The truly sad part is that it doesn't matter, because they're going to sell millions of units anyway. Every single new Dell sold in 2008+, and every computer at companies that uses Windows desktops (which is almost all of them) is going to have Vista installed on them, and Microsoft is going to be paid for every one of those copies.
Not necessarily. Dell will let you get a non-MS operating system on systems. For work, I got 6 Dells - 2 with Windows 2003 Server, 2 with Red Hat Linux, and 2 with no OS at all (intended for SuSE, but Dell dropped SuSE). Dell also carries FreeDOS. This is not just available to business but consumers also. So, no - MS will not get every sale Dell, Gateway, or anyone else has any more. They will likely get the vast majority, but not all of them. (That's still millions, but millions less than otherwise.)
DRM and the HD HDMI restrictions are part of the HD media formats, and have nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft is providing the ability for their OSes to play the media, and unless Mac or Linux also make the same concessions, they will also not be able to play the content in true High Definition.
(Your post was funny, but since it was popular thought this would be a good place to stick these facts. People think that Windows is 'crippled' by DRM and HD HDMI standards, when the movies themselves ship with copy protections, Windows is so far the only OS offering support for them.)
Well, Linux could do to HD what it does with DVD - bypass the media and do uncrippled decryption. Ever wonder why a region 1 DVD drive will play region 2 DVD's under Linux?
And while, yes, the standard may say that something must do this and that, but the hardware will not be able to tell if the software is compliant 100%. Software can do a lot to fool hardware - more than hardware to fool software. So Linux could provide to the hardware what looks like a complaint interface, but really not be complaint and export it to other places.
99.9% of the when any of us watches a DVD on a computer
Only if you are using Mac, Windows, or some non-FOSS OS. Almost all FOSS OS's don't use the hardware to decode. It's all done in software, and some standards aren't paid attention to. Now, if you said 99.9% of people that would be correct. But remember, this is Slashdot we're talking about - most of us run Linux, and for a good number it is their primary OS.
OTOH we can buy a SqlServer license for around $5k
If your comparing SQL-Server and Oracle on Windows, then this won't matter; but is that $5k cost including or excluding the per-client licensing (CAL) required by MS Windows Server? If it's excluding, my guess would be that they would end up about the same in the long run. Microsoft makes a lot of money off the CAL licenses.
I'm sure there are many people who just want a phone to be a phone.
There definately is. In fact, it's very hard in the US to find a phone without a camera and there are quite a number of jobs and companies that won't allow you to have a camera on the cellphone if the cellphone is to go into certain controlled areas. It's a pain.
Thanksfully, I was able to find a Motorola v180 - the same as the v220 but with a few less features including the lack of a camera. While the price (with contract) is roughly $30, its non-contract price is still $80, and it still has a ton of crap that I don't use.
I'd much prefer a phone that can only do that - make a phone call, with perhaps the only feature being a phonebook with entries stored on a SIM card in case the phone dies. Color or mono I could care less - just give me something that works and has the basic functionality. I don't need to surf the internet from my phone.
I think it is safe to assume that the PTO is not going to grant a claim which simply says "list the house."
Have you looked at patents lately? While granted he was likely providing an exaggeration to make a point, he's not that far off base. The pending patent I work with is not far from it either. Sad, but true. So, I would take it that was the claim and not an element of a claim.
Haven't you heard of Post-modernism and relative truth? (Not that I am a post-modernist, or follow relative truth - am and do neither. Truth, whether you like it or not, is quite absolute.)
I do not want to read a science paper put together by a committee. Can you imagine a natural selection paper written by the masses?
Science has always been by committee, and will continue to be by committee for both its good and bad. Thus far we have as a society agreed that the good outweighs the bad; but then again - we have dumb patents on scientific/medical thought too.
It means that if a real estate agent lists a house for sale, he can be sued because an existing patent for selling houses includes item No. 7, "List the house."
Obviously Mr. Crichton has not been informed of the "all elements" rule. Literal infringement requires infringement of every single element in a claim. Although it is technically true that "he can be sued", it is also true that anyone can be sued at any time for anything. The point is, the case would be dismissed.
Not so, while IANAL, you only need to infringe on one of the claims of the patent. He is actually quite right.
I know this only from working with an algorithm that is under going the patent process. The first implementation of the algorithm - around which the patent was written - was fully described in the patent, including the user interface (it's software) and numerous other things unrelated to the actual algorithm but related to the functionality of the software. The second implementation of the algorithm as a work of software improved the user interface substantially and lacks the described user interface while continuing to provide the same functionality in a different manner (the claim makes note of a button that performs a specific task; the button was removed and replaced with a menu item, which it not a button). Nevertheless, I was assured by lawyers and management that the new version still fit the patent, and nevertheless they would go after someone else and likely win over a product that meets only one or more of the claims.
Personally, I don't expect the patent to be granted - and I would love for it not to be as I don't find software to be patentable.
BTW - the company does NOT own work I produce that has nothing to do with what I was hired for. Just because you live in a sucky jurisdiction doesn't mean the other 95% of the world has to go along with that fantasy.
Actually, as of last month my previous employer doesn't even own what I produced while working for them - that's one of the end results of our mediated workplace dispute. We agreed - I'm not an employee, they're not an employer, so its all MINE, even though it was producted on their equipment, with their money. They just have a license from me.
At least in the US, that is the exception, not the rule. Per what I was saying, it is (in the US) the rule that the company owns it. You actually have to be careful of this at many universities - at least in the US - whereby even if you develop it on your own equipment, the university may claim ownership of it. Sucks, yes; but there are numerous universities that do that. Fortunately, my college didn't.
The company policy... is not the same as the law...
if I installed software that was licensed to me personally - the company would own it
Comapny policy does not override copyright. Company policy is also not binding on 3rd parties - the software licensor, for example.
Law does allow companies to claim ownership of anything written by an employee including copyright, etc. It's no overriding it, it's working within it.
if I installed software that was licensed to me personally - the company would own it
Comapny policy does not override copyright. Company policy is also not binding on 3rd parties - the software licensor, for example.
Example - you install gpl'd software on the company laptop. The company does NOT own it. The original author owns it.
Example - you install gpl'd source code on the company laptop. The company does not own it. The original author owns it.
Example: you install proprietary software licensed to you on the company laptop. The company tries to claim ownership. The licensor declares your license nul and void. Your company owns nothing.
Actually, you're examples are of no use. With GPL'd software the license is again - the "right to use, modify, distribute, etc.". The license would equally apply to user and company alike. Since the license covers the source, it would not be of issue to install the source on the laptop; however, the company would own any modifications you did to the source on the company laptop. Per proprietary, it would follow what I said earlier - the license would likely transfer to the company for the duration of the installation.
It could even be argued in court that by installing the software on the company laptop you transferred the license to the company
Under your theory, if I let you use my car to pick up your groceries, somehow or other I suddenly "own" your groceries. Gee, can I have a friend pick up your paycheck for you? After all, under your theory, they'll then own it.
Actually, in a court of law you can do that kind of thing if it is left there for a reasonable time period as determined by the court.
Your analogy breaks down really easily - "erasing" the bits didn't remove them from the drive - it just set them to another pattern. They're still there. The company can still "own" them
No, it doesn't. It's the exact point - and I am very much affected by this where I work. The company policy is anything done on company equipment belongs to the company, pure and simple. If I were to write a book to submit to a publisher and did it on the company laptop, the company would own the copyrights to the book, even though I wrote it. If I developed software on the company laptop, the company would own the rights (patents, copyrights, etc.) to the software. If I did the finances for a separate start-up company on the company laptop - regardless of competition issues - the company would own the copies of the start-up company's fincial information.
Same applies to if I installed software that was licensed to me personally - the company would own it, whether or not the company would have the right to use it. If I remove the installation before returning the laptop, then it could still be in violation of company policy - especially if they have asked me for the laptop to check the laptop for anything that shouldn't be there - as an employee and user of the company laptop, I have no right to delete anything from the laptop if they ask to look at it for such purpose, regardless of why it was there and who owns the license.
While most small companies may not have this kind of thing in writing, it is still true de facto (IANAL) for them. Courts would likely rule for the company and advise the company to next time have it in writing, which if the company did not, then they would likely lose for not following the courts advise. (Again, IANAL.)
but they don't have a right to the software that was licensed to me, not them, and never did.
The license is yours and is a "right to use" when it comes to software. Read the EULA, not that the EULA would necessarily be valid in court. The company may not have the "right to use" the software on the laptop, since the license was granted to you and not the company, but they still own the equipment, etc that the software was installed on.
It could even be argued in court that by installing the software on the company laptop you transferred the license to the company, such an argument would also likely return the license to you if you (not the company) uninstalled (removed) the software.
Companies don't "automatically have a right" to all the data on their computer.
Example: A piece of software licensed to me, installed on their computer. They don't "own" it. When I leave, its erased.
Actually, while the software may be licensed to you to use it, the bits on the hard drive that compose the software would most certainly belong to the company. You may erase it, but that does not mean that they did not own it (even though you owned the license) while it was installed.
IANAL but, as was said, anything on the company's computer automatically belongs to the company. If its data about an outside company the guy is running, too bad. If it's porn, too bad. It doesn't matter what made the data, or how he got it, it belongs to the company. The company is also liable to a degree for what he has on the computer (ex. competitor information that he wasn't suppose to have, insider trading info, etc.). It does belong to them, unless they say otherwise.
Get over it - they no more "automatically" own it than Apple "owns" the itunes they sell.
That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. So it holds no weight.
Heck I don't even like C++ for fogging-over-functionality with inheritance, virtual functions and overloading.
You don't have to use those C++ features if you don't want to. You can program in C-style in C++ if you wish. virtual and inheritance are optional. These days templates do most of what inheritance and virtual functions can do. And I don't understand why you would dislike overloading.
While I personally like function overloading, there can be a case for not using it when a function that could be named the same and take different parameters does completely unrelated things. Sometimes it is good to have a different name instead of using overloading. It's balancing the two that is tricky - neither should be completely tossed-out or ignored.
Oral cultures tend to have far better memory in relation to this kind of thing than non-oral cultures (such as ours today) have.
I don't think that this is a very useful argument; you could ask twenty people to tell you the story of Cinderella and they would give you stories that were fairly consistent because Cinderella is part of our tradition, and is a story that has been shaped into one that is easy to pass on. If you were to ask those same people to explain how and why we invaded Iraq, I suspect you'd get twenty different and inconsistent stories.
That is a difference between Oral and Non-Oral culture. The memory abilities of a non-oral culture are no where near that of an oral culture.
Your comments on the JFK assassination don't help your case -- it's a well-known fact that eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
Per JFK - that is true. However, this was mainly to point out that eye-witnesses would have still been around. Also, remember there is a grave difference between oral and non-oral cultures, and the witnesses in the JFK assassination were/are part of a non-oral culture, so that is only to be expected per JFK.
There are some oral cultures still left in various remote parts of the world, so this differentiation can still be found today.
There are a number of scholarly works that look at the Gospels as historical documents (e.g. Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version being one). You should have a read of one, as they treat these issues in much more detail than is relevant to a Slashdt comment.
While I have not read that book, I have been in contact with a number scholars on the subject, and have also studied the texts myself, and followed them. I am quite aware of what people think concerning this, and from the various scholars and others I have communicated with and listened to, those the texts have quite a high reliability. Now I also realize that a community like/. will not likely accept anything on this subject except what is in agreement with what it wants to hear.
The multihoming has nothing to do with routing table size. The multihoming feature is used for providing better connectivity.
Imagine your laptop with WiFi. If the application (say, FTP download) used SCTP instead of TCP then the download would not break when your laptop moves from one access point to another and switches ip-address. SCTP survives that.
It would only survive it if both networks were simultaneously connected. If, however, you were only connected to one network at a time, it would still fail if that network connection (e.g. satellite) failed.
It might be a little more resilient in that it has automatic routing built-in to switch to another network segment, but if there is no other network segment, it will still fail.
Interestingly, I learned in a Catholic high school that the 4 Gospels were written ~50 years after Jesus **died**. How well could you write about something that happened 10 years ago?? How about something that happened 50 years ago? 50 years later, how many people are going to be alive to verify/contest your story???
This fact seems to be heavily obscured... And of course, the Testaments have undergone revisions since then. Also the 4 Gospels are basically the same in content, so three seemed to have mainly copied off the 1st, and just re-wording them for different audiences.
We do not know the exact dates of composition of the gospels. They are not dated, and we do not have to autographs. Still, 50 years after Jesus' death is one estimate, with 25-30 years being a lower one. It is also true that though the gospels themselves were written (or compiled) later, their actual source materials may have been written long before that
Also, remember that the culture was a very oral culture. Oral cultures tend to have far better memory in relation to this kind of thing than non-oral cultures (such as ours today) have. For example, many texts were solely known by oral tradition and could be passed on with little to no change; though parts may be embellished, etc. for different audiences by the same author, the majority of the story did not change to the point that it could be accurately transcribed years after it originally occurred - and not simply 5 or 10 year.
Additionally, remember that the disciples of Christ (Peter, John, etc.) are thought to have been around 18 or 19 at the start of Christ's ministry; so 50 years later they would likely have been about 70 in age - quite likely they would still have been around at the time it was written, along with numerous other first hand witnesses. Now add to that that there was written works (ala Paul and others) that could also be utilized, and it is very possible. For instance - do a modern day writing on the events of the 1963 JFK assassination - there are many written works, first-hand witnesses still alive, and numerous second-hand/after-the-fact witnesses that can attest (sp?) events, etc. It would have been quite doable for the writers to compile things together even 40 or 50 years after-the-fact and still have 100% accuracy.
I've been reading Mr.Linspire's post about it. It's Click N Run software installation. It's like a frontend to apt/emerge/pacman, but more polished at both ends.
Personally, I'd rather see something like GNU's AutoPackage software put into a major distro; of course, that relies on more developer support for it, but that's also a good thing (IMHO). Additionally, it would have all the benefits of a nice polished front-end, with the additional benefit of install-time linking (no need to enter DLL/RPM hell since you can just link against the APIs on the system, supposing that at least a certain version is installed that is compatible - AND they are looking at adding multiple libraries compatibility), and it could incorporate licensing if needed - heck, it's just a open source version of Microsoft's Windows Installer - only 10x's better.
There are a number of Open Source Acrobat replacements; GhostScript can be used instead of Acrobat Distiller to generate PDF (including with PDF-specific contents), and xpdf for display.
I wouldn't really count GhostScript as a replacement for acrobat or distiller. Sure, it can print to PDF and convert from PS to PDF, big whoop de doo. What I'd like to see is a nice editor that I can pick up and actually Edit the PDF with, or create a new PDF with, or save it with. In other words, a full replacement GUI editor with PDF built in, perhaps even as its de facto file format. That is not available in the F/OSS market, and until that is, there really isn't a replacement.
Sure, many Unixy people are fine with having multiple tools to do each function - run it through LaTeX or whatever, but that's not what Average Joe is looking for. If I'm working on a proposal, I don't want to have to run the text through 5 different programs before handing it over to co-worker for review or inclusion in a larger document - I want to go "File->Save" and then e-mail it; or receive a PDF from a co-worker and go "File->Open".
I spent a while looking last August for something to pull info from a PDF with. Acrobat wouldn't do it, and the people that sent me the original document couldn't find their editable versions. I didn't have time to go through the company beaurocracy and get Distiller or Acrobat Pro or anything like that - I needed something quick. I tried searching F/OSS, but couldn't find a thing to do what I needed - the best I found were some shareware or freeware (not F/OSS) programs that would convert a few pages at most over to Word - and even then they weren't usable for what I needed.
There should be a program like "F/OSS PDF" (or whatever) that would allow full support of PDFs through the entire life cycle - create, edit, print, etc. Printing is easy enough - tons of programs that do that (Kpdf, Xpdf, GhostScript, numerous printer drivers, Acrobat Reader, etc.) Give me something to replace Word with that supports PDF. (Hint: OpenOffice doesn't quite do it - it can export to PDF but it can't import them.)
So no, for the average PDF user there is no such thing as a F/OSS replacement for Distiller or Acrobat Pro.
When you can show us a working model for describing the functioning and origin of the designer AND evidence that cannot be explained by any simpler means then come back. Before that, it's nothing but a pointless mental exercise.
When you can. Please do as well. Evolution has the same exact problem when it comes to the "origin of the designer" as it only gives an "effect" that had to have some "cause". Evolutionists still cannot give the "cause". So thereby Evolution fails your question too.
That's not to say that Evolutionists have not tried to go to great length to define that cause, but each work gives it less and less plausibility.
Creationism is a vastly more complicated theory than Evolution and has no evidence that this additional complexity is necessary.
Uhh...how is it more complex to say that a Being created everything, and that the evidence will speak for it? Versus, a theory that goes to great lengths to say that a Being did not create anything nor does that Being exist, and always looking at the data and taking the choice against something even when that choice is the least likely of any of the other choices? Evolution is vastly complex and is required to be so in order to maintain its atheistic POV.
Respectfully, this debate only takes place on internet forums and PTA meetings in backward states (I'm looking at you, Kansas).
Respectfully, you're wrong. Try institutions like Calvin College of Michigan, Messiah College of Pennsylvania, and numerous other colleges, universities, high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools - though the usually are K-12. As I referred in another couple posts over the last year, for example see check out the book linked in this discussion. It's not by a creationist, and the author thought they would find the exact opposite of what she did find, and the topic of evolution vs. creation was only one part of what she looked at.
Lots of dumb christians completely reject scientific principles in favour of their holy book. I find it pretty hard to take when my "peers" will look me right in the eye and try to discredit my post-secondary astronomy education, saying that the universe is only several thousand years old.
Truth is, even with the Bible we can't say how old the universe is. Sure, we know it was created in 6 days, and we know there have been approximately 3600 years (Jewish calendar) plus another 2000 (Gregorian calendar) since the fall in Genesis 3. (1 year Jewish calendar equals 360 days - so 3600 Jewish Years = 3652.5 Gregorian years;totaling roughly 5652.5). Any how...we don't know how many days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, etc. that Adam & Eve were in the Garden of Eden between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. Most people want to do the "it happened the next day" thing; but I find that hard to believe, especially as the "curse on women" uses the terminology of "increase" in relation to birthing pains. (How could Eve know that it had increased if she didn't already know what it was?!!)
So that alone is not reason to discredit you. However, astrological dating is flawed; and the proofs used to validate it are too. We're just getting in data now showing that things aren't like we thought they were out in space, and the model's don't add up to what we thought either.
If ID people have their way, Geology would not exist. Forget about Biology.
Not true. They wouldn't have it the way it is now - being so religiously intent on proving evolution true as to ignore the truth. (That doesn't mean I agree with ID. I may be a creationist, but I don't agree with ID.)
You have to realize that there is a large percentage of christians who are unwittingly pushing towards another dark age.
What's to say that we aren't already in one? A "dark age" only exists because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of accepting knowledge. Either one could be argued from any stand point on this issue today. Evolutionists refuse to accept that a God could have created; while Creationists refuse to accept that God did not create and it all came about by chance. Well...I guess in many respects that fact that we are having the debate shows that we're not in one; but if either party were to win outright without the community showing it by evidence, then yes, we would enter a dark age. Just remember, there are a lot of "scientists" out there that are purporting evolution that would like it to, though they don't exactly realize it.
he Bible has changed over the centuries. If you want proof look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Samaritan versions of the Torah. As well, look at the differences between the Catholic version of the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible (not just the Torah), the Orthodox Bible (which includes an additional psalm), and the Protestant Bible's version of the Old Testament. There are books that are in certain versions but not others, there are verses that have been changed in order, punctuation which is not consistent (which is important as can be seen in the concept of purgatory), and other inconsistencies.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but as was pointed out - the various texts are quite complimentary and show no change. Per punctuation - Greek did not have punctuation as part of their original language - it was all added later by secondary speakers; I believe the same is true of Hebrew, but I haven't had a chance to study it (yet); so arguing punctuation is like aruing a commentators differences. Even so...
The official text of the Torah was strictly monitored by the levitical community in ancient Isreal. If even a stroke was incorrect, the scroll was destroyed and the writer had to start over.
The same is not true (unfortunately) for the New Testament texts - so there is a little more debate there in regard to certain phrases, but there are two prodominent versions that are accepted - and differ very slightly, but not enough to make any kind of real difference in theology - the first is a blue-cover edition, and the second is a red cover edition. They differ only in the texts they enter, but they will also reference what the other says. This is primarily because those who copied the texts would often write commentaries in the margins or spaces between the lines, and if they made a mistake they would cross it out and write the correction in similiarly; so it is a little harder to tell. However, there are enough copies of the texts overall to ensure over 95% accuracy in the text, likely over 99% accuracy, against the originals. The various texts that have been found have only proven this further, especially with the Old Testament.
And another thing, how do fundamentalists deal with the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which contradict themselves in the order of creation?
There really isn't any contraction. Genesis 2 expands upon a small part of Genesis 1.
People think there are contractions because they disagree on how literal or figurative the texts are. Both have values as both; and if you read them both as pure literal, there still remains no contradictions. Why? Figure a 24 hour day. How long does it take for seeds to grow? If God planted a shrub on the 3rd day, it wouldn't have come out of the ground by the 6th day. Genesis 2 talks about part of the events of the 6th day in greater detail, starting at verse 4. (Verses 1-3 finish the story of Genesis 1.)
The Bible like everything else is a human creation that does have contradictions.
Unlike anything humans have created, the Bible shows itself to not have contradictions. The contradictions are, however, in the interpretations of the Bible - predominately when people disagree on whether to read something as literal or figurative. Many passages are quite clearly literal (David & Goliath); others are quite clearly figurative (a parable). However, there are many that people (for whatever reason) want to debate over, Genesis 1 & 2 being one of them.
Per Genesis 1 & 2, a purely figurative reading would allow for Theistic Evolution; while a purely literal reading would not. Strict creationists read it as purely literal in terms of historic accuracy, but also recognize some figurative meanings.
The best intepretations of the contraversial passages tend to have both 100% literal and 100% figurative readings, and tend to make us rely more on God than on being able to define it as humans.
Why do you think there are so many sects of Christianity if the bible is so crystal clear?
The answer here is exactly the answer to the rest of what you were asking. The fact is that there is a whole methodology behind interpretation that involves historic, parable, literal, and figurative interpretation. (I can't remember all the names off hand - literal and figurative are of the four primary.) Based on context, some are obviously one or the other; however, a great number (such as Genesis 1 & 2) are highly debated as to how much of each should be used. Some argue that Genesis 1 & 2 are purely figurative, while others are that they are purely literal; yet others argue they are somewhere in between. Who knows? God knows; and it comes down to simply - who do you trust? God or man/science? Creationists trust God; Theistic-Evolutions are somewhere in between, but generally lean towards man/science; and Evolutionists trust man/science.
The whole point here is that everyone doesn't have the 'same amount of bias'. You cant fake a line on a chart, you cant fake a regression, and you cant fake fossil records (at least not without getting caught eventually).
It's true that not everyone has the "same amount of bias", but people can at least admit their biasness. Scientists as of late have purportedly not done so and intentionally keep from it because it would hurt the "science" they are doing.
As per "fake fossile records" - true, you can't fake them. But you can fake the science that interprets them - and that goes for both creationists and evolutionists. The truth (be it allowed) will come out.
Scientists go out of thier way to ensure that Creationists are not considered scientists because they are not scientists.
But this is not the place of scientists. It is the place of scienctists to state what is known, not to purposely disprove a group of people, and disavow (sp?) anything that comes from that group. THAT is not science; that is religion.
You say most of what creationists say is junk, I would go a step further, I would say almost all of it is junk. You claim creationists explanation is feasible, and self-consistent. Of course it is, it is untestable. You say it is supported by evidence. There is no such evidence. At least no evidence that could distinguish creationism from a real scientific theory.
That's not what the GP said. The GP said that creationists are simply taking the same data and showing how it could be interpretted differently using the same science to get a different outcome that supports creationism over evolution. The very fact that it is merely a different interpretation of the same data shows a lack of doing real science by the evolutionary scientists. If they did their job right, then science would acknowledge different possibilities and allow science to search for the truth, not restrict it to what the evolutionary religion of science says it must be.
You mention it is decently supported. I'm afraid that is simply a work of fiction. Almost every trained biologist supports the theory of evolution. For the most part it is engineers, computer scientists, and the like (people who make little contact the emperical biological science at a research level) who are creationists.
Then please explain to me how micro-biology is turning more scientists into creationists than evolutionists? Please explain to me how if you start looking at the picture of science as a whole, and start putting together the pieces of science generated by the specialty fields, how the fields start contradicting each other, and the overall outcome does not support evolution?
The overwhelming evidence is that evolution is the correct theory to explain the origin of life back to the first replicator. It is incomplete, but any explanation which replaces it will contain most of the current theory of evolution as a subset of itself. In fact it will probably contain so much of the current theory it will be called evolution on account of it being based on identicle or near identicle premises.
So how about this "theory": God created out of nothing. He created light, and split it into day (light) and night (darkness). He allowed some time to go by. He then created water, and separated it with water above and water below and a "void" in the middle. The "void" he called sky. He let some more time go by. He separated the waters below and created dry spots. The dry spots he called "dry land" and the waters he called "sea". He then created vegetation on the "dry land" and let some more time go by. He then separated lights in the sky and called them each stars, and formed one close by and called it the "sun" and let it govern the "day", and a lesser one even closer called the "moon" and l
Scientists don't simply look for things to reinforce existing theory, but instead they seek to expand and revise it constantly.
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.
they start from a given premise and discard all evidence that doesn't agree with it.
While this is thrown at creationists all the time, the same is equally true for evolutionists, especially as so many have hinged their careers on an assumption that may be proven wrong, so they instead throw out anything that might prove that assumption wrong to save their careers.
This is the sort of thing creationists don't want;
Actually that is exactly what creationists do want because they believe that if scientists held to the ideology behind science instead of trying to find how a solution would be solved in accordance with and only with evolution that creationism would be supported.
Slashdot Mirror
And while, yes, the standard may say that something must do this and that, but the hardware will not be able to tell if the software is compliant 100%. Software can do a lot to fool hardware - more than hardware to fool software. So Linux could provide to the hardware what looks like a complaint interface, but really not be complaint and export it to other places.
Only if you are using Mac, Windows, or some non-FOSS OS. Almost all FOSS OS's don't use the hardware to decode. It's all done in software, and some standards aren't paid attention to. Now, if you said 99.9% of people that would be correct. But remember, this is Slashdot we're talking about - most of us run Linux, and for a good number it is their primary OS.
If your comparing SQL-Server and Oracle on Windows, then this won't matter; but is that $5k cost including or excluding the per-client licensing (CAL) required by MS Windows Server? If it's excluding, my guess would be that they would end up about the same in the long run. Microsoft makes a lot of money off the CAL licenses.
Thanksfully, I was able to find a Motorola v180 - the same as the v220 but with a few less features including the lack of a camera. While the price (with contract) is roughly $30, its non-contract price is still $80, and it still has a ton of crap that I don't use.
I'd much prefer a phone that can only do that - make a phone call, with perhaps the only feature being a phonebook with entries stored on a SIM card in case the phone dies. Color or mono I could care less - just give me something that works and has the basic functionality. I don't need to surf the internet from my phone.
Less is sometimes more.
Not so, while IANAL, you only need to infringe on one of the claims of the patent. He is actually quite right.
I know this only from working with an algorithm that is under going the patent process. The first implementation of the algorithm - around which the patent was written - was fully described in the patent, including the user interface (it's software) and numerous other things unrelated to the actual algorithm but related to the functionality of the software. The second implementation of the algorithm as a work of software improved the user interface substantially and lacks the described user interface while continuing to provide the same functionality in a different manner (the claim makes note of a button that performs a specific task; the button was removed and replaced with a menu item, which it not a button). Nevertheless, I was assured by lawyers and management that the new version still fit the patent, and nevertheless they would go after someone else and likely win over a product that meets only one or more of the claims.
Personally, I don't expect the patent to be granted - and I would love for it not to be as I don't find software to be patentable.
Again, IANAL.
Same applies to if I installed software that was licensed to me personally - the company would own it, whether or not the company would have the right to use it. If I remove the installation before returning the laptop, then it could still be in violation of company policy - especially if they have asked me for the laptop to check the laptop for anything that shouldn't be there - as an employee and user of the company laptop, I have no right to delete anything from the laptop if they ask to look at it for such purpose, regardless of why it was there and who owns the license.
While most small companies may not have this kind of thing in writing, it is still true de facto (IANAL) for them. Courts would likely rule for the company and advise the company to next time have it in writing, which if the company did not, then they would likely lose for not following the courts advise. (Again, IANAL.) The license is yours and is a "right to use" when it comes to software. Read the EULA, not that the EULA would necessarily be valid in court. The company may not have the "right to use" the software on the laptop, since the license was granted to you and not the company, but they still own the equipment, etc that the software was installed on.
It could even be argued in court that by installing the software on the company laptop you transferred the license to the company, such an argument would also likely return the license to you if you (not the company) uninstalled (removed) the software.
Actually, while the software may be licensed to you to use it, the bits on the hard drive that compose the software would most certainly belong to the company. You may erase it, but that does not mean that they did not own it (even though you owned the license) while it was installed.
IANAL but, as was said, anything on the company's computer automatically belongs to the company. If its data about an outside company the guy is running, too bad. If it's porn, too bad. It doesn't matter what made the data, or how he got it, it belongs to the company. The company is also liable to a degree for what he has on the computer (ex. competitor information that he wasn't suppose to have, insider trading info, etc.). It does belong to them, unless they say otherwise.
That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. So it holds no weight.
Jesus's ministry started when he was 30, and lasted only 3 years; then he was crucified and rose from the dead.
Yes, that is correct. However, the disciples were thought to have been about 18 or 19 at the beginning of that 3 year ministry.
Per JFK - that is true. However, this was mainly to point out that eye-witnesses would have still been around. Also, remember there is a grave difference between oral and non-oral cultures, and the witnesses in the JFK assassination were/are part of a non-oral culture, so that is only to be expected per JFK.
There are some oral cultures still left in various remote parts of the world, so this differentiation can still be found today. While I have not read that book, I have been in contact with a number scholars on the subject, and have also studied the texts myself, and followed them. I am quite aware of what people think concerning this, and from the various scholars and others I have communicated with and listened to, those the texts have quite a high reliability. Now I also realize that a community like
The multihoming has nothing to do with routing table size. The multihoming feature is used for providing better connectivity. Imagine your laptop with WiFi. If the application (say, FTP download) used SCTP instead of TCP then the download would not break when your laptop moves from one access point to another and switches ip-address. SCTP survives that.
It would only survive it if both networks were simultaneously connected. If, however, you were only connected to one network at a time, it would still fail if that network connection (e.g. satellite) failed.
It might be a little more resilient in that it has automatic routing built-in to switch to another network segment, but if there is no other network segment, it will still fail.
Additionally, remember that the disciples of Christ (Peter, John, etc.) are thought to have been around 18 or 19 at the start of Christ's ministry; so 50 years later they would likely have been about 70 in age - quite likely they would still have been around at the time it was written, along with numerous other first hand witnesses. Now add to that that there was written works (ala Paul and others) that could also be utilized, and it is very possible. For instance - do a modern day writing on the events of the 1963 JFK assassination - there are many written works, first-hand witnesses still alive, and numerous second-hand/after-the-fact witnesses that can attest (sp?) events, etc. It would have been quite doable for the writers to compile things together even 40 or 50 years after-the-fact and still have 100% accuracy.
There are a number of Open Source Acrobat replacements; GhostScript can be used instead of Acrobat Distiller to generate PDF (including with PDF-specific contents), and xpdf for display.
I wouldn't really count GhostScript as a replacement for acrobat or distiller. Sure, it can print to PDF and convert from PS to PDF, big whoop de doo. What I'd like to see is a nice editor that I can pick up and actually Edit the PDF with, or create a new PDF with, or save it with. In other words, a full replacement GUI editor with PDF built in, perhaps even as its de facto file format. That is not available in the F/OSS market, and until that is, there really isn't a replacement.
Sure, many Unixy people are fine with having multiple tools to do each function - run it through LaTeX or whatever, but that's not what Average Joe is looking for. If I'm working on a proposal, I don't want to have to run the text through 5 different programs before handing it over to co-worker for review or inclusion in a larger document - I want to go "File->Save" and then e-mail it; or receive a PDF from a co-worker and go "File->Open".
I spent a while looking last August for something to pull info from a PDF with. Acrobat wouldn't do it, and the people that sent me the original document couldn't find their editable versions. I didn't have time to go through the company beaurocracy and get Distiller or Acrobat Pro or anything like that - I needed something quick. I tried searching F/OSS, but couldn't find a thing to do what I needed - the best I found were some shareware or freeware (not F/OSS) programs that would convert a few pages at most over to Word - and even then they weren't usable for what I needed.
There should be a program like "F/OSS PDF" (or whatever) that would allow full support of PDFs through the entire life cycle - create, edit, print, etc. Printing is easy enough - tons of programs that do that (Kpdf, Xpdf, GhostScript, numerous printer drivers, Acrobat Reader, etc.) Give me something to replace Word with that supports PDF. (Hint: OpenOffice doesn't quite do it - it can export to PDF but it can't import them.)
So no, for the average PDF user there is no such thing as a F/OSS replacement for Distiller or Acrobat Pro.
That's not to say that Evolutionists have not tried to go to great length to define that cause, but each work gives it less and less plausibility.
Uhh...how is it more complex to say that a Being created everything, and that the evidence will speak for it? Versus, a theory that goes to great lengths to say that a Being did not create anything nor does that Being exist, and always looking at the data and taking the choice against something even when that choice is the least likely of any of the other choices? Evolution is vastly complex and is required to be so in order to maintain its atheistic POV.
So that alone is not reason to discredit you. However, astrological dating is flawed; and the proofs used to validate it are too. We're just getting in data now showing that things aren't like we thought they were out in space, and the model's don't add up to what we thought either.
Not true. They wouldn't have it the way it is now - being so religiously intent on proving evolution true as to ignore the truth. (That doesn't mean I agree with ID. I may be a creationist, but I don't agree with ID.)
What's to say that we aren't already in one? A "dark age" only exists because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of accepting knowledge. Either one could be argued from any stand point on this issue today. Evolutionists refuse to accept that a God could have created; while Creationists refuse to accept that God did not create and it all came about by chance. Well...I guess in many respects that fact that we are having the debate shows that we're not in one; but if either party were to win outright without the community showing it by evidence, then yes, we would enter a dark age. Just remember, there are a lot of "scientists" out there that are purporting evolution that would like it to, though they don't exactly realize it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but as was pointed out - the various texts are quite complimentary and show no change. Per punctuation - Greek did not have punctuation as part of their original language - it was all added later by secondary speakers; I believe the same is true of Hebrew, but I haven't had a chance to study it (yet); so arguing punctuation is like aruing a commentators differences. Even so...
The official text of the Torah was strictly monitored by the levitical community in ancient Isreal. If even a stroke was incorrect, the scroll was destroyed and the writer had to start over.
The same is not true (unfortunately) for the New Testament texts - so there is a little more debate there in regard to certain phrases, but there are two prodominent versions that are accepted - and differ very slightly, but not enough to make any kind of real difference in theology - the first is a blue-cover edition, and the second is a red cover edition. They differ only in the texts they enter, but they will also reference what the other says. This is primarily because those who copied the texts would often write commentaries in the margins or spaces between the lines, and if they made a mistake they would cross it out and write the correction in similiarly; so it is a little harder to tell. However, there are enough copies of the texts overall to ensure over 95% accuracy in the text, likely over 99% accuracy, against the originals. The various texts that have been found have only proven this further, especially with the Old Testament.
There really isn't any contraction. Genesis 2 expands upon a small part of Genesis 1.
People think there are contractions because they disagree on how literal or figurative the texts are. Both have values as both; and if you read them both as pure literal, there still remains no contradictions. Why? Figure a 24 hour day. How long does it take for seeds to grow? If God planted a shrub on the 3rd day, it wouldn't have come out of the ground by the 6th day. Genesis 2 talks about part of the events of the 6th day in greater detail, starting at verse 4. (Verses 1-3 finish the story of Genesis 1.)
Unlike anything humans have created, the Bible shows itself to not have contradictions. The contradictions are, however, in the interpretations of the Bible - predominately when people disagree on whether to read something as literal or figurative. Many passages are quite clearly literal (David & Goliath); others are quite clearly figurative (a parable). However, there are many that people (for whatever reason) want to debate over, Genesis 1 & 2 being one of them.
Per Genesis 1 & 2, a purely figurative reading would allow for Theistic Evolution; while a purely literal reading would not. Strict creationists read it as purely literal in terms of historic accuracy, but also recognize some figurative meanings.
The best intepretations of the contraversial passages tend to have both 100% literal and 100% figurative readings, and tend to make us rely more on God than on being able to define it as humans.
The answer here is exactly the answer to the rest of what you were asking. The fact is that there is a whole methodology behind interpretation that involves historic, parable, literal, and figurative interpretation. (I can't remember all the names off hand - literal and figurative are of the four primary.) Based on context, some are obviously one or the other; however, a great number (such as Genesis 1 & 2) are highly debated as to how much of each should be used. Some argue that Genesis 1 & 2 are purely figurative, while others are that they are purely literal; yet others argue they are somewhere in between. Who knows? God knows; and it comes down to simply - who do you trust? God or man/science? Creationists trust God; Theistic-Evolutions are somewhere in between, but generally lean towards man/science; and Evolutionists trust man/science.
It's true that not everyone has the "same amount of bias", but people can at least admit their biasness. Scientists as of late have purportedly not done so and intentionally keep from it because it would hurt the "science" they are doing.
As per "fake fossile records" - true, you can't fake them. But you can fake the science that interprets them - and that goes for both creationists and evolutionists. The truth (be it allowed) will come out.
But this is not the place of scientists. It is the place of scienctists to state what is known, not to purposely disprove a group of people, and disavow (sp?) anything that comes from that group. THAT is not science; that is religion.
That's not what the GP said. The GP said that creationists are simply taking the same data and showing how it could be interpretted differently using the same science to get a different outcome that supports creationism over evolution. The very fact that it is merely a different interpretation of the same data shows a lack of doing real science by the evolutionary scientists. If they did their job right, then science would acknowledge different possibilities and allow science to search for the truth, not restrict it to what the evolutionary religion of science says it must be.
Then please explain to me how micro-biology is turning more scientists into creationists than evolutionists? Please explain to me how if you start looking at the picture of science as a whole, and start putting together the pieces of science generated by the specialty fields, how the fields start contradicting each other, and the overall outcome does not support evolution?
So how about this "theory": God created out of nothing. He created light, and split it into day (light) and night (darkness). He allowed some time to go by. He then created water, and separated it with water above and water below and a "void" in the middle. The "void" he called sky. He let some more time go by. He separated the waters below and created dry spots. The dry spots he called "dry land" and the waters he called "sea". He then created vegetation on the "dry land" and let some more time go by. He then separated lights in the sky and called them each stars, and formed one close by and called it the "sun" and let it govern the "day", and a lesser one even closer called the "moon" and l
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.
While this is thrown at creationists all the time, the same is equally true for evolutionists, especially as so many have hinged their careers on an assumption that may be proven wrong, so they instead throw out anything that might prove that assumption wrong to save their careers.
Actually that is exactly what creationists do want because they believe that if scientists held to the ideology behind science instead of trying to find how a solution would be solved in accordance with and only with evolution that creationism would be supported.