If politics is purely a question of the study of and the wielding of power then Bloomberg may be right and we should all be reading Machievalli's "The Prince" instead of debating the human, moral and ethical dimensions of scientific possibilities.
Its peculiar that Bloomburg should be calling for these matters (stem cell etc) not to be politicised since he, as a politician, has got to be aware that everything has a political dimension somewhere along the line, even if indirectly, which is why politics is so very important and not to be trivialised or dismissed.
Politics at its height is concerned with these profound questions; not just lowely administrative questions of how the rubbish/garbage is to be collected, and the roads maintained.
How is that insightful? Interesting, perhaps, but insightful : no way!
The guy has observed, and reported his observation; and how very interesting it is, but it is insightful only by performing (illegal) gymnastics with the word "insight".
It makes me think the moderation mechanism selects for the mindless moderator, or perhaps its just democratic. After-all, democracy is just a refined version of mob-rule. And no, I'm not a leftie-liberal socialist: I want power and authority united in one; a king.
I reckon you don't know what you are talking about. EFS has big limitations and has to be used carefully (knowledgeably) to have any value. But that doesn't make it poor.
However what is poor, in my opinion, is Microsoft's documentation of EFS, and as a result it is effectively unusable.
'I think that eventually, if there's customer demand for this, it will happen," Lock said. "Other organizations will come along allowing VoIP. Who do you think is going to win?'"
Radio bandwidth is limited, and the fantastic speeds of 3G can't overcome nature.
Even if a monetary (price-based) solution is rejected nevertheless in one form or another we will pay for the privilege of the limited slice of air that is available and that we desire.
-Wrong. A user who comes to the site with Opera or Mozilla or Safari, or in fact any W3C-compliant browser, will not see the message
So what, more important is that the site only recommends one browser. Of course non-IE visitors don't see the message since the message is aimed at IE browser users. I think he is probably right; that this site is promoting a mono-culture, deliberately or not (which is another question). Perhaps you should lay-off the arrogant and unwarranted (and dare I say it : immature) assertions in future.
Apache is seriously old (I'm thinking of the real-world Apache : 1.x); its no wonder it has such a knowledgebase. But the fact that it has such a big knowledge base is not enough. MS would be proud of you since they, I reckon, would emply similar reasons for stagnation.
"Another thing is that it is only useful for information we don't already know"
I'm working with a guy who is rich because he has taken "what we already know" and showen it to be either not true or, perhaps more commonly, a half truth (which, BTW, is the christian definition of a heresy, something that maths and science bods don't seem to think applies to them). He does this as a matter of routine just in the way that he thinks. He never fully accepts the convention. I am one of many who he uses to investigate assumed/obvious truths. My job mostly involves pivot tables.
An example might be:
Its obvious that smaller class sizes is better.
Who ever would say otherwise. I reckon few if any have questioned this "truth".
Now stop assuming the truth of that. What do you get? Your solution doesn't have to be generally true as long as it shows that this truth isn't always true; the gain can still be big. Try finding a way of justifying that bigger class sizes are better. I have a solution to this which I'll post later, but maybe you can find one your self.
Lots of radical and wonderful things result from such thinking.
"The chart features in OpenOffice are like a mystery-lover's dream vacation: a huge, mysterious old house with lots of long halls, secret bookcases, dark closets and creaky doors that, when you peer behind them, reveal wonderful secrets."
This is the single worst recommendation for using Open Office I have ever seen. This is exactly what professionals want to avoid
I think perhaps you are arguing for the sake of arguing. As mentioned previously I was talking about respectfulness. Its irrelevant whether its a wedding or a public forum or anything else.
You version of respect equates directly to following your belief system or else.
[sigh] I'm not going to re-tread the same stuff again.
That's because you apparently aren't listening to what you're saying.
Or perhaps you aren't understanding what I am saying.
Do you abstain from alchohol to be "respectful" to Muslims?[ beef/hindu's etc]
I would refrain from alcohol if I were at a Moslem wedding, for instance, or at a Hindu ceremony I would refrain from beef. But niether Moslem nor Hindu would expect one not of their faith to refrain from these things ordinarily , nor would they wage war against them for that reason. These examples aren't comparable to deliberately mis-using a sacred name of God. Apples and Oranges...
What I describe above is a pattern any sensible non-believer would follow, in my opinion, if he didn't want to get into unnecessary trouble. After all, free-speech isn't a sacred princple, particularly not when compared to the principle of Truth, to which free-speech is supposed to be in service.
Anyway, I hope you don't mind but I don't feel that a correspondence between yourself and myself would be much fun, considering your previous comments. bye.
Asking others to avoid using that name is akin to asking them to follow your religious precepts.
I hate to say it but you are telling me what I was saying. I specifically said that this is an issue of respect, not of forcing belief or following anothers rules etc etc. If you want to understand me differently then I can't stop you, but conversation between us is pointless. Logs have got nothing to do with it.
"What exactly should i respect about your beliefs".
I wasn't asking for respect for my beliefs. I was asking for respect for the fact that people believe, and in this case to do that by not abusing free speech. Free speech advocates generally believe in the concept of toleration(perhaps in order to avoid contradicting themselves), but that concept has implications, such as respecting those who believe other things by taking care with certain representations of those beliefs that may be considered sacred/special.
People who abuse free-speech by going beyond tolerance and respect are, in my view, demonstrating classic signs of fundamentalism and fanatacism.
only people who follow a religon have to bow to its rules. Producing Images of Mohammed, using 'Jesus Christ' when i swear, I can do what I like.
If you really don't believe in the concept of 'respect' then I suppose you might do those things, but ultimately you are likely to have a fairly miserable life as respect is pretty important to having a happy one, possibly even a short one whether or not you experience the displeasure of those you have insulted. Insulting another's deity does run a risk of starting a war. Those "Death to America" chants might get realised one day.
What really gets my goat, however, is that it just isn't necessary. Why bother doing it? It has no useful effect, unless you reckon the negative effects are useful. Do you want a war with a load of fanatical moslems? I don't. And its a crap demonstration of the idea of free speech, which is itself a suspicious principle, simply because it is so disrespectful.
Dont you dare try and impose your religous rules on me or anyone else.
Or else what? You'll burn me on a pyre?
If you re-read what I wrote a little more carefully you might notice that I was not imposing my beliefs, rather I was asking the person to be respectful of another's belief by not using a particular religiously-loaded expression (actually involving what I and many others believe to be the name of God). I also pointed out that for either case, believer or unbeliever, using that expression in such a trivial context makes no sense; its not just unnecessary, it is illogical.
If you have nothing to say then don't say it, particularly if it is framed as an insult. Whats the point? Lack of respect for the sake of lack of respect? Better to eat your own tail.
It's just a frickin' plastic disc with numbers on it for christsake
What's Christ got to do with it? If you believe in the guy why are you mentioning his name so inappropriately, and if you don't then why is it for his sake? In anycase perhaps you might consider leaving him out of such irrelevant issues in future, and thereby not so unnecessarily offend the ears of those who worship him.
You have written so much it has set my crack-pot radar all a-buzz.
Blow me down, and knock me over with a feather, but if I'm right this guy is providing an intelligent aggregation of information, unlike RSS, and making some sort of living while he's at it. Obviously he's a terrorist. Don't visit his web site; you might get blown up.
So what if he's plagiarising; we aren't talking about the Washington Post here, or the New York Nonsense. If the guy means to be taken seriously, rather than just making a living, then fine: there is a case to answer.
Otherwise his service is quite valuable: he is acting as an intelligent filter of all the articles out there, and further he is promoting particular articles to sites (such as/.) that he has established may be interested. He is only a side-step away from being a slashdot employee. The fact that he is an 'intelligent' filter is demonstrated by his success with slashdot.
Since processors stay in the cache most of the time, and memory reads then tend to be serial I don't see how this is such an issue.
The concept had to return as soon as people forgot RDRAM and moved on a little.
Quite possibly now is the time for high-latency RAM.
The only reason RDRAM didn't work out is not for technical reasons (caching can handle that) but because they ran hot and were pricey.
Oh come on.
The frickin' MAYOR is coming to your office. Not of Paducah, KY, but of New York City. He probably hasn't been there for three years. Don't you think you'd better make yourself a little more presentable?
Maybe a little, but being sacked for under these circumstances is a long step into creating and advancing an environment of fear. You don't need death squads to create fear; bloombergs will do. Worst of all is that he's in charge of a whole city.
In the west there are too many laws now that make us fear to tread. Traditonally it was the bad who upheld that role. In the past one might experience arbitary violence, now we can expect the same of the law
There are many primates that subsist almost exclusively on fruit that has substantial amounts of sugar. They live for 20 years and their teeth are fine.
The problem of tooth decay is complex, but this oft repeated lie doesn't get to the bottom of it.
I've been led to understand that the authorities on the subject, whoever they are (I can't remember any longer), are of the opinion that modern fruits have been generally bred for largness and sweetness. I read, a while ago, that its unknown whether any natural fruit actually exists (ie fruit that hasn't been manipulated by human sweet-cravings). Apples, Oranges, Bananas, Paw Paws: they are all unnatural. Those primates, I suspect, eat fruit that is less manipulated, quite possibly barely even sweet. Further vegetarian animals sometimes have teeth that keep growing, or even get replaced. If one considers that these creatures are adapated to fruit then it would seem quite likely that they would also be adapated to the the bacterial consequences, and so might not suffer as we do.
So that oft-repeated lie is not neccessarily a lie for the reasons you gave, if alie at all.
In humans the fact that fructose has to be processed by the liver, accelerates ageing like nothing else (not even cigarettes, AFAIK) and drains us of minerals (so hard is it for the body to process the stuff) seems to indicate that our ancient vestigial vegetarian features are no longer capable, just as with the appendix. Fruit eating primates may well do well by their diet, but that doesn't mean we do. [The fact of human sweet-craving does not mean that we are supposed to eat modern fruit, rather its possibly an advantage as a preparation for winter in ancient times, when fruit was seasonal and less sweet]
So all in all: I think you are comparing apples to oranges.
Clearly you've never read the Bible. Check out Leviticus sometime. Look at how God himself sends the Angel of Death to commit mass infanticide when he could've just teleported the Israelites out of Egypt. This is not a loving God.
If God (lets say for arguments sake that he is all-knowing and all-powerfull) sent his angel to kill those kids then those kids needed killing. Further its not technically murder, since God, if he's a real one, has supreme claims on the lives he has created.
The trouble with modern anti-religionist argument is that they are philosophically cr*p. No-one seems to know anything anymore. Not even the Christians, who keep on arguing with people more capable than themselves when they should be simply proclaming the Truth given to them by God, as they were told to do by Jesus of Nazereth.
Stop this stupid arguing, for goodness sake. No-one ever needed knowledge and learning and a good brain; they only ever needed the Holy Spirit.
Slashdot Mirror
How about an example....
Its peculiar that Bloomburg should be calling for these matters (stem cell etc) not to be politicised since he, as a politician, has got to be aware that everything has a political dimension somewhere along the line, even if indirectly, which is why politics is so very important and not to be trivialised or dismissed.
Politics at its height is concerned with these profound questions; not just lowely administrative questions of how the rubbish/garbage is to be collected, and the roads maintained.
How is that insightful? Interesting, perhaps, but insightful : no way!
The guy has observed, and reported his observation; and how very interesting it is, but it is insightful only by performing (illegal) gymnastics with the word "insight".
It makes me think the moderation mechanism selects for the mindless moderator, or perhaps its just democratic. After-all, democracy is just a refined version of mob-rule. And no, I'm not a leftie-liberal socialist: I want power and authority united in one; a king.
However what is poor, in my opinion, is Microsoft's documentation of EFS, and as a result it is effectively unusable.
Radio bandwidth is limited, and the fantastic speeds of 3G can't overcome nature.
Even if a monetary (price-based) solution is rejected nevertheless in one form or another we will pay for the privilege of the limited slice of air that is available and that we desire.
-Wrong. A user who comes to the site with Opera or Mozilla or Safari, or in fact any W3C-compliant browser, will not see the message
So what, more important is that the site only recommends one browser. Of course non-IE visitors don't see the message since the message is aimed at IE browser users. I think he is probably right; that this site is promoting a mono-culture, deliberately or not (which is another question). Perhaps you should lay-off the arrogant and unwarranted (and dare I say it : immature) assertions in future.
Linux = at 2.4, which is most webservers I believe, you have an old, slow but well known, somewhat drooling, dog
Apache = at 1.33, ditto, you have a slow but reliable flea-bitten dog
MySql = at 4.0.X, ditto, you have a catastrophically inconsistent but well documented fast unreliable and smelly dog
Php = only exists to make mutton, I mean LAM, look better than it should.
Go for python or Ruby, my dear persons. I've never used it but I'm certain ASP/VBScript would beat the pants off the dreadful LUMP, I mean DUMP.
I'm working with a guy who is rich because he has taken "what we already know" and showen it to be either not true or, perhaps more commonly, a half truth (which, BTW, is the christian definition of a heresy, something that maths and science bods don't seem to think applies to them). He does this as a matter of routine just in the way that he thinks. He never fully accepts the convention. I am one of many who he uses to investigate assumed/obvious truths. My job mostly involves pivot tables.
An example might be :
Its obvious that smaller class sizes is better.
Who ever would say otherwise. I reckon few if any have questioned this "truth". Now stop assuming the truth of that. What do you get? Your solution doesn't have to be generally true as long as it shows that this truth isn't always true; the gain can still be big. Try finding a way of justifying that bigger class sizes are better. I have a solution to this which I'll post later, but maybe you can find one your self.
Lots of radical and wonderful things result from such thinking.
Its not even up to MS Office 97 standards. Its clunky and slow even on a 1.5 Ghz laptop.
Someone learn from Microsoft, for once.
This is the single worst recommendation for using Open Office I have ever seen. This is exactly what professionals want to avoid
You version of respect equates directly to following your belief system or else.
[sigh] I'm not going to re-tread the same stuff again.
Or perhaps you aren't understanding what I am saying.
Do you abstain from alchohol to be "respectful" to Muslims?[ beef/hindu's etc]
I would refrain from alcohol if I were at a Moslem wedding, for instance, or at a Hindu ceremony I would refrain from beef. But niether Moslem nor Hindu would expect one not of their faith to refrain from these things ordinarily , nor would they wage war against them for that reason. These examples aren't comparable to deliberately mis-using a sacred name of God. Apples and Oranges...
What I describe above is a pattern any sensible non-believer would follow, in my opinion, if he didn't want to get into unnecessary trouble. After all, free-speech isn't a sacred princple, particularly not when compared to the principle of Truth, to which free-speech is supposed to be in service.
Anyway, I hope you don't mind but I don't feel that a correspondence between yourself and myself would be much fun, considering your previous comments. bye.
I hate to say it but you are telling me what I was saying. I specifically said that this is an issue of respect, not of forcing belief or following anothers rules etc etc. If you want to understand me differently then I can't stop you, but conversation between us is pointless. Logs have got nothing to do with it.
I wasn't asking for respect for my beliefs. I was asking for respect for the fact that people believe, and in this case to do that by not abusing free speech. Free speech advocates generally believe in the concept of toleration(perhaps in order to avoid contradicting themselves), but that concept has implications, such as respecting those who believe other things by taking care with certain representations of those beliefs that may be considered sacred/special.
People who abuse free-speech by going beyond tolerance and respect are, in my view, demonstrating classic signs of fundamentalism and fanatacism.
If you really don't believe in the concept of 'respect' then I suppose you might do those things, but ultimately you are likely to have a fairly miserable life as respect is pretty important to having a happy one, possibly even a short one whether or not you experience the displeasure of those you have insulted. Insulting another's deity does run a risk of starting a war. Those "Death to America" chants might get realised one day.
What really gets my goat, however, is that it just isn't necessary. Why bother doing it? It has no useful effect, unless you reckon the negative effects are useful. Do you want a war with a load of fanatical moslems? I don't. And its a crap demonstration of the idea of free speech, which is itself a suspicious principle, simply because it is so disrespectful.
Dont you dare try and impose your religous rules on me or anyone else.
Or else what? You'll burn me on a pyre?
If you re-read what I wrote a little more carefully you might notice that I was not imposing my beliefs, rather I was asking the person to be respectful of another's belief by not using a particular religiously-loaded expression (actually involving what I and many others believe to be the name of God). I also pointed out that for either case, believer or unbeliever, using that expression in such a trivial context makes no sense; its not just unnecessary, it is illogical.
If you have nothing to say then don't say it, particularly if it is framed as an insult. Whats the point? Lack of respect for the sake of lack of respect? Better to eat your own tail.
What's Christ got to do with it? If you believe in the guy why are you mentioning his name so inappropriately, and if you don't then why is it for his sake? In anycase perhaps you might consider leaving him out of such irrelevant issues in future, and thereby not so unnecessarily offend the ears of those who worship him.
Blow me down, and knock me over with a feather, but if I'm right this guy is providing an intelligent aggregation of information, unlike RSS, and making some sort of living while he's at it. Obviously he's a terrorist. Don't visit his web site; you might get blown up.
So what if he's plagiarising; we aren't talking about the Washington Post here, or the New York Nonsense. If the guy means to be taken seriously, rather than just making a living, then fine: there is a case to answer.
Otherwise his service is quite valuable: he is acting as an intelligent filter of all the articles out there, and further he is promoting particular articles to sites (such as /.) that he has established may be interested. He is only a side-step away from being a slashdot employee. The fact that he is an 'intelligent' filter is demonstrated by his success with slashdot.
Long may he make money.
The concept had to return as soon as people forgot RDRAM and moved on a little.
Quite possibly now is the time for high-latency RAM. The only reason RDRAM didn't work out is not for technical reasons (caching can handle that) but because they ran hot and were pricey.
Hot, pricey RAM anyone?
Maybe a little, but being sacked for under these circumstances is a long step into creating and advancing an environment of fear. You don't need death squads to create fear; bloombergs will do. Worst of all is that he's in charge of a whole city.
In the west there are too many laws now that make us fear to tread. Traditonally it was the bad who upheld that role. In the past one might experience arbitary violence, now we can expect the same of the law
Nimda was a worm not a virus, and Mcfee is in the business of selling anti-virus software and only provided anti-worm software later in the day.
I've been led to understand that the authorities on the subject, whoever they are (I can't remember any longer), are of the opinion that modern fruits have been generally bred for largness and sweetness. I read, a while ago, that its unknown whether any natural fruit actually exists (ie fruit that hasn't been manipulated by human sweet-cravings). Apples, Oranges, Bananas, Paw Paws: they are all unnatural. Those primates, I suspect, eat fruit that is less manipulated, quite possibly barely even sweet. Further vegetarian animals sometimes have teeth that keep growing, or even get replaced. If one considers that these creatures are adapated to fruit then it would seem quite likely that they would also be adapated to the the bacterial consequences, and so might not suffer as we do.
So that oft-repeated lie is not neccessarily a lie for the reasons you gave, if alie at all.
In humans the fact that fructose has to be processed by the liver, accelerates ageing like nothing else (not even cigarettes, AFAIK) and drains us of minerals (so hard is it for the body to process the stuff) seems to indicate that our ancient vestigial vegetarian features are no longer capable, just as with the appendix. Fruit eating primates may well do well by their diet, but that doesn't mean we do. [The fact of human sweet-craving does not mean that we are supposed to eat modern fruit, rather its possibly an advantage as a preparation for winter in ancient times, when fruit was seasonal and less sweet]
So all in all: I think you are comparing apples to oranges.
If God (lets say for arguments sake that he is all-knowing and all-powerfull) sent his angel to kill those kids then those kids needed killing. Further its not technically murder, since God, if he's a real one, has supreme claims on the lives he has created.
The trouble with modern anti-religionist argument is that they are philosophically cr*p. No-one seems to know anything anymore. Not even the Christians, who keep on arguing with people more capable than themselves when they should be simply proclaming the Truth given to them by God, as they were told to do by Jesus of Nazereth.
Stop this stupid arguing, for goodness sake. No-one ever needed knowledge and learning and a good brain; they only ever needed the Holy Spirit.
Thats nice for you, as for the rest of us....