I can't sort out how it would be an accident. Sometimes these things are due to debugging modes not being turned off on the production release, but what debugging mode in an audio driver would require logging keystrokes?
So sorry Slashdot. I guess no Facebook love for you...
BTW, your floating ads and stealing of horizontal space for your shitty ads (are you aware there's a dumbass ad with an Edward Snowden hipster-lookalike on a scooter which is just laughably awful) are making this site suck. Some of the ads don't properly timeout and cause all kinds of scrolling issues.
Exactly. Google's market dominance is as close to free consumer choice as one can get. There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from making a better search engine. It's not like Google controls the Internet. Bell literally controlled vast chunks of infrastructure, everything from the central switches right on down to your telephone. That's what makes a natural monopoly, not simply being the largest company in a particular business.
I have my doubts that Trump won because there are enough alt-right white supremacists out there. He won in large part because Clinton sucked, and probably with some help from Comey's interference in the election, not to mention helpful Russian hacking of the DNC and feeding it to Assange.
But while the DNC hack and release is something of a work of art, the Macron dump has enough absurd documents to show that it was pretty damned inept, a last minute attempt to sway the French election.
So you think that a court would consider documents of such dubious heritage at all?
The lengths the Trump army are going to try to deny that Russia wants to fuck with the Western Alliance is stunning. And for what? It's not like Congress is likely to impeach him and remove him any time soon, although if he keeps pulling stunts like Comey, he may hasten his own end.
At any rate, the French and US elections are not the only elections the Russians have been implicated in trying to bugger up, and do you blame them? NATO so thoroughly outstraps them militarily and economically (for chrissake, Italy has a larger GDP than Russia) that cyberwarfare is the one area where they have a relatively level playing field, so of course they're going to use it.
The big problem was the Macron dump seems to have been ludicrously rushed. You have alleged emails claiming plans for the Islamification of France. I mean, seriously, do you think the Macron campaign was actually making that kind of plan? Or maybe you do, the gullibility of the Alt-Right never ceases to astound me.
I'm going to put some faith in the intelligence community here. You don't have, and can continue to imagine that the Kremlin is somehow a nice friendly teddy bear if you like.
I don't agree with that at all. What the Catholic position is is simply "If your Biblical interpretation insists that science must be wrong, it is your Biblical interpretation that is faulty." That was basically St. Augustine's point.
You're not going to be able to use science to disprove the existence of God. Science can't really even disprove the existence of Thor, which is a far more limited god than Yahweh. What science can do is remove the need for Thor, and in much the same way some of the things traditionally ascribed to God can now be explained in purely physical terms.
It's my view that invoking a Prime Mover is likely unnecessary, but I'm not going to pretend that that view is scientific. Rational, yes, scientific, no.
The evolution of monotheism is an interesting subject, and indeed, the early Hebrew tribes were simply a group of Canaanites who originally took on Yahweh as their main deity, while still accepting the existence of other gods (traces of this can be seen in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in *our* image...", and indeed the mention of Elohim in Genesis is an indication that the original creation myth was born out of an either polytheistic or henotheistic phase.
Political ideologies have been used to the same end. Use of such social levers to accomplish vile things is hardly unique to religion, and whether you're killing in the name of Yahweh or Marx, the use of such symbols and imagined authority are symptoms of tribalism.
What does "single dimensional point" even me? Are you referring to the singularity; the singularity is there because the math we have now simply cannot answer the question. It does not necessarily mean "everything began from a single point".
Look, I'm an atheist, and I think the Church's view on the origins of the universe are simply one big guess wrapped in a lot of theological word salad, but I also understand exactly what Big Bang cosmology says; and what it says is "The universe was once very hot and very dense, and then began to expand". I don't pretend that it somehow offers a falsification to the existence of God, because, frankly, nothing could do that. What I do think is that I don't see the necessity of a Prime Mover, that whatever special attribute you assign to God, which mainly comes from the Church leaning heavily on Aristotlean views of motion, could just as easily be assigned to the Universe, thus applying Occam's Razor and removing an additional and unevidenced entity.
And considering Russia has been caught red handed meddling in other elections suggest that there is an intensive campaign in buggering up any mainstream status quo candidate in a Western, and in particular NATO nation. Mind you, I'd say that both the push back in Congress against Trump's Russian love affair and the failure to get Le Pen elected in France shows the limits of the strategy.
You think so? Because the impression I got from comments from House Republicans when Bannon went in full of bluster and went after the Freedom Caucus with threats was "Who do you think you are?"
I doubt few House or Senate Republicans would cry if Trump was tossed out. They're fear would be the inevitable blowback.
When was Galileo excommunicated? He was put under house arrest for the rest of his life, and most certainly his rejection of the Ptolemaic model played into his troubles, and he was criticized for insisting that the Copernican model was true.
The problem with defending the Church's treatment of Galileo as being based on their view of science "at the time" is that science barely existed at the time, and Galileo is seen as one of the founders of modern science. The Ptolemaic model was not science, it was a complex mathematical model built to shoehorn in a whole pack of observations into a much older geocentric view of the universe. It sure the heck wasn't science, which is fine, because science as we know it didn't exist in the 2nd century AD, but by the 17th century and Copernicus's theory and Galileo's observations, there was no excuse at all, other than just an unfortunate episode of the Church not listening to the words of one of its greatest Doctors, Augustine of Hippo, who cautioned against exactly what the Church did.
And the Church has acknowledged its error and unjust way it treated Galileo, so I don't see any need to whitewash the Church's treatment of him.
Tell you what, when you have an alternative explanation for the CMBR (and its neutrino counterpart), nucleosynthesis (ratio of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the observable universe), and the red shift of distant galaxies, you let us know.
And yet he and Ivanka are basically Democrats. So if they beat out Bannon in influence, I'll take them, corrupt or not. Right now it's not about corruption, it's about sanity, and I think Bannon is well and truly insanely evil.
It wouldn't surprise me, though even normal erosion can take concrete out. Up here in Canada we've seen a lot of concrete bridges and overpasses undermined by the use of salt and brine sprays to keep roads and highways clear in winter.
It's hard to tell whether the Trump team are some of the most malicious individuals who have ever occupied the most powerful position in the world, or are simply arrogant halfwits. I'm leaning towards the latter.
Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.
Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
I wouldn't quite put it that way. I'd say rather that the Church's official doctrine doesn't explicitly bind itself to any particular scientific theory, viewing science as simply another kind of revelation, another kind of truth, apart from Scripture, and that both cannot be wrong. Therefore, if there is an apparent conflict between science and scriptural interpretation, the fault is with the interpreter.
That being said, one can still be a Catholic in good standing and reject evolution, the Big Bang and other scientific theories that are viewed by the scientific community as being confirmed and as true as anything can be in science (keeping in mind science's fundamentally provisional nature). I do believe that Sola Scriptura is considered, if not heretical, then at least theologically unsound. You aren't going to get excommunicated for being a Creationist
It was helluva long ways into Watergate before anyone could say "Nixon must have known..." I wouldn't put the deposit down on the "Trump's Innocent" parade yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't sort out how it would be an accident. Sometimes these things are due to debugging modes not being turned off on the production release, but what debugging mode in an audio driver would require logging keystrokes?
So sorry Slashdot. I guess no Facebook love for you...
BTW, your floating ads and stealing of horizontal space for your shitty ads (are you aware there's a dumbass ad with an Edward Snowden hipster-lookalike on a scooter which is just laughably awful) are making this site suck. Some of the ads don't properly timeout and cause all kinds of scrolling issues.
Exactly. Google's market dominance is as close to free consumer choice as one can get. There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from making a better search engine. It's not like Google controls the Internet. Bell literally controlled vast chunks of infrastructure, everything from the central switches right on down to your telephone. That's what makes a natural monopoly, not simply being the largest company in a particular business.
I have my doubts that Trump won because there are enough alt-right white supremacists out there. He won in large part because Clinton sucked, and probably with some help from Comey's interference in the election, not to mention helpful Russian hacking of the DNC and feeding it to Assange.
But while the DNC hack and release is something of a work of art, the Macron dump has enough absurd documents to show that it was pretty damned inept, a last minute attempt to sway the French election.
Oh look, more white supremacist alt-right troll ACs defending Russia.
So you think that a court would consider documents of such dubious heritage at all?
The lengths the Trump army are going to try to deny that Russia wants to fuck with the Western Alliance is stunning. And for what? It's not like Congress is likely to impeach him and remove him any time soon, although if he keeps pulling stunts like Comey, he may hasten his own end.
At any rate, the French and US elections are not the only elections the Russians have been implicated in trying to bugger up, and do you blame them? NATO so thoroughly outstraps them militarily and economically (for chrissake, Italy has a larger GDP than Russia) that cyberwarfare is the one area where they have a relatively level playing field, so of course they're going to use it.
The big problem was the Macron dump seems to have been ludicrously rushed. You have alleged emails claiming plans for the Islamification of France. I mean, seriously, do you think the Macron campaign was actually making that kind of plan? Or maybe you do, the gullibility of the Alt-Right never ceases to astound me.
At any rate, Le Pen lost, and lost massively.
Largely because not everything is going to turn into photons. Photons are not the only elementary particle
I'm going to put some faith in the intelligence community here. You don't have, and can continue to imagine that the Kremlin is somehow a nice friendly teddy bear if you like.
I don't agree with that at all. What the Catholic position is is simply "If your Biblical interpretation insists that science must be wrong, it is your Biblical interpretation that is faulty." That was basically St. Augustine's point.
You're not going to be able to use science to disprove the existence of God. Science can't really even disprove the existence of Thor, which is a far more limited god than Yahweh. What science can do is remove the need for Thor, and in much the same way some of the things traditionally ascribed to God can now be explained in purely physical terms.
It's my view that invoking a Prime Mover is likely unnecessary, but I'm not going to pretend that that view is scientific. Rational, yes, scientific, no.
QM is one of the most highly confirmed physical theories ever developed. And no, it doesn't violate causality, so you're just talking out your ass.
The evolution of monotheism is an interesting subject, and indeed, the early Hebrew tribes were simply a group of Canaanites who originally took on Yahweh as their main deity, while still accepting the existence of other gods (traces of this can be seen in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in *our* image...", and indeed the mention of Elohim in Genesis is an indication that the original creation myth was born out of an either polytheistic or henotheistic phase.
Political ideologies have been used to the same end. Use of such social levers to accomplish vile things is hardly unique to religion, and whether you're killing in the name of Yahweh or Marx, the use of such symbols and imagined authority are symptoms of tribalism.
What does "single dimensional point" even me? Are you referring to the singularity; the singularity is there because the math we have now simply cannot answer the question. It does not necessarily mean "everything began from a single point".
Look, I'm an atheist, and I think the Church's view on the origins of the universe are simply one big guess wrapped in a lot of theological word salad, but I also understand exactly what Big Bang cosmology says; and what it says is "The universe was once very hot and very dense, and then began to expand". I don't pretend that it somehow offers a falsification to the existence of God, because, frankly, nothing could do that. What I do think is that I don't see the necessity of a Prime Mover, that whatever special attribute you assign to God, which mainly comes from the Church leaning heavily on Aristotlean views of motion, could just as easily be assigned to the Universe, thus applying Occam's Razor and removing an additional and unevidenced entity.
I always love when the response to a hard a fence question is ignorant gibberish.
And considering Russia has been caught red handed meddling in other elections suggest that there is an intensive campaign in buggering up any mainstream status quo candidate in a Western, and in particular NATO nation. Mind you, I'd say that both the push back in Congress against Trump's Russian love affair and the failure to get Le Pen elected in France shows the limits of the strategy.
You think so? Because the impression I got from comments from House Republicans when Bannon went in full of bluster and went after the Freedom Caucus with threats was "Who do you think you are?"
I doubt few House or Senate Republicans would cry if Trump was tossed out. They're fear would be the inevitable blowback.
When was Galileo excommunicated? He was put under house arrest for the rest of his life, and most certainly his rejection of the Ptolemaic model played into his troubles, and he was criticized for insisting that the Copernican model was true.
The problem with defending the Church's treatment of Galileo as being based on their view of science "at the time" is that science barely existed at the time, and Galileo is seen as one of the founders of modern science. The Ptolemaic model was not science, it was a complex mathematical model built to shoehorn in a whole pack of observations into a much older geocentric view of the universe. It sure the heck wasn't science, which is fine, because science as we know it didn't exist in the 2nd century AD, but by the 17th century and Copernicus's theory and Galileo's observations, there was no excuse at all, other than just an unfortunate episode of the Church not listening to the words of one of its greatest Doctors, Augustine of Hippo, who cautioned against exactly what the Church did.
And the Church has acknowledged its error and unjust way it treated Galileo, so I don't see any need to whitewash the Church's treatment of him.
Tell you what, when you have an alternative explanation for the CMBR (and its neutrino counterpart), nucleosynthesis (ratio of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the observable universe), and the red shift of distant galaxies, you let us know.
And yet he and Ivanka are basically Democrats. So if they beat out Bannon in influence, I'll take them, corrupt or not. Right now it's not about corruption, it's about sanity, and I think Bannon is well and truly insanely evil.
It wouldn't surprise me, though even normal erosion can take concrete out. Up here in Canada we've seen a lot of concrete bridges and overpasses undermined by the use of salt and brine sprays to keep roads and highways clear in winter.
It's hard to tell whether the Trump team are some of the most malicious individuals who have ever occupied the most powerful position in the world, or are simply arrogant halfwits. I'm leaning towards the latter.
- Saint Augustine of Hippo
I wouldn't quite put it that way. I'd say rather that the Church's official doctrine doesn't explicitly bind itself to any particular scientific theory, viewing science as simply another kind of revelation, another kind of truth, apart from Scripture, and that both cannot be wrong. Therefore, if there is an apparent conflict between science and scriptural interpretation, the fault is with the interpreter.
That being said, one can still be a Catholic in good standing and reject evolution, the Big Bang and other scientific theories that are viewed by the scientific community as being confirmed and as true as anything can be in science (keeping in mind science's fundamentally provisional nature). I do believe that Sola Scriptura is considered, if not heretical, then at least theologically unsound. You aren't going to get excommunicated for being a Creationist
It was helluva long ways into Watergate before anyone could say "Nixon must have known..." I wouldn't put the deposit down on the "Trump's Innocent" parade yet.