They keep doing this because they keep hoping that if they throw enough shit at the SCOTUS wall that eventually somehow the justices will fuck up and not appropriately apply the Lemon Test.
But it's just gone stupid now. ID was their best hope, and it was utterly destroyed during the Dover trial.
Toshiba Satellite C870. We do training with them, so we wanted the 17" screen. It's a no frills business laptop, but for what we're doing it's perfect.
I have no problem doing that. I wasn't the one with the problem.
But I still find the effect jarring, and seeing as there is absolutely no advantage to Windows 8 on the hardware I currently own, I don't see any need to subject myself to it.
Well yes, you do have to use Metro. Every time you want to go to the Start menu, you end up in Metro land. Of course you're hopping in and out of all the time. It's just fucking ridiculous. It's like having two GUIs that have absolutely nothing to do with each other on the same system.
We just bought eight Toshiba Satellites with Windows 7 installed. Funny part was they didn't even ask if we wanted Windows 7. It wasn't until they were just about to ship it that my rep called and said "I forgot to ask whether you wanted Windows 8 or not." I imagine they're getting so few business customers wanting Windows 8 it slips their mind.
Goddam idiot AC, Java is all over the bloody in the enterprise. You'll find Tomcat, for instance, in all sorts of enterprise websites and intranets. You may call Java a "toy' language but it has substantial penetration. The fact that you even say something like that indicates what an ignorant useless pile of dog crap you are.
Less expected by whom exactly? I was part of the major discussions a decade ago surrounding SPF and there was a large contingent of damned good mail admins and SMTP experts who said the whole thing was flawed.
Yup. We run SpamAssassin along with ClamAV and postgrey on top of Postfix to filter all the incoming mail and it does a pretty good job. Here and there a spam will get through, but I can look at my logs to see all the rejections. It's not rocket science, and the solution has been tested and proven for over a decade now.
Anyone who understands SMTP and spam knew from the very moment that SPF and its cousins/descendants were proposed that it was a hopeless measure. That, after ten years, guys like me are still having to explain "setting your SMTP server to reject because of SPF" tells you just how badly SPF failed.
And meanwhile in the real world where nailing some important email because the sender was sending all his email through a local MTA because his ISP doesn't have an externally accessible MTA, your boss is right now handing you your walking papers.
The only sane way to use SPF is to drop a spam score of an email. Outright filtering on bad or missing SPF records is just a recipe for a large number of false positives.
It would be awfully interesting to model the climate of a tidally locked Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone. Presumably the dark side is going to be very very cold, so what does that do for atmospheric circulation patterns?
Catholicism may be a friend of science at times, but that hasn't stopped some Catholic clergy, some in very high positions, from spouting unbelievable crap about birth control.
Yes, Henry VII had several offspring, and James I/VI was a descendant of Henry VII's oldest child, Margaret Tudor. Henry VIII, the only of Henry VII's sons to survive to adulthood, had only three legitimate children survive him; Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I. Edward VI died at 15, before he could produce an heir, and neither Mary or Elizabeth produced heirs.
Henry VIII did have some illegitimate heirs, and there was an attempt made in his last years to legitimize Henry VIII's bastard, Henry FitzRoy, but FitzRoy died before Henry VIII, and that seems to have been the end of any attempts to legitimize any of Henry VIII's bastards. Henry VIII didn't even have that many bastards to survive to adulthood; his two bastards with Mary Boleyn; Catherine and Henry did survive to adulthood and did have children, but as they were never even acknowledged by Henry VIII, neither they or there descendants could have been legitimized.
My understanding is that the shadow of the Princes' disappearance and likely murder still hangs heaviest over Richard III. While some have accused Henry VII of the crime, the timing does not quite work out, even though Henry VII would likely have been as quick to dispatch the Princes as Richard III, as they would have represented a substantial threat to his pretty weak claim to the throne.
People have to put themselves in the time and place. In essence it was in the closing years of a civil war that would not be put to bed until Henry Tudor was victorious at the Battle of Bosworth Field. In such times, those seeking power will do some pretty awful things. You don't have to go back 500 years to find examples of murder to get rid of inconvenient rivals. Lenin ordered the deaths of the Romanovs for fear that they would undermine the young Soviet state. Napoleon had the duc d'Enghien, Louis Antoine, tried and executed on trumped up charges over fears that he might be the focus of Bourbon plotters seeking to overthrow him.
The killing of the princes was a dark deed, and while some suggest that perhaps Henry VII might have had a hand in it, it does seem largely to point to Richard. But all in all, Richard was, by the standards of the 15th century, a pretty enlightened man, and most certainly in the North his name was far more honored than it was in the rest of England.
Richard probably did some pretty awful things, but a survey of Medieval kings will show anyone interested in history that Richard was no worse than many and a good deal better than some.
The DNA is but one link. The location of the grave near the battle sight, the account that Richard had been buried by Fransiscans in a place of honor, these all make a pretty compelling case that the skeleton that was discovered was Richard III's.
Many scholars over the past few centuries have come to the conclusion that all of Shakespeare's historical plays of English kings were largely Tudor propaganda. Remember that Henry VII's claim to the throne was somewhat dubious and that even in his granddaughter Elizabeth's time, there was some sensitivity over how the Tudors had come to the throne. Building up the grandeur of Henry VII's ancestors whilst simultaneously making Richard III into almost the most loathsome creature in the history of the the theater was all part and parcel of the Tudor's solidifying their claim to the throne.
Of course the ultimate irony is that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away and Henry VIII had no legitimate grandchildren, and thus the crown got passed on to the Stuarts.
Slashdot Mirror
They keep doing this because they keep hoping that if they throw enough shit at the SCOTUS wall that eventually somehow the justices will fuck up and not appropriately apply the Lemon Test.
But it's just gone stupid now. ID was their best hope, and it was utterly destroyed during the Dover trial.
Toshiba Satellite C870. We do training with them, so we wanted the 17" screen. It's a no frills business laptop, but for what we're doing it's perfect.
Well, that's a solution... if you have no scruples whatsoever.
I dunno. I've bought books from Apple's store. They come as an unencrypted epub file which I can happily read on pretty much any modern eReader.
talkorigins.org
Or if that's too hard for you, I'll just call you an ignoramus.
Any other subjects you know fuck all about you want to make sweeping declarations about?
I have no problem doing that. I wasn't the one with the problem.
But I still find the effect jarring, and seeing as there is absolutely no advantage to Windows 8 on the hardware I currently own, I don't see any need to subject myself to it.
Well yes, you do have to use Metro. Every time you want to go to the Start menu, you end up in Metro land. Of course you're hopping in and out of all the time. It's just fucking ridiculous. It's like having two GUIs that have absolutely nothing to do with each other on the same system.
We just bought eight Toshiba Satellites with Windows 7 installed. Funny part was they didn't even ask if we wanted Windows 7. It wasn't until they were just about to ship it that my rep called and said "I forgot to ask whether you wanted Windows 8 or not." I imagine they're getting so few business customers wanting Windows 8 it slips their mind.
In twenty years, it will be the COBOL of the time... except of course COBOL will probably still be around then too.
Goddam idiot AC, Java is all over the bloody in the enterprise. You'll find Tomcat, for instance, in all sorts of enterprise websites and intranets. You may call Java a "toy' language but it has substantial penetration. The fact that you even say something like that indicates what an ignorant useless pile of dog crap you are.
Go back to coding in VB6, asswipe.
Corruption in local officials long predates the Communists.
Read up on Lin Biao. Nobody in China is so big that they can't die in a "plain crash".
In other words you're generating soft bounces and making your server vulnerable to being used as an attack vector.
Less expected by whom exactly? I was part of the major discussions a decade ago surrounding SPF and there was a large contingent of damned good mail admins and SMTP experts who said the whole thing was flawed.
Yup. We run SpamAssassin along with ClamAV and postgrey on top of Postfix to filter all the incoming mail and it does a pretty good job. Here and there a spam will get through, but I can look at my logs to see all the rejections. It's not rocket science, and the solution has been tested and proven for over a decade now.
Anyone who understands SMTP and spam knew from the very moment that SPF and its cousins/descendants were proposed that it was a hopeless measure. That, after ten years, guys like me are still having to explain "setting your SMTP server to reject because of SPF" tells you just how badly SPF failed.
And meanwhile in the real world where nailing some important email because the sender was sending all his email through a local MTA because his ISP doesn't have an externally accessible MTA, your boss is right now handing you your walking papers.
The only sane way to use SPF is to drop a spam score of an email. Outright filtering on bad or missing SPF records is just a recipe for a large number of false positives.
It would be awfully interesting to model the climate of a tidally locked Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone. Presumably the dark side is going to be very very cold, so what does that do for atmospheric circulation patterns?
You are aware, I trust, that not every church buys into Ussher's timeline of creation, right?
Catholicism may be a friend of science at times, but that hasn't stopped some Catholic clergy, some in very high positions, from spouting unbelievable crap about birth control.
Yes, Henry VII had several offspring, and James I/VI was a descendant of Henry VII's oldest child, Margaret Tudor. Henry VIII, the only of Henry VII's sons to survive to adulthood, had only three legitimate children survive him; Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I. Edward VI died at 15, before he could produce an heir, and neither Mary or Elizabeth produced heirs.
Henry VIII did have some illegitimate heirs, and there was an attempt made in his last years to legitimize Henry VIII's bastard, Henry FitzRoy, but FitzRoy died before Henry VIII, and that seems to have been the end of any attempts to legitimize any of Henry VIII's bastards. Henry VIII didn't even have that many bastards to survive to adulthood; his two bastards with Mary Boleyn; Catherine and Henry did survive to adulthood and did have children, but as they were never even acknowledged by Henry VIII, neither they or there descendants could have been legitimized.
My understanding is that the shadow of the Princes' disappearance and likely murder still hangs heaviest over Richard III. While some have accused Henry VII of the crime, the timing does not quite work out, even though Henry VII would likely have been as quick to dispatch the Princes as Richard III, as they would have represented a substantial threat to his pretty weak claim to the throne.
People have to put themselves in the time and place. In essence it was in the closing years of a civil war that would not be put to bed until Henry Tudor was victorious at the Battle of Bosworth Field. In such times, those seeking power will do some pretty awful things. You don't have to go back 500 years to find examples of murder to get rid of inconvenient rivals. Lenin ordered the deaths of the Romanovs for fear that they would undermine the young Soviet state. Napoleon had the duc d'Enghien, Louis Antoine, tried and executed on trumped up charges over fears that he might be the focus of Bourbon plotters seeking to overthrow him.
The killing of the princes was a dark deed, and while some suggest that perhaps Henry VII might have had a hand in it, it does seem largely to point to Richard. But all in all, Richard was, by the standards of the 15th century, a pretty enlightened man, and most certainly in the North his name was far more honored than it was in the rest of England.
Richard probably did some pretty awful things, but a survey of Medieval kings will show anyone interested in history that Richard was no worse than many and a good deal better than some.
The DNA is but one link. The location of the grave near the battle sight, the account that Richard had been buried by Fransiscans in a place of honor, these all make a pretty compelling case that the skeleton that was discovered was Richard III's.
Many scholars over the past few centuries have come to the conclusion that all of Shakespeare's historical plays of English kings were largely Tudor propaganda. Remember that Henry VII's claim to the throne was somewhat dubious and that even in his granddaughter Elizabeth's time, there was some sensitivity over how the Tudors had come to the throne. Building up the grandeur of Henry VII's ancestors whilst simultaneously making Richard III into almost the most loathsome creature in the history of the the theater was all part and parcel of the Tudor's solidifying their claim to the throne.
Of course the ultimate irony is that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away and Henry VIII had no legitimate grandchildren, and thus the crown got passed on to the Stuarts.