Simple? Only if you've never played any modern rules-light system. If you're willing to modify the rules as it suits and not take them too seriously then you'll probably have fun whatever you play, but there are much better systems than D&D around nowadays.
How else would you want it? They're supposed to represent a large political party, of course they're going to take the positions of the mainstream of that party. I do see a fairly clear distinction between the moderates (Romney, Gingrich), the conservatives (Santorum, Perry(?), Bachmann, the rest of them), and Ron Paul, and when you only get to vote for one guy and don't get to give a reason, that's probably about as subtle a question as the electorate can meaningfully answer. I would agree that the "conservative" cluster seems much of a muchness and the field could do with thinning down to one in each of those three groups, but that's what these straw polls are for.
Nope. The Netscape 4 codebase was thrown away because it was terrible, but look how the netscape 6 codebase turned out. If you don't have the skill/discipline/etc. to fix a bad codebase, you won't be able to write a good new one either.
Where are you getting flights that cheap? Seriously, I'd've been to the US (from London) for a weekend already if the tickets I could find weren't 5x that.
I'd point out that the original transformer benchmarks ahead of the galaxy and way ahead of the xoom (don't know about the others). It handles 720p video comfortably (I'd recommend buying Dice Player, it's only #4 to make your #400 tablet much better), so I'm not sure how much benefit you'd actually get from the prime's faster processor - the only time the original gets sluggish (for me) is trying to use it with several torrents running at once in the background.
Okay. But if I see someone state something as a fact, and I think that that something has no evidence for or against it, I'm going to call them out on it.
Will you let someone away with stating something as fact when it has some evidence for it, but more evidence against it? Or, more to the point, is your threshold of acceptable evidence the same for any proposition - so if I see a light in the sky enough times, I can say "it's a satellite, that's a fact" and "it's an alien, that's a fact" with equal validity?
I don't know where these numbers come from.
99.9% is an arbitrary figure; my actual level of confidence that this chocolate teapot doesn't exist is higher than that.
No. Just things that have no evidence for or against them.
You can't disentangle evidence from expectation; evidence is precisely that which causes you to update your expectation (and is meaningless beyond that). If you try to form probability theory without initial expectations, you get paradoxes. So we can only coherently define facts in terms of our final expectations, not the evidence, which is a vanishing intermediate value.
99.9% sure of what? If that was a "what if" scenario, then go ahead and state it as a fact.
Well, I'm more than 99.9% confident that the aforementioned chocolate teapot doesn't exist - and I suspect you are too. Yet you seem unhappy with calling that a fact.
Do you refuse to state anything as fact, then? I think it's less likely that such a thing exists than that Jefferson wasn't actually the third president, or even that I'm actually a brain in a vat imagining things. If you require absolute certainty to call something a fact, that goes against the common use of the word (and the purpose of language is communication and all that). If you accept that it's reasonable to call our (fallible) observations and inferences about the physical world facts, it seems absurd to say that nonexistence of x isn't a fact when we're 99.9% confident that x doesn't exist, and we call y a fact even though we're only 99% confident that y is true; why is "x doesn't exist" treated differently from "x is blue"?
Given that your genetic "web" grows exponentially, that doesn't actually sound terribly impressive. What proportion of the general population are at least as closely connected as some of the people you mention?
The standard counter to that is: reasonable people would state as fact "there is not a chocolate teapot orbiting the sun at around the same distance as Neptune". It's not that we know anything to imply there isn't, it's that we have no possible reason to imagine such a thing would exist, and no evidence to even suggest it does.
Most users of course aren't affected in the least by the build process. Qt's build process is self-contained, but takes hours still. The end result is really the same for end users.
Sure, it's mostly the same for end users, but someone has to manage the insane build process. I remember gnome being dropped from Slackware because just packaging it was taking up too much of Pat V's time.
Having every widget toolkit re-implement every wheel is fairly tiresome. Why not use lower-level libraries like libxml that already work well, and most importantly, are C-based.
Mostly, portability. Qt-based programs are easy to port to even quite silly systems; porting libxml and all the other random libraries different parts of gnome is a lot of effort. Thus there's a fairly complete kde on e.g. windows, wheras only a handful of individual popular gnome programs have been ported.
Programming GTK+ in C++ is a joy (doesn't need moc either). GTK+ in Python is slick too, and actually manages to be fairly pythonic, unlike PyQt, which is really just C++ code in a python syntax.
Disagree, and I think the relative popularity backs me up. Have you read the post from rosegarden's author (wish I could find it) talking about moving from gtkmm to qt?
I don't think Gobject is a BS OO extension anymore than C++ is. Functionally and under the hood they are fairly equivalent.
That this is true is really the worst thing about the gnome approach. C++ and GObject are indeed basically the same thing (and vala makes this even clearer), but Gnome chose to reinvent the wheel, throwing away all our existing experience and tool support with C++.
Then frankly you've never flown blind in turbulence, and remember that's the situation we're talking about. If your airspeed and pitch indicate that you're stalling, you damn well pitch forward; if you don't, 99 times out of 100, you stall and crash.
Amazon sent me a set of unsolicited recommendations recently. I was about to push the spam button, and then noticed it was actually a pretty good price for some things I actually wanted.
(And it did feel pretty creepy, but only because they were offering me money off if I bought Strike Witches and Dance in the Vampire Bund together)
The question is meaningless until you have a definition of "good" and "moral". I'll believe you have the very first, absolutely initial start to a sort-of beginning to that, willing to call it a "start" if we stipulate we're going to hugely overestimate the content offered in favor of your argument... when you have two atheists declare a standard, both agree to it, and show a rationale that it isn't a purely subjective personal opinion with zero weight behind it.
Again, if you want to claim religion gives you a good moral standard then it's your obligation to give us examples of this. l If you're claiming that having agreement on moral standards is objectively good irrespective of what those moral standards are, then you're going to have to explain why and how. There are plenty of places where people who strictly follow the bible/catchecism will act less morally than those who follow their own consciences (e.g. treatment of homosexuals), and so I don't see why having everyone do the same wrong thing is better than having half do wrong and half do right.
Wait, actually even that is not true. OS X is based on Darwin which is open source, and also BSD which is open source - and a lot of the things it ships with (like Apache or Bash) are open source.
So doesn't in fact history tell us here that closed won definitively?
No, Apple was dying the death in the days of OS9, which was closed as closed can be. OSX coincides with the resurgence of Apple. Looks like a win for openness to me.
Couldn't you write in java and have it run under dalvik on android and.net on WP7? I can imagine there'd be plenty of compatibility pain, but probably no more than is involved in writing cross-platform C++.
If you don't know your friends' financial situations then how can you be confident they're unlike your own? The histogram for musical ensembles looks pretty unlike that for the general populace. Heck, if I could guess your race from those of your friends (and statistically I almost certainly could), then there's a good enough correlation between that and financial history that the friendship graph gives useful financial history information that I'm legally barred from getting the obvious way.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're using ATM like most of Europe then it's (IIRC) 56-bit cels that matter.
Nah, the city of Westminster covers most of what we think of as "London".
Simple? Only if you've never played any modern rules-light system. If you're willing to modify the rules as it suits and not take them too seriously then you'll probably have fun whatever you play, but there are much better systems than D&D around nowadays.
How else would you want it? They're supposed to represent a large political party, of course they're going to take the positions of the mainstream of that party. I do see a fairly clear distinction between the moderates (Romney, Gingrich), the conservatives (Santorum, Perry(?), Bachmann, the rest of them), and Ron Paul, and when you only get to vote for one guy and don't get to give a reason, that's probably about as subtle a question as the electorate can meaningfully answer. I would agree that the "conservative" cluster seems much of a muchness and the field could do with thinning down to one in each of those three groups, but that's what these straw polls are for.
I had to borrow an old Nokia a few months ago, and found facebook's java mobile app was stunningly good, better than the android one.
Nope. The Netscape 4 codebase was thrown away because it was terrible, but look how the netscape 6 codebase turned out. If you don't have the skill/discipline/etc. to fix a bad codebase, you won't be able to write a good new one either.
Where are you getting flights that cheap? Seriously, I'd've been to the US (from London) for a weekend already if the tickets I could find weren't 5x that.
I'd point out that the original transformer benchmarks ahead of the galaxy and way ahead of the xoom (don't know about the others). It handles 720p video comfortably (I'd recommend buying Dice Player, it's only #4 to make your #400 tablet much better), so I'm not sure how much benefit you'd actually get from the prime's faster processor - the only time the original gets sluggish (for me) is trying to use it with several torrents running at once in the background.
Okay. But if I see someone state something as a fact, and I think that that something has no evidence for or against it, I'm going to call them out on it.
Will you let someone away with stating something as fact when it has some evidence for it, but more evidence against it? Or, more to the point, is your threshold of acceptable evidence the same for any proposition - so if I see a light in the sky enough times, I can say "it's a satellite, that's a fact" and "it's an alien, that's a fact" with equal validity?
I don't know where these numbers come from.
99.9% is an arbitrary figure; my actual level of confidence that this chocolate teapot doesn't exist is higher than that.
No. Just things that have no evidence for or against them.
You can't disentangle evidence from expectation; evidence is precisely that which causes you to update your expectation (and is meaningless beyond that). If you try to form probability theory without initial expectations, you get paradoxes. So we can only coherently define facts in terms of our final expectations, not the evidence, which is a vanishing intermediate value.
99.9% sure of what? If that was a "what if" scenario, then go ahead and state it as a fact.
Well, I'm more than 99.9% confident that the aforementioned chocolate teapot doesn't exist - and I suspect you are too. Yet you seem unhappy with calling that a fact.
Do you refuse to state anything as fact, then? I think it's less likely that such a thing exists than that Jefferson wasn't actually the third president, or even that I'm actually a brain in a vat imagining things. If you require absolute certainty to call something a fact, that goes against the common use of the word (and the purpose of language is communication and all that). If you accept that it's reasonable to call our (fallible) observations and inferences about the physical world facts, it seems absurd to say that nonexistence of x isn't a fact when we're 99.9% confident that x doesn't exist, and we call y a fact even though we're only 99% confident that y is true; why is "x doesn't exist" treated differently from "x is blue"?
Given that your genetic "web" grows exponentially, that doesn't actually sound terribly impressive. What proportion of the general population are at least as closely connected as some of the people you mention?
The standard counter to that is: reasonable people would state as fact "there is not a chocolate teapot orbiting the sun at around the same distance as Neptune". It's not that we know anything to imply there isn't, it's that we have no possible reason to imagine such a thing would exist, and no evidence to even suggest it does.
Well, I'm sure I got my money back. I don't know the law well enough to say that every account is covered.
The security concerns are also a non-issue as regular wallets and bank accounts are routinely stolen and money diverted.
For a regular bank account you get your money back when that happens.
The rise of better android handsets to overtake the iPhone was predicted again and again. And then it happened.
/for myself with the transformer I'm already there
How did you get dvorak? If I could put my transformer keyboard into dvorak my life would be complete.
Most users of course aren't affected in the least by the build process. Qt's build process is self-contained, but takes hours still. The end result is really the same for end users.
Sure, it's mostly the same for end users, but someone has to manage the insane build process. I remember gnome being dropped from Slackware because just packaging it was taking up too much of Pat V's time.
Having every widget toolkit re-implement every wheel is fairly tiresome. Why not use lower-level libraries like libxml that already work well, and most importantly, are C-based.
Mostly, portability. Qt-based programs are easy to port to even quite silly systems; porting libxml and all the other random libraries different parts of gnome is a lot of effort. Thus there's a fairly complete kde on e.g. windows, wheras only a handful of individual popular gnome programs have been ported.
Programming GTK+ in C++ is a joy (doesn't need moc either). GTK+ in Python is slick too, and actually manages to be fairly pythonic, unlike PyQt, which is really just C++ code in a python syntax.
Disagree, and I think the relative popularity backs me up. Have you read the post from rosegarden's author (wish I could find it) talking about moving from gtkmm to qt?
I don't think Gobject is a BS OO extension anymore than C++ is. Functionally and under the hood they are fairly equivalent.
That this is true is really the worst thing about the gnome approach. C++ and GObject are indeed basically the same thing (and vala makes this even clearer), but Gnome chose to reinvent the wheel, throwing away all our existing experience and tool support with C++.
Then frankly you've never flown blind in turbulence, and remember that's the situation we're talking about. If your airspeed and pitch indicate that you're stalling, you damn well pitch forward; if you don't, 99 times out of 100, you stall and crash.
(And it did feel pretty creepy, but only because they were offering me money off if I bought Strike Witches and Dance in the Vampire Bund together)
The question is meaningless until you have a definition of "good" and "moral". I'll believe you have the very first, absolutely initial start to a sort-of beginning to that, willing to call it a "start" if we stipulate we're going to hugely overestimate the content offered in favor of your argument... when you have two atheists declare a standard, both agree to it, and show a rationale that it isn't a purely subjective personal opinion with zero weight behind it.
Again, if you want to claim religion gives you a good moral standard then it's your obligation to give us examples of this. l If you're claiming that having agreement on moral standards is objectively good irrespective of what those moral standards are, then you're going to have to explain why and how. There are plenty of places where people who strictly follow the bible/catchecism will act less morally than those who follow their own consciences (e.g. treatment of homosexuals), and so I don't see why having everyone do the same wrong thing is better than having half do wrong and half do right.
Wait, actually even that is not true. OS X is based on Darwin which is open source, and also BSD which is open source - and a lot of the things it ships with (like Apache or Bash) are open source.
So doesn't in fact history tell us here that closed won definitively?
No, Apple was dying the death in the days of OS9, which was closed as closed can be. OSX coincides with the resurgence of Apple. Looks like a win for openness to me.
Couldn't you write in java and have it run under dalvik on android and .net on WP7? I can imagine there'd be plenty of compatibility pain, but probably no more than is involved in writing cross-platform C++.
As life gets better it becomes more valuable, and smaller and smaller dangers become unacceptable. That's progress for you.
If you don't know your friends' financial situations then how can you be confident they're unlike your own? The histogram for musical ensembles looks pretty unlike that for the general populace. Heck, if I could guess your race from those of your friends (and statistically I almost certainly could), then there's a good enough correlation between that and financial history that the friendship graph gives useful financial history information that I'm legally barred from getting the obvious way.