Boy, you really do swallow everything your government tells you don't you? Because of course there are only options in the entire world: (1) pissing off everybody who isn't you, or (2) being a religious fundamentalist intent on pissing off everybody who isn't you. I mean, everyone on Earth fits into those two categories.
Ah, who am I kidding. If you buy it, then I guess there's no denying that the US system is working. I for one welcome our new American overlords.
That's the so-called "strong" Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. But the strong version has only ever been a straw-man, invented by people like Pinker to have something to debunk. The so-called "weak" version is what people actually study.
There's this little thing called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I don't think Google has censored references to it yet, so you might still be able to find some info about it.
Types Linus,"The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the actual License itself.""
I can't believe how often this has to be said, but evidently you're an idiot, and Zeus knows there's no shortage of idiots. Neither ID nor creationism is a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that may potentially be disproved by opposing evidence. An especially good theory may have explanatory value for a phenomenon that you happen to be interested in. Evolutionary biology/abiogenesis/natural selection are extraordinarily powerful explanatory models, and completely open to being disproved at any time. They are theories.
They have become extremely good theories, as refinements are continually being made based on new evidence. ID/creationism cannot possibly ever be refined on the basis of any evidence whatsoever. They have no relationship whatsoever to any data that anyone has ever come up with. They are not theories.
Of course it's legitimate to believe or disbelieve in a theory when the evidence is unpersuasive (for example, I happen to disbelieve in Fodor's model of modularity of the human mind, more because I find other models persuasive than because I find his model unpersuasive). Evidence may be persuasive or unpersuasive, and you are fully entitled not to be persuaded by the biological models floating around these days, if you're really really that mind-bogglingly stubborn and determinedly sceptical, though I trust you'll have the courtesy to be equally sceptical about the theory of "electricity" which is about equally well-supported. Evidence persuades, it can never ever under any circumstances "prove". Evidence may corroborate a model by correlating positively with its predictions, or it may disprove it by not correlating or by correlating negatively. None of this has any role to play in ID/creationism. They are not theories. They are not disprovable. You have a brain, please wake up and turn it on.
Maybe I should keep a copy of this, it's going to be really annoying to have to type a new version of this rant every time a story on this topic comes up.
There is however a requirement for the monarch to be christian, and not to be Catholic. Also, IIRC there was a fair amount of concern in 1997 about Blair's wife being Catholic, and fear of a constitutional crisis if Tony were to convert. There isn't even a token effort at separation of church and state in the UK.
Have to say I agree with ahecht's commment about counterintuitiveness. My suggestion is different, though: have the curve on the top left, just like with the full, highlighted stories (the ones in green). This provides complete consistency in the interface: it's intuitive, therefore it's good. Of course, the border would then either need to go at the bottom instead, or be removed altogether; I don't see that as a problem. Removing it would be more consistent, but having it at the bottom wouldn't be distracting/confusing.
Linux is offered in a box in many shops in New Zealand. Most branches of Dick Smith's Electronics (yes, I know, a great name) will sell boxed distros (I think they're favouring Fedora at the moment). Still, people don't take them seriously because
they're not on the same shelf as the commercial OSs
Nonsense, balls, and ptooey. Of course anyone can put what they like into the Linux kernel: that is precisely what free means. Where do you think contributions to the kernel come from? That they appear out of thin air? That they're found under a gooseberry bush? That Linus commissions them? The point is, Linus is equally free to ignore such additions.
Digital Universe is gratis and most definitely not 'free'. Shame on the people who modded you up.
Important addendum: 'free' does not equate to 'better'.
Most experts have the sense to take a look at the "discussion" pages for a given article and realise that it's much, much, much more trouble than it's worth.
I am a working academic in a particular area of literature with a number of respected articles to my name. This is not hypothetical, it's true. When I look at the articles on one of the best known literary works in this area -- and I mean well-known enough that I am sure over 50% of readers of this page will have read one of them -- I cringe at how abominably bad the articles are.
I have created and maintained a number of articles on peripheral areas, which (I may be flattering myself) are arguably more informative, and certainly more accurate. But never, never, never would I lift a finger to try and edit the main articles, because I simply don't have time for the flamewar that would ensue.
Before you start flaming others perhaps you'd care to try getting the power switched on to your own neurons (same goes for the numbskull who modded you up): it is trivially easy to draw non-intersecting lines making all possible connections between four dots on a plane. I think it is clear here who has, and who hasn't, put some mental effort into the topic.
One of the good things about your legal system (if you're in the USA, which is statistically likely) is the presumption of innocence. If no one's been charged, which they haven't, and if the service has not been shut down or blocked by your own country's legal system, which it hasn't, then there is a very strong presumption that it is legal. I think that's just neat. It would be sad if everyone gave up their freedoms as easily as you do!
You have a good point, but I reckon it's just a matter of times changing. They do hire hit-men, it's just that they're called "lawyers". You're right, though, it would be interesting to see a risk and cost comparison of having someone assassinated, compared with having your lawyers sue them until they commit suicide.
If it were possible for a user to remove WMP and MSN Messenger, most of the grounds for complaint would evaporate. That is: it's not the inclusion of these apps that's the problem (as I see it), it's the fact that they're forced on the user.
Slashdot Mirror
Boy, you really do swallow everything your government tells you don't you? Because of course there are only options in the entire world: (1) pissing off everybody who isn't you, or (2) being a religious fundamentalist intent on pissing off everybody who isn't you. I mean, everyone on Earth fits into those two categories.
Ah, who am I kidding. If you buy it, then I guess there's no denying that the US system is working. I for one welcome our new American overlords.
That's the so-called "strong" Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. But the strong version has only ever been a straw-man, invented by people like Pinker to have something to debunk. The so-called "weak" version is what people actually study.
Just like XP flopped?
There's this little thing called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I don't think Google has censored references to it yet, so you might still be able to find some info about it.
Yes it is. RTFtop-of-the-page.
I can't believe how often this has to be said, but evidently you're an idiot, and Zeus knows there's no shortage of idiots. Neither ID nor creationism is a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that may potentially be disproved by opposing evidence. An especially good theory may have explanatory value for a phenomenon that you happen to be interested in. Evolutionary biology/abiogenesis/natural selection are extraordinarily powerful explanatory models, and completely open to being disproved at any time. They are theories.
They have become extremely good theories, as refinements are continually being made based on new evidence. ID/creationism cannot possibly ever be refined on the basis of any evidence whatsoever. They have no relationship whatsoever to any data that anyone has ever come up with. They are not theories.
Of course it's legitimate to believe or disbelieve in a theory when the evidence is unpersuasive (for example, I happen to disbelieve in Fodor's model of modularity of the human mind, more because I find other models persuasive than because I find his model unpersuasive). Evidence may be persuasive or unpersuasive, and you are fully entitled not to be persuaded by the biological models floating around these days, if you're really really that mind-bogglingly stubborn and determinedly sceptical, though I trust you'll have the courtesy to be equally sceptical about the theory of "electricity" which is about equally well-supported. Evidence persuades, it can never ever under any circumstances "prove". Evidence may corroborate a model by correlating positively with its predictions, or it may disprove it by not correlating or by correlating negatively. None of this has any role to play in ID/creationism. They are not theories. They are not disprovable. You have a brain, please wake up and turn it on.
Maybe I should keep a copy of this, it's going to be really annoying to have to type a new version of this rant every time a story on this topic comes up.
There is however a requirement for the monarch to be christian, and not to be Catholic. Also, IIRC there was a fair amount of concern in 1997 about Blair's wife being Catholic, and fear of a constitutional crisis if Tony were to convert. There isn't even a token effort at separation of church and state in the UK.
Yeah, 'cause dressing up as Hitler never gets anyone into trouble.
Sorry, I should have added: good idea, by the way ...
Have to say I agree with ahecht's commment about counterintuitiveness. My suggestion is different, though: have the curve on the top left, just like with the full, highlighted stories (the ones in green). This provides complete consistency in the interface: it's intuitive, therefore it's good. Of course, the border would then either need to go at the bottom instead, or be removed altogether; I don't see that as a problem. Removing it would be more consistent, but having it at the bottom wouldn't be distracting/confusing.
Linux is offered in a box in many shops in New Zealand. Most branches of Dick Smith's Electronics (yes, I know, a great name) will sell boxed distros (I think they're favouring Fedora at the moment). Still, people don't take them seriously because
If it costs that little, it must be crap.
But when I bring about an emotive state, what I am doing is effecting an affect. Hah! Chew on that, Spock.
Digital Universe is gratis and most definitely not 'free'. Shame on the people who modded you up.
Important addendum: 'free' does not equate to 'better'.
I am a working academic in a particular area of literature with a number of respected articles to my name. This is not hypothetical, it's true. When I look at the articles on one of the best known literary works in this area -- and I mean well-known enough that I am sure over 50% of readers of this page will have read one of them -- I cringe at how abominably bad the articles are.
I have created and maintained a number of articles on peripheral areas, which (I may be flattering myself) are arguably more informative, and certainly more accurate. But never, never, never would I lift a finger to try and edit the main articles, because I simply don't have time for the flamewar that would ensue.
I rather think anyone leaving their car at the Trafford Centre car parks has better things to worry about than the cameras.
Before you start flaming others perhaps you'd care to try getting the power switched on to your own neurons (same goes for the numbskull who modded you up): it is trivially easy to draw non-intersecting lines making all possible connections between four dots on a plane. I think it is clear here who has, and who hasn't, put some mental effort into the topic.
***Whoosh*** ...
Really. It's been confirmed by Netcraft.
One of the good things about your legal system (if you're in the USA, which is statistically likely) is the presumption of innocence. If no one's been charged, which they haven't, and if the service has not been shut down or blocked by your own country's legal system, which it hasn't, then there is a very strong presumption that it is legal. I think that's just neat. It would be sad if everyone gave up their freedoms as easily as you do!
You have a good point, but I reckon it's just a matter of times changing. They do hire hit-men, it's just that they're called "lawyers". You're right, though, it would be interesting to see a risk and cost comparison of having someone assassinated, compared with having your lawyers sue them until they commit suicide.
If IE 7 included a fully-functional Adblock, I might even use it.
(Very slightly off-topic) On my wishlist for a "standard" feature in future versions of web browsers: support for the torrent protocol.
Don't suppose you could post that screenprint somewhere? :-)
If it were possible for a user to remove WMP and MSN Messenger, most of the grounds for complaint would evaporate. That is: it's not the inclusion of these apps that's the problem (as I see it), it's the fact that they're forced on the user.
As long as Linux distros don't make it impossible to remove XMMS and Mplayer, certainly they can hurl accusations without being hypocritical.