It doesn't matter if a game is a sequel or not--Half-Life 2 was a lot more fun, detailed, engaging, and innovative than plenty of non-sequels. In fact, I'd argue that it was the most innovative game of 2005.
Apple made it so that the.app extension cannot be hidden, and so that one is warned before running any application for the first time, probably as a direct result of the mp3 trojan. A user being allowed to execute code he chooses to may be a vulnerability, but is isn't one to be "fixed."
Actually, there was a similar trojan before disguised as an mp3. Apple responded to this in Tiger by making the.app extension of an application always appear at the end of its filename, ignoring any options to hide extensions. Unless this really has found some exploit, it is just a file.jpg.app.
If people find the game excessively offensive, then they should boycott it. Limiting free speech, however, is more offensive than making a game about raping children, because while the latter is a simulated evil, the former is an actual act of evil.
if i'm not wrong, the state is supposed to protect you from yourself
Plenty of people (myself included) would argue that you are wrong, and that a legitimate state ought to protect people capable of rational decisions only from others, not from themselves.
The Catholic Church also accepts evolution, so it isn't them on whom I'm hating. It's also a bit dubious to give them credit for the Renaissance, when it was largely a resurgence of ideas which they had suppressed in the first place (and which practitioners of a certain other religion had to preserve).
But if someone did oppose the theory of gravity (or heliocentricity, or whatever other currently held theories) *and* provided an alternate theory, you would *at least* consider both theories unless or until you could prove one was more likely than the other, right?
Except that Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It isn't even a model, just a set of unfalsifiable claims. Plenty of people who don't believe in evolution aren't the "ignorant masses," but they're ignorant of as much biology as you would get in an introductory college class.
Ideally this would be true; however, scientists as of late have become so tied to evolution in any form that they simply are not abiding by this any longer.
I hear that these days, engineers assume that gravity exists when they design bridges without even testing it for themselves. It's shocking, especially when you consider that lives are at stake, yet they still allow their biases to color their work.
Scientists don't support Darwin; they support evolutionary theory. In fact, Darwin's idea that evolution is gradual has been largely replaced by punctuated equilibria based on evidence. Scientists don't simply look for things to reinforce existing theory, but instead they seek to expand and revise it constantly. This is the sort of thing creationists don't want; they start from a given premise and discard all evidence that doesn't agree with it. You basically took an argument against creationism, replaced the word "creationist" with "scientist", and expect people to lend credence to your nonsense because you admit to uncertainty.
Because in order to discredit evolutionary theory, those who oppose it attempt to undermine science, reason, and even empirical observation as bases of belief. The heliocentric model of the solar system isn't all of science, either, but no one who honestly believes in science disbelieves it.
It has nothing to do with which country it is in. This debate isn't about sanctioning countries; it isn't about complying with arbitrary regulations imposed by oppressive countries; it is about cooperating with oppression. Countries are just as morally obligated not to support censorship in America as they are in China.
By the way, where did I claim that America hasn't committed atrocities? Yes, people should be upset at United Fruit for obeying the law. Your "bullshit line of reasoning" isn't even a strawman--you are simply claiming that I oppose arguments which I do not. Just because many self-styled advocates of freedom overlook problems with America, it does not mean that America having problems is an argument against freedom. If you support wrongdoing by the Chinese government, why not support it by the American government?
Re:How does it handle values outside the range?
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 1
Carbon and Cocoa are APIs. Carbon supports C and C++, and Cocoa Objective-C, Objective-C++, and Java, though there are third-party bindings. Of course, you can make Carbon calls from an Objective-C program since it is a strict superset of C. However, most cross-platform programs use Carbon because they don't want to use Objective-C since it is much less popular, and GNUstep isn't as mature for other platforms as Cocoa is for OS X. iTunes, by the way, is a Carbon program, though I don't know if it's written in C or C++.
He wasn't speaking, he was writing. And there's even a "preview" button. How are people supposed to debate rationally if we cannot have unique terms for meaningful concepts?
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring his argument is charitable. If somebody posted that as a comment, I would assume it was a troll.
English doesn't have anything comparable to Nynorsk and Bokmal, though.
I find your arguments compelling, and will therefore refrain from feeding you, tro^H^H^Hsir.
Step 5 really is ???, because I have no idea how they're going to profit after they kick out all of their users with steps 1-4.
I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows)...
And that was 1991
We all know that Lunix was actually created by the Soviet hacker Lunis Torrvaldez.
It doesn't matter if a game is a sequel or not--Half-Life 2 was a lot more fun, detailed, engaging, and innovative than plenty of non-sequels. In fact, I'd argue that it was the most innovative game of 2005.
...unsatisfied by their small marketshare, the Pepsi Cola Corporation has discontinued their product line and has become a reseller of Coca-Cola.
Actually, you're right; they simply changed the default to show all file extensions.
Apple made it so that the .app extension cannot be hidden, and so that one is warned before running any application for the first time, probably as a direct result of the mp3 trojan. A user being allowed to execute code he chooses to may be a vulnerability, but is isn't one to be "fixed."
Actually, there was a similar trojan before disguised as an mp3. Apple responded to this in Tiger by making the .app extension of an application always appear at the end of its filename, ignoring any options to hide extensions. Unless this really has found some exploit, it is just a file.jpg.app.
If people find the game excessively offensive, then they should boycott it. Limiting free speech, however, is more offensive than making a game about raping children, because while the latter is a simulated evil, the former is an actual act of evil.
The point is that Australia has a government trying its damnedest to be as stupid as the American government.
Plenty of people (myself included) would argue that you are wrong, and that a legitimate state ought to protect people capable of rational decisions only from others, not from themselves.
The Catholic Church also accepts evolution, so it isn't them on whom I'm hating. It's also a bit dubious to give them credit for the Renaissance, when it was largely a resurgence of ideas which they had suppressed in the first place (and which practitioners of a certain other religion had to preserve).
I certainly look forward to playing Half-Life 2 with the new Source engine on this Core technology.
Except that Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It isn't even a model, just a set of unfalsifiable claims. Plenty of people who don't believe in evolution aren't the "ignorant masses," but they're ignorant of as much biology as you would get in an introductory college class.
I discard thousands of years of observation of the Sun revolving the Earth, too.
I hear that these days, engineers assume that gravity exists when they design bridges without even testing it for themselves. It's shocking, especially when you consider that lives are at stake, yet they still allow their biases to color their work.
Actually more girls attempt to commit suicide than boys in the US, but more girls fail because they tend to eschew more gruesome and reliable methods.
Scientists don't support Darwin; they support evolutionary theory. In fact, Darwin's idea that evolution is gradual has been largely replaced by punctuated equilibria based on evidence. Scientists don't simply look for things to reinforce existing theory, but instead they seek to expand and revise it constantly. This is the sort of thing creationists don't want; they start from a given premise and discard all evidence that doesn't agree with it. You basically took an argument against creationism, replaced the word "creationist" with "scientist", and expect people to lend credence to your nonsense because you admit to uncertainty.
Because in order to discredit evolutionary theory, those who oppose it attempt to undermine science, reason, and even empirical observation as bases of belief. The heliocentric model of the solar system isn't all of science, either, but no one who honestly believes in science disbelieves it.
By the way, where did I claim that America hasn't committed atrocities? Yes, people should be upset at United Fruit for obeying the law. Your "bullshit line of reasoning" isn't even a strawman--you are simply claiming that I oppose arguments which I do not. Just because many self-styled advocates of freedom overlook problems with America, it does not mean that America having problems is an argument against freedom. If you support wrongdoing by the Chinese government, why not support it by the American government?
Carbon and Cocoa are APIs. Carbon supports C and C++, and Cocoa Objective-C, Objective-C++, and Java, though there are third-party bindings. Of course, you can make Carbon calls from an Objective-C program since it is a strict superset of C. However, most cross-platform programs use Carbon because they don't want to use Objective-C since it is much less popular, and GNUstep isn't as mature for other platforms as Cocoa is for OS X. iTunes, by the way, is a Carbon program, though I don't know if it's written in C or C++.
He wasn't speaking, he was writing. And there's even a "preview" button. How are people supposed to debate rationally if we cannot have unique terms for meaningful concepts?