My point is that it is reasonable to assume that a food source (plants) had to have existed before animals could exist. And a planet needs to exist before the plants can exist. Which is why the Genesis story being "close" to reality is really a non-story. You're taking it to some nonsensical tangent that's irrelevant to the topic.
Food had to exist, what does "favorite food" has to do with anything? Food has to exist before humans, period. It doesn't matter what the food is. I can't tell if you're trolling, or really that stupid.
even I admit that a LITERAL reading of Genesis in no way contradicts the Big Bang or Evolution theories, from that perspective they just become Gods tools
Anybody who wrote those stories would have to write it that way to be believable. Logically it makes sense that the things that are lower on the food chain have to come before the things that will eat them. If somebody made a story where humans were created before their food or land they live on were created, people would scratch their heads.
It happens to line up with science, because what do you know, plants had to have existed before animals because there would have been no other way for animals to sustain themselves otherwise, just like the storytellers thousands of years ago hypothesized.
They do make cases like that if you go with MicroATX boards (same features as full ATX, just less PCIe slots). Something like one of these sounds like what you want.
Put your Minecraft fanboyism aside, Mojang isn't even at 100m USD in revenue yet. The guy himself may be 'hideously rich' but the company isn't some juggernaut.
The XBox 360 version came out in May, and has sold over 3 million units. The Xbox 360 version costs $20 USD (1600 MS Points). Simple arithmetic gives me $60 million in XBLA sales. Mojang gets at least 1/3rd of that, which is enough too push them over the $100 million mark.
It very much depends on the kind of data warehouse. If it's a financial data warehouse I think using NoSQL is insane (we report to the SEC out of our data warehouse, transactional integrity is important!).
That's what I said, a RDBMS is better when you are dealing with transactions. Obviously this includes the storage of said transactions (databases aren't some sort of black hole!)
Every time I see this debate, this is what I always see. "it depends"
it depends on WHAT?! NoSQL people keep touting features, SQL people keep touting history, neither say "well, RDBMS is best suited for [insert descriptions here], while MongoDB is best suited for [insert descriptions here] and Lucene/Solr is best suited for [insert descriptions here]".
RDBMS is better for dealing with transactions. NoSQL is really bad at dealing with transactions, as they don't guarantee immediate consistency (and if they do, it comes with a huge performance cost, slower than that of an RDBMS). NoSQL is better for general data warehousing. You can do data warehousing with a RDBMS, it's just extremely inflexible at that task.
The biggest branch of Christianity (Catholicism) does not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. It is a collection of books written by humans inspired by God. I know there are branches of Christianity where it is literal, but where do you get your information? I worked with an Atheist that thought the same way you describe and specifically about Catholicism.
If the bible is inspired by God (and you're implying that some of it is not God's word), than how do you know what parts are the word of God, and which parts are simply made up? Was it God who inspired man to write down how many slaves you should own, or was that done purely on their own? How do we know that the Catholic church is picking and choosing the right verses as intended by God? Did he tell you which ones are good and which ones are bad? Where are you getting this information?
Most do not view holy books as literal truth like religious fundamentalists, but rather guidelines and proverbs on the meaning behind life and how to live it well. Nor do they believe in creationism and other pseudoscience. But there are a large number of chemists, biologists, virologists, toxicologists, medical doctors, etc. that go to church, temple, mosque, etc.
At least with Christianity, the Bible is the literal word of God. There is no sect (that I'm aware of) that does not claim the Bible is the literal word of God. If the book is the literal word of God (and God is infallible), then you have to accept everything in the book as the truth of God's word.
Problem is, claiming that some things in the Bible aren't really true, or are things that you don't believe in (for instance, the Bible condones slavery, and tells you how many slaves you are allowed to own) either requires some mind bending logic (God is infallible, God wrote the bible, the bible says you can own slaves, yet I don't believe what the Bible, even though the Bible is infallible by definition), or just flat out ignorance of your own religion.
If you want to pick and choose ideas based on morality, why tie yourself to a particular dogma, especially one that is contradictory, to say the least. If you're a scientist, you have to be well versed in the ideas of evidence, using logic to form arguments, creating testable theories and using evidence to prove and disprove them. Yet in order to believe in a God, you're required to give up the idea of using logic or evidence to form your beliefs. You're believing something because a book and a bunch of men in robes told you to (except the parts you don't like, because slavery and treating women as property is wrong, even though everything in there is the infallible word of your God and must be true according to your own belief system).
The only problem comes from the ambiguity of the word "Indians" when referring to Native Americans. Seneca Indians is fine, because I know that Seneca Indians came from America. Using the word "Indian" can be ambiguous or wrong depending on the context, since Indian refers to a group of people from Asia. Using the word Indian to refer to Native Americans just leads to confusion and is a poor choice of words.
Seneca Indians - A native tribe from America
Native Americans - Collection of native tribes from America
Indians - Group of people from Asia
I ran into a job posting wanting 10 years of Server 2008 experience. Obviously I don't have the experience of a time traveler.
Well, I think this is more of the case of poor choice of words. A better way to phrase this requirement would be 10 years of Windows experience, which includes some experience with Windows 2008.
It's also possible that they don't need somebody with 10 years of experience, but that's another issue.
Technically, you can get 24 hour power generation with pure solar energy. Excess power can be stored as molten salts, which can in turn be used on steam turbines during off peak hours. That said, on the micro-scale that the article is talking about, I'm not sure this would even be feasible.
You can do it the same day, even with a DVR. You don't have to wait that long. A 30 minute TV show is ~21 minutes long once you cut out the commercials. Wait 8 minutes after the show normally starts, and you can watch your show commercial free, with a minute of fast forwarding.
Transgaming's product is garbage. They fell so far behind Wine that they discontinued their Linux product (Cedega) 3 years ago. At the moment, they don't even have a Linux product anymore, it's gone into maintainance as "GameTree Linux". Since Wine switched to LGPL 10 years ago (in reaction to Transgaming and their refusal to send back patches), Cedega (then called WineX) their product has fallen further, and further behind, now to the point where it's less compatible than normal Wine.
If you want a commercial Windows compatibility product, look at Codeweavers. It's based on vanilla Wine, they backport their fixes, and they test for compatibility on their builds.
Basically, what you're saying is, even though the same ads, materials, and movie are used in both the theatrical and post-theatrical release of the movie, they roll all the production costs into the theatrical release, instead of spreading the production costs between theatrical and post-theatrical release. Remind me how this isn't shady accounting?
It's like saying it cost me $1 million dollars to design a new car, I then sell $750k worth of cars to claim a $250k loss, and when the next year comes I add a pinstripe for $100 and claim it's a brand new car and that the investors aren't entitled to their cut of the profits because this car isn't the same car.
The Thunderbolt port is backwards compatible with DisplayPort, you can plug any DisplayPort device into the Thunderbolt port and it will work. The connector itself is the same as mini-DisplayPort, so any old mini-DisplayPort to whatever cables should work if all you care about is the video signal.
There is not a single thunderbolt cable on that list. It's just a bunch of displayport cables labeled thunderbolt. Thunderbolt is a combo displayport + PCIe, those cables just deal with the displayport signal and ignore the PCIe part.
As I already said, the new Star Trek is an action movie, and not a sci-fi movie. I truly believe that today, there is absolutely no way they could have made a good sci-fi movie that could appeal to movie goers, as I've explained in a post below, nor do I think that they would have appeased the hardcore Trek fans either who wanted a strict 1 for 1 remake of TOS.
Honestly, the only way they could appeal to die hard TOS fans who wanted a strict remake would have been not to make the movie at all. Which if that's your opinion, I guess that's fine, but be honest and come out and just flat out say that you don't want to see any more Star Trek.
When was the last time you've seen a good strict sci-fi movie in the theaters? It's probably been at least 20 years, for the exact reasons you've already pointed out. Honestly, what would you do with the series?
I'm not really sure what you could have expected from a Star Trek reboot that the movie didn't have.
You have to write this film as if nobody has ever seen Star Trek before. It had been 40 years since the TV series was out, and almost 20 years since the last movie. You have to assume that anybody under the age of 30 hasn't seen Star Trek before. So this film was going to be a character driven story, getting to know the crew and characters, and not going to expand upon the vast Star Trek universe. There was't time to make a super complex story, you had 2 hours to learn the backstory of the entire crew, and somehow manage to put in a villain plot. They did a Romulan plot, because they're the least interesting, and they didn't have much time to put in an intricate story. Remember, this was going to be a character driven story, learning about the characters, not about the Star Trek universe.
The mainstream audience is going to need things spelled out for them, which means this movie was going to seem like a dumb down version of Star Trek. So they're going to change things to make it appeal to the masses. The engine room made look like a navel ship engine room was to spell it out to the popcorn eating audience that this was indeed, the engine room and not some weird space weapon or something. The dumbed down-ness of the series had to happen if it was going to have mass appeal.
So if you were expecting an complex story that you're used to seeing in Star Trek, I could have told you it wasn't going to be that before stepping into the movie theaters that it wasn't going to be that. That said, now that they've gotten the character development out of the way, you should expect something more exciting out of the next film, and they should be able to expand upon the Star Trek universe like you are used to. If I were to guess, the next movie is going to feature Klingons, will revolve around the story and Star Trek universe, not just the characters like the last film did.
I'm pretty sure the jury on Star Trek is already out, and that it was good, just different. The movie changes the series from an adventure drama to more of an action movie. Although the reboot feels like a dumbed down version of Star Trek, they tried to stay true to the original cannon.
While I'm sure any Trek fan will point out all the things they changed, they did change things up a bit, they did a lot of things right (ladder in the hallway, redshirt on an away team mission, rigging the Kobayashi Maru Test, Sulu is a fencer) to make sure everybody knew that the movie was really Star Trek. Besides, the original Star Trek already established split timelines as cannon, so any changes you make can be considered cannon in an alternate universe.
The movie was good, tried to stay true to the original, what's not to like?
Slashdot Mirror
... while true, still irrelevant
My point is that it is reasonable to assume that a food source (plants) had to have existed before animals could exist. And a planet needs to exist before the plants can exist. Which is why the Genesis story being "close" to reality is really a non-story. You're taking it to some nonsensical tangent that's irrelevant to the topic.
Food had to exist, what does "favorite food" has to do with anything? Food has to exist before humans, period. It doesn't matter what the food is. I can't tell if you're trolling, or really that stupid.
even I admit that a LITERAL reading of Genesis in no way contradicts the Big Bang or Evolution theories, from that perspective they just become Gods tools
Anybody who wrote those stories would have to write it that way to be believable. Logically it makes sense that the things that are lower on the food chain have to come before the things that will eat them. If somebody made a story where humans were created before their food or land they live on were created, people would scratch their heads.
It happens to line up with science, because what do you know, plants had to have existed before animals because there would have been no other way for animals to sustain themselves otherwise, just like the storytellers thousands of years ago hypothesized.
They do make cases like that if you go with MicroATX boards (same features as full ATX, just less PCIe slots). Something like one of these sounds like what you want.
Pizza box case
Cube
Put your Minecraft fanboyism aside, Mojang isn't even at 100m USD in revenue yet. The guy himself may be 'hideously rich' but the company isn't some juggernaut.
They definitely have over 100 million in revenue now. Minecraft has built 80 million in sales since March
The XBox 360 version came out in May, and has sold over 3 million units. The Xbox 360 version costs $20 USD (1600 MS Points). Simple arithmetic gives me $60 million in XBLA sales. Mojang gets at least 1/3rd of that, which is enough too push them over the $100 million mark.
It very much depends on the kind of data warehouse. If it's a financial data warehouse I think using NoSQL is insane (we report to the SEC out of our data warehouse, transactional integrity is important!).
That's what I said, a RDBMS is better when you are dealing with transactions. Obviously this includes the storage of said transactions (databases aren't some sort of black hole!)
Every time I see this debate, this is what I always see. "it depends"
it depends on WHAT?! NoSQL people keep touting features, SQL people keep touting history, neither say "well, RDBMS is best suited for [insert descriptions here], while MongoDB is best suited for [insert descriptions here] and Lucene/Solr is best suited for [insert descriptions here]".
RDBMS is better for dealing with transactions. NoSQL is really bad at dealing with transactions, as they don't guarantee immediate consistency (and if they do, it comes with a huge performance cost, slower than that of an RDBMS). NoSQL is better for general data warehousing. You can do data warehousing with a RDBMS, it's just extremely inflexible at that task.
The biggest branch of Christianity (Catholicism) does not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. It is a collection of books written by humans inspired by God. I know there are branches of Christianity where it is literal, but where do you get your information? I worked with an Atheist that thought the same way you describe and specifically about Catholicism.
If the bible is inspired by God (and you're implying that some of it is not God's word), than how do you know what parts are the word of God, and which parts are simply made up? Was it God who inspired man to write down how many slaves you should own, or was that done purely on their own? How do we know that the Catholic church is picking and choosing the right verses as intended by God? Did he tell you which ones are good and which ones are bad? Where are you getting this information?
Most do not view holy books as literal truth like religious fundamentalists, but rather guidelines and proverbs on the meaning behind life and how to live it well. Nor do they believe in creationism and other pseudoscience. But there are a large number of chemists, biologists, virologists, toxicologists, medical doctors, etc. that go to church, temple, mosque, etc.
At least with Christianity, the Bible is the literal word of God. There is no sect (that I'm aware of) that does not claim the Bible is the literal word of God. If the book is the literal word of God (and God is infallible), then you have to accept everything in the book as the truth of God's word.
Problem is, claiming that some things in the Bible aren't really true, or are things that you don't believe in (for instance, the Bible condones slavery, and tells you how many slaves you are allowed to own) either requires some mind bending logic (God is infallible, God wrote the bible, the bible says you can own slaves, yet I don't believe what the Bible, even though the Bible is infallible by definition), or just flat out ignorance of your own religion.
If you want to pick and choose ideas based on morality, why tie yourself to a particular dogma, especially one that is contradictory, to say the least. If you're a scientist, you have to be well versed in the ideas of evidence, using logic to form arguments, creating testable theories and using evidence to prove and disprove them. Yet in order to believe in a God, you're required to give up the idea of using logic or evidence to form your beliefs. You're believing something because a book and a bunch of men in robes told you to (except the parts you don't like, because slavery and treating women as property is wrong, even though everything in there is the infallible word of your God and must be true according to your own belief system).
The only problem comes from the ambiguity of the word "Indians" when referring to Native Americans. Seneca Indians is fine, because I know that Seneca Indians came from America. Using the word "Indian" can be ambiguous or wrong depending on the context, since Indian refers to a group of people from Asia. Using the word Indian to refer to Native Americans just leads to confusion and is a poor choice of words.
Seneca Indians - A native tribe from America
Native Americans - Collection of native tribes from America
Indians - Group of people from Asia
I ran into a job posting wanting 10 years of Server 2008 experience. Obviously I don't have the experience of a time traveler.
Well, I think this is more of the case of poor choice of words. A better way to phrase this requirement would be 10 years of Windows experience, which includes some experience with Windows 2008.
It's also possible that they don't need somebody with 10 years of experience, but that's another issue.
Technically, you can get 24 hour power generation with pure solar energy. Excess power can be stored as molten salts, which can in turn be used on steam turbines during off peak hours. That said, on the micro-scale that the article is talking about, I'm not sure this would even be feasible.
You can do it the same day, even with a DVR. You don't have to wait that long. A 30 minute TV show is ~21 minutes long once you cut out the commercials. Wait 8 minutes after the show normally starts, and you can watch your show commercial free, with a minute of fast forwarding.
Transgaming's product is garbage. They fell so far behind Wine that they discontinued their Linux product (Cedega) 3 years ago. At the moment, they don't even have a Linux product anymore, it's gone into maintainance as "GameTree Linux". Since Wine switched to LGPL 10 years ago (in reaction to Transgaming and their refusal to send back patches), Cedega (then called WineX) their product has fallen further, and further behind, now to the point where it's less compatible than normal Wine.
If you want a commercial Windows compatibility product, look at Codeweavers. It's based on vanilla Wine, they backport their fixes, and they test for compatibility on their builds.
Looks like Phoronix has been /.ed
http://www.phoronix.com.nyud.net/scan.php?page=article&item=valve_linux_dampfnudeln&num=1
http://www.phoronix.com.nyud.net/scan.php?page=article&item=valve_linux_dampfnudeln&num=2
A decent amount of baby food contains meat, meat products (such as beef or chicken broth), dairy, or dairy products (cheese, yogurt).
Basically, what you're saying is, even though the same ads, materials, and movie are used in both the theatrical and post-theatrical release of the movie, they roll all the production costs into the theatrical release, instead of spreading the production costs between theatrical and post-theatrical release. Remind me how this isn't shady accounting?
It's like saying it cost me $1 million dollars to design a new car, I then sell $750k worth of cars to claim a $250k loss, and when the next year comes I add a pinstripe for $100 and claim it's a brand new car and that the investors aren't entitled to their cut of the profits because this car isn't the same car.
The Thunderbolt port is backwards compatible with DisplayPort, you can plug any DisplayPort device into the Thunderbolt port and it will work. The connector itself is the same as mini-DisplayPort, so any old mini-DisplayPort to whatever cables should work if all you care about is the video signal.
There is not a single thunderbolt cable on that list. It's just a bunch of displayport cables labeled thunderbolt. Thunderbolt is a combo displayport + PCIe, those cables just deal with the displayport signal and ignore the PCIe part.
No kidding they changed the tone, but I already touched on that subject before you brought it up.
As I already said, the new Star Trek is an action movie, and not a sci-fi movie. I truly believe that today, there is absolutely no way they could have made a good sci-fi movie that could appeal to movie goers, as I've explained in a post below, nor do I think that they would have appeased the hardcore Trek fans either who wanted a strict 1 for 1 remake of TOS.
Honestly, the only way they could appeal to die hard TOS fans who wanted a strict remake would have been not to make the movie at all. Which if that's your opinion, I guess that's fine, but be honest and come out and just flat out say that you don't want to see any more Star Trek.
When was the last time you've seen a good strict sci-fi movie in the theaters? It's probably been at least 20 years, for the exact reasons you've already pointed out. Honestly, what would you do with the series?
I'm not really sure what you could have expected from a Star Trek reboot that the movie didn't have.
You have to write this film as if nobody has ever seen Star Trek before. It had been 40 years since the TV series was out, and almost 20 years since the last movie. You have to assume that anybody under the age of 30 hasn't seen Star Trek before. So this film was going to be a character driven story, getting to know the crew and characters, and not going to expand upon the vast Star Trek universe. There was't time to make a super complex story, you had 2 hours to learn the backstory of the entire crew, and somehow manage to put in a villain plot. They did a Romulan plot, because they're the least interesting, and they didn't have much time to put in an intricate story. Remember, this was going to be a character driven story, learning about the characters, not about the Star Trek universe.
The mainstream audience is going to need things spelled out for them, which means this movie was going to seem like a dumb down version of Star Trek. So they're going to change things to make it appeal to the masses. The engine room made look like a navel ship engine room was to spell it out to the popcorn eating audience that this was indeed, the engine room and not some weird space weapon or something. The dumbed down-ness of the series had to happen if it was going to have mass appeal.
So if you were expecting an complex story that you're used to seeing in Star Trek, I could have told you it wasn't going to be that before stepping into the movie theaters that it wasn't going to be that. That said, now that they've gotten the character development out of the way, you should expect something more exciting out of the next film, and they should be able to expand upon the Star Trek universe like you are used to. If I were to guess, the next movie is going to feature Klingons, will revolve around the story and Star Trek universe, not just the characters like the last film did.
The one that aired in 2009 in theaters. But hey, let's just point and laugh instead of saying anything of real value. Oh wait.
I'm pretty sure the jury on Star Trek is already out, and that it was good, just different. The movie changes the series from an adventure drama to more of an action movie. Although the reboot feels like a dumbed down version of Star Trek, they tried to stay true to the original cannon.
While I'm sure any Trek fan will point out all the things they changed, they did change things up a bit, they did a lot of things right (ladder in the hallway, redshirt on an away team mission, rigging the Kobayashi Maru Test, Sulu is a fencer) to make sure everybody knew that the movie was really Star Trek. Besides, the original Star Trek already established split timelines as cannon, so any changes you make can be considered cannon in an alternate universe.
The movie was good, tried to stay true to the original, what's not to like?