addition, your screen gets dirty very rapidly when you're touching it constantly. It's not such a huge problem in the dark, but in a well lit room or sunlight, it makes an otherwise readable screen impossible to make out. It's not so bad when your cover has built in microfiber and cleans the thing every time you shut the lid but with a lid that's a keyboard, that won't happen. On the contrary. It's more likely the keyboard will leave a rather distinctive pattern in the finger oil. I predict a lot of people are going to complain about these issues and as a result, Microsoft is not going to have the sort of success they might like. Hey. Maybe i'll pick up one in a year or so in a fire sale like with the HP touch-pads -- and only then if I can put CyanogenMod on it.
The real issue for me would be having to clean the damn display of fingerprints every 5 minutes. I like a clean screen.
I was making an analogy not commenting on ethics. I was merely trying to point out that education will only work on some (the young and some older receptive individuals who might already have doubts and are open to new ideas). As you imply, "re-education" would become necessary for some and even then would likely fail in a portion of those cases.
Most Americans define? I beg to differ. 78% is also about the percentage of Christians in the US so it shows, with a margin of error of 1 or two points, that most Christians believe exactly what I claimed. Going to church once a year makes an agnostic/apathetic a christian no more than visiting Japan would make me Japanese (or likely to claim to be). 99% of people who self identify as Christians not surprisingly believe what the bible says: that Jesus was the son of God. Hitler did not believe it, wanted to destroy Christianity (read the wiki on his beliefs) and therefore wasn't a Christian by any stretch of any definition (other than birth and occasional lip service).
Of course religion can be used as an arbitrary label to define people as can anything else but it doesn't mean the underlying ideology doesn't matter or can be completely separated. Hitler's "Christianity" didn't reveal it's underlying ideology. It ran counter to it and with only limited success. Even Hitler realized it couldn't last too long and stopped pushing his version of Christianity in the 40s. Even he realized that although he could temporarily push a violent Christianity identity (as Breivik tried, calling it "Cultural Christianity"), it would not work in the long run as people can only deal with that level of cognitive dissonance for so long. Eventually people will want to read the book and if it doesn't line up with what is publicly pushed, people will always take the "Holy Book" (immutable word of god) over some preacher (man). In other words, religion can only be stretched so far as an identity and as such can only be blamed for causing separation as much as any other arbitrary label (political, philosophical, etc...). Often you can stretch it a little here and there without many people noticing or complaining, but the more you stretch it, the more you run the risk of a "reformation" where the followers bounce back to scripture. It can also work well when your people have no access to the holy book (EG. back in the crusades). Where religion can be blamed is when people follow what's in the book and either commit violence of abstain from it. Apart from that, it's as much to blame for violence as any other superficial identity.
If only. It works with some people but not all. If you want to wipe out religion you need to start with the children. Some are too addicted to the opiate and without extreme measures will never reject their religion.
Yet those same SS soldiers were also forbidden to believe in a god (other than Hitler). Hitler wanted to portray his forces as "against the atheist communist menace" while simultaneously preparing a final solution to Christianity. Just one example: In 1933, Hitler said, 'It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'" In addition, he also removed the bible from schools and replaced it with Mein Kampf. Christiantity might not be a good religion (though there are worse and I can't really think of one i'd consider "good"), but what Hitler did, he did for his own reasons and only gave Christianity the bare minimum lip service to gain power, and only then in order to wipe it out.
Depends. If you define Christian as "one who believes christ was the son of god and came to save mankind", then Hitler was most definately not a Christian. He used his reworked version of Christianity to get his foot in the door but had every intention of wiping Christianity out entirely once he got the chance. He had quite a positive view of Islam, on the other hand. Seems the Jew hatred outlined in the Qur'an mixed well with his own views.
There were protests in almost every single Muslim majority country without few exceptions (such as Singapore, which had it blocked), as well as some western ones, such as France, where violence also broke out. Was it because of the video? I'm not so sure. A week after the video was released the french satirical paper Charlie Hebdo released cartoons that were by far more vulgar than Innocence of Muslims (for example, depicting Muhammad naked). There was almost no response at all to that. Either they're becoming desensitized to cartoons or as many have commented, this was just yet another excuse to blame the foreign devil yell "death to America", "itbach al yahud" and run rampage burning stuff down.
You might be thinking of this.
While you're right about the LTE bit, our CDMA phones are very much comparable in many south-east Asian countries if properly flashed.
The problem is: How do you not only defeat a society of ~1.5 billion people, but also subjugate them and remove their religion? No army or combination of armies that I can think of would be up to the task, nor would those in the west have the stomach for all it would entail (thought reform camps, killing the *entire* religious caste, making examples to keep the people in line). And we would do this while still addicted to their oil? Ethics aside, i'm just not sure we *can* win in a direct, straight up, fight. The only scenario I can think of where we first fully exploit our own oil resources, develop alternative energy, build more nuclear plants, and only then start to isolate our societies from theirs until they collapse from within.
Really? Because my partner's smoker brother (teen) keeps them as souvenirs on his wall, and so does his friends. Now he wants to make sure he has all the unique warnings. They're like trading cards. Beware unintended consequences. By trying to ban something or make it un-cool you man accidentally create a fad.
They probably thought what the nuns thought: that they would fail. Plus -- all the nuns ever did was make it to a locked building. Getting nuclear material out of that building without being detected and getting away would probably not be so easy. Even if you had such material, what could you do with it? From a terrorist's perspective, it's a lot easier to do something random, that costs a lot less, and takes a lot less planning -- shoot up a building or blow something up.
According to the nun, if you read the article, he did not turn his back. It is a contested point and I wonder where they're getting that information. I tend to believe the nun over the government contractor.
Thanks. I appreciate it. I haven't updated that site in about 3 years (busy with work and other stuff), but might do it in the future. Check back in a few months.
The problem is if everybody writes stuff for DirectCompute it'll all wind up in the same situation as Direct3D where everything is written for windows and then never ever ported because it's too much work. Ideally i think it would be better if everything was written in OpenCL and hardware manufacturers actually did a decent job with drivers. DirectCompute still requires hardware manufacturers to make decent drivers so I don't really see the difference other than DC being MS only and OpenCL being cross platform and hardware independent.
The current docs are mostly available here. As to your first two questions, they are pretty well covered in the manual. As to the third question, there is really no good way to do it while preserving decent topology and UVs. If you have a messy mesh, you probably want to retopologize it and lay out new UVs. You might want to use 2.4 for this and, when you're done, import it into 2.6. I say this becuase I know the tools in 2.4 are good and haven't yet used the 2.6 tools for this (they went through a massive redesign and the documentation was apparently never written). If you're lucky you can bake/project your old mesh's texture onto the new mesh but i'm not sure if Blender can do that (there are, however, programs that can, although I can't think of any open source at the moment).
I should have you know, sir, that I suck dicks entirely for free!