Yes, which is exactly my point. You'll end up with a circular argument. In trying to "prove" that Christians aren't criminals, you'll have claims that criminals can't be Christians.
On the other hand, you certainly can't accept everyone who bills themselves "Christian" as thus, can you?
'Cause "Notepad" is shorter and most people are at least as familiar with it as with the concept of a "text editor". Technically, all word processors are "text editors."
It's the same reason we use "Kleenex" instead of "disposable tissue".
If you ask someone for a Kleenex, do you expect them to answer "no, but I have some lemon-juice soaked sand paper"? Why? They're both paper, aren't they?
Wow. Just..wow.
The fact that vim has so many insane features doesn't affect the simple truth that writing HTML and so forth in vim is exactly the same as writing it in Notepad. Editing may be different, but the original writing is the same. The point is I write raw HTML.
Yes, I have seen "do you have a Kleenex?" answered with "no, but I have a paper towel." That works.
The lack of ability of notepad to make sense of a particular document doesn't mean that all text editors are so crippled, only that notepad sucks.
Irrelevant. In fact, Notepad would've been better in some cases because it's a native GUI app. "Making sense of a document" is something you're pulling in to attack MS products.
The point is, I use both of them as raw text editors. The person was asking about opening OOo docs in raw text editors. Assuming you unzip it first, there shouldn't be much of a difference.
Re:There are apologists for everything in this dum
on
The Hundred-Buck PC
·
· Score: 1
Non sequitur. Tu quoque fallacy to boot.
Tu quoque again.
A hundred logical fallacies is not worth even one grain of rice for a person in a third world country.
You're making personal attacks on the character of the posters making statements you don't like
I don't care about the statements. In fact, I guess I agree with them; there are technically better ways to spend money than building computers. It's the posters that I don't like: they think they have some validity in telling people not to help. I may think there are better ways to spend money, but in that case I plan to do the spending.
OK, I'm sorry. I read sarcasm into "If only somebody would pony up money...Bill Gates..." implying that Bill Gates gives money into evangelizing his software. I see what you're saying, and I agree with it. Bill Gates is an awesome guy (unlike his company's software and practices:-).
No, I've never looked at an OOo document in notepad; that would require installing a system that runs notepad, finding a copy of notepad, and installing it. That's an awful lot of work to go through to get a crappy plain-text editor that's nowhere near as good as the ones I already have installed.:)
Notepad has become a generic term much like Kleenex, Xerox, Coke, etc. I really don't feel like explaining what "vim" is, what "vi" is, and how the two differ, every time I want to say I opened something in a text editor. If you ask someone for a Kleenex, do they say, "No, but I have a Puffs Plus (or whatever); would you like that instead, or shall I go buy a box of Kleenex?"
(I don't really understand your post, so if you weren't being sarcastic in the way I thought you were, then ignore me.)
Now, if only someone would pony up hundreds of millions of dollars... oh, wait. Bill Gates has been doing it for years.
By what authority do you ask Bill Gates to give his money to vaccinate kids in developing countries? Sure, it's a good idea, and he should do something like this. But why do you say he has to?
His money is his earning, and therefore spending it is his decision.
If he got rich illegally, prosecute him, return the money to the people he defrauded, and let the charity be the choice of those. Not yours.
Otherwise people will choose not to become rich, not to work to their fullest extent, because the public will be crying for them to give away their money.
Everyone's complaining that a $100 PC is not the most important thing for people in third-world countries. Why don't I see you going to Africa and building an industry and a large farm instead of posting on Slashdot?
These people are doing some good: they're creating a computer priced so low that local governments can afford to buy even large numbers without much of a decision. And they're also pushing the limit of a price of a full-featured computer. If they keep working at it, they'll help to modernize the developing countries by introducing the people to computers, and they'll push the price even lower.
Meanwhile, you're posting on Slashdot (as am I, I admit, but I didn't make any pretention of wanting good for third-world denizens). You can't very well argue that they're doing something to harm the third world, and they're considerably helping parts of it, so why're you complaining?
Oh, and I've seen the $2/day figure quoted around here. It's reasonable to say that a month's wages in America can buy a high-quality computer. A month's wages at $2/day is about $60. Remember that this is the first wave of cheap computers for developing nations. They're already close to the same price point with respect to purchasing power, and they'll get to it very quickly.
I know (from experience) that it takes no more than five minutes to explain left- and right-clicking to a three-year-old child.
Apple must consider their customers to be mental defects. (Not that that's necessarily wrong, but it's just... wrong.)
No, they consider their customers older than three. Everyone can teach a three-year-old to speak a language. It's hard and lengthy (in general) to teach a middle-aged person to speak that language, and takes even longer for them to be fluent in it.
Apple sticks both scroll controls at one side of the scroll bar. I can say from experience that this makes scrolling easier than having to move to opposite sides of the bar.
Theory: Christians do less crime than others. Let's consult the stats. Any takers?:-)
If true, then this one fact would justify the religion in my view. If not, well, just another crazy fad.
The problem is that many Christians (including myself) would not accept serious criminals as Christians, unless they've reformed. It's all too easy to self-justify any crime in the name of your "religion". And how would you classify prisoners who realized their wrongs and decided to ask Christ for forgiveness?
I believe, too, that true Muslims would commit less crime than nonreligious people. But depending on how you define "Muslim", you've got some glaring counterexamples.
And you also have equated "sin" with "crime". There's enough subtle differences to make this entire thing more invalid than testing the Shroud of Turin (which, incidentally, I believe is pointless: your belief in God should be based on the Bible, not on some piece of cloth whose authenticity nobody can prove).
The unfortunate problem with Christianity for left-brained, logical types is that it's completely non-testable either way.
It turns out that the right flank was the dangerous one, and attacking on the left would've guaranteed a victory for the army that unfortunately spoke English.
Which problem? The problem of granting a reasonable exclusive copy-right to authors without allowing for abuse? Your solution doesn't solve this at all.
I don't see any reason to stay off a historical fact just because it made someone look stupid.
Me neither. There is a reason to avoid it, though, if it is irrelevant, stupid, and politically motivated.
Surely there are dozens of political facts other than this case that can be made into an analogy with Fortran. Surely there are hundreds of historical non-political such facts. Surely there are thousands of non-historical, computer-related facts that he could've used to draw a reasonable, on-topic analogy.
He didn't mention the WMDs onle because it just happened to fit his story, did he?
(The next person who flames this guy for using "patented" instead of "trademarked": I better not catch you ever misplacing a comma. Because you're quibbling about things as important. Everyone knows what he meant - as demonstrated by the fact that you're flaming him, not acting confused - so where's the problem?)
Back on topic: MMX is MultiMedia eXtensions. Is there a nice expansion for VIIV? As mentioned earlier, "II" could be Intel Inside, but the two Vs can't stand for much....
Actually, Intel possibly did, once. Since "80386," as a number, was ruled not trademarkable, the next processor was officially the "i486(TM)". 486 was, of course, still a number, so I(TM)ntel must have had the trademark on the letter i(TM).
when someone steals your credit card and uses it, they are not stealing from you, they are stealing from the credit card company. you cannot (legally) be held responsible for the charges they accrue. However with a debit card, they are actually stealing from your account directly, you have no recourse but to take the hit, much as if someone stole your car or wallet.
That's why you only keep twenty-five cents in the debit account. I've probably dropped enough coins that losing a two-bit debit card isn't such a bad thing, comparatively.
to the poster: You really think that asking that...here...will get you reasonable advice...that will still work in one year?
to the answerers: You really think that responding will help anybody? This is one of the few cases where security through obscurity is a very good option.
If you're still going to answer, make sure to Post Anonymously.
I had a similar idea: a credit card with a spending limit adjustable online (or via telephone). You can safely give it to sites that need it to "check identity," sign up for a "free" trial, etc., and it will verify as valid, but they won't be able to charge more than, e.g., ten cents. If you need to use it, you can raise the limit temporarily.
Or a credit card that's actually a debit card ($0.00 charging limit) but reports as a credit card.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, which is exactly my point. You'll end up with a circular argument. In trying to "prove" that Christians aren't criminals, you'll have claims that criminals can't be Christians.
On the other hand, you certainly can't accept everyone who bills themselves "Christian" as thus, can you?
'Cause "Notepad" is shorter and most people are at least as familiar with it as with the concept of a "text editor". Technically, all word processors are "text editors."
It's the same reason we use "Kleenex" instead of "disposable tissue".
If you ask someone for a Kleenex, do you expect them to answer "no, but I have some lemon-juice soaked sand paper"? Why? They're both paper, aren't they?
Wow. Just..wow.
The fact that vim has so many insane features doesn't affect the simple truth that writing HTML and so forth in vim is exactly the same as writing it in Notepad. Editing may be different, but the original writing is the same. The point is I write raw HTML.
Yes, I have seen "do you have a Kleenex?" answered with "no, but I have a paper towel." That works.
The lack of ability of notepad to make sense of a particular document doesn't mean that all text editors are so crippled, only that notepad sucks.
Irrelevant. In fact, Notepad would've been better in some cases because it's a native GUI app. "Making sense of a document" is something you're pulling in to attack MS products.
The point is, I use both of them as raw text editors. The person was asking about opening OOo docs in raw text editors. Assuming you unzip it first, there shouldn't be much of a difference.
Non sequitur. Tu quoque fallacy to boot.
Tu quoque again.
A hundred logical fallacies is not worth even one grain of rice for a person in a third world country.
You're making personal attacks on the character of the posters making statements you don't like
I don't care about the statements. In fact, I guess I agree with them; there are technically better ways to spend money than building computers. It's the posters that I don't like: they think they have some validity in telling people not to help. I may think there are better ways to spend money, but in that case I plan to do the spending.
OK, I'm sorry. I read sarcasm into "If only somebody would pony up money...Bill Gates..." implying that Bill Gates gives money into evangelizing his software. I see what you're saying, and I agree with it. Bill Gates is an awesome guy (unlike his company's software and practices :-).
No, I've never looked at an OOo document in notepad; that would require installing a system that runs notepad, finding a copy of notepad, and installing it. That's an awful lot of work to go through to get a crappy plain-text editor that's nowhere near as good as the ones I already have installed. :)
Notepad has become a generic term much like Kleenex, Xerox, Coke, etc. I really don't feel like explaining what "vim" is, what "vi" is, and how the two differ, every time I want to say I opened something in a text editor. If you ask someone for a Kleenex, do they say, "No, but I have a Puffs Plus (or whatever); would you like that instead, or shall I go buy a box of Kleenex?"
(I don't really understand your post, so if you weren't being sarcastic in the way I thought you were, then ignore me.)
Now, if only someone would pony up hundreds of millions of dollars... oh, wait. Bill Gates has been doing it for years.
By what authority do you ask Bill Gates to give his money to vaccinate kids in developing countries? Sure, it's a good idea, and he should do something like this. But why do you say he has to?
His money is his earning, and therefore spending it is his decision.
If he got rich illegally, prosecute him, return the money to the people he defrauded, and let the charity be the choice of those. Not yours.
Otherwise people will choose not to become rich, not to work to their fullest extent, because the public will be crying for them to give away their money.
Everyone's complaining that a $100 PC is not the most important thing for people in third-world countries. Why don't I see you going to Africa and building an industry and a large farm instead of posting on Slashdot?
These people are doing some good: they're creating a computer priced so low that local governments can afford to buy even large numbers without much of a decision. And they're also pushing the limit of a price of a full-featured computer. If they keep working at it, they'll help to modernize the developing countries by introducing the people to computers, and they'll push the price even lower.
Meanwhile, you're posting on Slashdot (as am I, I admit, but I didn't make any pretention of wanting good for third-world denizens). You can't very well argue that they're doing something to harm the third world, and they're considerably helping parts of it, so why're you complaining?
Oh, and I've seen the $2/day figure quoted around here. It's reasonable to say that a month's wages in America can buy a high-quality computer. A month's wages at $2/day is about $60. Remember that this is the first wave of cheap computers for developing nations. They're already close to the same price point with respect to purchasing power, and they'll get to it very quickly.
I know (from experience) that it takes no more than five minutes to explain left- and right-clicking to a three-year-old child.
Apple must consider their customers to be mental defects. (Not that that's necessarily wrong, but it's just... wrong.)
No, they consider their customers older than three. Everyone can teach a three-year-old to speak a language. It's hard and lengthy (in general) to teach a middle-aged person to speak that language, and takes even longer for them to be fluent in it.
Basically, you can't teach an old dog new clicks.
If Windows has 90% of the market share and Windows uses two mouse buttons
A few years ago your number would've been much higher than 90%. Its former market share was noticeably not due to having enough buttons.
Apple sticks both scroll controls at one side of the scroll bar. I can say from experience that this makes scrolling easier than having to move to opposite sides of the bar.
(Of course, I tend to use the elevator, but...)
Theory: Christians do less crime than others. Let's consult the stats. Any takers? :-)
If true, then this one fact would justify the religion in my view. If not, well, just another crazy fad.
The problem is that many Christians (including myself) would not accept serious criminals as Christians, unless they've reformed. It's all too easy to self-justify any crime in the name of your "religion". And how would you classify prisoners who realized their wrongs and decided to ask Christ for forgiveness?
I believe, too, that true Muslims would commit less crime than nonreligious people. But depending on how you define "Muslim", you've got some glaring counterexamples.
And you also have equated "sin" with "crime". There's enough subtle differences to make this entire thing more invalid than testing the Shroud of Turin (which, incidentally, I believe is pointless: your belief in God should be based on the Bible, not on some piece of cloth whose authenticity nobody can prove).
The unfortunate problem with Christianity for left-brained, logical types is that it's completely non-testable either way.
"Bush" & "Iraq" had the same relationship as "Slashdot" & "Geek"
Bush invades Iraq, geeks invade Slashdot.
Too many geeks on Slashdot can make servers melt, too much Bush in Iraq can make buildings melt.
Bush seeks weapons of mass instruction, geeks seek weapons of math instruction.
Geeks spend too much of their time on Slashdot, Bush spends too much of his on Iraq.
Iraq and Slashdot are often both irrelevant ("links to Al-Qaeda", "this isn't News for Nerds!"), but Bush and geeks don't seem to notice.
So yeah, they do have the same relationship.
"We attack the enemy on their left flank?"
"Right."
It turns out that the right flank was the dangerous one, and attacking on the left would've guaranteed a victory for the army that unfortunately spoke English.
Kill all PACs and Politicians. Problem solved.
Which problem? The problem of granting a reasonable exclusive copy-right to authors without allowing for abuse? Your solution doesn't solve this at all.
I don't see any reason to stay off a historical fact just because it made someone look stupid.
Me neither. There is a reason to avoid it, though, if it is irrelevant, stupid, and politically motivated.
Surely there are dozens of political facts other than this case that can be made into an analogy with Fortran. Surely there are hundreds of historical non-political such facts. Surely there are thousands of non-historical, computer-related facts that he could've used to draw a reasonable, on-topic analogy.
He didn't mention the WMDs onle because it just happened to fit his story, did he?
curl http://google.com/search?q=harry+draco+slash+ficti on&btnI= | sed "s/Harry/Linus/g" | sed "s/Draco/Bill/g"
Where's the download link for Velox on LimeBird's site? Has anybody downloaded it?
Perhaps they tried to download it, but couldn't find it?
Does "will be displayed" mean not released yet? If so, then I can hardly fault the judges for not accepting it....
OT: Why do you title all your posts "zerg"?
(The next person who flames this guy for using "patented" instead of "trademarked": I better not catch you ever misplacing a comma. Because you're quibbling about things as important. Everyone knows what he meant - as demonstrated by the fact that you're flaming him, not acting confused - so where's the problem?)
Back on topic: MMX is MultiMedia eXtensions. Is there a nice expansion for VIIV? As mentioned earlier, "II" could be Intel Inside, but the two Vs can't stand for much....
Actually, Intel possibly did, once. Since "80386," as a number, was ruled not trademarkable, the next processor was officially the "i486(TM)". 486 was, of course, still a number, so I(TM)ntel must have had the trademark on the letter i(TM).
And a debit card is a very bad thing.
when someone steals your credit card and uses it, they are not stealing from you, they are stealing from the credit card company. you cannot (legally) be held responsible for the charges they accrue. However with a debit card, they are actually stealing from your account directly, you have no recourse but to take the hit, much as if someone stole your car or wallet.
That's why you only keep twenty-five cents in the debit account. I've probably dropped enough coins that losing a two-bit debit card isn't such a bad thing, comparatively.
to the poster: You really think that asking that...here...will get you reasonable advice...that will still work in one year?
to the answerers: You really think that responding will help anybody? This is one of the few cases where security through obscurity is a very good option.
If you're still going to answer, make sure to Post Anonymously.
I had a similar idea: a credit card with a spending limit adjustable online (or via telephone). You can safely give it to sites that need it to "check identity," sign up for a "free" trial, etc., and it will verify as valid, but they won't be able to charge more than, e.g., ten cents. If you need to use it, you can raise the limit temporarily.
Or a credit card that's actually a debit card ($0.00 charging limit) but reports as a credit card.
firing anion thrusters
The way this is looking, firing onion thrusters might be more helpful.
And tomato thrusters.