Seriously? I tried it for a few days recently and found it maddening that every time I so much as looked at the mouse my focus shifted. It's bad enough when certain apps/dialogs steal focus without it changing randomly because I knocked the mouse a couple of mm.
Really? Did you have it set to just change focus or also bring the active window to the top? When I initially played with this I had it bringing the active window to the top and that made me CRAZY. I changed the behaviour so the focus follows the mouse, but the window only moves to the top if left clicked - and I love it. I can copy and paste from one window to another without changing the location of the windows on the screen.
Your uncle had a power adapter plug in the lighter of his 73 LeMans? Sounds like a fire hazard.
Hey, I had a power adapter in the plug of my 65 LeSabre when we went on vacation to New Mexico. Had a laptop plugged into it and watched movies as we cruised down the Interstate at 90.
They all conflict with the 6000-year-old Earth teaching that is very much alive and well in American Christianity.
Actually, they don't. Not in all circles. There is a common belief that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1, when the heavens and earth were created, and Genesis 1:2, when the seven days of creation began. The "6000-year-old Earth teaching" you refer to is actually a teaching that it was 6000 years since life was created. There is room in the teaching for the Earth and Universe to be older by an indeterminate amount of time.
Re:If everybody uses it, what's the point?
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
field could be reduced to achieve the same visual result, namely a faster game.
WOW. Yes, in theory it could, but the odds of anyone getting the size of a baseball field changed are miniscule. If you think there's a lot of flack about this steroids busines, just try mucking around with the rules to the "national pastime". Somebody will probably burn you at the stake.
Seriously though, I'm more of a football fan than a Baseball fan, and I know they change in size and ability of the average NFL player has made the game much more interesting and fun to watch. I can definitely tell the game has changed since I was a kid. I'm not saying the differences are due to performance enhancing drugs, although they may be, but as players get more athletic the game (for me) gets more interesting and exciting.
Re:Unless You're Still Under a Rock
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. It's amazing to me that the "U.S. House Government Reforms Committee" is conducting this investigation. Seems like they could be doing something useful, maybe looking into GOVERNMENT REFORM instead of Baseball.
On the plus side, the 'War on Drugs' has been so successful, I bet the new addition of a 'War on Steriods' will TOTALLY keep professional athletes from using them.
relying on natural skill, strength, what have you - those qualities that MAKE an athlete.
Really? So it's just natural skill and strenght that make an athlete? So if we just love them for some random genetic predisposition to run and jump it's OK, but if someone doesn't have those magic genetics it's corruption when they attempt to improve their skills?
If anything, I think it's the opposite of corruption. I think it brings opportunity to kids, like Canseco (at least according to his book), who may not have had the natural ability to be a professional but had the desire and will to succeed.
Re:If everybody uses it, what's the point?
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
But if everybody does it, everybody is back to square one. There is no true improvement for the sport.
I would disagree. If the players are bigger and stronger they will hit the ball harder and run faster, thus making the game more exciting for the spectators. Ultimately that's what professional sports are all about, getting the fans excited enough to pay money to watch the game. The example about Mark McGwire in the review is perfect. When he was hitting all of those home runs, everyone loved him. I'm sure the Cardinals made a TON of money off of him in 1999, and the fans were happy. That's true improvment for the sport.
If steriods are actually a good thing, as claimed in the book, maybe lots of people will start using them.
This may come as complete shock, but there are already LOTS of people using them. Next time you are at your local gym (or if you don't have a gym membership go get a free trial) look around. There is a limit to the size and shape most people can acquire naturally and the odds are good that some of the people in your local gym didn't acquire their size and shape naturally. Most competitive (not professional, competitive )bodybuilders use juice, they have to to compete. Heck, when I was in high school in the late 80's I knew guys doing steriods, granted the laws were much more lax, but it was still socially unacceptable.
I agree completely with the rest of your statement. If there are things that are available that will make me bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, whatever and are reasonably safe, why are we not researching these and making them available to the public.
Hmmm... that's a good question, I didn't make it up on the spot, but it is a quote I've heard second hand - so I did a google search on it.
Found this page on divorce statistics that appears to corroborate my statement. According to these stats your theory about the Catholic vs. Protestant divorce rates appears to be correct. As far as birth control... didn't see any stats on that related to divorce.
My original point wasn't to spread FUD. It was to point out that there is a relatively high divorce rate among Christians considering how negatively divorce is viewed by the Church.
It is the fact that the church _allows_ other denominations that suggests it is not fundamentalist. Fundamentalism by common definition means believing the bible is 100% literal truth and as such precludes different/looser interpretations. Of course, the congregation could be all fundamentalist denominations and no non-fund. denominations in which case it could be (which is why I added "in general")
Yes, I see what you mean, because a church considers itself non-denominational means there are other denominations and they can be allowed whereas a denominational church would belive they are the only ones with the right answers and everyone else is a heretic. Interesting - guess I never thought of it that way, but I suppose that attitude has been more the norm than the exception over the centuries.
Then you are not a fundamentalist. Nor would I consider a "non-denominational congregation" a fundamentalist church in general.
Just because a particular church does not have a denominational affiliation does not have any impact on if it's teachings are considered fundamentalist or not. Mostly it's an argument of semantics, and what you consider fundamentalist. I would consider myself fundamentalist because I believe the basics of the christian religion - the whole bible is true, Christ was the Son of God made flesh who died and was ressurrected, and the only way to eternal life is belief in Him, and that you should love God and Love your neighbor.
I just personally believe that many of the groups that get labeled fundamentalist are far from expressing the fundamentals for Christianity.
And since it is great, these vague notions of "fundamentalist religions" that you cite never actually say "sex is bad".
Even though we are in serious OT territory here, I thought I would throw my two cents in. Before I start, let me make it very clear that I am a member of a "fundamentalist religion", I grew up Methodist, and have been part of a non-denominational congregation since I was 15. That said, I don't completely agree with everything the fundamentalists believe, and sex is one of the items at the top of the list that I have issues with.
Fundamentalists may not teach the "sex is bad", but they do strike a serious fear of sex in the minds of all of their teenagers. I grew up believing that having sex outside of marriage is probably the worst sin you could commit. Now I personally don't think teen sex is a good thing, really, who wants a baby at 17, but the church tends to go so far that they create (as anothe poster commented) this air for mystery about the whole thing. The church I went to often discouraged dating, kissing, being alone with someone of the opposite sex, anything that could possibly lead to sex. The problem with this is it also screws up much of a kid's psychological and sexual maturity. If you follow their rules, you never gain the experience needed to be succesful in relationships down the road. If you don't you are an outcast and a bad kid.
Why do you think that the Christian church in America has a higher divorce rate than the general population? These kids are taught that you have to be married to have sex, and it's evil to date, so they get married at 18 to the first nice christian girl the find, just so they can sleep together. Five years they figure out that they really don't like each other, or one of them wants to go sow some wild oats, so they get divorced. I've seen in many times.
I don't know what the right answer is, but the fundamentalist church is alienating itself from the common man by focusing on issues that either aren't important, aren't a sin or just aren't worth fighting about. They focus on things like sex, drinking, smoking, bad words and homosexuality, but ignore things like lying, cheating, stealing, and greed.
Presumably, the person making $100k is going to have a nicer home and nicer things which require more protection from the local law enforcement and fire department.
Actually, I would argue that most people making $100k live in nice neighborhoods with low crime rates. Everyone else the neigborhood makes $100k a year as well, why would people in that neighborhood steal my car or burn my house down. Many people with money live in gated communities, areas with private security and have alarm systems in their houses.
Lower income people OTOH often live in areas where crime is definitely more visible, if not more common. I've found this even in my personal experience. I used to live in a trailer park on the wrong side of the town I live in. It was an OK place to live, but in a lower income community. I had several things stolen - bicycle, car stereo, even had the place broken into once. I moved to a house in a nicer neighborhood about 10 blocks away and have not had one problem - and I don't make anywhere near $100k.
you are confusing success as defined by "winning 1st place in the market" and "making profits for your shareholders".
Not really. I'm just trying to point out that in both examples (Apple and Microsoft), when they have followed the three philosophies laid out in this article have been successful. Most of the time, if you find a product/service that people want and are able to bring it to market you will be very successful and possibly win 1st place in the market. If you bring out a product that few people are interested in you will be less successful. If nobody wants the product it will fail and you will need to move on.
When Microsoft or Apple have brought a product that everyone wants, had good people working on it and they were careful with their money they were successful. When any of these three failed, their products were less successful. I'm sure the same theory can be applied to most situations.
Exactly. Medicine is becoming a difficult field to make money in, for various reasons. I'm sure there are many people out there that would be doctors except for all the hassle and costs (education, insurance, taxes, licensing, whatever), so decide to be engineers or lawyers instead. As a result health care costs have risen drastically in the last 20 years with no cap in sight.
As a startup, Apple sure as hell did do those 3 things. As for making something customers want, you might have heard of the enormously popular Apple II, or perhaps the original Macintosh?
I would agree absolutely with the Apple II. When Jobs and Wozniak were selling computers out of Job's Garage they were following all three of these principals. When I was a kid, everyone that could afford a home computer had a IIe or IIc.
The Macintosh, OTOH I would not agree with. It was famous, successful enough to keep Apple afloat, but ultimately not what "people wanted". Even back then, everyone was infatuated with the IBM PC and PC 'Clones'.
You have a good point, but Apple didn't follow these three rules (or didn't for a long time). They have great people and it seems like they have done a decent job managing their money, but they traditionally have not made "something customers actually want". Their products have been excellent, but the market didn't want an excellent product, they wanted a cheap one.
Microsoft figured out a long time ago how to give people what they want. Nobody wanted an old clunky DOS interface, so they gave everyone a cheap, standardized GUI interface. Everyone was tired of figuring out WordPerfect's syntax, so they gave everyone a WYSIWYG Word processor.
Apple, recently, has started getting it right and following these three rules. First was the iMac and it's startling success. Now it's the iPod - something that EVERYONE wants, and they are dominating the digital music player market.
Interestingly enough, in 1992 Colorado did this at a state level with the TABOR (Taxpayer's Bill Of Rights). What's funny (to me) is that now that the economy has been weaker for a few years, and the state has less money, the state legislature is constantly crying about not having enough money. There are trying to weasel out of the whole situation by "reforming" TABOR.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't give up your password, I think they can get you on obstruction of justice.
Which MIGHT be better than racketeering charges...
Seriously? I tried it for a few days recently and found it maddening that every time I so much as looked at the mouse my focus shifted. It's bad enough when certain apps/dialogs steal focus without it changing randomly because I knocked the mouse a couple of mm.
Really? Did you have it set to just change focus or also bring the active window to the top? When I initially played with this I had it bringing the active window to the top and that made me CRAZY. I changed the behaviour so the focus follows the mouse, but the window only moves to the top if left clicked - and I love it. I can copy and paste from one window to another without changing the location of the windows on the screen.
Totally OT, but when I was a kid I had a friend that thought he was some kind of martial artist (he wasn't).
We used to call him Ninja Guy Dan.
Your uncle had a power adapter plug in the lighter of his 73 LeMans? Sounds like a fire hazard.
Hey, I had a power adapter in the plug of my 65 LeSabre when we went on vacation to New Mexico. Had a laptop plugged into it and watched movies as we cruised down the Interstate at 90.
Guns don't kill people - People kill people.
Personally I'd just make e-scrabble a porn site. See how Hasbro likes that when the kiddies search for Scrabble and get naked people.
They all conflict with the 6000-year-old Earth teaching that is very much alive and well in American Christianity.
Actually, they don't. Not in all circles. There is a common belief that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1, when the heavens and earth were created, and Genesis 1:2, when the seven days of creation began. The "6000-year-old Earth teaching" you refer to is actually a teaching that it was 6000 years since life was created. There is room in the teaching for the Earth and Universe to be older by an indeterminate amount of time.
field could be reduced to achieve the same visual result, namely a faster game.
WOW. Yes, in theory it could, but the odds of anyone getting the size of a baseball field changed are miniscule. If you think there's a lot of flack about this steroids busines, just try mucking around with the rules to the "national pastime". Somebody will probably burn you at the stake.
Seriously though, I'm more of a football fan than a Baseball fan, and I know they change in size and ability of the average NFL player has made the game much more interesting and fun to watch. I can definitely tell the game has changed since I was a kid. I'm not saying the differences are due to performance enhancing drugs, although they may be, but as players get more athletic the game (for me) gets more interesting and exciting.
Exactly. It's amazing to me that the "U.S. House Government Reforms Committee" is conducting this investigation. Seems like they could be doing something useful, maybe looking into GOVERNMENT REFORM instead of Baseball.
On the plus side, the 'War on Drugs' has been so successful, I bet the new addition of a 'War on Steriods' will TOTALLY keep professional athletes from using them.
relying on natural skill, strength, what have you - those qualities that MAKE an athlete.
Really? So it's just natural skill and strenght that make an athlete? So if we just love them for some random genetic predisposition to run and jump it's OK, but if someone doesn't have those magic genetics it's corruption when they attempt to improve their skills?
If anything, I think it's the opposite of corruption. I think it brings opportunity to kids, like Canseco (at least according to his book), who may not have had the natural ability to be a professional but had the desire and will to succeed.
But if everybody does it, everybody is back to square one. There is no true improvement for the sport.
I would disagree. If the players are bigger and stronger they will hit the ball harder and run faster, thus making the game more exciting for the spectators. Ultimately that's what professional sports are all about, getting the fans excited enough to pay money to watch the game. The example about Mark McGwire in the review is perfect. When he was hitting all of those home runs, everyone loved him. I'm sure the Cardinals made a TON of money off of him in 1999, and the fans were happy. That's true improvment for the sport.
If steriods are actually a good thing, as claimed in the book, maybe lots of people will start using them.
This may come as complete shock, but there are already LOTS of people using them. Next time you are at your local gym (or if you don't have a gym membership go get a free trial) look around. There is a limit to the size and shape most people can acquire naturally and the odds are good that some of the people in your local gym didn't acquire their size and shape naturally. Most competitive (not professional, competitive )bodybuilders use juice, they have to to compete. Heck, when I was in high school in the late 80's I knew guys doing steriods, granted the laws were much more lax, but it was still socially unacceptable.
I agree completely with the rest of your statement. If there are things that are available that will make me bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, whatever and are reasonably safe, why are we not researching these and making them available to the public.
Hmmm... that's a good question, I didn't make it up on the spot, but it is a quote I've heard second hand - so I did a google search on it. Found this page on divorce statistics that appears to corroborate my statement. According to these stats your theory about the Catholic vs. Protestant divorce rates appears to be correct. As far as birth control... didn't see any stats on that related to divorce.
My original point wasn't to spread FUD. It was to point out that there is a relatively high divorce rate among Christians considering how negatively divorce is viewed by the Church.
Who said she was single?
It is the fact that the church _allows_ other denominations that suggests it is not fundamentalist. Fundamentalism by common definition means believing the bible is 100% literal truth and as such precludes different/looser interpretations. Of course, the congregation could be all fundamentalist denominations and no non-fund. denominations in which case it could be (which is why I added "in general")
Yes, I see what you mean, because a church considers itself non-denominational means there are other denominations and they can be allowed whereas a denominational church would belive they are the only ones with the right answers and everyone else is a heretic. Interesting - guess I never thought of it that way, but I suppose that attitude has been more the norm than the exception over the centuries.
Then you are not a fundamentalist. Nor would I consider a "non-denominational congregation" a fundamentalist church in general.
Just because a particular church does not have a denominational affiliation does not have any impact on if it's teachings are considered fundamentalist or not. Mostly it's an argument of semantics, and what you consider fundamentalist. I would consider myself fundamentalist because I believe the basics of the christian religion - the whole bible is true, Christ was the Son of God made flesh who died and was ressurrected, and the only way to eternal life is belief in Him, and that you should love God and Love your neighbor.
I just personally believe that many of the groups that get labeled fundamentalist are far from expressing the fundamentals for Christianity.
And since it is great, these vague notions of "fundamentalist religions" that you cite never actually say "sex is bad".
Even though we are in serious OT territory here, I thought I would throw my two cents in. Before I start, let me make it very clear that I am a member of a "fundamentalist religion", I grew up Methodist, and have been part of a non-denominational congregation since I was 15. That said, I don't completely agree with everything the fundamentalists believe, and sex is one of the items at the top of the list that I have issues with.
Fundamentalists may not teach the "sex is bad", but they do strike a serious fear of sex in the minds of all of their teenagers. I grew up believing that having sex outside of marriage is probably the worst sin you could commit. Now I personally don't think teen sex is a good thing, really, who wants a baby at 17, but the church tends to go so far that they create (as anothe poster commented) this air for mystery about the whole thing. The church I went to often discouraged dating, kissing, being alone with someone of the opposite sex, anything that could possibly lead to sex. The problem with this is it also screws up much of a kid's psychological and sexual maturity. If you follow their rules, you never gain the experience needed to be succesful in relationships down the road. If you don't you are an outcast and a bad kid.
Why do you think that the Christian church in America has a higher divorce rate than the general population? These kids are taught that you have to be married to have sex, and it's evil to date, so they get married at 18 to the first nice christian girl the find, just so they can sleep together. Five years they figure out that they really don't like each other, or one of them wants to go sow some wild oats, so they get divorced. I've seen in many times.
I don't know what the right answer is, but the fundamentalist church is alienating itself from the common man by focusing on issues that either aren't important, aren't a sin or just aren't worth fighting about. They focus on things like sex, drinking, smoking, bad words and homosexuality, but ignore things like lying, cheating, stealing, and greed.
1984 seems to be approaching faster than I would like
Well, actually, it's 21 years late already. Can't hold it off forever.
Nice Bender Sig.
Presumably, the person making $100k is going to have a nicer home and nicer things which require more protection from the local law enforcement and fire department.
Actually, I would argue that most people making $100k live in nice neighborhoods with low crime rates. Everyone else the neigborhood makes $100k a year as well, why would people in that neighborhood steal my car or burn my house down. Many people with money live in gated communities, areas with private security and have alarm systems in their houses.
Lower income people OTOH often live in areas where crime is definitely more visible, if not more common. I've found this even in my personal experience. I used to live in a trailer park on the wrong side of the town I live in. It was an OK place to live, but in a lower income community. I had several things stolen - bicycle, car stereo, even had the place broken into once. I moved to a house in a nicer neighborhood about 10 blocks away and have not had one problem - and I don't make anywhere near $100k.
you are confusing success as defined by "winning 1st place in the market" and "making profits for your shareholders".
Not really. I'm just trying to point out that in both examples (Apple and Microsoft), when they have followed the three philosophies laid out in this article have been successful. Most of the time, if you find a product/service that people want and are able to bring it to market you will be very successful and possibly win 1st place in the market. If you bring out a product that few people are interested in you will be less successful. If nobody wants the product it will fail and you will need to move on.
When Microsoft or Apple have brought a product that everyone wants, had good people working on it and they were careful with their money they were successful. When any of these three failed, their products were less successful. I'm sure the same theory can be applied to most situations.
Exactly. Medicine is becoming a difficult field to make money in, for various reasons. I'm sure there are many people out there that would be doctors except for all the hassle and costs (education, insurance, taxes, licensing, whatever), so decide to be engineers or lawyers instead. As a result health care costs have risen drastically in the last 20 years with no cap in sight.
As a startup, Apple sure as hell did do those 3 things. As for making something customers want, you might have heard of the enormously popular Apple II, or perhaps the original Macintosh?
I would agree absolutely with the Apple II. When Jobs and Wozniak were selling computers out of Job's Garage they were following all three of these principals. When I was a kid, everyone that could afford a home computer had a IIe or IIc.
The Macintosh, OTOH I would not agree with. It was famous, successful enough to keep Apple afloat, but ultimately not what "people wanted". Even back then, everyone was infatuated with the IBM PC and PC 'Clones'.
You have a good point, but Apple didn't follow these three rules (or didn't for a long time). They have great people and it seems like they have done a decent job managing their money, but they traditionally have not made "something customers actually want". Their products have been excellent, but the market didn't want an excellent product, they wanted a cheap one.
Microsoft figured out a long time ago how to give people what they want. Nobody wanted an old clunky DOS interface, so they gave everyone a cheap, standardized GUI interface. Everyone was tired of figuring out WordPerfect's syntax, so they gave everyone a WYSIWYG Word processor.
Apple, recently, has started getting it right and following these three rules. First was the iMac and it's startling success. Now it's the iPod - something that EVERYONE wants, and they are dominating the digital music player market.
lets make it somehow capped off.
Interestingly enough, in 1992 Colorado did this at a state level with the TABOR (Taxpayer's Bill Of Rights). What's funny (to me) is that now that the economy has been weaker for a few years, and the state has less money, the state legislature is constantly crying about not having enough money. There are trying to weasel out of the whole situation by "reforming" TABOR.
Stupid politicians