Try taking a debian package from a few years back and installing it on your system. Chances are, it won't work due to library incompatibilities.
If it successfully installs, it should work just fine. The whole point of versioned sonames encoded into library package names is to allow this very thing. Any time an install completes successfully, but the program doesn't work is a bug that needs to be fixed.
separation of semantic meaning and presentation that comes with modern HTML+CSS, and I don't think LaTeX offers that.
While it's not quite as flexible as CSS, LaTeX is flexible enough for most people's needs display wise. The exact same document can easily be turned into a presentation from an article or similar with few changes beyond the document class. In fact, this is one of the major benefits of LaTeX over any other document preparation system: you write the content, and the document class takes care of making it look like whatever it's supposed to look like.
You might as well just get yourself a power-efficient linux-powered router and set up tc properly to guarantee an uplink bandwidth slice to VOIP. (There are various recipes on lartc.org to help you with this.
Downlink bandwidth management is slightly more complicated, but you can sort of manage it by droping or delaying non-voip packets which are coming in too fast to keep your ISPs queue empty.
Successful OSS projects find a good middle ground between the importance of the software, the skill and requirements of the core team, and interaction with the community that results in progress. X.org is far from that middleground.
While this is true, the only way to get to that middle ground is for people who are interested in the success of X.org to work to bring it to that position. Clearly the people who are currently working on it also are interested in the success of X.org, but they are limited by the resources that they have available. Frankly, I'd rather those coders were coding than coddling. That said, in most projects, core members are usually willing to spend time helping new contributors who have demonstrated a willingness to contribute by contributing. I know it's a far better use of my time to help active contributors to the projects that I'm involved in than random people who are whining.
The consensus in the bug report seems to be not to do it, but then someone adds the patch anyways.
The package maintainer first checked with upstream about the best way to resolve this. In retrospect, it's clear that upstream didn't either understand what was being asked, or what the code was doing. In any event, another Debian Developer, Luciano Bello, later found the problem and resolved it.
Theories ARE the highest truth in science. I wouldn't be
so short with you, but you must be trying to be ignorant about basic
science.
While theories and laws may be the closest thing that science gets
to Truth, they're never taken by real scientists to be a truth that
requires no further testing. The beauty and power of science is that
it is a system of knowledge whereby tenets can be falsified simply by
experimentation (though none of them can ever be proved.)
If you're actually interested in learning what Science is instead
of declaiming the ignorance of those around you, I suggest reading
The Logic Of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper.
To be scientific, a thing has to be provable but not
necessarily proven.
This is actually backwards, though it is a very common
misconception of what it means to be scientific. Science has nothing
to do with proving things. What science deals with is falsificiation.
In order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable; that
is, it must be possible by an experiment to come up with data which
shows that the theory is incorrect.
At no time does a real scientist ever say that they have proven
something, because that's not something that ever happens. It's always
possible for your theory to be falsified by experimentation. The
longer a theory lasts, assuming scientists have been doing their jobs,
the more likely a theory is to actually be correct, but no true
scientist ever stops poking and testing theories.
Dunno, I personally find my Fujitsu U810 to be far more
transportable than the few thousand journal articles I have hard
copies of. (And you could probably do just as well with an eeepc or
similar.)
Granted, there still are tradeoffs as it's not as high resolution
as paper, but then again, the copiers in libraries have never been
particularly high resolution themselves. (I'm always surprised at how
bad a heavily abused 2 year old digital copier's output can look.)
We've been giving our sick children infant cough syrup for
years while just recently publicly funded research found that it was
not only innefective but quite possibly dangerous as
well.
Yeah, this an example of why it's imperative to have funding for
research in non-pharmaceutical affiliated laboratories in public
universities doing basic research and verifying that what is being
claimed to be the case by drug companies is actually the case in long
term studies.
Plus, higher funding rates for the NIH will make sure that I'm kept
in cheeseburgers.
Example: Biotech company developes two new treatments for diabetes. One is administered daily in pill form and costs $10 a pill to make but can be sold at $100 a pill comercially. The other is a one time treatment that would cost $200, most of which would go to the doctors performing the procedure.
Time and time again examples of ethical dilemmas like this are brought forward without specific examples behind them. If there is a treatment which is known to work, someone will release it to the public, even if it means making less long term because if it is superior, the first company to do it will make more money than their competitors, and eliminate the market for the non-cure drugs. (People bring this same sort of example out for cars, without contemplating why Honda and Toyota came to have the market share that they have today.)
That said, I would be interested in hearing actual examples of this dilemma occurring, but to my knowledge it hasn't happened. (I do academic research in medically relevant fields, so I'm reasonably conversant with the extant pharmacopoeia.)
For certification purposes, it costs my lab around $75.00 to get a geiger counter certified. (If you didn't care about certification and just wanted to verify that it was within an order of magnitude, a point source of known activity with known distance would make it fairly trivial, and could even be done on a walk-in basis for a few bucks.)
In light of the fact that people probably eat cloned fruit (cloned by humans), I can understand their uneasiness with eating cloned mammals.
If you've ever eaten an orange, odds are you've had a clone. If you've ever drunk wine or grape juice, odds are that was a clone too. There's simply not many fruits that aren't clones of eachother, because what often makes a good tasting fruit doesn't make good root stock or high seedling yields. Most people just either don't know, or are so used to it that they don't think about it.
It's not like there's anything magical about cloning anyway; done properly, you've got the same genetic material producing a fairly similar organism.
The only things a good scientist will tell you are incontrovertible are physical observables.
Great scientists don't believe in the absolute truth of physical observables either. They question everything.
As Feynman said: "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle
is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to
fool."
It seems to be a claim that a keyboard layout (i.e. which key goes where) is a patentable design. Of course in most of the world keyboard layouts are standardized, denying us the fun of learning a new keyboard layout whenever we buy a new keyboard -- but perhaps this isn't the case there.
What is even more amusing is that the keyboard layouts are not even the same!
I mean, they do have similar characters, but this is clearly not this.
And for those lucky few living long-term in Mengele's block
at Auschwitz
Ah yes; hello Godwin. Were that a civilized discussion were still possible.
FIFTEEN TO TWENTY MINUTE session on safe sex advice and
the offer of condoms. Imagine being relatively uneducated and suddenly
being dragged into an advanced medical centre and being preached at in
a single 15-20 minute session on how to reduce the chance of getting a
deadly disease.
First off, it's not exactly difficult to demonstrate the proper use
of a condom in 15 to 20 minutes and explain that failure to wear one
during intercourse will result in a higher likelyhood of contracting
an STD and dying. Furthermore, that was the individualized, mandatory
counseling session; participants were recommended to attend other
sessions as well. Secondly, these individuals were not "dragged" off
the street; they had to volunteer for the study, give informed
consent, and were renumerated for their participation.
Especially since our experiment is based on awareness that some
will ignore our advice and do things that cause them to die a slow and
horrible death.
So you think that instead of attempting to find methods which may
decrease the risk of STD transmission, scientists should do nothing?
Since there seems to be some confusion here, I don't particularly
have a strong opinion on the actual treatment methodology used in this
study or actually agree that the results are likely to be replicable.
Those are valid things to attack this study for. What I completely disagree
with is the characterization of this study as unethical on the grounds
that it some how incited individuals in the control group to have unprotected
sex (or failed to provide opportunities for the control group to minimize
their risk of contracting HIV) without evidence indicating that that
is the case. Is it bad science? Probably. Is the study design inherently
unethical? Assuming informed consent was obtained before the treatment
modality, not in my opinion.
Select a random group of ignorant African men,
circumcise some of them. Give them vague advice on safe sex, then tell
them to go out and have sex. See how many of them come back with
HIV.
From exactly where do you attain the information that the counseling
on safe sex practices involved telling individuals to have sex or was
less complete than the counseling available in Europe or the
US?
Allow me to respond to myself and express even more clearly the
unsubstantiated nature of your claims.
In the very study itself, which you should have read before making
such claims, the authors indicate the following about the counseling
on safe sex practices:
The counselling session (15-20 min) was delivered by a
certified counsellor and focused on information about STIs in general
and HIV in particular and on how to prevent the risk of infection.
During this session, participants were encouraged to attend voluntary
counselling and testing in a public clinic located 200 m away from the
investigation centre or in a voluntary counselling and testing (VCT)
centre funded by the project and located in the same building as the
investigation centre. Condoms were provided in the waiting room of the
investigation centre and were also provided by the counsellor.
Participants who had symptoms of STIs, as assessed by the nurse during
the genital examination, or who tested positive for syphilis were
treated at the local clinic or by doctors working for the project. A
specific programme for prevention of opportunistic infections and
delivery of antiretroviral treatment, if required, was put in place at
the VCT centre to assist participants who attended VCT and who tested
positive for HIV. The arrangement will remain in place until the
public sector programme becomes operational in the area.B
Auvert et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male
circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 trial.
PLoS Medicine. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298 (2005).
As you can clearly see, the counseling, testing, and even
treatment available to the study members was superior to the
generally available treatment at the time.
Please do everyone a favor and save such clearly incitatory comments
for the experimentations on subjects which are actually conducted
in an unethical fashion, instead of merely those whose study population
fits in with your preconceived notions of racism.
Select a random group of ignorant African men, circumcise
some of them. Give them vague advice on safe sex, then tell them to go
out and have sex. See how many of them come back with
HIV.
From exactly where do you attain the information that the
counseling on safe sex practices involved telling individuals to have
sex or was less complete than the counseling available in Europe or
the US?
There's nothing preventing such a study from achieving the
same results by providing the most up to date methods of preventing
the spread of HIV, so without further information, giving the study
the benifit of the doubt seems a reasonable thing to do.
Furthermore, as soon as they had statistical evidence that
circumcision actually did something, the study was stopped and
circumcision was offered to all members of the study. That's a
typical methodology for all case/control studies which discover
a large effect on patient outcome in either direction and are
stopped early because of it.
We musn't forget... that most of our scientific advances
were made with experiments that would now be classified as cruel.
Particularly psychological, Zimbardo et al, Harlowe et al etc
etc.
It's not clear at all that these are particularly brilliant scientific
advances. Perhaps in the field of psychology the predilection for the
use of experiments of questionable ethical basis in the past may bias
your perception. The use of unnecessarily cruel experiments certainly
isn't common in physics, chemistry, or biology (and the various
subdivisions of those fields) which are responsible for most of the
advancements in our understanding of the universe and the things
within it. [And we haven't even begun to discuss whether Psychology as
practiced is actually scientific or not.]
First off, heaven and earth both have multiple
meanings.
Indeed, but what's worse, is that we shouldn't be discussing the
meanings of heaven, nor of earth, but the meanings of and
. But that'd probably be hard for those who don't speak hebrew.
If you read Genesis, the first couple of chapters, you come to a surprising conclusion. It talks about God creating light, but not water or dirt.
What in the world did He do in Genesis 1:1, then?
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Sure looks to me that "creat[ing] the earth" means creating water and dirt, 'cause it'd be fairly hard to move over the face of the waters without creating water, and creating a planet without creating the fundament would be a bit difficult.
But in any event, it's not like the geologic age of the Earth is a big deal since we have fossil records of biota preceding the "young earth dogma" by 4 orders of magnitude.
As for the former, have you ever seen the process it takes
to be a DD?
Considering that I am a DD as well as an AM, I think that
I'm intimately familiar with the process.
That aside, it's not necessary to become a DD to actually help and
contribute to the project. Becomming a DD is the sort of thing that
happens along the way as you contribute; it's not the starting
point.
Slashdot Mirror
If it successfully installs, it should work just fine. The whole point of versioned sonames encoded into library package names is to allow this very thing. Any time an install completes successfully, but the program doesn't work is a bug that needs to be fixed.
Obviously, there are cases where it doesn't su
While it's not quite as flexible as CSS, LaTeX is flexible enough for most people's needs display wise. The exact same document can easily be turned into a presentation from an article or similar with few changes beyond the document class. In fact, this is one of the major benefits of LaTeX over any other document preparation system: you write the content, and the document class takes care of making it look like whatever it's supposed to look like.
Let me fix this for you here:
Please note that insane people do insane things (like child pornography) which some times have something to do with pornography.
There. That's better.
You might as well just get yourself a power-efficient linux-powered router and set up tc properly to guarantee an uplink bandwidth slice to VOIP. (There are various recipes on lartc.org to help you with this.
Downlink bandwidth management is slightly more complicated, but you can sort of manage it by droping or delaying non-voip packets which are coming in too fast to keep your ISPs queue empty.
While this is true, the only way to get to that middle ground is for people who are interested in the success of X.org to work to bring it to that position. Clearly the people who are currently working on it also are interested in the success of X.org, but they are limited by the resources that they have available. Frankly, I'd rather those coders were coding than coddling. That said, in most projects, core members are usually willing to spend time helping new contributors who have demonstrated a willingness to contribute by contributing. I know it's a far better use of my time to help active contributors to the projects that I'm involved in than random people who are whining.
The package maintainer first checked with upstream about the best way to resolve this. In retrospect, it's clear that upstream didn't either understand what was being asked, or what the code was doing. In any event, another Debian Developer, Luciano Bello, later found the problem and resolved it.
While theories and laws may be the closest thing that science gets to Truth, they're never taken by real scientists to be a truth that requires no further testing. The beauty and power of science is that it is a system of knowledge whereby tenets can be falsified simply by experimentation (though none of them can ever be proved.)
If you're actually interested in learning what Science is instead of declaiming the ignorance of those around you, I suggest reading The Logic Of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper.
This is actually backwards, though it is a very common misconception of what it means to be scientific. Science has nothing to do with proving things. What science deals with is falsificiation. In order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable; that is, it must be possible by an experiment to come up with data which shows that the theory is incorrect.
At no time does a real scientist ever say that they have proven something, because that's not something that ever happens. It's always possible for your theory to be falsified by experimentation. The longer a theory lasts, assuming scientists have been doing their jobs, the more likely a theory is to actually be correct, but no true scientist ever stops poking and testing theories.
Dunno, I personally find my Fujitsu U810 to be far more transportable than the few thousand journal articles I have hard copies of. (And you could probably do just as well with an eeepc or similar.)
Granted, there still are tradeoffs as it's not as high resolution as paper, but then again, the copiers in libraries have never been particularly high resolution themselves. (I'm always surprised at how bad a heavily abused 2 year old digital copier's output can look.)
Actually, you can, and yes you can save it.
See xournal for an example.
Yeah, this an example of why it's imperative to have funding for research in non-pharmaceutical affiliated laboratories in public universities doing basic research and verifying that what is being claimed to be the case by drug companies is actually the case in long term studies.
Plus, higher funding rates for the NIH will make sure that I'm kept in cheeseburgers.
Time and time again examples of ethical dilemmas like this are brought forward without specific examples behind them. If there is a treatment which is known to work, someone will release it to the public, even if it means making less long term because if it is superior, the first company to do it will make more money than their competitors, and eliminate the market for the non-cure drugs. (People bring this same sort of example out for cars, without contemplating why Honda and Toyota came to have the market share that they have today.)
That said, I would be interested in hearing actual examples of this dilemma occurring, but to my knowledge it hasn't happened. (I do academic research in medically relevant fields, so I'm reasonably conversant with the extant pharmacopoeia.)
One would think that having the chair (well, throne) he was siting on thrown (well, attempted to be propelled) into space qualified.
For certification purposes, it costs my lab around $75.00 to get a geiger counter certified. (If you didn't care about certification and just wanted to verify that it was within an order of magnitude, a point source of known activity with known distance would make it fairly trivial, and could even be done on a walk-in basis for a few bucks.)
If you've ever eaten an orange, odds are you've had a clone. If you've ever drunk wine or grape juice, odds are that was a clone too. There's simply not many fruits that aren't clones of eachother, because what often makes a good tasting fruit doesn't make good root stock or high seedling yields. Most people just either don't know, or are so used to it that they don't think about it.
It's not like there's anything magical about cloning anyway; done properly, you've got the same genetic material producing a fairly similar organism.
Great scientists don't believe in the absolute truth of physical observables either. They question everything.
As Feynman said: "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
What is even more amusing is that the keyboard layouts are not even the same!
I mean, they do have similar characters, but this is clearly not this.Ah yes; hello Godwin. Were that a civilized discussion were still possible.
First off, it's not exactly difficult to demonstrate the proper use of a condom in 15 to 20 minutes and explain that failure to wear one during intercourse will result in a higher likelyhood of contracting an STD and dying. Furthermore, that was the individualized, mandatory counseling session; participants were recommended to attend other sessions as well. Secondly, these individuals were not "dragged" off the street; they had to volunteer for the study, give informed consent, and were renumerated for their participation.
So you think that instead of attempting to find methods which may decrease the risk of STD transmission, scientists should do nothing?
Since there seems to be some confusion here, I don't particularly have a strong opinion on the actual treatment methodology used in this study or actually agree that the results are likely to be replicable. Those are valid things to attack this study for. What I completely disagree with is the characterization of this study as unethical on the grounds that it some how incited individuals in the control group to have unprotected sex (or failed to provide opportunities for the control group to minimize their risk of contracting HIV) without evidence indicating that that is the case. Is it bad science? Probably. Is the study design inherently unethical? Assuming informed consent was obtained before the treatment modality, not in my opinion.
As you can clearly see, the counseling, testing, and even treatment available to the study members was superior to the generally available treatment at the time.
Please do everyone a favor and save such clearly incitatory comments for the experimentations on subjects which are actually conducted in an unethical fashion, instead of merely those whose study population fits in with your preconceived notions of racism.
From exactly where do you attain the information that the counseling on safe sex practices involved telling individuals to have sex or was less complete than the counseling available in Europe or the US?
There's nothing preventing such a study from achieving the same results by providing the most up to date methods of preventing the spread of HIV, so without further information, giving the study the benifit of the doubt seems a reasonable thing to do.
Furthermore, as soon as they had statistical evidence that circumcision actually did something, the study was stopped and circumcision was offered to all members of the study. That's a typical methodology for all case/control studies which discover a large effect on patient outcome in either direction and are stopped early because of it.
It's not clear at all that these are particularly brilliant scientific advances. Perhaps in the field of psychology the predilection for the use of experiments of questionable ethical basis in the past may bias your perception. The use of unnecessarily cruel experiments certainly isn't common in physics, chemistry, or biology (and the various subdivisions of those fields) which are responsible for most of the advancements in our understanding of the universe and the things within it. [And we haven't even begun to discuss whether Psychology as practiced is actually scientific or not.]
Indeed, but what's worse, is that we shouldn't be discussing the meanings of heaven, nor of earth, but the meanings of and . But that'd probably be hard for those who don't speak hebrew.
What in the world did He do in Genesis 1:1, then?
Sure looks to me that "creat[ing] the earth" means creating water and dirt, 'cause it'd be fairly hard to move over the face of the waters without creating water, and creating a planet without creating the fundament would be a bit difficult.
But in any event, it's not like the geologic age of the Earth is a big deal since we have fossil records of biota preceding the "young earth dogma" by 4 orders of magnitude.
I hope they find what they're looking for, then.
Considering that I am a DD as well as an AM, I think that I'm intimately familiar with the process.
That aside, it's not necessary to become a DD to actually help and contribute to the project. Becomming a DD is the sort of thing that happens along the way as you contribute; it's not the starting point.