So, to summarise your post: there is a feature missing; therefore it is not pre-alpha. Well, OK, if that premise necessarily implies that conclusion for you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and back away slowly and quietly.
Just to clarify, it is surely obvious that this is not an RC but an alpha version. "Alpha" is after all the standard way of denoting "not feature complete". That's what "alpha" means.
I trust no one is going to claim that "one feature missing" = RC. RC should mean "finished in absolutely every conceivable respect, and completely absolutely bug-free as far as we are able to tell (and believe us, we've tried), but we just want to make extra extra quintuply sure that there's nothing wrong before we really release for good". That is clearly not the case here.
You have faith that your observations accurately reflect reality. This is a faith that underlies all of science, and generally goes unacknowledged.
You are wrong both in describing this as "faith" and in claiming that it is unacknowledged. The key principle that you have not noticed is that, for scientists, results must be reproducible to be considered reliable. That principle is there in order to eliminate, or at worst minimise, the potential problem that you point out. It works very well most of the time, and when it doesn't it's generally because it hasn't been followed closely enough. Control groups are another way of minimising the problem you raise. Scientists have all kinds of solutions to this problem that you think abnegates everything they do. It's their job to deal with the problems raised by the gap between actuality and observation.
Horrible, at least from the point of view of client-friendliness, but pretty effective against shoplifting. No, I'm not at all advocating this system -- hell, if some store tried it in America, they'd be out of business by mid-afternoon.
The fact that the US already has a situation where 99% of people are perfectly willing to stand in line to show their receipts and get out the door -- a practice I have never seen in my own country, thank the gods, and hope I never will -- it seems to me there's no particular reason why Americans wouldn't tolerate the system you describe, which has the potential (perhaps) for being less onerous.
Religion is the biggest tax haven in this country.
Yes, and the pope is being hypocritical because he lives in your country and therefore gets the benefit of your country's lax laws.... oh, whoops, he doesn't. I guess he's still hypocritical, though? Take your time.
In short, the Pope's authority isn't based on the Bible as much as it's based on his own infallibility.
Even that's more authority than the Catholic Church actually claims. Papal infallibility has only ever been exercised once ever. In nearly 2000 years. I really don't comprehend why people harp on about it.
Is the current pope rather stuck on ancient church history, at middle ages when church was actually a state ?
The Vatican City only became a state in 1929. Learn some history. (And, to rub lemon juice in, it isn't actually ruled by the Holy See -- though, admittedly, it and the Holy See are closely linked.)
No it's only hypocritical for someone who doesn't pay taxes -- or runs an organization that doesn't pay taxes -- to make statements about others who also don't.
Where did the thing about organizations not paying taxes come from? Who do you think the Vatican would pay taxes to? The prime minister of Italy? George Bush? You? Perhaps you're under the impression that they know God's bank account number?
I'm not sure what's wrong, but when I go to the site, I don't find anything. No article, no link to an article, no link to an external item (like a sound), no player to run an external sound, nothing. It certainly is funny that the article is completely missing.:( Disable Adblock, and laughter will magically emerge from your mouth.:)
Surely the whole point of standards... is that they are not allowed to depend on encumbered "intellectual property". So if OOXML is adopted as an ISO standard, then all the necessary patents will have to be annulled!
Wrong way round: regulations imposed by a sovereign government ("laws" concerning intellectual property) supersede regulations imposed by the ISO ("standards"). If the ISO and IP law collide, IP law wins.
Indeed. And I took calculus, linear algebra, and music theory to round out my degree in languages. I took maths precisely to round out my art/language major!
That's handy, but note that the Windows ones look very different from a standard XP/Vista display, as font smoothing isn't turned on (whether ClearType or not). (I'm not complaining, mind you -- my browser under Windows is non-standard anyway: I've set the default font to Lucida Grande, copied over from my Mac.)
Anyway, I agree with the guy who said that the whole point of HTML was to separate content from presentation. Oh well.
Fawning over celebs is one thing; paying attention to someone who not only has talent but far more experience than you and I put together will ever have -- and who knows? perhaps even some expertise, too -- is quite another.
That is incorrect. The House of Lords has, amongst its other functions, a judicial function as the highest court in the land; the Law Lords (who are members of the House of Lords) are the people who perform that function.
Right. We're basically in agreement, I'm just a teeny bit more paranoid about the matter than you.. hopefully this will all become a moot point soon, anyway, since it seems that the National party is about to do a flip-flop (how uncharacteristic!/sarcasm) on their support for the rule...
(I shouldn't complain about flip-flopping: after all, representing the interests of NZers is their job. Under the circumstances, not changing their minds would be a bigger problem!)
Thanks for the informative comment: it's more than what I've heard on the news. However, you understate the gravity of the issue in a couple of respects:
1. Your second point, first sentence, is not relevant. Rules that restrict what use people can make of parliamentary material do not suddenly become good just because everyone else is doing it.
2. Your third and sixth points miss the point. We've seen in other countries what can happen, and more to the point, what does when rule-making bodies make draconian rules, with the apparent intention of not enforcing them harshly. What happens? They transform over time into catch-all rules that cover far more than their original scope. That this is just a parliamentary regulation, not a law, makes that less of a worry, but the point is no one should be cultivating bad habits. And regardless of the extent to which it's enforced, the culture the rule is trying to create is a revolting one. Parliament should be the one place in the country that is more open to general inspection and comment than any other place.
You have to teach them on the only software package they'll ever be able to use for the rest of their lives.
Leaving aside the obvious retort that others have already offered about how the worthwhile skills are the transferable ones, -- by what magic have you come to know exactly which software packages are going to be in use in the business world, not just in ten years' time, but apparently for the whole of the century?
And is the implication of your suggestion true -- that is, that Microsoft Office 2017 is going to have an interface identical to that of Office 2007? Did you also use sorcery to discover that fact?
Think about Dumbledore's old friend, G--. Now consider Dumbledore's age, and realize that friendship would have been about 60-70 years ago. Finally, recall what was happening (in real life) in Germany about that time.
You understate your case. Around that time? Did you notice the date of their duel? (1945, for those who weren't paying attention)
I wonder how many people commenting here are aware of the nature of this "emergency". Here's a WP article on it that gives the full text of the executive order declaring the emergency. The neutrality of the WP article is "disputed", but here are the salient bits of Executive Order 13303:
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:
Section 1
Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:
(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.
So, yes, the reason the fifth amendment has been overturned is for the express purpose of immunising U.S. oil companies against any legal action relating to anything they choose to do in Iraq.
I'd rather have mine broaden their minds with Roald Dahl, Terry Pratchett and Philip Pullman than having them end up at the level of J. K. Rowlings and Nora Roberts.
Whatever qualities Terry Pratchett has, they are not as a writer of children's books. And I would rather have my kids reading J.K. Rowling than C.S. Lewis anyday. Rowling certainly has weaknesses as a writer; Lewis has all those weaknesses plus more -- moral, as well as literary. (No argument with Dahl and Pullman, mind you; but there aren't that many other children's writers who are more worth reading than Rowling. I'd rather read Harry Potter to the kids than the Wombles, say.)
Slashdot Mirror
So, to summarise your post: there is a feature missing; therefore it is not pre-alpha. Well, OK, if that premise necessarily implies that conclusion for you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and back away slowly and quietly.
Just to clarify, it is surely obvious that this is not an RC but an alpha version. "Alpha" is after all the standard way of denoting "not feature complete". That's what "alpha" means.
I trust no one is going to claim that "one feature missing" = RC. RC should mean "finished in absolutely every conceivable respect, and completely absolutely bug-free as far as we are able to tell (and believe us, we've tried), but we just want to make extra extra quintuply sure that there's nothing wrong before we really release for good". That is clearly not the case here.
Arguably, you err. Windows Vista does not have a monopoly, ergo this is not abuse of a monopoly position. (Arguably.)
You are wrong both in describing this as "faith" and in claiming that it is unacknowledged. The key principle that you have not noticed is that, for scientists, results must be reproducible to be considered reliable. That principle is there in order to eliminate, or at worst minimise, the potential problem that you point out. It works very well most of the time, and when it doesn't it's generally because it hasn't been followed closely enough. Control groups are another way of minimising the problem you raise. Scientists have all kinds of solutions to this problem that you think abnegates everything they do. It's their job to deal with the problems raised by the gap between actuality and observation.
What on earth are you talking about? What do Chinese people have to do with anything?
Please get your facts right. As a Cambridge alumnus myself, I have some pride in my alma mater.
13th century, not 7th.
The fact that the US already has a situation where 99% of people are perfectly willing to stand in line to show their receipts and get out the door -- a practice I have never seen in my own country, thank the gods, and hope I never will -- it seems to me there's no particular reason why Americans wouldn't tolerate the system you describe, which has the potential (perhaps) for being less onerous.
Yes, and the pope is being hypocritical because he lives in your country and therefore gets the benefit of your country's lax laws. ... oh, whoops, he doesn't. I guess he's still hypocritical, though? Take your time.
Even that's more authority than the Catholic Church actually claims. Papal infallibility has only ever been exercised once ever. In nearly 2000 years. I really don't comprehend why people harp on about it.
The Vatican City only became a state in 1929. Learn some history. (And, to rub lemon juice in, it isn't actually ruled by the Holy See -- though, admittedly, it and the Holy See are closely linked.)
Where did the thing about organizations not paying taxes come from? Who do you think the Vatican would pay taxes to? The prime minister of Italy? George Bush? You? Perhaps you're under the impression that they know God's bank account number?
Gee, I wonder which side of the fence this guy would be sitting on if only Microsoft and Dell had been mentioned in the summary ...
Wrong way round: regulations imposed by a sovereign government ("laws" concerning intellectual property) supersede regulations imposed by the ISO ("standards"). If the ISO and IP law collide, IP law wins.
Actually it's the ablative of qui. (quis is for when you're asking questions -- e.g. "In the capacity of what is that writer a crackpot?".)
Indeed. And I took calculus, linear algebra, and music theory to round out my degree in languages. I took maths precisely to round out my art/language major!
That's handy, but note that the Windows ones look very different from a standard XP/Vista display, as font smoothing isn't turned on (whether ClearType or not). (I'm not complaining, mind you -- my browser under Windows is non-standard anyway: I've set the default font to Lucida Grande, copied over from my Mac.)
Anyway, I agree with the guy who said that the whole point of HTML was to separate content from presentation. Oh well.
Fawning over celebs is one thing; paying attention to someone who not only has talent but far more experience than you and I put together will ever have -- and who knows? perhaps even some expertise, too -- is quite another.
That is incorrect. The House of Lords has, amongst its other functions, a judicial function as the highest court in the land; the Law Lords (who are members of the House of Lords) are the people who perform that function.
Right. We're basically in agreement, I'm just a teeny bit more paranoid about the matter than you .. hopefully this will all become a moot point soon, anyway, since it seems that the National party is about to do a flip-flop (how uncharacteristic! /sarcasm) on their support for the rule ...
(I shouldn't complain about flip-flopping: after all, representing the interests of NZers is their job. Under the circumstances, not changing their minds would be a bigger problem!)
1. Your second point, first sentence, is not relevant. Rules that restrict what use people can make of parliamentary material do not suddenly become good just because everyone else is doing it.
2. Your third and sixth points miss the point. We've seen in other countries what can happen, and more to the point, what does when rule-making bodies make draconian rules, with the apparent intention of not enforcing them harshly. What happens? They transform over time into catch-all rules that cover far more than their original scope. That this is just a parliamentary regulation, not a law, makes that less of a worry, but the point is no one should be cultivating bad habits. And regardless of the extent to which it's enforced, the culture the rule is trying to create is a revolting one. Parliament should be the one place in the country that is more open to general inspection and comment than any other place.
Leaving aside the obvious retort that others have already offered about how the worthwhile skills are the transferable ones, -- by what magic have you come to know exactly which software packages are going to be in use in the business world, not just in ten years' time, but apparently for the whole of the century?
And is the implication of your suggestion true -- that is, that Microsoft Office 2017 is going to have an interface identical to that of Office 2007? Did you also use sorcery to discover that fact?
You understate your case. Around that time? Did you notice the date of their duel? (1945, for those who weren't paying attention)
I wonder how many people commenting here are aware of the nature of this "emergency". Here's a WP article on it that gives the full text of the executive order declaring the emergency. The neutrality of the WP article is "disputed", but here are the salient bits of Executive Order 13303:
So, yes, the reason the fifth amendment has been overturned is for the express purpose of immunising U.S. oil companies against any legal action relating to anything they choose to do in Iraq.
Whatever qualities Terry Pratchett has, they are not as a writer of children's books. And I would rather have my kids reading J.K. Rowling than C.S. Lewis anyday. Rowling certainly has weaknesses as a writer; Lewis has all those weaknesses plus more -- moral, as well as literary. (No argument with Dahl and Pullman, mind you; but there aren't that many other children's writers who are more worth reading than Rowling. I'd rather read Harry Potter to the kids than the Wombles, say.)
Feel free to contact the magazine's editor so they can fill in this gap in the article (specifically, in the third paragraph).