...they had to strip WGS out as well to achieve that date, so now it's being called "Poll" instead of "Shorthorn". Disruptive elements within the company are suggesting "XP-SP3".
I see you're having trouble backing the car out...
on
Cars that Can't Crash?
·
· Score: 1
Would you like me to:
Send a ping'o'death to the garage door?
Lock all of the doors and call Microsoft tech support?
Check on warez.dnspoisoner.ru for software updates?
Accidentally use up a licence from your house computer?
Change your gender or dye your hair?
Now would be a good time to fill out your registration card.
Has the advantage of being aconymically accurate if the controlling software was written from the "I dumpster-dive for other people's (broken) code" Redmond Genius.
...you're trying to crash your car. Would you like help avoiding th<crunch!> " as the cement truck attempts to use your car as a trick ramp.
Computer-controlled cars, yes - under most circumstances - but letting Microsoft design and build the controls is, as the error message below says, "equivalent to slitting your wrists with a tape leader".
No, ABS is banned because it is dangerous in rally
on
Cars that Can't Crash?
·
· Score: 1
Just as you don't want your auto gearbox to elect to shift halfway through a power slide, you don't want your braking system to radically alter your grip as you drift around a corner at 140k. The end result in both case is typically "hello, tree".
If you're not steering with all four wheels anyway, then you're not having fun yet. On gravel, accelerator and brakes can count as "steering".
You actually get more steerage locked up on gravel than locked up on bitumen. The tyres act like rudders, pushing the gravel aside. You're talking to a boy who lived at the end of a gravel road when he got his MDL.
If you have a Designer, what's so unthinkable about that Designer having themselves been designed?
The only reason for not so postulating is that the naysayers aren't arguing against design, per se, they're arguing against Christianity.
Christianity's Designer (Christ, by definition) has never AFAICT mentioned Himself in terms of being designed. This is the only real constraint I have ever run across on recursive Designers. Atheists shouldn't be using it, because they're arguing on Christianity's terms.
...at least here in Australia. It provides a perfect opportunity to explain why evolution can't work.
Evolution is not science, because it is based on faith. That faith is usually called Materialism or Atheism. The axioms underlying the pillars of evolution such as isotope-ratio dating schemes have to be taken on faith because we have no way to measure them directly. They are regularly shown to be wild, and every so often a scientist finds a new way to demonstrate that assumptions about the starting conditions can't possibly be right, but this doesn't stop the methods and their results (the politically correct ones, anyway) from being constantly trusted and accepted as true and immutable. This is because evolution grew from religion, the "no gods" religion, not from observation.
There exists a universe which consists of energy in various forms, including matter. This universe follows basic, fundamental rules, and the application of those rules to the energy and matter is capable of explaining life and human intelligence.
This is the point at which the wheels fly sideways into opposite gutters and your little red philosophical wagon grinds to a sudden halt on the bitumen.
The application of said rules says that the vast majority of the absolutely minimal set of chemicals required are extremely difficult to form but break down extremely readily. If you tot up all of hte requirements, we need at least a few thousand orders of magnitude more atoms in this universe, and some miraculous way of recombining them all jig-time. Not a few thousand times, a few thousand orders of magnitude. Pardon the bold, but I really don't want you blipping over that point.
If you don't believe me, have a look at what Stanley Miller (of Urey and Miller fame) has been failing to attain, nay, outright prove unobtainable for the past, what, four decades now?
You also need to consider why the universe should follow any particular set of rules. Hint: the Anthropic Principle isn't as helpful as it might at first seem.
In creationism, the creator is the cause. The act of creation is more or less an inevitable result of being a creator. Without a definite cause behind it, there's no particular reason that a universe should set about forming planets or philosophers to populate them - and fact, it's a real statistical knife-edge. Better than Death got his scythe in Reaper Man.
Let's run that past the heads once more: "Atheism is the belief<click>"
Again? "Atheism is the belief<click>"
Last time, to make sure we got the point: "Atheism is the belief<click>"
You answered your own question. Belief == Religion. Well... technically, belief is a subset of religion, since religion is more likely refer to the outward, material signs of belief (robes, chanting, cathedrals, auto da fe, fundy-baiting on slashdot, etc), which doesn't help your case at all. The Jargon File definition is amusing, though.
In this day and age, we routinely import and export MS Office documents with OpenOffice.org 1.x many times a day; we also routinely rescue damaged MS Office docs for MS Office users who can't do that using MS Office.
Amongst other things, I'm a technical writer, submit all of my OOo writing in MS-Word DOC format, and have never had a glitch as a result. I have also done several PowerPoint presentations on provided equipment, the presentations were of course created in OOImpress (all six of the machines running in this house run Linux), and they have all worked OOtB.
So far the only big disappointment has been OOCalc's importation of Excel macros, which I'm sure you will be delighted to know is on the table for radical improvement as I type. The few documents that don't import perfectly generally feature the same baroque style which causes problems going between versions of MS Office, or (on MS Office, anyway) if you try to print it to a different printer than the original was connected to.
...and I might be ready to consider your assertion that "Scientists have clear evidence of the evolutionary process throughout history via these fossils".
Leaving aside the fresh, stretchy, squishy organics within Mary's "68 million year old" fossilised T Rex leg bone for a moment, what the fossil record does actually show us - viewed from a Noturalist or Materialist perspective, of course - is stasis and isolation, plus in the case of the Cambrian Explosion, masses of body plans happening in a timescale instant.
Entombment for fossilisation must also happen very, very rapidly before scavengers can eat or scatter the remains (at every scale from micro to macro). This tends to point not at mild and moderate ID, but way past it to Creationism.
"Modern" birds have been found in stratigraphically older layers that dinosaurs, did you know that? Phut goes the dinos-to-birds theory you had in mind only a few seconds ago. Lucy was widely hailed as a missing link between ape and man, then more quietly un-hailed as being more different from either apes or humans than they were from each other. Such is the fate of all of the homonids so far, other than the frauds and the many which have been reclaissified as either fully human or fully ape. And the harder you look at these things, the worse it gets.
Another point (if I had the time I could post hundreds of kilobytes on this alone) is that it's not limited to the fundies. Consider leading Atheist Antony Flew, who after careful examination of the evidence now rejects evolution.
There's so much you have to not know in order to remain an evolutionist - so many observations that have to be either discarded or at best accorded the whackiest justifications - and yet somehow the idea is supposed to have an unquestioned monopoly in science teaching? Why? Could iot be for religious reasons?
One of the scariest aspects of the origins debate is that outside ID, much of the organised opposition includes people like industrialists who take the view that since God's going to burn it all down in the end anyway, there's no particular point in taking care of nature! D'oh?
Again, there's reams and reams of stuff that you have to not know (about the Bible, in this case) to be able to hold that view.
The wilful ignorance is terrifying, and doubly terrifying because it's typical on both ends of the spectrum.
Obviously, you haven't heard of the late, great Thomas Gold. One of many scientists, long-agers, evolutionists, who are (or in his case, were) absolutely certain that the compressed-roadkill theories are inadequate.
Had a good laugh at the idea of Transmeta being involved in the fiaSCO. Please continue to take a faux pas like that every so often, it makes a nice change from seeing some moron presumptuously putting a foot wrong and then scrambling to defend their mistakes instead of admitting error.
If dickwhackers are writing malware for one browser, it will be the most popular browser. Only when we see IE and FF approach neck-and-necking it at about 45% each will they start trying to target FF in anger.
By then, of course, most of the remaining ugly corners will have been filed off the FF code by the current exposure to the odd angry nut, and it will never ever have many of IE's design defects anyway, so while the number of actual exploits may go up, I can't see FF ever rivalling IE in sheer destructiveness.
Slashdot Mirror
...they had to strip WGS out as well to achieve that date, so now it's being called "Poll" instead of "Shorthorn". Disruptive elements within the company are suggesting "XP-SP3".
- Send a ping'o'death to the garage door?
- Lock all of the doors and call Microsoft tech support?
- Check on warez.dnspoisoner.ru for software updates?
- Accidentally use up a licence from your house computer?
- Change your gender or dye your hair?
Now would be a good time to fill out your registration card.(Just Too Late)
I guess at least in this case using Linux instead was a career-enhancing move.
Has the advantage of being aconymically accurate if the controlling software was written from the "I dumpster-dive for other people's (broken) code" Redmond Genius.
...you're trying to crash your car. Would you like help avoiding th <crunch!> " as the cement truck attempts to use your car as a trick ramp.
Computer-controlled cars, yes - under most circumstances - but letting Microsoft design and build the controls is, as the error message below says, "equivalent to slitting your wrists with a tape leader".
Just as you don't want your auto gearbox to elect to shift halfway through a power slide, you don't want your braking system to radically alter your grip as you drift around a corner at 140k. The end result in both case is typically "hello, tree".
If you're not steering with all four wheels anyway, then you're not having fun yet. On gravel, accelerator and brakes can count as "steering".
You actually get more steerage locked up on gravel than locked up on bitumen. The tyres act like rudders, pushing the gravel aside. You're talking to a boy who lived at the end of a gravel road when he got his MDL.
A BASIC program? On which planet?
If you have a Designer, what's so unthinkable about that Designer having themselves been designed?
The only reason for not so postulating is that the naysayers aren't arguing against design, per se, they're arguing against Christianity.
Christianity's Designer (Christ, by definition) has never AFAICT mentioned Himself in terms of being designed. This is the only real constraint I have ever run across on recursive Designers. Atheists shouldn't be using it, because they're arguing on Christianity's terms.
...at least here in Australia. It provides a perfect opportunity to explain why evolution can't work.
Evolution is not science, because it is based on faith. That faith is usually called Materialism or Atheism. The axioms underlying the pillars of evolution such as isotope-ratio dating schemes have to be taken on faith because we have no way to measure them directly. They are regularly shown to be wild, and every so often a scientist finds a new way to demonstrate that assumptions about the starting conditions can't possibly be right, but this doesn't stop the methods and their results (the politically correct ones, anyway) from being constantly trusted and accepted as true and immutable. This is because evolution grew from religion, the "no gods" religion, not from observation.
Now explain Mary Schweitzer's fresh but fossilised T Rex bones to me again?
That's what you get for only reading one point of view on a topic, and not even understanding that. (-:
The application of said rules says that the vast majority of the absolutely minimal set of chemicals required are extremely difficult to form but break down extremely readily. If you tot up all of hte requirements, we need at least a few thousand orders of magnitude more atoms in this universe, and some miraculous way of recombining them all jig-time. Not a few thousand times, a few thousand orders of magnitude. Pardon the bold, but I really don't want you blipping over that point.
If you don't believe me, have a look at what Stanley Miller (of Urey and Miller fame) has been failing to attain, nay, outright prove unobtainable for the past, what, four decades now?
You also need to consider why the universe should follow any particular set of rules. Hint: the Anthropic Principle isn't as helpful as it might at first seem.
In creationism, the creator is the cause. The act of creation is more or less an inevitable result of being a creator. Without a definite cause behind it, there's no particular reason that a universe should set about forming planets or philosophers to populate them - and fact, it's a real statistical knife-edge. Better than Death got his scythe in Reaper Man.
Again? "Atheism is the belief<click>"
Last time, to make sure we got the point: "Atheism is the belief<click>"
You answered your own question. Belief == Religion. Well... technically, belief is a subset of religion, since religion is more likely refer to the outward, material signs of belief (robes, chanting, cathedrals, auto da fe, fundy-baiting on slashdot, etc), which doesn't help your case at all. The Jargon File definition is amusing, though.
Your point was, again...?
In this day and age, we routinely import and export MS Office documents with OpenOffice.org 1.x many times a day; we also routinely rescue damaged MS Office docs for MS Office users who can't do that using MS Office.
Amongst other things, I'm a technical writer, submit all of my OOo writing in MS-Word DOC format, and have never had a glitch as a result. I have also done several PowerPoint presentations on provided equipment, the presentations were of course created in OOImpress (all six of the machines running in this house run Linux), and they have all worked OOtB.
So far the only big disappointment has been OOCalc's importation of Excel macros, which I'm sure you will be delighted to know is on the table for radical improvement as I type. The few documents that don't import perfectly generally feature the same baroque style which causes problems going between versions of MS Office, or (on MS Office, anyway) if you try to print it to a different printer than the original was connected to.
No fair claiming that the religion of no god equals no religion.
And no, you don't need to have robes or rosaries to be a religion any more than you need to have television advertising to be a software developer.
...and I might be ready to consider your assertion that "Scientists have clear evidence of the evolutionary process throughout history via these fossils".
Leaving aside the fresh, stretchy, squishy organics within Mary's "68 million year old" fossilised T Rex leg bone for a moment, what the fossil record does actually show us - viewed from a Noturalist or Materialist perspective, of course - is stasis and isolation, plus in the case of the Cambrian Explosion, masses of body plans happening in a timescale instant.
Entombment for fossilisation must also happen very, very rapidly before scavengers can eat or scatter the remains (at every scale from micro to macro). This tends to point not at mild and moderate ID, but way past it to Creationism.
"Modern" birds have been found in stratigraphically older layers that dinosaurs, did you know that? Phut goes the dinos-to-birds theory you had in mind only a few seconds ago. Lucy was widely hailed as a missing link between ape and man, then more quietly un-hailed as being more different from either apes or humans than they were from each other. Such is the fate of all of the homonids so far, other than the frauds and the many which have been reclaissified as either fully human or fully ape. And the harder you look at these things, the worse it gets.
Another point (if I had the time I could post hundreds of kilobytes on this alone) is that it's not limited to the fundies. Consider leading Atheist Antony Flew, who after careful examination of the evidence now rejects evolution.
There's so much you have to not know in order to remain an evolutionist - so many observations that have to be either discarded or at best accorded the whackiest justifications - and yet somehow the idea is supposed to have an unquestioned monopoly in science teaching? Why? Could iot be for religious reasons?
One of the scariest aspects of the origins debate is that outside ID, much of the organised opposition includes people like industrialists who take the view that since God's going to burn it all down in the end anyway, there's no particular point in taking care of nature! D'oh?
Again, there's reams and reams of stuff that you have to not know (about the Bible, in this case) to be able to hold that view.
The wilful ignorance is terrifying, and doubly terrifying because it's typical on both ends of the spectrum.
Hello? Is this thing on?
Obviously, you haven't heard of the late, great Thomas Gold. One of many scientists, long-agers, evolutionists, who are (or in his case, were) absolutely certain that the compressed-roadkill theories are inadequate.
Had a good laugh at the idea of Transmeta being involved in the fiaSCO. Please continue to take a faux pas like that every so often, it makes a nice change from seeing some moron presumptuously putting a foot wrong and then scrambling to defend their mistakes instead of admitting error.
...over an intermittent 2Mb uplink?
A big hello to all the other LCA2005 delegates! And to all the rest of you, the secret is to register earlier next year, guys.
None of the OOo tools send any hint of hidden text to a PDF, or to print for that matter. Neither does KWord.
But it looks like MS-Office does.
It's not Adobe's fault if MS-Word told Distiller to put invisible text on the page, and so Distiller put invisible text on the page, is it?
Want your hidden text to stay hidden? Then don't touch it with any of Microsoft's products.
If dickwhackers are writing malware for one browser, it will be the most popular browser. Only when we see IE and FF approach neck-and-necking it at about 45% each will they start trying to target FF in anger.
By then, of course, most of the remaining ugly corners will have been filed off the FF code by the current exposure to the odd angry nut, and it will never ever have many of IE's design defects anyway, so while the number of actual exploits may go up, I can't see FF ever rivalling IE in sheer destructiveness.