You shouldn't be using the same password across multiple sites anyway. Break down and get a password safe and then just use randomly generated unique passwords for every site. As a side benefit, the next time some site gets hacked, you'll only need to change your password for that site instead of every site you've ever logged into.
the gun banners DON"T CARE about addressing the base cause of violent crime, they just want to ban guns. Period.
That's kind of statement makes you appear very well suited for politics. That isn't a compliment. Really, think about that statement for a moment: people who want to ban guns just want to ban guns. That's like saying that people who want to kill people just want to kill people, or people who want to steal things just want to steal things. There are certainly fringe cases where that is true, mentally ill people who are compulsively driven to commit some deed for its own sake. Most of the time, there's a little thing called "motive" involved in people's decisions.
I don't want to ban guns and think that most of the current "gun control" is useless, idiotic or both. That said, I also can't stand how polarized this discussion gets, with people creating a "them" to rail against, and making blanket statements about how "they" are irrational and failures as human beings.
Why do people want to ban guns? They want safety because they're afraid of the violent crimes that people commit with guns. It's really, really hard to address that human factor, to stop unstable individuals from deciding to commit acts of violence... so they target the other side of the equation and attempt to limit the damage that those individuals can do. This is not irrational, although it may be overreacting. And that's where differing opinions are vital - by finding a happy medium between the people who want to ban all guns and the people who want absolute freedom, perhaps we can find a way to successfully limit the damage that unstable people can do without unduly burdening the average citizen.
I'm sorry for your loss and, as a parent myself, I couldn't even begin to imagine what that must have been like for your family. That said, I disagree with some of your points. For one thing, they are contradictory. Your first point was about how, due to the fact that there are innocents on death row, you wouldn't want to inflict such a heinous punishment as death. You then go on to say that we should "make them wish they were dead" and discuss death as an easy out - if you want the punishment to be worse than death, then why are you no longer concerned about those before mentioned innocents?
That said, I really do like your idea about making convicted criminals perform work that benefits their victims/society. It would be a very fine line to walk though, as down that path lies slavery.
That's nice. So go right ahead and take up that manslaughter hobby you've always dreamed of! After all it was only what, 11 people killed? so $4.5 billion divided by 11: that means you can murder anybody you want for the low low price of only ~$409 million!. What are you waiting for!?...I fucking hate this country.
Parents with a good moral sense would not engineer their babies.
However, selfish and immoral parents would do it. Thus they could create a strong, intelligent, long-lived baby, who they would raise in an environment of selfishness and immorality.
Rinse and repeat. After a few generations, you have divided society in two classes: one upper, dominating class consisting of strong, intelligent, but selfish and immoral beings (who would no longer be even _humans_), and one lower class consisting of naturals.
I've quoted your original post that you linked here. Yours is a circular argument. Moral people would avoid eugenics, therefore immoral people would benefit from eugenics, therefore eugenics empowers the immoral people and is therefore an immoral technology. Let's walk through your causal process with a slightly different (and I think more reasonable) first assumption:
Parents with a Luddite sense would not engineer their babies.
However, progressive parents would do it. Thus they could create a strong, intelligent, long-lived baby, who they would raise in an environment of forward-thinking and problem solving.
Rinse and repeat. After a few generations, two of society's existing classes move further apart; those who fear change/technology continue to live on in isolated communities according to their old ways and those who embrace technology, which is mankind's greatest evolutionary advantage, live longer, healthier lives.
Am I the only person who noticed that their graphs differentiate between idle and standby? Without even reading the whole article, it's pretty obvious from that graph alone that their conclusion about wasted power is flawed. Is it any surprise that a console, powered up with software running, uses comparable energy whether someone is holding the controller or not? In "standby" mode, which is how my consoles spend most of their time when not in use, the consoles use less than 1% of that energy. FUD.
What does that even mean? Does that mean that for every 100 people who get in their cars in the morning, one of them will die during their daily commute? Or will 1 in 100 drivers die after a year's driving? After a decade's? After a lifetime's? Where do these statistics come from and over what timeframes are they descriptive?
While that is the correct definition of evolution, it does not describe the leap from inorganic to organic cylons. As the show presented it, there was no transformation from inorganic to organic. Instead, a few members of a species of organic machines (the "final five") came across and subjugated the cylons. While it's true that this conquering species did take on the name of the conquered species and they did share their biological tech with the cylons in a limited capacity, there was no evolutionary link between a Cylon Raider and a Number 6. The cylons never evolved to a point where they looked human.
This solution of relying on sales tax only works if the rich spend a proportionate amount of their income within the country. All of those luxury cars/watches/shoes/yachts/villas are not putting money into the system. The top 1% could easily live outside the US while still making their money here.
I'd advocate the opposite; only have an income tax. If I make 100k per year, I have significantly more disposable income than my friend who makes 25k per year. Even if I'm paying 50% of my income as tax and they're only paying 10%, I get to live a 50k lifestyle vs. their 22.5k lifestyle. I think that we should have an aggressive income tax without exemptions/credits/loopholes and no other taxes. A person is taxed on the money that they make and, if they have been clever enough to be prosperous and earn a lot of money from our countrymen, they can afford to give some of it back to the country that offers services and support to those same people. The common argument against this of "why penalize me for making money" is a fallacy as there is no possible way that earning more money could result in less in your pocket.
Add to that a sliding scale like we currently use (where a basic cost of living would be taxed at 0% and scaling up from there) and we have a solution that ensures that the people may afford a basic lifestyle while still funding the government and rewarding those people who work hard to be successful.
A 10 Gb connection is an incredible amount of bandwidth, even when we're discussing storage. Disk IO will run out well before bandwidth becomes a consideration unless we're talking about data that is striped across 100+ disks.
Bandwidth used = IO/s * size of transaction.
or, basic algebra can reveal how many drives it takes to fill a given pipe by the following formula:
IO/s = Bandwidth / Size of Transaction
Most file systems use relatively small blocks and as such an average disk transaction tends to range from 4KB to 16KB. 15k SAS drives can realistically sustain 180 IO/s.
1 Gbit ~= 120 MB (allowing for some overhead) of bandwidth = 122,880 KB
So, dividing our available bandwidth by our transaction size (and in this case, we'll assume high at 16KB... 8KB average is much more common in the wild) will reveal how many IO/s we'd need to fill that pipe. Dividing that number by 180 (the IO/s of our SAS drive) will tell us how many drives are needed in a RAID 0 (in order to optimize for performance).
122,880 KB / 16 KB = 7680 IO/S =~ 43 SAS Drives. With no redundancy, we'd need 43 of these drives to saturate even a single gig-e connection.
While I disagree with you about where the bottleneck on a SAN is likely to be, the SAN is only one cost to consider. Backups and replication can easily triple the cost of the SAN's storage itself, as reliable bandwidth is an expensive recurring cost to the IT organization.
That said, the IT organization should be able to provide much more affordable storage to you ($1 per GB is reasonable) if it is sitting on a SAN that is built primarily for space rather than for speed.
Just download the zip and copy the contained GIMP folder over your existing GIMP folder (that way all of the scripts, etc. go to the right sub folders). Hell, if you're using 32 bit windows (and kept your install paths at the defaults), you can just unzip the zip file onto your C:\ and you're good to go (as the zip actually contains a Program Files root folder).
What I don't get is why you're singing such praise for it. Sure, I was able to remove the UFO from their example picture, but most of the time it just seems to pull pixels from the upper right corner of the image and glue them over the section that you want removed. I suppose that it's possible that I'm not using it right (going to Script-Fu -> Enhance -> Smart Remove Selection), but the only variable that it seems to present me with is the radius from which to take pixels, and regardless of my value (I've tried 7, 100, and 500) it has not yielded successful results reliably.
I agree completely about Episode One being a kid's movie. But, I also feel obliged to point out that some fans have fixed it with a version called "The Phantom Edit". If you google it, you should be able to find a copy. Be aware that there are multiple copies (I've seen at least 2 versions); the one that I really enjoyed was made by MagnoliaFan78@hotmail.com and is titled "Episode 1: Balance of the Force (in the opening scroll). It tells a much darker story (in addition to cutting out the Midichlorians and all of the "yipee"s), by reversing the audio for most of the aliens and subtitling them. I was shocked to, by the end of the movie, find that I had actually enjoyed Jar Jar's contributions.
And here's an edited for privacy transcription from Google Voice today: "Hi Alan, it's gia Craig over at Northeastern collagen help topped and my computer is dead. It's definitely not working or managers on my phone's working. I checked the lines it doesn't look like. Anything's Unplugged, but I've pushed in any way you push the button to turn it on. There's no white that goes on movie then Maher of a machine starting. It's just absolutely dead and so could you do call me back and and come today. I do have to run over to delivery of the office for a few minutes this morning and then but I did not half hour. I might be at Colin's desk and that is extension 251. If I'm not at my own here and I'm 253. Thanks a lot. Bye bye."
Funny... this is what I hear whenever a user asks me for help...
I second this; credit reports have a distressingly high chance of being bullshit. My Experian report (I wonder if it's Experian that tends to have the most problems?) got merged with another man's (who happens to have the same birthday/birth city as I do). Everything that either of us did went onto this monster credit report and it took literally 6 months and many letters to sort out. I started by simply pointing out that all of that other man's activity was not mine and requested that they remove it from the report. They countered with the statement that I did not exist. News to me.
In the end, it turned out that our monster report was under the other man's SSN (which they happily sent to me, as well as every detail of his personal information I could ever not want). After I pointed this out to Experian (and explained that they had merged two people onto one record), only *then* was their crack team of investigators able to determine that they had merged two people onto one record. And by that point I was so exhausted at the system that I was just happy to have it fixed, regardless of the fact that I had had to do their damn job for them.
Wow, bitter much? I've been happily married for 5 years now and disagree with every one of Sycodon's points.
Sex does not stop just because you get married; if you had a strong sex life while you were dating, you will have a strong sex life whilst married. You'll still have time to game and to pursue your interests, just as she will still pursue hers. Marriage, when it comes right down to it, changes nothing. It's merely a symbol that two people, who already know that they love each other and want to spend their lives together, use to let the rest of us know those facts. Marriage changes nothing.
Your "changing rule set" option could be automated, to a fair extent. Make it so that NPCs are also patrons of shops and they have certain needs (the NPC population of a city needs to buy X baked goods, Y smithed goods, etc.). If one profession (say smithing) gets unbalanced and too viable, more players will migrate towards it. This will create a glut in the market and a shortage in the other professions. As there are always NPCs who need a certain amount of resources from those other professions, those items increase in value and thus the market is corrected. I hope.
It's not always a question of abandonment. As so many people have said, if the addict doesn't want to change, nothing in the universe will change him. At a certain point, it becomes a matter of protecting *yourself*. Seeing someone I love hurt herself is probably the single greatest pain that I've ever experienced. You can express your feelings, love and support them, but if they don't want to change they're not going to. If you have to experience that pain enough times, it will break you. "Abandoning" them is not about callously leaving them to their own demons; it's about ensuring that you're still standing and able to help them, when they are ready to accept that help.
What if they do name it Colbert, and then next year Colbert is found guilty of serial killings and child molestation? There's a good reason not to name such achievements after living people...
Let me say up front: I am not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination, however I do hold to a vague sense of religion. I've always wondered *why* some creationists take such offense at scientifically established facts (common origin of life, etc.), rather than accepting them in a non-confrontational way into their world view.
For example, look at the common origin of life (as seen in the fact that so many different animals have so many similar genetic markers). Life is very complicated; a biosphere even more so. The older religious (and still desperately held to) "theory" is that "sky daddy" hand crafted each bit of life to exactly suit the needs of the ever changing biosphere on Earth.
Recent trends in engineering have taught us that evolutionary design techniques (aka emergent algorithms) are a fantastic way to build things. You get better results faster through adaptive live/die iterations than if they were designed solely by hand. Given that, I would think it makes perfect sense that any deity would use evolutionary forces in order to populate the planet - it would simply be a better design. It's more resilient (self correcting, as the generations pass), simpler to set up and would yield better results than if all life were custom built.
Then again, incorporating such thoughts into their belief structure would require an ounce of free will, which seems to be a trait that is being selectively bred out of the deeply religious...
Funny... I always thought it was the other way around. If an observation contradicts the dominant theory, I thought the theory should be revised, not the observation.
I don't care what gender or race you are, you can try to act like a geek, but won't ever be one if you aren't already (in which case it's not acting) - that only puts you up against people who really are geeks/nerds/tech heads/etc and shows just how much fail you really are...
Says one of us high UID slashdotters who must've started interacting in the geek scene relatively recently. People aren't born geeks; they are born curious and learn to be a geek because it's interesting. I can see this book being very useful for a starting geek; someone who has that curiosity and has realized that technology is a fun thing to learn about. How about we accept new geeks into the community rather than showing them the venom that festers here?
I completely agree - I have a pair of mutually-incompatible versions of the same application...
Another application that you may want to look at, also from VMware, is ThinApp (previously Thinstall). Rather than providing virtualized hardware to a guest operating system which then runs "native" applications, this approach provides a virtualized operating system to the applications.
Basically, rather than actually installing your apps onto the system that you're running, you're installing them into a differential file that references your host system. You could install each version of the app, each in a different thin wrapper, and thus the changes that each makes would be suppressed from the other (as each would only be making changes in their own differential file).
Slashdot Mirror
You shouldn't be using the same password across multiple sites anyway. Break down and get a password safe and then just use randomly generated unique passwords for every site. As a side benefit, the next time some site gets hacked, you'll only need to change your password for that site instead of every site you've ever logged into.
the gun banners DON"T CARE about addressing the base cause of violent crime, they just want to ban guns. Period.
That's kind of statement makes you appear very well suited for politics. That isn't a compliment. Really, think about that statement for a moment: people who want to ban guns just want to ban guns. That's like saying that people who want to kill people just want to kill people, or people who want to steal things just want to steal things. There are certainly fringe cases where that is true, mentally ill people who are compulsively driven to commit some deed for its own sake. Most of the time, there's a little thing called "motive" involved in people's decisions.
I don't want to ban guns and think that most of the current "gun control" is useless, idiotic or both. That said, I also can't stand how polarized this discussion gets, with people creating a "them" to rail against, and making blanket statements about how "they" are irrational and failures as human beings.
Why do people want to ban guns? They want safety because they're afraid of the violent crimes that people commit with guns. It's really, really hard to address that human factor, to stop unstable individuals from deciding to commit acts of violence... so they target the other side of the equation and attempt to limit the damage that those individuals can do. This is not irrational, although it may be overreacting. And that's where differing opinions are vital - by finding a happy medium between the people who want to ban all guns and the people who want absolute freedom, perhaps we can find a way to successfully limit the damage that unstable people can do without unduly burdening the average citizen.
I'm sorry for your loss and, as a parent myself, I couldn't even begin to imagine what that must have been like for your family. That said, I disagree with some of your points. For one thing, they are contradictory. Your first point was about how, due to the fact that there are innocents on death row, you wouldn't want to inflict such a heinous punishment as death. You then go on to say that we should "make them wish they were dead" and discuss death as an easy out - if you want the punishment to be worse than death, then why are you no longer concerned about those before mentioned innocents?
That said, I really do like your idea about making convicted criminals perform work that benefits their victims/society. It would be a very fine line to walk though, as down that path lies slavery.
That's nice. So go right ahead and take up that manslaughter hobby you've always dreamed of! After all it was only what, 11 people killed? so $4.5 billion divided by 11: that means you can murder anybody you want for the low low price of only ~$409 million!. What are you waiting for!? ...I fucking hate this country.
To be fair, they qualified for the bulk discount.
Given their breeding rate, they should call the program Nearly Infinite Mine Handlers.
I've quoted your original post that you linked here. Yours is a circular argument. Moral people would avoid eugenics, therefore immoral people would benefit from eugenics, therefore eugenics empowers the immoral people and is therefore an immoral technology. Let's walk through your causal process with a slightly different (and I think more reasonable) first assumption:
Parents with a Luddite sense would not engineer their babies.
However, progressive parents would do it. Thus they could create a strong, intelligent, long-lived baby, who they would raise in an environment of forward-thinking and problem solving.
Rinse and repeat. After a few generations, two of society's existing classes move further apart; those who fear change/technology continue to live on in isolated communities according to their old ways and those who embrace technology, which is mankind's greatest evolutionary advantage, live longer, healthier lives.
Am I the only person who noticed that their graphs differentiate between idle and standby? Without even reading the whole article, it's pretty obvious from that graph alone that their conclusion about wasted power is flawed. Is it any surprise that a console, powered up with software running, uses comparable energy whether someone is holding the controller or not? In "standby" mode, which is how my consoles spend most of their time when not in use, the consoles use less than 1% of that energy. FUD.
Odds of dying in a car is 1 in 100.
What does that even mean? Does that mean that for every 100 people who get in their cars in the morning, one of them will die during their daily commute? Or will 1 in 100 drivers die after a year's driving? After a decade's? After a lifetime's? Where do these statistics come from and over what timeframes are they descriptive?
Take it one step further - be blatantly aroused during the frisking.
While that is the correct definition of evolution, it does not describe the leap from inorganic to organic cylons. As the show presented it, there was no transformation from inorganic to organic. Instead, a few members of a species of organic machines (the "final five") came across and subjugated the cylons. While it's true that this conquering species did take on the name of the conquered species and they did share their biological tech with the cylons in a limited capacity, there was no evolutionary link between a Cylon Raider and a Number 6. The cylons never evolved to a point where they looked human.
This solution of relying on sales tax only works if the rich spend a proportionate amount of their income within the country. All of those luxury cars/watches/shoes/yachts/villas are not putting money into the system. The top 1% could easily live outside the US while still making their money here.
I'd advocate the opposite; only have an income tax. If I make 100k per year, I have significantly more disposable income than my friend who makes 25k per year. Even if I'm paying 50% of my income as tax and they're only paying 10%, I get to live a 50k lifestyle vs. their 22.5k lifestyle. I think that we should have an aggressive income tax without exemptions/credits/loopholes and no other taxes. A person is taxed on the money that they make and, if they have been clever enough to be prosperous and earn a lot of money from our countrymen, they can afford to give some of it back to the country that offers services and support to those same people. The common argument against this of "why penalize me for making money" is a fallacy as there is no possible way that earning more money could result in less in your pocket.
Add to that a sliding scale like we currently use (where a basic cost of living would be taxed at 0% and scaling up from there) and we have a solution that ensures that the people may afford a basic lifestyle while still funding the government and rewarding those people who work hard to be successful.
A 10 Gb connection is an incredible amount of bandwidth, even when we're discussing storage. Disk IO will run out well before bandwidth becomes a consideration unless we're talking about data that is striped across 100+ disks.
Bandwidth used = IO/s * size of transaction.
or, basic algebra can reveal how many drives it takes to fill a given pipe by the following formula:
IO/s = Bandwidth / Size of Transaction
Most file systems use relatively small blocks and as such an average disk transaction tends to range from 4KB to 16KB. 15k SAS drives can realistically sustain 180 IO/s.
1 Gbit ~= 120 MB (allowing for some overhead) of bandwidth = 122,880 KB
So, dividing our available bandwidth by our transaction size (and in this case, we'll assume high at 16KB... 8KB average is much more common in the wild) will reveal how many IO/s we'd need to fill that pipe. Dividing that number by 180 (the IO/s of our SAS drive) will tell us how many drives are needed in a RAID 0 (in order to optimize for performance).
122,880 KB / 16 KB = 7680 IO/S =~ 43 SAS Drives. With no redundancy, we'd need 43 of these drives to saturate even a single gig-e connection.
While I disagree with you about where the bottleneck on a SAN is likely to be, the SAN is only one cost to consider. Backups and replication can easily triple the cost of the SAN's storage itself, as reliable bandwidth is an expensive recurring cost to the IT organization.
That said, the IT organization should be able to provide much more affordable storage to you ($1 per GB is reasonable) if it is sitting on a SAN that is built primarily for space rather than for speed.
Just download the zip and copy the contained GIMP folder over your existing GIMP folder (that way all of the scripts, etc. go to the right sub folders). Hell, if you're using 32 bit windows (and kept your install paths at the defaults), you can just unzip the zip file onto your C:\ and you're good to go (as the zip actually contains a Program Files root folder).
What I don't get is why you're singing such praise for it. Sure, I was able to remove the UFO from their example picture, but most of the time it just seems to pull pixels from the upper right corner of the image and glue them over the section that you want removed. I suppose that it's possible that I'm not using it right (going to Script-Fu -> Enhance -> Smart Remove Selection), but the only variable that it seems to present me with is the radius from which to take pixels, and regardless of my value (I've tried 7, 100, and 500) it has not yielded successful results reliably.
I agree completely about Episode One being a kid's movie. But, I also feel obliged to point out that some fans have fixed it with a version called "The Phantom Edit". If you google it, you should be able to find a copy. Be aware that there are multiple copies (I've seen at least 2 versions); the one that I really enjoyed was made by MagnoliaFan78@hotmail.com and is titled "Episode 1: Balance of the Force (in the opening scroll). It tells a much darker story (in addition to cutting out the Midichlorians and all of the "yipee"s), by reversing the audio for most of the aliens and subtitling them. I was shocked to, by the end of the movie, find that I had actually enjoyed Jar Jar's contributions.
And here's an edited for privacy transcription from Google Voice today: "Hi Alan, it's gia Craig over at Northeastern collagen help topped and my computer is dead. It's definitely not working or managers on my phone's working. I checked the lines it doesn't look like. Anything's Unplugged, but I've pushed in any way you push the button to turn it on. There's no white that goes on movie then Maher of a machine starting. It's just absolutely dead and so could you do call me back and and come today. I do have to run over to delivery of the office for a few minutes this morning and then but I did not half hour. I might be at Colin's desk and that is extension 251. If I'm not at my own here and I'm 253. Thanks a lot. Bye bye."
Funny... this is what I hear whenever a user asks me for help...
I second this; credit reports have a distressingly high chance of being bullshit. My Experian report (I wonder if it's Experian that tends to have the most problems?) got merged with another man's (who happens to have the same birthday/birth city as I do). Everything that either of us did went onto this monster credit report and it took literally 6 months and many letters to sort out. I started by simply pointing out that all of that other man's activity was not mine and requested that they remove it from the report. They countered with the statement that I did not exist. News to me.
In the end, it turned out that our monster report was under the other man's SSN (which they happily sent to me, as well as every detail of his personal information I could ever not want). After I pointed this out to Experian (and explained that they had merged two people onto one record), only *then* was their crack team of investigators able to determine that they had merged two people onto one record. And by that point I was so exhausted at the system that I was just happy to have it fixed, regardless of the fact that I had had to do their damn job for them.
Wow, bitter much? I've been happily married for 5 years now and disagree with every one of Sycodon's points.
Sex does not stop just because you get married; if you had a strong sex life while you were dating, you will have a strong sex life whilst married. You'll still have time to game and to pursue your interests, just as she will still pursue hers. Marriage, when it comes right down to it, changes nothing. It's merely a symbol that two people, who already know that they love each other and want to spend their lives together, use to let the rest of us know those facts. Marriage changes nothing.
Kids, on the other hand, change everything...
Your "changing rule set" option could be automated, to a fair extent. Make it so that NPCs are also patrons of shops and they have certain needs (the NPC population of a city needs to buy X baked goods, Y smithed goods, etc.). If one profession (say smithing) gets unbalanced and too viable, more players will migrate towards it. This will create a glut in the market and a shortage in the other professions. As there are always NPCs who need a certain amount of resources from those other professions, those items increase in value and thus the market is corrected. I hope.
It's not always a question of abandonment. As so many people have said, if the addict doesn't want to change, nothing in the universe will change him. At a certain point, it becomes a matter of protecting *yourself*. Seeing someone I love hurt herself is probably the single greatest pain that I've ever experienced. You can express your feelings, love and support them, but if they don't want to change they're not going to. If you have to experience that pain enough times, it will break you. "Abandoning" them is not about callously leaving them to their own demons; it's about ensuring that you're still standing and able to help them, when they are ready to accept that help.
What if they do name it Colbert, and then next year Colbert is found guilty of serial killings and child molestation? There's a good reason not to name such achievements after living people...
Let me say up front: I am not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination, however I do hold to a vague sense of religion. I've always wondered *why* some creationists take such offense at scientifically established facts (common origin of life, etc.), rather than accepting them in a non-confrontational way into their world view.
For example, look at the common origin of life (as seen in the fact that so many different animals have so many similar genetic markers). Life is very complicated; a biosphere even more so. The older religious (and still desperately held to) "theory" is that "sky daddy" hand crafted each bit of life to exactly suit the needs of the ever changing biosphere on Earth.
Recent trends in engineering have taught us that evolutionary design techniques (aka emergent algorithms) are a fantastic way to build things. You get better results faster through adaptive live/die iterations than if they were designed solely by hand. Given that, I would think it makes perfect sense that any deity would use evolutionary forces in order to populate the planet - it would simply be a better design. It's more resilient (self correcting, as the generations pass), simpler to set up and would yield better results than if all life were custom built.
Then again, incorporating such thoughts into their belief structure would require an ounce of free will, which seems to be a trait that is being selectively bred out of the deeply religious...
Funny... I always thought it was the other way around. If an observation contradicts the dominant theory, I thought the theory should be revised, not the observation.
I don't care what gender or race you are, you can try to act like a geek, but won't ever be one if you aren't already (in which case it's not acting) - that only puts you up against people who really are geeks/nerds/tech heads/etc and shows just how much fail you really are...
Says one of us high UID slashdotters who must've started interacting in the geek scene relatively recently. People aren't born geeks; they are born curious and learn to be a geek because it's interesting. I can see this book being very useful for a starting geek; someone who has that curiosity and has realized that technology is a fun thing to learn about. How about we accept new geeks into the community rather than showing them the venom that festers here?
I completely agree - I have a pair of mutually-incompatible versions of the same application...
Another application that you may want to look at, also from VMware, is ThinApp (previously Thinstall). Rather than providing virtualized hardware to a guest operating system which then runs "native" applications, this approach provides a virtualized operating system to the applications.
Basically, rather than actually installing your apps onto the system that you're running, you're installing them into a differential file that references your host system. You could install each version of the app, each in a different thin wrapper, and thus the changes that each makes would be suppressed from the other (as each would only be making changes in their own differential file).
Sadly, it is far from a free technology...
... a story that you never *remember* hearing before...