It's times like this that a "-1 Ignoramus" mod option would be useful. The most cursory of cursory brief glances at the first link in the summary would have told you that NeoOffice is an OpenOffice based product with a few Mac extra goodies. I bet you won't even read this reply, though so I don't know why I bothered.
SQLite is about the most blisteringly fast razor thin piece of non-bloated code you can imagine. If they used it for things like browse history and storing cached data it'd be an improvement over lots of text parsing and unintelligently storing cached data in memory.
I'm teaching myself wxPython at the moment and you sound like you have things to offer, can I ask you to drop me a line? You can find all my contact details at http://www.mrnaz.com/ Look forward to hearing from you:)
Cut the BS. You know full well that in this context we are talking about organisms with modifications made to their genes that are impossible to occur in nature from cross breeding.
There's a difference between "Genetic Modification" and "breeding". Perhaps an example will help you understand this: My gardener created a hybrid plant by pollinating one flower with the pollen of another. He does not have a PhD in genetics. Actually I don't even think he passed high school. Which is why he's my gardener, and not a rocket scientist.
Given that you are unable to draw a distinction between genetic modification and selective breeding, I can safely conclude that you too, are not a rocket scientist.
This is what happens when a sound concept like the inability to totally avoid risk and the need to strike a balance in addressing it gets used by someone with two or maybe three brain cells, all of which are giving each other the silent treatment.
If I had your level of understanding in the world, I'd shut myself in my own basement to avoid perpetually embarrassing myself.
That's because you're one of those people who swallows without question what anyone on TV says regardless of the fact that it's utterly laughable trash. Kids haven't learned how to be that dumb yet, which is obviously why you can't relate to their responses. Perhaps with a little time and a lot of lead poisoning some of them will be like you some day.
I have been trying to tell people that the medium of transfer is completely different to the medium of displak, and the "digital photography" does not imply that *both* need to change. This seems to be falling on deaf ears, unfortunately.
No governments represent Muslims or Islam at all. None. As in not a single one. The law in those countries is reflective of the desires of those governments to retain power, not improve life.
If you want to see what an Islamic state would look like, look into proper sources of history on the Ottoman Empire, which was destroyed by WWI. Since the allied powers took over colonial rule in the middle east, no country in that region has been representative of Islam. They have all, one way or another, been placed in power by outside states. For a comprehensive history, I recommend this book.
It's the requirement in the Koran that Muslims subdue, by murder if necessary, other religious thought (which includes atheism of course).
It is simply not true that the Koran says anything of the sort. That verse you point to, 9, refers to defense. To summarize, that verse says "do not attack anyone who makes peace with you, as during times of treaty you are forbidden from war with them. But if they break the peace, the forbidden time is over and they are to be attacked.
Here's the full translation of that verse if you like. You'll find that Muslims are totally forbidden from attacking anyone with whom there is any form of treaty, peace agreement or mutual understanding. Only those who break these agreements and are hostile may be attacked out of self defense. In fact the very first line of that surah is "A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:".
Later it says: "(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous". In other words, we are commanded to be true to any arrangements, unless it is broken by the other side first.
Even in your quote it says that even after they have broken an agreement, if they later apologize, they are to be forgiven. Vengefulness and vindictive behavior are forbidden.
Taking a single line out of context is a a good way to demonstrate one's ignorance of the truth. It is often done, though, by people determined to spread FUD.
Oh, and here's a bonus one: you don't hate "the west" but you hate Saudi Arabi's king for consorting with "the west"??
This is such a dramatic misunderstanding of my point that I'm going to assume it is deliberate and ignore it.
I know quite a few muslims. Thankfully none are true adherents of their creed (the koran) or I'd be a dead man, as I follow Jesus and believe that Mohammed was one of those that the new testament warns about receiving a false gospel from (eg Galatians 1).
Actually, the Bible foretells (if you believe that anyway) of the coming of prophet Mohamed. But don't take my word for it, go ask your local priest.
My kinsman! I fear our homeworld has been destroyed. We are the last of our kind. Fear not however, as our ability to resist wedgies gives us super strength, the ability to fly, X-ray vision and assorted other super powers while on this planet. We should wear red underpants on the outside of our clothes to indicate to all the fact that we are impervious to wedgies.
I think you'll find that Muslims are far more tolerant that you'd think, and that the stereotype of them being otherwise is the result of Fox and other right wing sycophants supporting the need for a bad guy to keep people scared. It never ceases to amaze me that nobody wonders what Muslims were doing through the decades when the Commies where the bad guys of the day.
Anyways, if you think that Muslims hate Jews "Just Coz", then you may want to consider the fact that the best time in Jewish history (according to most Jewish historians) was actually when Jews lived in a Muslim state. Here's a titbit from the pages of history that also gets skipped in history classes:
Even under Israel, the vast majority of Jews do not have the ideological freedom they used to. If you are willing to have pre-conceived ideas challenged, perhaps you'll find the following interesting:
DISCLAIMER: I am a Muslim. I have Jewish friends. Lots of them. Jews and Muslims have lived together for centuries, it is just not true that Muslims and Jews hate each other out of some culturally ingrained ideological perception. It is the nationalist incarnation of the Jewish identity in the militant form known as "Zionism" that Muslims and indeed most Jews oppose. Unfortunately, Zionism seems to have the support of the political right in western countries, which is why it *appears* that Muslims oppose the west. We do not. We oppose the occupation being carried out by Israel, in the same say that we oppose any injustice caused by anybody, including other Muslims.
Another titbit that you won't hear mentioned in school: No real Muslim supports the governments of Saudi Arabia or the other monarchical crackpots currently referred to as "the leaders of the Muslim world". These tinpot dictators were put in power at the end of WWI by the allied powers to secure their interests over middle eastern assets such as the Suez Canal and this new stuff called "oil". This policy of putting puppet regimes is so commonplace I don't understand how people can think that fucktards like the king of Saudi Arabia even remotely represent the attitudes and beliefs of Muslims when they have such an incestuous relationship with with the western neo-nobles like the Bush family.
Holy crap, I really intended for that to be a short post.
No he did not. He got it wrong, and so did Wikipedia. When an object or idea is "conceived" it is called into existence. A person is conceived by the meeting of a sperm and an ovum.
The phrase "the conception of Mary" refers to the event that calls Mary into existence, that is the conception of Mary by her mother and father. It should say "the conception by Mary of Jesus", although that would have all kinds of other implications as, according to the belief, it was God who conceived Jesus, not actually Mary. To be correct syntactically and to be true to the story, I'd say "The miraculous conception of Jesus within Mary".
This is a very commonly misused active tense for the verb conception, but it becomes clear when you think of it from the point of view that "the conception of a person" refers to the point at which that person was called into existence.
Oh well that makes the totally unreasonable nature of what happened OK then. I'm glad that I'll only ever be arrested for things that are illegal so as long as I'm not a terrorist criminal pirate general bad guy I'll be fine. I'm also glad I can trust the government to keep the letter of the law such that it only makes bad stuff illegal.
I like it here in your little fantasy world. I'd stay, except I'm not a total bloody retard.
Mary was impregnated without Original Sin. You're getting active and passive voice mixed up and in the process saying that Mary was the messiah. The Lord shall striketh thee! Or something.
*Your* monitor might be a blunt instrument, but if you were a true professional you'd know that a properly calibrated monitor can do quite a reasonable job at colour rendition and accuracy. Spending hours in front of PhotoShop removing red eye from your family pics doth not make a professional.
Since your eyes can only detect about 16,000 colors
No, that's not correct. The dynamic range of the human eye has not yet been determined, and at the moment is still considered pretty much to be an analog continuum rather with pretty much infinite sensitivity. 16,000 colours you say? I can tell you now that I most certainly can tell a 16bit colour image (about 65,000 colours) from a 32bit colour image. For reference, 16,000 colours is about 14 bits, so about 1/4 the colours of a 16bit image.
I can also guarantee you that I can tell the difference between a 16bit dithered image and a true 32bit image.
I think the only moot points here are the moot facts you have pulled out of your moot backside.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about tasting, but that *smells* like BS to me.
It's times like this that a "-1 Ignoramus" mod option would be useful. The most cursory of cursory brief glances at the first link in the summary would have told you that NeoOffice is an OpenOffice based product with a few Mac extra goodies. I bet you won't even read this reply, though so I don't know why I bothered.
SQLite is about the most blisteringly fast razor thin piece of non-bloated code you can imagine. If they used it for things like browse history and storing cached data it'd be an improvement over lots of text parsing and unintelligently storing cached data in memory.
I'm teaching myself wxPython at the moment and you sound like you have things to offer, can I ask you to drop me a line? You can find all my contact details at http://www.mrnaz.com/ :)
Look forward to hearing from you
Here's a novel idea: Don't swallow *anything* blindly. I think you won't take my advice though, blindly swallowing seems to be what you're into.
Cut the BS. You know full well that in this context we are talking about organisms with modifications made to their genes that are impossible to occur in nature from cross breeding.
There's a difference between "Genetic Modification" and "breeding". Perhaps an example will help you understand this: My gardener created a hybrid plant by pollinating one flower with the pollen of another. He does not have a PhD in genetics. Actually I don't even think he passed high school. Which is why he's my gardener, and not a rocket scientist.
Given that you are unable to draw a distinction between genetic modification and selective breeding, I can safely conclude that you too, are not a rocket scientist.
This is what happens when a sound concept like the inability to totally avoid risk and the need to strike a balance in addressing it gets used by someone with two or maybe three brain cells, all of which are giving each other the silent treatment.
If I had your level of understanding in the world, I'd shut myself in my own basement to avoid perpetually embarrassing myself.
That's because you're one of those people who swallows without question what anyone on TV says regardless of the fact that it's utterly laughable trash. Kids haven't learned how to be that dumb yet, which is obviously why you can't relate to their responses. Perhaps with a little time and a lot of lead poisoning some of them will be like you some day.
I'm going to come right out with it and say that I think you are lying.
Vote 1 caitsith01 (606117) for President!
I have been trying to tell people that the medium of transfer is completely different to the medium of displak, and the "digital photography" does not imply that *both* need to change. This seems to be falling on deaf ears, unfortunately.
No governments represent Muslims or Islam at all. None. As in not a single one. The law in those countries is reflective of the desires of those governments to retain power, not improve life.
If you want to see what an Islamic state would look like, look into proper sources of history on the Ottoman Empire, which was destroyed by WWI. Since the allied powers took over colonial rule in the middle east, no country in that region has been representative of Islam. They have all, one way or another, been placed in power by outside states. For a comprehensive history, I recommend this book.
Great! Another way for money to be usurped by the government and wasted on frivolous wars or in hopelessly ineffectual social projects.
It is simply not true that the Koran says anything of the sort. That verse you point to, 9, refers to defense. To summarize, that verse says "do not attack anyone who makes peace with you, as during times of treaty you are forbidden from war with them. But if they break the peace, the forbidden time is over and they are to be attacked.
Here's the full translation of that verse if you like. You'll find that Muslims are totally forbidden from attacking anyone with whom there is any form of treaty, peace agreement or mutual understanding. Only those who break these agreements and are hostile may be attacked out of self defense. In fact the very first line of that surah is "A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:".
Later it says: "(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous". In other words, we are commanded to be true to any arrangements, unless it is broken by the other side first.
Even in your quote it says that even after they have broken an agreement, if they later apologize, they are to be forgiven. Vengefulness and vindictive behavior are forbidden.
Taking a single line out of context is a a good way to demonstrate one's ignorance of the truth. It is often done, though, by people determined to spread FUD.
This is such a dramatic misunderstanding of my point that I'm going to assume it is deliberate and ignore it.
I like *everyone* so long as they behave like civilized people.
Not for us, my interstellar superpowered friend.
My laptop is not thick, it is mentally challenged you insensitive clod!
My kinsman! I fear our homeworld has been destroyed. We are the last of our kind. Fear not however, as our ability to resist wedgies gives us super strength, the ability to fly, X-ray vision and assorted other super powers while on this planet. We should wear red underpants on the outside of our clothes to indicate to all the fact that we are impervious to wedgies.
I think you'll find that Muslims are far more tolerant that you'd think, and that the stereotype of them being otherwise is the result of Fox and other right wing sycophants supporting the need for a bad guy to keep people scared. It never ceases to amaze me that nobody wonders what Muslims were doing through the decades when the Commies where the bad guys of the day.
t ml
= 19f mo nism.htmln ism.htm= 19
Anyways, if you think that Muslims hate Jews "Just Coz", then you may want to consider the fact that the best time in Jewish history (according to most Jewish historians) was actually when Jews lived in a Muslim state. Here's a titbit from the pages of history that also gets skipped in history classes:
http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/jewish/jew-history.h
Even under Israel, the vast majority of Jews do not have the ideological freedom they used to. If you are willing to have pre-conceived ideas challenged, perhaps you'll find the following interesting:
http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=5006&aid
http://www.notinmyname.org/
http://www.nkusa.org/
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/index.c
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/jews_against_zi
http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zio
http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=7887&aid
DISCLAIMER: I am a Muslim. I have Jewish friends. Lots of them. Jews and Muslims have lived together for centuries, it is just not true that Muslims and Jews hate each other out of some culturally ingrained ideological perception. It is the nationalist incarnation of the Jewish identity in the militant form known as "Zionism" that Muslims and indeed most Jews oppose. Unfortunately, Zionism seems to have the support of the political right in western countries, which is why it *appears* that Muslims oppose the west. We do not. We oppose the occupation being carried out by Israel, in the same say that we oppose any injustice caused by anybody, including other Muslims.
Another titbit that you won't hear mentioned in school: No real Muslim supports the governments of Saudi Arabia or the other monarchical crackpots currently referred to as "the leaders of the Muslim world". These tinpot dictators were put in power at the end of WWI by the allied powers to secure their interests over middle eastern assets such as the Suez Canal and this new stuff called "oil". This policy of putting puppet regimes is so commonplace I don't understand how people can think that fucktards like the king of Saudi Arabia even remotely represent the attitudes and beliefs of Muslims when they have such an incestuous relationship with with the western neo-nobles like the Bush family.
Holy crap, I really intended for that to be a short post.
No he did not. He got it wrong, and so did Wikipedia. When an object or idea is "conceived" it is called into existence. A person is conceived by the meeting of a sperm and an ovum.
The phrase "the conception of Mary" refers to the event that calls Mary into existence, that is the conception of Mary by her mother and father. It should say "the conception by Mary of Jesus", although that would have all kinds of other implications as, according to the belief, it was God who conceived Jesus, not actually Mary. To be correct syntactically and to be true to the story, I'd say "The miraculous conception of Jesus within Mary".
This is a very commonly misused active tense for the verb conception, but it becomes clear when you think of it from the point of view that "the conception of a person" refers to the point at which that person was called into existence.
Oh well that makes the totally unreasonable nature of what happened OK then. I'm glad that I'll only ever be arrested for things that are illegal so as long as I'm not a terrorist criminal pirate general bad guy I'll be fine. I'm also glad I can trust the government to keep the letter of the law such that it only makes bad stuff illegal.
I like it here in your little fantasy world. I'd stay, except I'm not a total bloody retard.
Mary was impregnated without Original Sin. You're getting active and passive voice mixed up and in the process saying that Mary was the messiah. The Lord shall striketh thee! Or something.
*Your* monitor might be a blunt instrument, but if you were a true professional you'd know that a properly calibrated monitor can do quite a reasonable job at colour rendition and accuracy. Spending hours in front of PhotoShop removing red eye from your family pics doth not make a professional.
No, that's not correct. The dynamic range of the human eye has not yet been determined, and at the moment is still considered pretty much to be an analog continuum rather with pretty much infinite sensitivity. 16,000 colours you say? I can tell you now that I most certainly can tell a 16bit colour image (about 65,000 colours) from a 32bit colour image. For reference, 16,000 colours is about 14 bits, so about 1/4 the colours of a 16bit image.
I can also guarantee you that I can tell the difference between a 16bit dithered image and a true 32bit image.
I think the only moot points here are the moot facts you have pulled out of your moot backside.
YBYM!