The question is not whether or not they engaging in science. The question is how the scientific community is responding to people that will not hold the Theory of Evolution to be true. Presently the Scientific Community tries to ostracize any scientist that will not hold the Theory of Evolution to be true, regardless of how they otherwise engage in the science and the scientific method. That is the issue.
Who's to say its a deficiency in their knowledge? May be they are looking at it from a different perspective? Or they have an insight that you or other scientists do not?
Fact is, it's better to let them be honest about their work, their biases, etc and encourage the scientific endeavor of exploration than to deny them admittance and make the scientific community a closed-minded, self-drive community that refuses to take criticism from any where else, that refuses admittance unless you agree with them - which ultimately leads to a lack of scientific progress.
Windows 7 is just as secure as Mac OSX or Linux, but it's the users what is the problem.
Not quite true. Yes, Win7 has the potential to be just as secure; but the default security model put forth by Microsoft is no where near as secure as the default security model for Linux. Though, even the most secure Windows security models still have major flaws in them as there are design flaws in Windows itself - everything from the Win32 API to how MS decides applications should run - that are not otherwise corrected.
So yes, with WinXP SP3, Vista, and Win7 the network security has vastly improved - the default firewall is pretty secure and nearly on par with everyone else. But that hardly solves the issue when people are having problems due to bugs in the software - bugs the Microsoft won't fix usually until there is at least on known, working, and spreading exploit for them; until which Microsoft denies the existence of the bug.
Then you have the Microsoft's very broken patching methodology - a method which often patches in one fix, then undoes the patch in another; leading to cycles of the same bug being fixed. Not only does that speak of a bad patching methodology, but also to a lack of regression testing and QA throughout the entire development and maintenance cycle of their software. All of this leads to inferior security overall.
Heck, even the Nexus One was superior to the iPhone in every way except the Flash Drive, Dual Camera, and a couple millimeters in dimensions. The Nexus S fixes the Dual Camera issue, and seriously closes the gap on the Flash Drive.
While IANAL, Header Files regardless of license are not copyrightable under the law. Thereby, this is a non-issue that means absolutely nothing.
Consult an attorney to confirm.
As other have noted, Florian is now a Microsoft Shill. Yes, he made himself a name in the F/OSS community a while back; only then he later sold it to Microsoft as part of the OOXML ISO process, and has continued with Software Patents and anything else MS wants him to write about. So, take anything he says with a grain of salt at best - if you give any credence to it at all.
i have an idea how it will be stopped: most of us science types will move to higher altitude and the flooding (which the bible says won't happen) will take out all the coastal cities populated by the dumbasses.
I'm pretty sure the flooding as described in Genesis 6-9 won't be possible again.
For instance, Genesis lists the waters being released from above and below. We're still not quite sure what is referred to by the "waters above" - some speculate a Canopy of water surrounding the earth; though it could just as easily have been that the atmospheric pressure was different thus allowing the atmosphere to hold more water than it does not. "Waters below" however are very likely to be aquifers, the release of which has created the massive oceans and (since) the polar caps. The depths of the oceans, the heights of the mountains are both attributable to such an event. Indeed even the presence of mountains and earth quakes shows that this has occurred - since prior to such an event there would likely have been sufficient space, lubrication, etc. to keep the tectonic plates from battling as they do today.
So such an even won't likely be possible today since the mountains have effectively been pushed high enough to keep from being covered yet again.
Though, I hardly expect most of Slashdot to buy into the above since they mostly follow the Scientific Tradition that everything has always been as it is now.
Ironically, the above can all be shown, modeled, etc and would produce an earth like we have it today, likely with a lot more accuracy than present Scientific models that require things like the barometric pressure to always have been what it is now, etc.
A number of OS Kernels can now reload the kernel or apply security updates on the fly. The Linux Kernel included. So no, a reboot is not necessary there.
FYI - Windows is perhaps the only OS that cannot reload device drivers on the fly.
Application updates that change their init scripts.
If you are updating the application you better be restarting it, and that means running the init script to stop, start, and restart it again. So no, a reboot is (again) not necessary there either.
Hardware failures are just one of the many possible failures.
And again, in a server environment you have things to detect hardware failures coming on. If your server doesn't have that, then you need to get a better server - a real one.
Anything that happens on boot can fail when changed, and it is better to have the failures occur during scheduled downtime than unscheduled.
And you seem to be missing the point that 99.9999% of what happens at boot can be detected without rebooting the system on most operating systems, Windows is the exception to that due to all its bloat and interlock, etc.
Don't get me wrong - having a scheduled downtime is good. But you don't necessarily need to reboot during downtime - just pull the system out of active service, make the changes, test, and then restore to active service.
Most drive failures seem to happen at boot time (at least with your normal spinning rust type.)
But you get longer life out of the drive by not ever spinning them down. So, shutting down the system will degrade the life of the drives, and the drives are typically smart enough now to (i) alert to failure before it happens so you can switch drives, and (ii) on servers they are hot swappable in most cases.
Just find one based on the Transmeta Crusoe/Efficion processor - oh wait, they couldn't compete with Intel and AMD.
Seriously though, Transmeta had 13 hours+ battery life a decade ago. They had trouble getting their performance and volume high enough to compete, though that should be a lot easier now (at least performance wise), but they otherwise had a great product.
So yes, it's possible with a laptop. And no, not even a tablet gets 13 hours of battery time. It's just more efficient about sleep modes than a laptop - but even that could be handled better without Windows.
Honestly, if I'm going to drop $500 or more on a computer I'd be best off getting a laptop. For the slight inconvenience of the laptop I get (i) the same or larger size screen, (ii) a normal keyboard with tactile feedback, (iii) a larger hard drive, more RAM, faster processor, etc. Comparatively, a tablet only has to offer the lower weight and size, and potentially a built-in cell modem, if you pay the extra $100USD for it and the get a monthly plan as well.
So yeah, as much as I'd like the weight & size of a tablet, it's just not convenient enough to make it worth it. It'd have to be probably 50%-75 of the laptop to make it worth it.
Now, I did get a Nexus One; however, it fails to compare their since the Nexus One phone is far easier to talk to and have at least a semi-private conversation on compared to a tablet, which more likely than not has a data-only cell plan.
That said, volume prices will certainly help. Tablets are now where PCs were 20-30 years ago in that respect.
Office for Mac exists because it makes a profit, otherwise MS would stop making it. It doesn't reduce anti-trust problems; if anything it furthers the Office monopoly by strengthening Office document format dominance. It doesn't get people to move to Windows; if anything it allows them to avoid moving to Windows and stay on Mac.
You still missed the whole "agreement with Apple" thing. At the time of the agreement, pulling Office from the Mac would have killed the viability of Apple. That has since changed, but that agreement is likely still in place. So the anti-trust issue isn't so much that of the office productivity software as it is the OS market - or was at the time. A lot has changed since then, but I would gather that Apple still likes keeping Office on Mac regardless, and would raise the issue again if necessary.
Unix Services for Windows and the POSIX layer (posix.dll) only exist to get people to migrate their applications to Windows. It's heavily outdated and does not, by design, get the same performance as the native Win32 API - even though both are just wrappers around the NT kernel itself.
Firstly it's not the "native Win32 API". The native API is underneath the Win32 API. The Posix and Win32 APIs are on top of the native API, like you said, so both are equally "native".
Semantics. As far as application developers are concerned - and as far as Microsoft is concerned on their behalf - the Win32 API is the native API for writing applications for Windows. They have full purview to change the NT-kernel layer API at any time without telling anyone - it's not documented and they have no stated goals of not doing so either. The POSIX API was only added to attrach Unix developers to Windows, giving them just enough to port, but not enough to have performant applications.
Secondly, do you have any hard data showing that one is more performant than the other? They should be fairly equivalent performance-wise. Some differences could arise due to specific semantics that are imposed by one subsystem or the other; to not adhere to the semantics would lead to incorrectness.
Microsoft own documentation on the POSIX API states that it does not get the same performance as the Win32 API, try writing a server application using the POSIX API and see how many clients you can manage; rewrite it to the Win32 API and count them - it'll be quite different.
Add to that the fact that they labeled it a "security concern" - so any Windows system that is trying to pass the government security clearances will not have the POSIX API, this despite the fact that the Win32 API has major security issues by design, unlike the POSIX API.
Thirdly, you do have the option of using the native APIs directly, although they are harder to use and sparingly documented; feel free to try to implement your own Posix layer without the gross inefficiencies you allude to.
As you said - it's sparingly documented since they really don't want you to use it the kernel level API unless you are writing device drivers or other in kernel functionality. That's the only time you should be using that API on Windows. The Win32 and POSIX APIs are user-space extensions of the kernel to enable applications to operate independently of the kernel itself, so they are not tied to kernel versions. Microsoft can change that API without telling you, and very well may quite often even through service packs.
This is similar to how the Linux Kernel devs release a "stable" set of headers. Those headers are essentially the equivalent of the Win32 and POSIX APIs, applications and devices can interface to them and then be a little more kernel version independent.
Fourthly, to turn this around, can you say that WINE apps on Linux offers equivalent performance to native Linux apps?
Office for Macs exists solely to (i) reduce issues with anti-trust, and (ii) to get people on Office and then move them to Windows. Also, (iii) MS almost EOL'd Office for Mac, until Apple complained and then they signed an agreement to continue support.
Unix Services for Windows and the POSIX layer (posix.dll) only exist to get people to migrate their applications to Windows. It's heavily outdated and does not, by design, get the same performance as the native Win32 API - even though both are just wrappers around the NT kernel itself.
Most OS vendors do allow interoperability between other systems - e.g. authentication, file sharing,etc. MS has explicitly gone out of its way to make sure those things are not possible, and if they do work only enough to get people to migrate to Windows. For example, MS has changed the CIFS/SMB protocol on nearly every release of Windows to force people to upgrade; while they do usually provide a backwards compatibility installer for older systems or (in Win7) to turn off a feature so that it can communicate with older systems (though you only find it by trial and error and searching the Internet, not from MS), this also provides a point of issue for those relying on other CIFS/SMB stacks such as Samba. Or you could talk about ActiveDirectory which is basically built upon standards such as CIFS/SMB combined with other standards, such as LDAP and kerberos; however, in all cases they make explicit extensions so that pretty much only Windows systems can participate in the Active Directory services. Again, other kerberos, CIFS/SMB, and LDAP vendors adhere to the standards so that their users can actually make full use of the system and have interoperability - regardless of whether the other side is Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Unix, etc. Or look at the document space - MS pushing their binary formats (for historic compatibility, despite the lack of it) and OOXML as their future - despite the fact that not even MS implements the OOXML standard; meanwhile the rest of the world and governments are standardizing on the much smaller ODF standard which MS refuses to support, or support in any meaningful way. So while LibreOffice, OpenOffice, Symphony, and dozens of other vendors all compete on functionality of their office productivity software and use the same formats behind the scenes; only MS is trying to compete on the actual document format.
Now if you know your software is so bad that you have to resort to such tactics to keep customers; then there is a problem. Fix your software and compete properly. It would actually be very beneficial for Microsoft. Instead of having to spend billions of dollars on advertising, PR, etc; they would be able to put that money into developing the products to make good products that sell themselves, reaping much greater profits in the end.
For me to like MS again, not only would they have to resolve the issues you mentioned, but also completely and utterly abandon their EEE mentality; embracing standards for actual, real interoperability sake, not to modify them and make markets hostage to their will. MS could do very well as a company even on a level playing field if they really did (i) allow interoperability, (ii) didn't insist on everything being a MS only world, and (iii) actually started trying to compete on merits and good products as opposed to these cannibalistic tactics that they've employed ever since BillyG, Ballmer, and co founded MS.
Because they are allowing the Theory of Evolution to be taught as actual theory instead of "scientific" "fact". Like it or not, the Theory of Evolution is in layman's terms still just a theory.
If you truly want to promote the art of science, then promoting it as theory, and calling it into question is exactly what should be taught in science aside from the few areas where something has been proven to be fact in layman's terms, e.g. gravity (the theory of what is behind gravity notwithstanding).
Well, that's because you didn't watch the extras on the LOTR disks. While they did use a big of computer techniques to glue things together they also had an entire cast of stand-ins - other actors - that played the scenes, in full costume and makeup to look like whomever they were replacing. No camera distortions were required.
It's been shown that 3D is problematic for children as it can cause them to develop so that their eyes focus separately - something required for 3D effects to work.
As for me, 3D is a misnomer. It's a junky piece of technology that doesn't work that is very well overpriced. I'll be glad when they finally put it to rest. Holographic placards annoy me; but only a true Star-Trek like holographics system would be worth anything.
udev is no more part of the Linux Kernel than Fuse it. It's a driver interface.
Honestly, I run systems with multiple NICs in them - both before udev and since - and have never had an issue. I also don't have udev configured to name devices based on MAC addresses or anything else. It just works!
So really, what is the point again?
The police stepping in is vastly different from God stepping in. And yes, God stepping in would very well undermine you ability to have free will.
Think of it this way - an over-protective parent causes great harm to their child. So does a parent that is not protective enough. There's a balance that must be struck. The child might not like the balance - thinking it is too over bearing at times, or that their parent is not paying enough attention at other times.
Now some of us might want the over-protective God, but that would come at great cost. Others might want the under protective God, and that would come at an equally great cost. We may complain - thinking an injustice has been done (and I'm not saying that injustices don't happen); but in the end - it will all come to bear. Whether justice now, or later.
So god is omnipotent but is powerless to change a rule without killing himself?
In other news since the latest release of unbuntu whenever the superuser wants to change a system setting he's previously changed he has to stab himself in the face.
Or rather He chooses not to change the rules but to abide by them as well. It has nothing to do with the power to change the rule, but rather showing a greater power by abiding by it.
If a parent you set a rule in the house and discipline your children for not obeying it, but change it when it no longer suites you it undermines your authority as a parent. Yes, you have the power to change the rule; but should you just because it no longer suites you?
Has nothing to do with convincing himself to forgive us - it has everything to do with fulfilling the requirements of the laws that were laid down (http://tinyurl.com/5vamtm9). So He subjected Himself to the same laws as He subjected His creation.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is not whether or not they engaging in science. The question is how the scientific community is responding to people that will not hold the Theory of Evolution to be true. Presently the Scientific Community tries to ostracize any scientist that will not hold the Theory of Evolution to be true, regardless of how they otherwise engage in the science and the scientific method. That is the issue.
No. I am arguing that properly applied, scientific rigor does lead to open mindedness, but the scientific community is not properly applying it.
Who's to say its a deficiency in their knowledge? May be they are looking at it from a different perspective? Or they have an insight that you or other scientists do not?
Fact is, it's better to let them be honest about their work, their biases, etc and encourage the scientific endeavor of exploration than to deny them admittance and make the scientific community a closed-minded, self-drive community that refuses to take criticism from any where else, that refuses admittance unless you agree with them - which ultimately leads to a lack of scientific progress.
Not quite true. Yes, Win7 has the potential to be just as secure; but the default security model put forth by Microsoft is no where near as secure as the default security model for Linux. Though, even the most secure Windows security models still have major flaws in them as there are design flaws in Windows itself - everything from the Win32 API to how MS decides applications should run - that are not otherwise corrected.
So yes, with WinXP SP3, Vista, and Win7 the network security has vastly improved - the default firewall is pretty secure and nearly on par with everyone else. But that hardly solves the issue when people are having problems due to bugs in the software - bugs the Microsoft won't fix usually until there is at least on known, working, and spreading exploit for them; until which Microsoft denies the existence of the bug.
Then you have the Microsoft's very broken patching methodology - a method which often patches in one fix, then undoes the patch in another; leading to cycles of the same bug being fixed. Not only does that speak of a bad patching methodology, but also to a lack of regression testing and QA throughout the entire development and maintenance cycle of their software. All of this leads to inferior security overall.
Aside from the fact that outside of the Flash Drive, the Nexus S is superior to iPhone4 in every technical way: http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html http://www.google.com/phone/detail/nexus-s
Heck, even the Nexus One was superior to the iPhone in every way except the Flash Drive, Dual Camera, and a couple millimeters in dimensions. The Nexus S fixes the Dual Camera issue, and seriously closes the gap on the Flash Drive.
While IANAL, Header Files regardless of license are not copyrightable under the law. Thereby, this is a non-issue that means absolutely nothing. Consult an attorney to confirm.
As other have noted, Florian is now a Microsoft Shill. Yes, he made himself a name in the F/OSS community a while back; only then he later sold it to Microsoft as part of the OOXML ISO process, and has continued with Software Patents and anything else MS wants him to write about. So, take anything he says with a grain of salt at best - if you give any credence to it at all.
i have an idea how it will be stopped: most of us science types will move to higher altitude and the flooding (which the bible says won't happen) will take out all the coastal cities populated by the dumbasses.
I'm pretty sure the flooding as described in Genesis 6-9 won't be possible again.
For instance, Genesis lists the waters being released from above and below. We're still not quite sure what is referred to by the "waters above" - some speculate a Canopy of water surrounding the earth; though it could just as easily have been that the atmospheric pressure was different thus allowing the atmosphere to hold more water than it does not. "Waters below" however are very likely to be aquifers, the release of which has created the massive oceans and (since) the polar caps. The depths of the oceans, the heights of the mountains are both attributable to such an event. Indeed even the presence of mountains and earth quakes shows that this has occurred - since prior to such an event there would likely have been sufficient space, lubrication, etc. to keep the tectonic plates from battling as they do today.
So such an even won't likely be possible today since the mountains have effectively been pushed high enough to keep from being covered yet again.
Though, I hardly expect most of Slashdot to buy into the above since they mostly follow the Scientific Tradition that everything has always been as it is now.
Ironically, the above can all be shown, modeled, etc and would produce an earth like we have it today, likely with a lot more accuracy than present Scientific models that require things like the barometric pressure to always have been what it is now, etc.
A number of OS Kernels can now reload the kernel or apply security updates on the fly. The Linux Kernel included. So no, a reboot is not necessary there. FYI - Windows is perhaps the only OS that cannot reload device drivers on the fly.
If you are updating the application you better be restarting it, and that means running the init script to stop, start, and restart it again. So no, a reboot is (again) not necessary there either.
And again, in a server environment you have things to detect hardware failures coming on. If your server doesn't have that, then you need to get a better server - a real one.
And you seem to be missing the point that 99.9999% of what happens at boot can be detected without rebooting the system on most operating systems, Windows is the exception to that due to all its bloat and interlock, etc.
Don't get me wrong - having a scheduled downtime is good. But you don't necessarily need to reboot during downtime - just pull the system out of active service, make the changes, test, and then restore to active service.
Most drive failures seem to happen at boot time (at least with your normal spinning rust type.)
But you get longer life out of the drive by not ever spinning them down. So, shutting down the system will degrade the life of the drives, and the drives are typically smart enough now to (i) alert to failure before it happens so you can switch drives, and (ii) on servers they are hot swappable in most cases.
So again, your point is?
Just find one based on the Transmeta Crusoe/Efficion processor - oh wait, they couldn't compete with Intel and AMD.
Seriously though, Transmeta had 13 hours+ battery life a decade ago. They had trouble getting their performance and volume high enough to compete, though that should be a lot easier now (at least performance wise), but they otherwise had a great product.
So yes, it's possible with a laptop. And no, not even a tablet gets 13 hours of battery time. It's just more efficient about sleep modes than a laptop - but even that could be handled better without Windows.
Honestly, if I'm going to drop $500 or more on a computer I'd be best off getting a laptop. For the slight inconvenience of the laptop I get (i) the same or larger size screen, (ii) a normal keyboard with tactile feedback, (iii) a larger hard drive, more RAM, faster processor, etc. Comparatively, a tablet only has to offer the lower weight and size, and potentially a built-in cell modem, if you pay the extra $100USD for it and the get a monthly plan as well.
So yeah, as much as I'd like the weight & size of a tablet, it's just not convenient enough to make it worth it. It'd have to be probably 50%-75 of the laptop to make it worth it.
Now, I did get a Nexus One; however, it fails to compare their since the Nexus One phone is far easier to talk to and have at least a semi-private conversation on compared to a tablet, which more likely than not has a data-only cell plan.
That said, volume prices will certainly help. Tablets are now where PCs were 20-30 years ago in that respect.
You still missed the whole "agreement with Apple" thing. At the time of the agreement, pulling Office from the Mac would have killed the viability of Apple. That has since changed, but that agreement is likely still in place. So the anti-trust issue isn't so much that of the office productivity software as it is the OS market - or was at the time. A lot has changed since then, but I would gather that Apple still likes keeping Office on Mac regardless, and would raise the issue again if necessary.
Semantics. As far as application developers are concerned - and as far as Microsoft is concerned on their behalf - the Win32 API is the native API for writing applications for Windows. They have full purview to change the NT-kernel layer API at any time without telling anyone - it's not documented and they have no stated goals of not doing so either. The POSIX API was only added to attrach Unix developers to Windows, giving them just enough to port, but not enough to have performant applications.
Microsoft own documentation on the POSIX API states that it does not get the same performance as the Win32 API, try writing a server application using the POSIX API and see how many clients you can manage; rewrite it to the Win32 API and count them - it'll be quite different.
Add to that the fact that they labeled it a "security concern" - so any Windows system that is trying to pass the government security clearances will not have the POSIX API, this despite the fact that the Win32 API has major security issues by design, unlike the POSIX API.
As you said - it's sparingly documented since they really don't want you to use it the kernel level API unless you are writing device drivers or other in kernel functionality. That's the only time you should be using that API on Windows. The Win32 and POSIX APIs are user-space extensions of the kernel to enable applications to operate independently of the kernel itself, so they are not tied to kernel versions. Microsoft can change that API without telling you, and very well may quite often even through service packs.
This is similar to how the Linux Kernel devs release a "stable" set of headers. Those headers are essentially the equivalent of the Win32 and POSIX APIs, applications and devices can interface to them and then be a little more kernel version independent.
Office for Macs exists solely to (i) reduce issues with anti-trust, and (ii) to get people on Office and then move them to Windows. Also, (iii) MS almost EOL'd Office for Mac, until Apple complained and then they signed an agreement to continue support.
,etc. MS has explicitly gone out of its way to make sure those things are not possible, and if they do work only enough to get people to migrate to Windows. For example, MS has changed the CIFS/SMB protocol on nearly every release of Windows to force people to upgrade; while they do usually provide a backwards compatibility installer for older systems or (in Win7) to turn off a feature so that it can communicate with older systems (though you only find it by trial and error and searching the Internet, not from MS), this also provides a point of issue for those relying on other CIFS/SMB stacks such as Samba. Or you could talk about ActiveDirectory which is basically built upon standards such as CIFS/SMB combined with other standards, such as LDAP and kerberos; however, in all cases they make explicit extensions so that pretty much only Windows systems can participate in the Active Directory services. Again, other kerberos, CIFS/SMB, and LDAP vendors adhere to the standards so that their users can actually make full use of the system and have interoperability - regardless of whether the other side is Windows, Linux, Mac, Solaris, Unix, etc. Or look at the document space - MS pushing their binary formats (for historic compatibility, despite the lack of it) and OOXML as their future - despite the fact that not even MS implements the OOXML standard; meanwhile the rest of the world and governments are standardizing on the much smaller ODF standard which MS refuses to support, or support in any meaningful way. So while LibreOffice, OpenOffice, Symphony, and dozens of other vendors all compete on functionality of their office productivity software and use the same formats behind the scenes; only MS is trying to compete on the actual document format.
Unix Services for Windows and the POSIX layer (posix.dll) only exist to get people to migrate their applications to Windows. It's heavily outdated and does not, by design, get the same performance as the native Win32 API - even though both are just wrappers around the NT kernel itself.
Most OS vendors do allow interoperability between other systems - e.g. authentication, file sharing
Now if you know your software is so bad that you have to resort to such tactics to keep customers; then there is a problem. Fix your software and compete properly. It would actually be very beneficial for Microsoft. Instead of having to spend billions of dollars on advertising, PR, etc; they would be able to put that money into developing the products to make good products that sell themselves, reaping much greater profits in the end.
So again, you point was?
For me to like MS again, not only would they have to resolve the issues you mentioned, but also completely and utterly abandon their EEE mentality; embracing standards for actual, real interoperability sake, not to modify them and make markets hostage to their will. MS could do very well as a company even on a level playing field if they really did (i) allow interoperability, (ii) didn't insist on everything being a MS only world, and (iii) actually started trying to compete on merits and good products as opposed to these cannibalistic tactics that they've employed ever since BillyG, Ballmer, and co founded MS.
...Yahoo! has had this for years. So does Gmail. MS is just late to the game in yet another feature.
Nothing new.
Please move on.
it's called rope. don't hang yourself with it.
So, because my software program can add 1+1 and get 2 it is thereby intelligent?
Please do yourself a favor and stop talking.
Because they are allowing the Theory of Evolution to be taught as actual theory instead of "scientific" "fact". Like it or not, the Theory of Evolution is in layman's terms still just a theory.
If you truly want to promote the art of science, then promoting it as theory, and calling it into question is exactly what should be taught in science aside from the few areas where something has been proven to be fact in layman's terms, e.g. gravity (the theory of what is behind gravity notwithstanding).
Well, that's because you didn't watch the extras on the LOTR disks. While they did use a big of computer techniques to glue things together they also had an entire cast of stand-ins - other actors - that played the scenes, in full costume and makeup to look like whomever they were replacing. No camera distortions were required.
It's been shown that 3D is problematic for children as it can cause them to develop so that their eyes focus separately - something required for 3D effects to work. As for me, 3D is a misnomer. It's a junky piece of technology that doesn't work that is very well overpriced. I'll be glad when they finally put it to rest. Holographic placards annoy me; but only a true Star-Trek like holographics system would be worth anything.
udev is no more part of the Linux Kernel than Fuse it. It's a driver interface. Honestly, I run systems with multiple NICs in them - both before udev and since - and have never had an issue. I also don't have udev configured to name devices based on MAC addresses or anything else. It just works! So really, what is the point again?
The police stepping in is vastly different from God stepping in. And yes, God stepping in would very well undermine you ability to have free will.
Think of it this way - an over-protective parent causes great harm to their child. So does a parent that is not protective enough. There's a balance that must be struck. The child might not like the balance - thinking it is too over bearing at times, or that their parent is not paying enough attention at other times.
Now some of us might want the over-protective God, but that would come at great cost. Others might want the under protective God, and that would come at an equally great cost. We may complain - thinking an injustice has been done (and I'm not saying that injustices don't happen); but in the end - it will all come to bear. Whether justice now, or later.
So god is omnipotent but is powerless to change a rule without killing himself?
In other news since the latest release of unbuntu whenever the superuser wants to change a system setting he's previously changed he has to stab himself in the face.
Or rather He chooses not to change the rules but to abide by them as well. It has nothing to do with the power to change the rule, but rather showing a greater power by abiding by it.
If a parent you set a rule in the house and discipline your children for not obeying it, but change it when it no longer suites you it undermines your authority as a parent. Yes, you have the power to change the rule; but should you just because it no longer suites you?
Has nothing to do with convincing himself to forgive us - it has everything to do with fulfilling the requirements of the laws that were laid down (http://tinyurl.com/5vamtm9). So He subjected Himself to the same laws as He subjected His creation.