Scratch that. Ever used any Google website other than their search engine? Ever posted on someone's Facebook wall? Ever used Meebo (real-time IM as a web app)?
It's very simple to write web applications that easily handle all the situations you mentioned - except for possibly the "Can you have this interface with a local app?" setting, which isn't all that hard to do with a bit of Java and its JavaScript, or perhaps a native-code stub that loads the settings and sends them to the server.
AJAX is pretty fast, if you have a decent server and your scripts are written efficiently. You should try it sometime.
I have worked with *a lot* of mormons over the years and not one has ever brought up religion with me. As far as I know they do missionary work out of sense of duty.
It's entirely possible that the majority of them are too intimidated or simply not gifted enough in speaking to bring up the subject (which is a pity, if you've worked with them for long), and the few you meet who evangelize are the few who have the courage to do so. This is the case with essentially all religious people, certainly with most mainstream Christians. I would have a really hard time walking up to a stranger and speaking about my faith, but I know there are several who don't find it that hard.
Whenever someone says "I'm telling you the truth of God because I care about your soul" I hear "I'm somewhat insecure in my own faith and I need you to believe with me"
I can understand this for Wiccans and probably even Jehovah's Witnesses, but for the average mainstream Protestant Christian (which I'm guessing you're referring to), you're making a tough claim that they aren't surrounded by enough other believers to convince them that their faith isn't unreasonable and weird.
Besides, even if this were true, you have two flaws in your argument Firstly, just because "you hear" this interpretation doesn't mean that it's valid. I can always claim, 'When the fireman says, "Don't play with matches," I hear, "I'm blindly repeating what I've been ordered to say."' Possibly, but he's also telling the truth and genuinely believes what he's saying.
Secondly, it's far more likely that the person who's telling you this honestly cares about you than is insecure in your faith. Wouldn't you be more willing to tell others about something you belive the more you believe in it?
Why? How is God more implausible than Pluto? Or string theory?
evolution is a fact
a) Why? b) More of a fact tham, oh, Newtonian mechanics? c) What the hell (no pun intended) does this have to do with the existence of God?
As a matter of fact, If my God weren't powerful and smart enough to be able to design a system as elegant as evolution that would eventually result in the creation of advanced species, and instead had to brute-force the design of every single species, even though a lot of them are obviously very similar and would benefit from the ability to adapt, I would have real problems calling Him omniscient and omnipotent.
I was raised Christian, so I always had a hunch that this was indeed the case, that God made us genetically likely to look for Him.
Of course, you're asking about the other direction. I would ask, where would this genetic trait have come from? The article seems to indicate it isn't an "evolutionary adaptation," so it was either put there by a force other than evolution, or its an entirely random accident that didn't have enough of a negative side effect to be weeded out - and managed to dominate over the lack of this trait in other strands of humanity. I think the former case is more plausible.
Corporate control of our communication is a guaranteed disaster for everyone but the owners of the corporation.
I wonder who owns that cell tower over there. The people?
Oh, and remember that time the masses organized and laid copper wire throughout the country?
And, lest I forget, there's UPS - the Union of Proletariat Service. One good citizen hands the package to the next good citizen until it arrives at the destination.
The IT people I know are the ones that seem to have the hardest time saying the two 3 word phrases that every engineer (in my opinion) must learn before leaving college: "I don't know." and "I was wrong."
Have you done tech support? It's hard to say "I don't know" when the users are breathing down your necks to know the answer, dammit. So you try "I don't know," if you remember and you haven't suppressed it, and then you try to make up something that's likely to be the answer or point them on their way -- but most importantly, appear to be an answer.
You know you can have the static articles be publicly available for relatively cheap. (On each write, save a copy to a second server. Get the second server from $CHEAPO_HOSTING_COMPANY for $5/month if needed.) A read-only Wiki is entirely equivalent to a normal static web site.
Anyway, good luck with the project. You're in an excellent position to fix a lot of the things that Wikipedia didn't do right when it started.
Geolocation of IP addresses is pretty much a black art as well - there's far too much variability by IP address to try and localise to the precision needed for bombing the source. My hostip.infowebsite only attempted to locate to the/24 netblock, and even then only managed ~50% accuracy.
<evil laugh>
hostip.info geolocated me to within a mile, based on my/8.
So this means that the media companies can falsely claim copyright to *any* material and the publisher is provided an email by youtube. However, in order to counter, you (the publisher) have to send a snailmail to them and wait how long before something is done about it? Are you even guarenteed a response?
Um, "written" includes e-mail. Why else would it require a "physical or electronic signature", for one?
And you send YouTube the counterclaim, not the publisher. YouTube has a motive in keeping content up, so you're more likely to get a response than Viacom was.
restricting someone from doing what they want with GPL software
Like selling it in binary form only and refusing to provide the source or even acknowledge it's GPL'd?
The GPL is a viral freedom license. It makes sure that all redistributions and derivatives are as Free as the original.
In this case, the restriction would be that Novell would be trying to combine it with patented code and call the result GPL'd. This is kinda possible with GPLv2, but it won't be possible with GPLv3, and the new GNU utilities will be released under v3 only; therefore, Novell could only sell their patented additions to older, probably stagnant GNU code.
Indeed, like the license wanted, the v2 code will always be free to redistribute under v2. But it's not going to be the latest.
It seems like with Windows, you can choose either crashes (9x) or viruses (nt/2k/xp). I much prefer crashes, especially since I only use Windows for games nowadays (when I have time).
Ahem.
XP is pretty good about not having viruses or worms if you apply the proper precautions, the first of which is turning on a firewall (default in SP2) and only opening ports when you absolutely have to. And if you don't download sketchy software or mount sketchy disks. I run XP semi-frequently directly on the public Internet (meaning not behind a router, although that helps a lot and is encouraged if you can), and I haven't had problems; I keep the firewall on and I run Windows Update.
Windows 98 probably has a bunch of vulnerabilities (the WMF exploit is the first that comes to mind; Messenger Service is the second) that haven't been patched thanks to it being end-of-lifed; I'd be really worried about running it on a regular basis, especially if outside a physical firewall/NAT.
Or, perhaps, that it does, and the people who say that are often trying to convince themselves that it's okay their finances are a mess?
Or perhaps people aren't happy yet don't have their finances in a mess, and they're pondering how that works.
Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him: He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.
And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked; But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.
And he was rich--yes, richer than a king,
And admirably schooled in every grace: In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.
So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread; And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.
Here's a start: Linux needs to tuck the command line under the carpet. Blasphemy! [Runs and hides]
Rug, not carpet. The Mac today is far more popular than it ever was in the pre-BSD Mac OS days.
And yes, I think there is a causal relationship. I can fix a box that has a command prompt much easier than one that just has a GUI. I can develop for that architecture much more easily, too, and I can port even GUI applications to that architecture without difficulty. The average user doesn't need to see the command line, except right at bootup ("Uncompressing Linux...done.") - but it needs to be trivially accessible if he wants it.
(I have an 84 Plus, which was the latest in the series when I bought it.)
Seriously, you want a TI-83 series calculator for a few reasons:
1) If you want to go to a decent college, you'll be taking the ACT and the SAT. One of these does not permit calculators more advanced than the 83 series. (This is also true of many math-involving competitions.)
2) TI is the de facto standard. You probably want interoperability and the ability not to care about how your calculator does things. Your teachers will know how to use a TI-83.
3) By the time you get to advanced math courses, especially in college, using an 89 (or equivalent) might be cool but it's often painful and not all that helpful on tests. You're going to prefer Mathematica or Matlab on your computer, possibly on a laptop if you want to play with the math while in lecture.
But mainly it's reason #1. Why spend hundreds of dollars on something that an important exam or contest turns out not to let you use?
(I have a friend who went the route of having an 89 for herself and an 83 nominally for her younger brother. That 83 showed up in her hands more often than not. I didn't feel like wasting the money on two calculators for one person.)
students need to do a lot of tedious things once or twice
Why? The academic equivalent of hazing? Or is there any real benefit gained by a long procedure with no bearing towards the theory that results in careless errors?
In the calculus class I teach, I can't think of a single aspect of the class that would be improved by having a calculator.
Oh, sure.
What about the numerical analysis class your friend teaches? Or the physics classes taught by the people in the next building?
If your class is entirely symbolic, then calculators aren't appropriate. If your subject is numeric, then they're necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if the battles going poorly, there will also be MS Office Mega Edition.
And if perchance none of those install successfully, there's also the Armor-Digivolved Edition.
NASA officially endorses Depends.
Is the Hubble Space Telescope going to survive? Depends.
Are we going to be returning to the moon ever? Depends.
Are we sending any humans to Mars? Depends.
Sorry, what? Lynx is a GUI. A console text-mode GUI as opposed to a bitmap-based GUI, but a GUI nonetheless.
Ever heard of AJAX?
Scratch that. Ever used any Google website other than their search engine? Ever posted on someone's Facebook wall? Ever used Meebo (real-time IM as a web app)?
It's very simple to write web applications that easily handle all the situations you mentioned - except for possibly the "Can you have this interface with a local app?" setting, which isn't all that hard to do with a bit of Java and its JavaScript, or perhaps a native-code stub that loads the settings and sends them to the server.
AJAX is pretty fast, if you have a decent server and your scripts are written efficiently. You should try it sometime.
I have worked with *a lot* of mormons over the years and not one has ever brought up religion with me. As far as I know they do missionary work out of sense of duty.
It's entirely possible that the majority of them are too intimidated or simply not gifted enough in speaking to bring up the subject (which is a pity, if you've worked with them for long), and the few you meet who evangelize are the few who have the courage to do so. This is the case with essentially all religious people, certainly with most mainstream Christians. I would have a really hard time walking up to a stranger and speaking about my faith, but I know there are several who don't find it that hard.
Whenever someone says "I'm telling you the truth of God because I care about your soul" I hear "I'm somewhat insecure in my own faith and I need you to believe with me"
I can understand this for Wiccans and probably even Jehovah's Witnesses, but for the average mainstream Protestant Christian (which I'm guessing you're referring to), you're making a tough claim that they aren't surrounded by enough other believers to convince them that their faith isn't unreasonable and weird.
Besides, even if this were true, you have two flaws in your argument Firstly, just because "you hear" this interpretation doesn't mean that it's valid. I can always claim, 'When the fireman says, "Don't play with matches," I hear, "I'm blindly repeating what I've been ordered to say."' Possibly, but he's also telling the truth and genuinely believes what he's saying.
Secondly, it's far more likely that the person who's telling you this honestly cares about you than is insecure in your faith. Wouldn't you be more willing to tell others about something you belive the more you believe in it?
So please, for God's sake, listen to what Jesus said and ignore us Christians for perverting His truth.
the concept of God is entirely implausible
Why? How is God more implausible than Pluto? Or string theory?
evolution is a fact
a) Why?
b) More of a fact tham, oh, Newtonian mechanics?
c) What the hell (no pun intended) does this have to do with the existence of God?
As a matter of fact, If my God weren't powerful and smart enough to be able to design a system as elegant as evolution that would eventually result in the creation of advanced species, and instead had to brute-force the design of every single species, even though a lot of them are obviously very similar and would benefit from the ability to adapt, I would have real problems calling Him omniscient and omnipotent.
I was raised Christian, so I always had a hunch that this was indeed the case, that God made us genetically likely to look for Him.
Of course, you're asking about the other direction. I would ask, where would this genetic trait have come from? The article seems to indicate it isn't an "evolutionary adaptation," so it was either put there by a force other than evolution, or its an entirely random accident that didn't have enough of a negative side effect to be weeded out - and managed to dominate over the lack of this trait in other strands of humanity. I think the former case is more plausible.
For some folks, it has nothing to do with thou, but thanks for thinking it's all about thou. (Feeling guilty?)
No, but thanks for proving my point.
t won't give you a fatter wallet, but will give you a good feeling
I think there's a name for that feeling...something like the "holier-than-thou" attitude?
Corporate control of our communication is a guaranteed disaster for everyone but the owners of the corporation.
I wonder who owns that cell tower over there. The people?
Oh, and remember that time the masses organized and laid copper wire throughout the country?
And, lest I forget, there's UPS - the Union of Proletariat Service. One good citizen hands the package to the next good citizen until it arrives at the destination.
The IT people I know are the ones that seem to have the hardest time saying the two 3 word phrases that every engineer (in my opinion) must learn before leaving college: "I don't know." and "I was wrong."
Have you done tech support? It's hard to say "I don't know" when the users are breathing down your necks to know the answer, dammit. So you try "I don't know," if you remember and you haven't suppressed it, and then you try to make up something that's likely to be the answer or point them on their way -- but most importantly, appear to be an answer.
You know you can have the static articles be publicly available for relatively cheap. (On each write, save a copy to a second server. Get the second server from $CHEAPO_HOSTING_COMPANY for $5/month if needed.) A read-only Wiki is entirely equivalent to a normal static web site.
Anyway, good luck with the project. You're in an excellent position to fix a lot of the things that Wikipedia didn't do right when it started.
Geolocation of IP addresses is pretty much a black art as well - there's far too much variability by IP address to try and localise to the precision needed for bombing the source. My hostip.infowebsite only attempted to locate to the /24 netblock, and even then only managed ~50% accuracy.
/8.
/8 is 18.x.x.x, aka MIT.)
<evil laugh>
hostip.info geolocated me to within a mile, based on my
(Of course, my
So this means that the media companies can falsely claim copyright to *any* material and the publisher is provided an email by youtube. However, in order to counter, you (the publisher) have to send a snailmail to them and wait how long before something is done about it? Are you even guarenteed a response?
Um, "written" includes e-mail. Why else would it require a "physical or electronic signature", for one?
And you send YouTube the counterclaim, not the publisher. YouTube has a motive in keeping content up, so you're more likely to get a response than Viacom was.
That's wrong. No child wonders about a god or gods unless the parents indoctrinate them into a cult in the first place.
:-)
If this is true, the only way that religion could've been introduced to the world is through God revealing himself to the first humans.
If you dont use apostrophe's properly, they will not serve it's purpose either.
restricting someone from doing what they want with GPL software
Like selling it in binary form only and refusing to provide the source or even acknowledge it's GPL'd?
The GPL is a viral freedom license. It makes sure that all redistributions and derivatives are as Free as the original.
In this case, the restriction would be that Novell would be trying to combine it with patented code and call the result GPL'd. This is kinda possible with GPLv2, but it won't be possible with GPLv3, and the new GNU utilities will be released under v3 only; therefore, Novell could only sell their patented additions to older, probably stagnant GNU code.
Indeed, like the license wanted, the v2 code will always be free to redistribute under v2. But it's not going to be the latest.
It seems like with Windows, you can choose either crashes (9x) or viruses (nt/2k/xp). I much prefer crashes, especially since I only use Windows for games nowadays (when I have time).
Ahem.
XP is pretty good about not having viruses or worms if you apply the proper precautions, the first of which is turning on a firewall (default in SP2) and only opening ports when you absolutely have to. And if you don't download sketchy software or mount sketchy disks. I run XP semi-frequently directly on the public Internet (meaning not behind a router, although that helps a lot and is encouraged if you can), and I haven't had problems; I keep the firewall on and I run Windows Update.
Windows 98 probably has a bunch of vulnerabilities (the WMF exploit is the first that comes to mind; Messenger Service is the second) that haven't been patched thanks to it being end-of-lifed; I'd be really worried about running it on a regular basis, especially if outside a physical firewall/NAT.
Hasn't everybody upgraded to Vista by now?
This soon? I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting for the progress bar to move past 47%.
Or, perhaps, that it does, and the people who say that are often trying to convince themselves that it's okay their finances are a mess?
Or perhaps people aren't happy yet don't have their finances in a mess, and they're pondering how that works.
Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.
And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.
And he was rich--yes, richer than a king,
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.
So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.
Here's a start: Linux needs to tuck the command line under the carpet. Blasphemy! [Runs and hides]
Rug, not carpet. The Mac today is far more popular than it ever was in the pre-BSD Mac OS days.
And yes, I think there is a causal relationship. I can fix a box that has a command prompt much easier than one that just has a GUI. I can develop for that architecture much more easily, too, and I can port even GUI applications to that architecture without difficulty. The average user doesn't need to see the command line, except right at bootup ("Uncompressing Linux...done.") - but it needs to be trivially accessible if he wants it.
(I have an 84 Plus, which was the latest in the series when I bought it.)
Seriously, you want a TI-83 series calculator for a few reasons:
1) If you want to go to a decent college, you'll be taking the ACT and the SAT. One of these does not permit calculators more advanced than the 83 series. (This is also true of many math-involving competitions.)
2) TI is the de facto standard. You probably want interoperability and the ability not to care about how your calculator does things. Your teachers will know how to use a TI-83.
3) By the time you get to advanced math courses, especially in college, using an 89 (or equivalent) might be cool but it's often painful and not all that helpful on tests. You're going to prefer Mathematica or Matlab on your computer, possibly on a laptop if you want to play with the math while in lecture.
But mainly it's reason #1. Why spend hundreds of dollars on something that an important exam or contest turns out not to let you use?
(I have a friend who went the route of having an 89 for herself and an 83 nominally for her younger brother. That 83 showed up in her hands more often than not. I didn't feel like wasting the money on two calculators for one person.)
students need to do a lot of tedious things once or twice
Why? The academic equivalent of hazing? Or is there any real benefit gained by a long procedure with no bearing towards the theory that results in careless errors?
In the calculus class I teach, I can't think of a single aspect of the class that would be improved by having a calculator.
Oh, sure.
What about the numerical analysis class your friend teaches? Or the physics classes taught by the people in the next building?
If your class is entirely symbolic, then calculators aren't appropriate. If your subject is numeric, then they're necessary.