If it's necessary for Microsoft Office features to work then I suppose it will be installed as part of the Microsoft Office install, so yes it's going to be accepted as a system requirement.
Those gatekeepers also have to have various musical interests. With the free music sites I tried, I found it very difficult to find anything I would call Hip Hop or R&B, and certainly nothing I would call Soul or Neo-Soul. There are some people out there who would say all of that music is garbage and not really music anyway. If all the gatekeepers were like that, it would be a problem for everybody whose musical interests don't match that of the gatekeeper. Also make sure the gatekeeper isn't one of the people who maintain GIMP.
As stated before, the low barrier to entry only works if you have some sort of organization. Some people may have enough free time to listen to every single artist until they find a good one that comes by, but people like me don't. It would be like reading every blog on the internet until I come across some I like. But I don't think the mainstream music industry is any better at separating good music from bad. They're just better at getting you to listen to it all. The music plays on your radio in the background while you're doing other things, or between segments on radio shows. And on television it plays as part of a music video, so you get to see maybe sexy people or an interesting story while listening to the music. I think the independent artists would do well to implement those methods for themselves. Music videos for all of the independent artists, and a wealth of Indie radio stations would probably kill the RIAA faster than BitTorrent could.
Here's what you tell your friend: First you write your Lemon class and your Lime class. Then after you add the carbonated water, you have your Sprite class. Or if you want to cheat, you can just use inheritance and rip off your 7-Up class. I made the Dean's List easily.
I vaguely remember being in Philosophy of Science. But all I really remember about it is something about ‘crobes
My points about the beliefs concerning matter are, we accept that it is possible for something to either (be created from nothing) or (exist infinitely), yet we ridicule anybody who suggests either of these concepts can be applied a conscious being. The truth is, we don’t know. So, whether the concepts are applied to matter or to God, the concepts are equally plausible or ridiculous.
I’m thinking what you are trying to say is, while the scientific and religious views are both incomplete, the people who follow the religious views tend to say they know their theories to be true, while the scientists claim they don't know their theories to be true, and a theory with an acknowledgement of the uncertainty is better than a theory that is accepted without certainty. My problem isn’t so much that the scientists admit they don’t know everything about science. My problem is, evolutionary scientists seem quite certain the Creationists are wrong, and lump all religious faiths in with Creationists. I could probably summarize my view on the entire debate in two sentences. 1. Neither theory has been proven, so neither theory is more valid than the other. 2. Saying Creationism is absolutely right is no less absurd than saying it is absolutely wrong. I would agree, “i don’t know” and “this is how it is” are not equally bad, concerning an unproven theory. But “this is how it is” and “that is not how it is” are equally bad, concerning an unproven theory.
The acceptance or denial of an untested theory seems worse to me, coming from a group of people who promote the testing of all theories, than it seems coming from a group of people who admit they act on faith. Faith issues are one of the problems we encounter when we lump Creationists with Christians. Christians are all about faith. There is the belief that God wants faithful people. If it could be proven and demonstrated that God exists, then everybody would worship God to get into Heaven, and it would be impossible to act purely on faith. Intelligent Design Theorists want proof, and believe they have it, I guess. But they should not be confused with Christians, who are acting on faith. Christianity gets attacked as a casualty of war between Evolutionary Theorists and Intelligent Design Theorists, who both claim to be purely logical, yet are both acting on faith at best. Also, one might say “acting on faith is fine but don’t bring it into the classroom”. But they want the teachers to act on faith that there is no God, and act on faith that contradictory scientific beliefs will all come together harmoniously in time. They should also understand that Christians who act on faith are not fighting to bring Intelligent Design into classrooms.
I personally don't have a problem with Evolutionary Theory being taught in classrooms. I also think Intelligent Design does not fit in any science class. But I believe the concepts are handled improperly on Slashdot. There are people on Slashdot who will read an article about the Tesla and turn it into an Intelligent Design debate. I would much rather discuss ‘crobes as a seasoning for Prebiotic Soup than the same Intelligent Design debate with every other Slashdot story. I had no idea people could reply to the stories for this long, and hope you are able to receive my follow-up to your reply because I appreciate you taking the time. If anything I say sounds incoherent, it might be because my ‘crobe soup isn’t quite perfected.
That implies Behe's side deserves fair representation. In my books, cranks do not deserve representation until they have actual science to back their claims up.
If you believe everybody who believes in Intelligent Design is a "crank" then, by your logic, nobody who believes in Intelligent Design deserves to be heard in the argument over Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, because that would not be fair.
I don't know enough about the back hill rednecks of Kansas to comment on #1 but I think #2 is over the top. Your statement about religious people,
If you don't want [to be] called stupid for being part of the group don't bitch at the people calling you stupid, bitch at the people making you look stupid.
is like me saying to all white people, "If you don't want to be called racist for being part of a group that involves racists, bitch at the people making you look racist.
I have been Christian all my life and I don't remember ever hearing of Intelligent Design in church. It only came up in my college philosophy and logic classes, the news, and Slashdot, all of which have nothing to do with my religious faith. And I do not spend most of my time defending such issues. I received an F in a philosophy class for insisting that Anselm did not prove God exists. The "religious people" are not your enemy here. Zealots are your enemy, and there are just as many on both sides of this argument.
1. If everybody in Kansas supported Intelligent Design, they wouldn't have to have hearings about it.
2. (People who believe God exists and created everything) and (people who support Intelligent Design Theory) are two separate groups, which may or may not overlap.
3. I don't want to repost the same message, but I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
I just asked my cousin what she thinks of the T-Mobile G1. She asked, "what new features does it have?" I answered, "nothing, but it's a Google phone. Apple made the iPhone and now Google has this phone. This one has a keyboard but I heard you have to reach your thumb over the 'clickwheel' to use it."
Maybe I didn't do a good job of selling the phone. But I told her the best information I had, and she obviously knew nothing about it except that T-Mobile is a phone company so I was probably asking her thoughts about a phone. I talked to my friend who is more into technology, and jailbroke his iPod touch as well as his nephew's. He told me he hates his iPod touch because the web browser is terrible and they shut down the app that lets him download his podcasts directly to the phone. He seems much more open to the G1, but thinks the lack of a headphone jack is a big problem, and he's the one who told me about the keyboard not being ideal.
So, based on my large sample of two people, I've concluded ordinary phone users will view the G1 as just another phone with no compelling reason to switch. But it will be of interest to technology enthusiasts who will look into it and then not buy it because of what it doesn't have. But I intend to do another study later that has twice the sampling size.
My personal interest in the phone are, we hate Sprint and need a new company, and I don't have to buy a MacBook to write an app for it. I'd rather have the MacBook and write apps for the iPhone, but right now my budget for computing suggests I should stick with my Inspiron 8200. I'm detracted by Google's tendency to make everything beta, and the fact that Java programs just hand over your source code to whoever wants it. Does it have solitaire?
Although I opted to run with no antivirus software at all rather than use Norton Antivirus, I still haven't found a better firewall than the one that comes with Norton Internet Security. There are at least two times that I bought it just for the firewall. I would love to know about a free alternative that is better, and runs on Windows XP.
I personally think my comments, about a system that would hold two items and hold more than two in the future, fit a b-tree well. But I really wasn't expecting to have to legitimize comments that were meant to be a joke in the first place.
That's exactly what they're doing. The plan is to limit every directory to exactly two files or subdirectories that will be kept in alphabetical order. That way, you can find any file on your drive in log(n) time. Future updates are planned for people who have more than two songs by the same artist.
The real test will be when somebody comes up with an Android application that uses all available bandwidth, or provides a free service that is comparable to a paid service offered by the phone company. Then we'll see if they're different from Apple.
I am no expert on theology or science. But what I don't understand is how a scientist will reconcile the concept (matter cannot be created or destroyed) with the concept (matter exists). They ask "where does God come from?" but do not explain where matter comes from. The flipside is to say matter was always here but they get mad if you say God was always here. Then they say we just haven't figured it out yet and science will explain all of these things in time, but they get mad if you say we don't understand now but God will reveal Himself in time. If I were an unbiased outsider who believed in magic or something, I might say both sides sound like they hired the same propagandist.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in the United States and so far, two of the five artists I tried just aren't there. But they're on YouTube.
If it's necessary for Microsoft Office features to work then I suppose it will be installed as part of the Microsoft Office install, so yes it's going to be accepted as a system requirement.
Am I now just a person who kidnaps people, beats them for a few weeks and then lets them go?
Yes, massuh.
Those gatekeepers also have to have various musical interests. With the free music sites I tried, I found it very difficult to find anything I would call Hip Hop or R&B, and certainly nothing I would call Soul or Neo-Soul. There are some people out there who would say all of that music is garbage and not really music anyway. If all the gatekeepers were like that, it would be a problem for everybody whose musical interests don't match that of the gatekeeper. Also make sure the gatekeeper isn't one of the people who maintain GIMP.
As stated before, the low barrier to entry only works if you have some sort of organization. Some people may have enough free time to listen to every single artist until they find a good one that comes by, but people like me don't. It would be like reading every blog on the internet until I come across some I like. But I don't think the mainstream music industry is any better at separating good music from bad. They're just better at getting you to listen to it all. The music plays on your radio in the background while you're doing other things, or between segments on radio shows. And on television it plays as part of a music video, so you get to see maybe sexy people or an interesting story while listening to the music. I think the independent artists would do well to implement those methods for themselves. Music videos for all of the independent artists, and a wealth of Indie radio stations would probably kill the RIAA faster than BitTorrent could.
Wouldn't it be wild if the market forced the Japanese version of the Android phone to use Yahoo's services?
Here's what you tell your friend: First you write your Lemon class and your Lime class. Then after you add the carbonated water, you have your Sprite class. Or if you want to cheat, you can just use inheritance and rip off your 7-Up class. I made the Dean's List easily.
I vaguely remember being in Philosophy of Science. But all I really remember about it is something about ‘crobes
My points about the beliefs concerning matter are, we accept that it is possible for something to either (be created from nothing) or (exist infinitely), yet we ridicule anybody who suggests either of these concepts can be applied a conscious being. The truth is, we don’t know. So, whether the concepts are applied to matter or to God, the concepts are equally plausible or ridiculous.
I’m thinking what you are trying to say is, while the scientific and religious views are both incomplete, the people who follow the religious views tend to say they know their theories to be true, while the scientists claim they don't know their theories to be true, and a theory with an acknowledgement of the uncertainty is better than a theory that is accepted without certainty. My problem isn’t so much that the scientists admit they don’t know everything about science. My problem is, evolutionary scientists seem quite certain the Creationists are wrong, and lump all religious faiths in with Creationists. I could probably summarize my view on the entire debate in two sentences. 1. Neither theory has been proven, so neither theory is more valid than the other. 2. Saying Creationism is absolutely right is no less absurd than saying it is absolutely wrong. I would agree, “i don’t know” and “this is how it is” are not equally bad, concerning an unproven theory. But “this is how it is” and “that is not how it is” are equally bad, concerning an unproven theory.
The acceptance or denial of an untested theory seems worse to me, coming from a group of people who promote the testing of all theories, than it seems coming from a group of people who admit they act on faith. Faith issues are one of the problems we encounter when we lump Creationists with Christians. Christians are all about faith. There is the belief that God wants faithful people. If it could be proven and demonstrated that God exists, then everybody would worship God to get into Heaven, and it would be impossible to act purely on faith. Intelligent Design Theorists want proof, and believe they have it, I guess. But they should not be confused with Christians, who are acting on faith. Christianity gets attacked as a casualty of war between Evolutionary Theorists and Intelligent Design Theorists, who both claim to be purely logical, yet are both acting on faith at best. Also, one might say “acting on faith is fine but don’t bring it into the classroom”. But they want the teachers to act on faith that there is no God, and act on faith that contradictory scientific beliefs will all come together harmoniously in time. They should also understand that Christians who act on faith are not fighting to bring Intelligent Design into classrooms.
I personally don't have a problem with Evolutionary Theory being taught in classrooms. I also think Intelligent Design does not fit in any science class. But I believe the concepts are handled improperly on Slashdot. There are people on Slashdot who will read an article about the Tesla and turn it into an Intelligent Design debate. I would much rather discuss ‘crobes as a seasoning for Prebiotic Soup than the same Intelligent Design debate with every other Slashdot story. I had no idea people could reply to the stories for this long, and hope you are able to receive my follow-up to your reply because I appreciate you taking the time. If anything I say sounds incoherent, it might be because my ‘crobe soup isn’t quite perfected.
Amber: Hello?
Mechanic: Hi.
Amber: The 'check engine' light came on in my Honda. It stays on the whole time until I turn the car off. What should I do?
Mechanic: Buy a Toyota!
(Score:5, Insightful)
That implies Behe's side deserves fair representation. In my books, cranks do not deserve representation until they have actual science to back their claims up.
If you believe everybody who believes in Intelligent Design is a "crank" then, by your logic, nobody who believes in Intelligent Design deserves to be heard in the argument over Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, because that would not be fair.
I don't know enough about the back hill rednecks of Kansas to comment on #1 but I think #2 is over the top. Your statement about religious people,
If you don't want [to be] called stupid for being part of the group don't bitch at the people calling you stupid, bitch at the people making you look stupid.
is like me saying to all white people, "If you don't want to be called racist for being part of a group that involves racists, bitch at the people making you look racist.
I have been Christian all my life and I don't remember ever hearing of Intelligent Design in church. It only came up in my college philosophy and logic classes, the news, and Slashdot, all of which have nothing to do with my religious faith. And I do not spend most of my time defending such issues. I received an F in a philosophy class for insisting that Anselm did not prove God exists. The "religious people" are not your enemy here. Zealots are your enemy, and there are just as many on both sides of this argument.
1. If everybody in Kansas supported Intelligent Design, they wouldn't have to have hearings about it.
2. (People who believe God exists and created everything) and (people who support Intelligent Design Theory) are two separate groups, which may or may not overlap.
3. I don't want to repost the same message, but I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
I just asked my cousin what she thinks of the T-Mobile G1. She asked, "what new features does it have?" I answered, "nothing, but it's a Google phone. Apple made the iPhone and now Google has this phone. This one has a keyboard but I heard you have to reach your thumb over the 'clickwheel' to use it."
Maybe I didn't do a good job of selling the phone. But I told her the best information I had, and she obviously knew nothing about it except that T-Mobile is a phone company so I was probably asking her thoughts about a phone. I talked to my friend who is more into technology, and jailbroke his iPod touch as well as his nephew's. He told me he hates his iPod touch because the web browser is terrible and they shut down the app that lets him download his podcasts directly to the phone. He seems much more open to the G1, but thinks the lack of a headphone jack is a big problem, and he's the one who told me about the keyboard not being ideal.
So, based on my large sample of two people, I've concluded ordinary phone users will view the G1 as just another phone with no compelling reason to switch. But it will be of interest to technology enthusiasts who will look into it and then not buy it because of what it doesn't have. But I intend to do another study later that has twice the sampling size.
My personal interest in the phone are, we hate Sprint and need a new company, and I don't have to buy a MacBook to write an app for it. I'd rather have the MacBook and write apps for the iPhone, but right now my budget for computing suggests I should stick with my Inspiron 8200. I'm detracted by Google's tendency to make everything beta, and the fact that Java programs just hand over your source code to whoever wants it. Does it have solitaire?
Although I opted to run with no antivirus software at all rather than use Norton Antivirus, I still haven't found a better firewall than the one that comes with Norton Internet Security. There are at least two times that I bought it just for the firewall. I would love to know about a free alternative that is better, and runs on Windows XP.
At the time, I didn't understand how this could be modded insightful, but now it's starting to make sense...
It's going to continue as long as Joe The Plumber is surfing the net on a computer running an OS which is insecure by design.
So you're saying Joe the Plumber should get Vista?
I personally think my comments, about a system that would hold two items and hold more than two in the future, fit a b-tree well. But I really wasn't expecting to have to legitimize comments that were meant to be a joke in the first place.
That's exactly what they're doing. The plan is to limit every directory to exactly two files or subdirectories that will be kept in alphabetical order. That way, you can find any file on your drive in log(n) time. Future updates are planned for people who have more than two songs by the same artist.
It could also be read as BeTteR File System.
A bunch of lies you told about yourself?
The real test will be when somebody comes up with an Android application that uses all available bandwidth, or provides a free service that is comparable to a paid service offered by the phone company. Then we'll see if they're different from Apple.
What kind of monitor do you have?
Maybe the game should quote the Bible instead. Or John McCain's foreign policy.
That would be a great line for a video game...
I am no expert on theology or science. But what I don't understand is how a scientist will reconcile the concept (matter cannot be created or destroyed) with the concept (matter exists). They ask "where does God come from?" but do not explain where matter comes from. The flipside is to say matter was always here but they get mad if you say God was always here. Then they say we just haven't figured it out yet and science will explain all of these things in time, but they get mad if you say we don't understand now but God will reveal Himself in time. If I were an unbiased outsider who believed in magic or something, I might say both sides sound like they hired the same propagandist.
Yes, they will. But you cannot substitute a Jumbo shrimp for the sperm.