Quite the contrary, I think she's sincere. However I also think she understands current constitutional interpretations, and isn't interested in making attempts that will be overturned, just to impress the conservative voters.
I am concerned about the intellectual competence of anyone who believes in creationism.
This is unconstitutional statist propaganda. According to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the people create a government and give it limited powers necessary to maintain order and do other important common tasks. Regulating driving is surely one of those tasks. I have no objection to requiring insurance. But the government does not confer privileges on its citizens. It's the other way around.
Separation of Church and State is by definition secular, since the definition of secular State is one that is not entangled with religion. But if you are implying that it is contrary to or not based on religion, I disagree. The concept in the U.S. developed when the country was almost entirely Christian. James Madison credited Martin Luther's two kingdoms concept, but that was a development of the general two swords approach that was traditional in Western Christianity.
Certainly the modern U.S. version has much more separation than the original medieval one. But the justification is at least as much religious as secular. I'll be speaking from the Reformed perspective. Reformed Christianity is particularly concerned about the impact of sin on human lives, and finding ways to structure society to best protect against it.
Separating religion from governmental power protects both the Church and the State from corruption. In Christian understanding the need for governments is because of human sin. While real Christianity is based on love and proper intent, because of sin we can't rely on these motivations entirely in ordering our society. In order to safeguard human life, we need to set up structures to protect each other. In setting up governmental structures, we need to be aware that members of government are themselves sinful humans, and thus set up the structures in ways that minimize temptations and potential for abuse, and which provide for the maximum degree of accountability for power.
Separation is a key element of this. In areas that do not do have separation, you can see religious leaders who become more politicians than true religious leaders, and politicians who become hypocrites, and do things that are ill-considered in order to curry favor with powerful religious elements. Separation of Church and State is ultimately a protection for the Church. It is also essential for the Church to be able to call the State to account. Basic principles of auditing say that the auditor has to be independent; he can't be overly involved in the authority being audited. For the Church to play its proper prophetic role, holding the State accountable, it has to be reasonably independent of the State.
There are examples of the problems that occur from lack of independence in both Christian and Muslim-majority countries.
The other major concern is religious freedom. Both Christianity and Islam hold that there is no compulsion in religion. Both have also honored this more in the breach than the practice, some to the extent of finding creative interpretations to deny the principle entirely. But setting up structures to protect religious freedom is something that has justification in both of our religions. HIstory is pretty clear that when you give religious leaders too much power, they soon abandon their principles of freedom, finding it too tempting to use force to keep people from making what they see as religious mistakes. You can see this change happen in the lives of famous people such as Augustine and Luther. To avoid controversy I will not cite Muslim examples, but they are certainly there. The safest thing is not to let religious leaders get political power.
As for the Presbyterian Church (USA) the actual statement is
"Nevertheless, Mormonism is a new and emerging religious tradition distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of the Christian Church, of which Presbyterians are a part."
There is more detail in the statement about similarities and differences. But the statement doesn't quite say that they aren't Christian (or that they are).
I do hiring now and then. Our HR department doesn't care whether your degree is from a liberal arts school or technical school. Even with HR departments that do more screening, if you had apparently relevant courses from a good school I don't think they would care.
Once it gets to us, we're more interested in what you've done, although perceived quality of the school and the kinds of things you have taken are certainly part of the picture. But someone out of school whose only programming is for courses isn't going to be very attractive. I might be willing to count an advanced projects course that did something realistic. We look for some signs of what you've done, whether summer jobs, programming part time for the computer center, or things you've done on your own. A technical school may provide somewhat more opportunity for this, but you should be able to do it anywhere.
I don't know whether other managers feel this way or not, but I'd put at least as much work into your cover letter as your resume. It's really hard to tell what's going on from a resume. It's fine for screening, when you need to discard people who don't fit at all. But you don't know what the jobs really were, and you don't know when someone lists their skills whether it's true. The cover letter gives you a chance to explain what you've really done and give some evidence of real skills.
I'm not a great fan of Windows (I use primarily Macs), but I'm also not quite so negative on Vista. The performance tests showed fairly small differences, and the difference in use of swap space suggests that they didn't have enough memory on their test system. One thing that is clear is the VIsta requires more memory than XP to perform well. I don't think that unreasonable in a new OS that offers substantially more functionality. I'd recommend doing comparisons in a system with enough memory that Vista isn't constrained by memory to do extra swapping. I try use to use 2 GB for Vista, though I have one system with 1.5 GB.
While agreeing on what is a "cult" is tricky, there are certainly varying degrees with which systems control and abuse members and former members. In the Christian context, the groups high on the scale tend to be smaller fringe groups. Centuries ago the Catholic Church and some of the Protestants as well qualified, but that hasn't been true for a while on a broad scale. (Both Catholics and Protestants have enough subgroups that you can find examples of just about everything somewhere.)
However Scientology themselves are ambiguous about whether they're a religion. They have often referred to themselves "religious technology." It's fairly unusual for religions to use copyright law to keep their beliefs secret, and to have salvation be from services for which they charge. I realize some people see all religions as money-making schemes, but you can certainly find out what Christians believe and critique it without risking prosecution for copyright violation. Selling services that lead to salvation is a fairly serious offense within Christianity (called simony), although I won't say it's never been done.
I'd like to defend starting with Java. I'm currently mentoring a 14 year old who is learning programming. He started with Java, a year or so ago (after a little bit of hacking around in Visual Basic). The advantage I see is that it's let him quickly get experience with quite a variety of programming: GUI interfaces, sound, a client/server network application with multiple threads and synchronization. He's scary bright, but even he couldn't have done that in C in that time. I think it's worthwhile to have that kind of variety before he starts going into more detail, because it will give him a context to put the details in. He's about to go into a magnet high school run by engineers, so he's going to get the hardware and C++. I certainly wouldn't want to see him stick with Java for the next 5 years, but I think it was a good place to start. I'd certainly expect any computer scientist to have substantial experience with different types of programming, and the languages and tools that go with them.
I've programmed in everything from assembly to Java. (I even taught a course in COBOL once.) I don't share the disdain for Java that many here seem to. Obviously I wouldn't write the Linux kernel in it (yes, my pawprints are in the Linux kernel), but I like it for quite a variety of tasks. I prefer not to make things more difficult than necessary. If you don't need to do your own memory management, why not let Java do it for you? It's less error-prone. (And part of a computer science education is to make sure you know when this makes sense and when it doesn't.) I still haven't made my mind up about Ruby, but in principle I'm interested in languages that are at a higher level than Java.
I've been around long enough to have lived through exactly the same arguments when we switched from assembly to higher level languages. There are always arguments that we lose essential goodness. But I'm not convinced.
I wasn't impressed with the article you are referring to. The issue isn't programming language but breadth of skills. I work at Rutgers University. Our big applications are all in Java. But the really valuable skills for us have to do with debugging complex programs, finding obscure performance problems, etc. This means having a reasonable idea of how the OS, JVM, network, etc, work, how all the pieces fit together, and how you'd get a sense of how they are working. If your Java program starting slowing down, what tools would you use to investigate performance? What might you do? If you ran out of file descriptors, how would you fix it?
It's certainly a good idea to have some experience with a variety of languages. If you know mostly Java, C, some script language like perl or python, and maybe something odd like Lisp. But it's more important to understand a variety of problem types and approaches. Even within Java you can use most of the OS features, do multithreaded code with synchronization, do a network client and server, use a database, etc. I would think that would be more important than to do trivial problems in every possible language. There's an interesting book on game programming in Java (Killer Game Programming) that comes to grips with a lot of systems issues in Java. (I'm not arguing whether you'd actually use Java to build a game engine.)
Hardware still drives computing, so it's not a bad idea to look at the hardware/software interface. Linux is nice because it's a real OS where you can tinker with the source. Try to add some features to a device driver. Do us all a favor and implement a native device driver for some of the device types that are used on laptop computers and aren't yet supported. Or play with a robot. Or both.
But I'm not so convinced that C or C++ are absolutely essential.
We know what Apple has said. Unfortunately we won't know the reality for a year or so.
What they said is that they want to do something different from other vendors. Generally cell phones are pretty much fixed when you buy them. Apple says that want to do something more like a desktop computer: They want to keep adding new functionality. With OS X people expect to buy periodic new versions. We don't have that tradition with cell phones. Supposedly getting a continuous income stream from ATT will let them put continuing development work into it.
Unfortunately we won't know whether this is for real until we see what kind of development they do over the course of a year or two.
This is from Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher.
In certain early accounts from the Old Testament, you can see God as the God who had chosen them, but not necessarily the only one. However during most of the period covered by the OT, and all of the New Testament, God is considered one.
Deut 6:4 Listen, Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 7 6:5 You must love 8 the Lord your God with your whole mind, 9 your whole being, 10 and all your strength. 11
Argue over interpretation if you like, but from writings of prophets and others it is clear that this passage was interpreted as saying that there is only one God. Gods worshipped by others were considered either delusions or false gods.
While SCO didn't own Unix, it did have a right to sell licenses. The recent court order seems to regard the sale to Sun as valid:
Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.
Can anyone say what the feature is that's being disabled? So far I've only seen acronyms.
Re:I was hooked until the guy showed his ls skills
on
iPods Don't Run OS X
·
· Score: 1
There's nothing undocumented about -af. -a gives all files including hidden. -f supposedly omits the default alphabetical sorting (though it doesn't seem to have any effect when I tried it). Use of ls -laf is perfectly plausible in this context. It's later in the article where it becomes a bit hard to believe.
If I were in your position I'd ask more questions about your options. What kind of students do they get? What kind of jobs do those students get? I'm an IT manager in a university. Our university has a small "IT" program in the communications school. Based on some postings here you'd think it would be populated by wash-outs. But the students we've had from it have been really sharp. We hired one of them. He's not a hard-core developer (though he has the skills to be one if he wanted to), but rather someone who bridges the gap between technology and understanding user requirements. And he's really good at it.
Furthermore, CS and IT aren't the only options. You could also consider math or some discipline in which you're interested, where computers are used.
Maybe I'm unusual, but when I evaluate prospective employees, I look for evidence that they have relevant skills. Programming is something that you can (and often do) learn outside of class. I'm more interested to see what kinds of programs you've written and what you know about development than what your major was. However I would also give you credit for having studied something challenging, preferably something that would be useful for your career. Computer science is certainly a good possibility, but so are a number of other fields.
I work in higher ed. I don't know whether the things we use apply to K-12, but I would think they might. In addition to Sakai and Moodle, which have already been mentioned, there is a project for open source administrative systems, called Kuali. See http://kuali.org/
Calvin was an admirer of science. In his time the issue was the new astronomy, which he supported. He held the concept of "accomodation", that in the Bible God accomodated himself to our ability to understand, in some cases describing things as they appeared rather than giving full scientific explanations. While conservative Calvinists today will argue, from his discussion of Genesis I think it's pretty clear that he would have endorsed evolution.
Calvin also did not endorse the idea that hard work results in salvation. That's almost 180 degrees from the actual Reformation view, which emphasizes God's grace.
Calvin also did not treat God's approach to those who are saved and those who are damned symmetrically. While both are part of God's plan, God is with the elect, working in them to regenerate them. This is not true of the damned. Calvin is not entirely consistent in how he describes double predestination. But his treatment of key Biblical passages suggests that he believed in "compatibilism", the idea that on one level God is responsible for everything that happens, but that on another level people make reponsible choices. This is probably not the place to describe that in detail.
Unfortunately Sakai also has a problem with Vista. The WebDAV interface doesn't work. I've looked in detail at the network exchanges and tried tweaking Sakai. As far as I can tell WebDAV just doesn't work reliably in Vista. There are two known protocol issues with the Windows redirector, but even after working around them on the server and making the registry change on the client that is needed to talk to non-MS servers, in many cases Vista never talks to the server. I don't see anything I can do on the server side to fix that.
The same problem existed in XP. However XP had a second implementation of WebDAV, that was part of "network places." It worked, mostly. That implementation has been removed in Vista. I tried to follow up on this with MS at around the time of the release. However they stopped responding. For the moment we're recommending that people running Vista use a shareware WebDAV client.
There may well be issues that need to be fixed by MS, not the application maintainers.
sure. If your corporate application strategy is to use MS-specific software, you can't use either OS X or Linux. Similarly, if you developed your applications with native OS X tools, you couldn't consider Windows. That's not a failing for either Apple or MS. It's a decision you made.
It's closer than you think. I don't know whether the Apple services are exactly equivalent to the best you can get for PC's, but they are better than you imply.
> You don't get 4-hour on-site service with Macs, you get to cut in line at the nearest Apple Store.
The Apple store is only one source of support. Furthermore, the business version of Applecare provides onsite service at many locations (they have a web page where you can enter ZIP code to check). For servers, they promise 4 hour response time during business hours. It appears that even the consumer Applecare will do onsite for desktops within 50 miles of a repair center.
> You also don't get things like group policy or centralized (to a server in your enterprise) updates.
The OS X server documentation appears to describe this kind of thing. They have ways to restrict what users can do, and force specific applications on them. They permit you to distribute updates to your systems, controlling which updates are distributed and when. You can also netboot systems, which can provide better control in some situations.
I haven't used this myself, but I wonder whether you've actually checked what's available.
I'm not sure how large it actually is, but they're certainly active.
It's not ignorance. Many fundamentalists are engineers or hard scientists. In general fundamentalists are committed to rationalism. They tend to be opposed to the more emotional versions of Christianity. Of course there are plenty of ignorant people out there, but that's true of all viewpoints. But the people they get their ideas from aren't ignorant.
Rather, the concern is that the kind of interpretations that allow for evolution open the Bible to subjective interpretation. The same kind of techniques can be used to justify homosexuality, premarital intercourse, Jesus not being God, etc. And they're right about that. I really think that's the issue. However I judge approaches by whether they are consistent with the nature of the documents and the way the prophets and Jesus worked, not by whether they produce results that I like. Jesus spent much of his career fighting literalism, and the way he taught isn't what you'd expect if he wanted his teaching to turn into a new legalism.
I'm particularly concerned because it gives people the wrong impression about Christianity's attitude towards science. While there were certainly incidents from time to time, in general Christianity supported (indeed enabled) the development of science. The war between science and religion is largely 19th Cent atheist propaganda. However current fundamentalists are making it look true.
I didn't see any problems at all. MS would have no reason to expect this guy to be slanted in their favor. His interest is in correcting errors of interpretation, of which it appears some exist.
I think the distinction between "principled" and "practical" is hard to make. I don't object to the three letters DRM. Objections are to what the technology does. So in some sense all objections are practical. If you permit magic, you can come up with a set of specifications that I woudn't object to. But it's hard to imagine a real technology that I would find acceptable. Sure, if all it did was prohibit giving away copies to someone else, I might not have a problem. But I'm single. If I had a family I'd be concerned about other family members. I'm also worried about what happens at the end of copyright. If there are no unencumbered copies, can it get into the public domain? And will any real technology have a long enough lifetime and good enough compatibility to actually meet the requirements you mention. I very much doubt it.
I don't know what the answer to piracy is. But I suspect it's not DRM in the current sense. In a world where it's easy to find illegal copies, the way to sell legal copies is to make them as useful as possible. I can't fathom a strategy based on making the legal copies progressively less and less useful.
Virtual machines are becoming more and more common. One approach is to think of Windows as part of your machine's firmware, and run your real operating system in a VM.
Slashdot Mirror
I teach evolution in junior high Sunday School. Does that count?
Quite the contrary, I think she's sincere. However I also think she understands current constitutional interpretations, and isn't interested in making attempts that will be overturned, just to impress the conservative voters.
I am concerned about the intellectual competence of anyone who believes in creationism.
Driving is a privilege not a right.
This is unconstitutional statist propaganda. According to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the people create a government and give it limited powers necessary to maintain order and do other important common tasks. Regulating driving is surely one of those tasks. I have no objection to requiring insurance. But the government does not confer privileges on its citizens. It's the other way around.
Separation of Church and State is by definition secular, since the definition of secular State is one that is not entangled with religion. But if you are implying that it is contrary to or not based on religion, I disagree. The concept in the U.S. developed when the country was almost entirely Christian. James Madison credited Martin Luther's two kingdoms concept, but that was a development of the general two swords approach that was traditional in Western Christianity.
Certainly the modern U.S. version has much more separation than the original medieval one. But the justification is at least as much religious as secular. I'll be speaking from the Reformed perspective. Reformed Christianity is particularly concerned about the impact of sin on human lives, and finding ways to structure society to best protect against it.
Separating religion from governmental power protects both the Church and the State from corruption. In Christian understanding the need for governments is because of human sin. While real Christianity is based on love and proper intent, because of sin we can't rely on these motivations entirely in ordering our society. In order to safeguard human life, we need to set up structures to protect each other. In setting up governmental structures, we need to be aware that members of government are themselves sinful humans, and thus set up the structures in ways that minimize temptations and potential for abuse, and which provide for the maximum degree of accountability for power.
Separation is a key element of this. In areas that do not do have separation, you can see religious leaders who become more politicians than true religious leaders, and politicians who become hypocrites, and do things that are ill-considered in order to curry favor with powerful religious elements. Separation of Church and State is ultimately a protection for the Church. It is also essential for the Church to be able to call the State to account. Basic principles of auditing say that the auditor has to be independent; he can't be overly involved in the authority being audited. For the Church to play its proper prophetic role, holding the State accountable, it has to be reasonably independent of the State.
There are examples of the problems that occur from lack of independence in both Christian and Muslim-majority countries.
The other major concern is religious freedom. Both Christianity and Islam hold that there is no compulsion in religion. Both have also honored this more in the breach than the practice, some to the extent of finding creative interpretations to deny the principle entirely. But setting up structures to protect religious freedom is something that has justification in both of our religions. HIstory is pretty clear that when you give religious leaders too much power, they soon abandon their principles of freedom, finding it too tempting to use force to keep people from making what they see as religious mistakes. You can see this change happen in the lives of famous people such as Augustine and Luther. To avoid controversy I will not cite Muslim examples, but they are certainly there. The safest thing is not to let religious leaders get political power.
As for the Presbyterian Church (USA) the actual statement is
"Nevertheless, Mormonism is a new and emerging religious tradition distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of the Christian Church, of which Presbyterians are a part."
http://www.pcusa.org/interfaith/study/lds.htm
There is more detail in the statement about similarities and differences. But the statement doesn't quite say that they aren't Christian (or that they are).
I do hiring now and then. Our HR department doesn't care whether your degree is from a liberal arts school or technical school. Even with HR departments that do more screening, if you had apparently relevant courses from a good school I don't think they would care.
Once it gets to us, we're more interested in what you've done, although perceived quality of the school and the kinds of things you have taken are certainly part of the picture. But someone out of school whose only programming is for courses isn't going to be very attractive. I might be willing to count an advanced projects course that did something realistic. We look for some signs of what you've done, whether summer jobs, programming part time for the computer center, or things you've done on your own. A technical school may provide somewhat more opportunity for this, but you should be able to do it anywhere.
I don't know whether other managers feel this way or not, but I'd put at least as much work into your cover letter as your resume. It's really hard to tell what's going on from a resume. It's fine for screening, when you need to discard people who don't fit at all. But you don't know what the jobs really were, and you don't know when someone lists their skills whether it's true. The cover letter gives you a chance to explain what you've really done and give some evidence of real skills.
I'm not a great fan of Windows (I use primarily Macs), but I'm also not quite so negative on Vista. The performance tests showed fairly small differences, and the difference in use of swap space suggests that they didn't have enough memory on their test system. One thing that is clear is the VIsta requires more memory than XP to perform well. I don't think that unreasonable in a new OS that offers substantially more functionality. I'd recommend doing comparisons in a system with enough memory that Vista isn't constrained by memory to do extra swapping. I try use to use 2 GB for Vista, though I have one system with 1.5 GB.
While agreeing on what is a "cult" is tricky, there are certainly varying degrees with which systems control and abuse members and former members. In the Christian context, the groups high on the scale tend to be smaller fringe groups. Centuries ago the Catholic Church and some of the Protestants as well qualified, but that hasn't been true for a while on a broad scale. (Both Catholics and Protestants have enough subgroups that you can find examples of just about everything somewhere.)
However Scientology themselves are ambiguous about whether they're a religion. They have often referred to themselves "religious technology." It's fairly unusual for religions to use copyright law to keep their beliefs secret, and to have salvation be from services for which they charge. I realize some people see all religions as money-making schemes, but you can certainly find out what Christians believe and critique it without risking prosecution for copyright violation. Selling services that lead to salvation is a fairly serious offense within Christianity (called simony), although I won't say it's never been done.
I'd like to defend starting with Java. I'm currently mentoring a 14 year old who is learning programming. He started with Java, a year or so ago (after a little bit of hacking around in Visual Basic). The advantage I see is that it's let him quickly get experience with quite a variety of programming: GUI interfaces, sound, a client/server network application with multiple threads and synchronization. He's scary bright, but even he couldn't have done that in C in that time. I think it's worthwhile to have that kind of variety before he starts going into more detail, because it will give him a context to put the details in. He's about to go into a magnet high school run by engineers, so he's going to get the hardware and C++. I certainly wouldn't want to see him stick with Java for the next 5 years, but I think it was a good place to start. I'd certainly expect any computer scientist to have substantial experience with different types of programming, and the languages and tools that go with them.
I've programmed in everything from assembly to Java. (I even taught a course in COBOL once.) I don't share the disdain for Java that many here seem to. Obviously I wouldn't write the Linux kernel in it (yes, my pawprints are in the Linux kernel), but I like it for quite a variety of tasks. I prefer not to make things more difficult than necessary. If you don't need to do your own memory management, why not let Java do it for you? It's less error-prone. (And part of a computer science education is to make sure you know when this makes sense and when it doesn't.) I still haven't made my mind up about Ruby, but in principle I'm interested in languages that are at a higher level than Java.
I've been around long enough to have lived through exactly the same arguments when we switched from assembly to higher level languages. There are always arguments that we lose essential goodness. But I'm not convinced.
I wasn't impressed with the article you are referring to. The issue isn't programming language but breadth of skills. I work at Rutgers University. Our big applications are all in Java. But the really valuable skills for us have to do with debugging complex programs, finding obscure performance problems, etc. This means having a reasonable idea of how the OS, JVM, network, etc, work, how all the pieces fit together, and how you'd get a sense of how they are working. If your Java program starting slowing down, what tools would you use to investigate performance? What might you do? If you ran out of file descriptors, how would you fix it?
It's certainly a good idea to have some experience with a variety of languages. If you know mostly Java, C, some script language like perl or python, and maybe something odd like Lisp. But it's more important to understand a variety of problem types and approaches. Even within Java you can use most of the OS features, do multithreaded code with synchronization, do a network client and server, use a database, etc. I would think that would be more important than to do trivial problems in every possible language. There's an interesting book on game programming in Java (Killer Game Programming) that comes to grips with a lot of systems issues in Java. (I'm not arguing whether you'd actually use Java to build a game engine.)
Hardware still drives computing, so it's not a bad idea to look at the hardware/software interface. Linux is nice because it's a real OS where you can tinker with the source. Try to add some features to a device driver. Do us all a favor and implement a native device driver for some of the device types that are used on laptop computers and aren't yet supported. Or play with a robot. Or both.
But I'm not so convinced that C or C++ are absolutely essential.
We know what Apple has said. Unfortunately we won't know the reality for a year or so.
What they said is that they want to do something different from other vendors. Generally cell phones are pretty much fixed when you buy them. Apple says that want to do something more like a desktop computer: They want to keep adding new functionality. With OS X people expect to buy periodic new versions. We don't have that tradition with cell phones. Supposedly getting a continuous income stream from ATT will let them put continuing development work into it.
Unfortunately we won't know whether this is for real until we see what kind of development they do over the course of a year or two.
I'm one of the people who don't think God's existence can be proven, but if you want to see a good collection of the standard proofs, take a look at http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent =/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.h tml
This is from Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher.
In certain early accounts from the Old Testament, you can see God as the God who had chosen them, but not necessarily the only one. However during most of the period covered by the OT, and all of the New Testament, God is considered one.
Deut 6:4 Listen, Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 7 6:5 You must love 8 the Lord your God with your whole mind, 9 your whole being, 10 and all your strength. 11
Argue over interpretation if you like, but from writings of prophets and others it is clear that this passage was interpreted as saying that there is only one God. Gods worshipped by others were considered either delusions or false gods.
While SCO didn't own Unix, it did have a right to sell licenses. The recent court order seems to regard the sale to Sun as valid:
Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.
Can anyone say what the feature is that's being disabled? So far I've only seen acronyms.
There's nothing undocumented about -af. -a gives all files including hidden. -f supposedly omits the default alphabetical sorting (though it doesn't seem to have any effect when I tried it). Use of ls -laf is perfectly plausible in this context. It's later in the article where it becomes a bit hard to believe.
If I were in your position I'd ask more questions about your options. What kind of students do they get? What kind of jobs do those students get? I'm an IT manager in a university. Our university has a small "IT" program in the communications school. Based on some postings here you'd think it would be populated by wash-outs. But the students we've had from it have been really sharp. We hired one of them. He's not a hard-core developer (though he has the skills to be one if he wanted to), but rather someone who bridges the gap between technology and understanding user requirements. And he's really good at it.
Furthermore, CS and IT aren't the only options. You could also consider math or some discipline in which you're interested, where computers are used.
Maybe I'm unusual, but when I evaluate prospective employees, I look for evidence that they have relevant skills. Programming is something that you can (and often do) learn outside of class. I'm more interested to see what kinds of programs you've written and what you know about development than what your major was. However I would also give you credit for having studied something challenging, preferably something that would be useful for your career. Computer science is certainly a good possibility, but so are a number of other fields.
I work in higher ed. I don't know whether the things we use apply to K-12, but I would think they might. In addition to Sakai and Moodle, which have already been mentioned, there is a project for open source administrative systems, called Kuali. See http://kuali.org/
Calvin was an admirer of science. In his time the issue was the new astronomy, which he supported. He held the concept of "accomodation", that in the Bible God accomodated himself to our ability to understand, in some cases describing things as they appeared rather than giving full scientific explanations. While conservative Calvinists today will argue, from his discussion of Genesis I think it's pretty clear that he would have endorsed evolution.
Calvin also did not endorse the idea that hard work results in salvation. That's almost 180 degrees from the actual Reformation view, which emphasizes God's grace.
Calvin also did not treat God's approach to those who are saved and those who are damned symmetrically. While both are part of God's plan, God is with the elect, working in them to regenerate them. This is not true of the damned. Calvin is not entirely consistent in how he describes double predestination. But his treatment of key Biblical passages suggests that he believed in "compatibilism", the idea that on one level God is responsible for everything that happens, but that on another level people make reponsible choices. This is probably not the place to describe that in detail.
Unfortunately Sakai also has a problem with Vista. The WebDAV interface doesn't work. I've looked in detail at the network exchanges and tried tweaking Sakai. As far as I can tell WebDAV just doesn't work reliably in Vista. There are two known protocol issues with the Windows redirector, but even after working around them on the server and making the registry change on the client that is needed to talk to non-MS servers, in many cases Vista never talks to the server. I don't see anything I can do on the server side to fix that.
The same problem existed in XP. However XP had a second implementation of WebDAV, that was part of "network places." It worked, mostly. That implementation has been removed in Vista. I tried to follow up on this with MS at around the time of the release. However they stopped responding. For the moment we're recommending that people running Vista use a shareware WebDAV client.
There may well be issues that need to be fixed by MS, not the application maintainers.
sure. If your corporate application strategy is to use MS-specific software, you can't use either OS X or Linux. Similarly, if you developed your applications with native OS X tools, you couldn't consider Windows. That's not a failing for either Apple or MS. It's a decision you made.
It's closer than you think. I don't know whether the Apple services are exactly equivalent to the best you can get for PC's, but they are better than you imply. > You don't get 4-hour on-site service with Macs, you get to cut in line at the nearest Apple Store. The Apple store is only one source of support. Furthermore, the business version of Applecare provides onsite service at many locations (they have a web page where you can enter ZIP code to check). For servers, they promise 4 hour response time during business hours. It appears that even the consumer Applecare will do onsite for desktops within 50 miles of a repair center. > You also don't get things like group policy or centralized (to a server in your enterprise) updates. The OS X server documentation appears to describe this kind of thing. They have ways to restrict what users can do, and force specific applications on them. They permit you to distribute updates to your systems, controlling which updates are distributed and when. You can also netboot systems, which can provide better control in some situations. I haven't used this myself, but I wonder whether you've actually checked what's available.
I'm not sure how large it actually is, but they're certainly active.
It's not ignorance. Many fundamentalists are engineers or hard scientists. In general fundamentalists are committed to rationalism. They tend to be opposed to the more emotional versions of Christianity. Of course there are plenty of ignorant people out there, but that's true of all viewpoints. But the people they get their ideas from aren't ignorant.
Rather, the concern is that the kind of interpretations that allow for evolution open the Bible to subjective interpretation. The same kind of techniques can be used to justify homosexuality, premarital intercourse, Jesus not being God, etc. And they're right about that. I really think that's the issue. However I judge approaches by whether they are consistent with the nature of the documents and the way the prophets and Jesus worked, not by whether they produce results that I like. Jesus spent much of his career fighting literalism, and the way he taught isn't what you'd expect if he wanted his teaching to turn into a new legalism. I'm particularly concerned because it gives people the wrong impression about Christianity's attitude towards science. While there were certainly incidents from time to time, in general Christianity supported (indeed enabled) the development of science. The war between science and religion is largely 19th Cent atheist propaganda. However current fundamentalists are making it look true.
I didn't see any problems at all. MS would have no reason to expect this guy to be slanted in their favor. His interest is in correcting errors of interpretation, of which it appears some exist.
I think the distinction between "principled" and "practical" is hard to make. I don't object to the three letters DRM. Objections are to what the technology does. So in some sense all objections are practical. If you permit magic, you can come up with a set of specifications that I woudn't object to. But it's hard to imagine a real technology that I would find acceptable. Sure, if all it did was prohibit giving away copies to someone else, I might not have a problem. But I'm single. If I had a family I'd be concerned about other family members. I'm also worried about what happens at the end of copyright. If there are no unencumbered copies, can it get into the public domain? And will any real technology have a long enough lifetime and good enough compatibility to actually meet the requirements you mention. I very much doubt it.
I don't know what the answer to piracy is. But I suspect it's not DRM in the current sense. In a world where it's easy to find illegal copies, the way to sell legal copies is to make them as useful as possible. I can't fathom a strategy based on making the legal copies progressively less and less useful.
Virtual machines are becoming more and more common. One approach is to think of Windows as part of your machine's firmware, and run your real operating system in a VM.