The only belief that's relevant here is the modern belief in the usefulness of statistics. Personally, I'm a follower of the "lies, damned lies and statistics" anti-cult;)
More seriously... there are lots of people who have a spiritual or ethical basis for their adult understanding of the world, yet have NO belief in the supernatural. In fact, at least one major religion has no deity. Many of the others have no deity or even supernatural entities, in the sense that westerners understand the word.
The problem with religious people isn't that they believe in the supernatural -- it's that most of them can't talk about their experiences logically, and so it either comes out as a supernatural thing, or is explained in terms of their culture's words for such things. In much of the west, people explain their beliefs, moral compasses, fuzzy logic and cultural understandings in terms of "God" and "ghosts" etc. In some western subcultures, it's "mother earth" and "gaia". In still others, it's "science" or "law and order" or "democracy".
Belief has many faces. My belief is that some people stay children, but most of us grow up at 22-30 or so, get some wisdom, find our place in the world, form our adult beliefs, and put a name to it, as best we can.
Of course, others are still figuring out the point of life, so they conduct surveys and come up with things like "73.34% of people answered X when I asked Y, so there must (or must not, or might be, depending on the surveyor) be a God.";)
Don't assume he said something sensible, just because you might have used similar words to mean something sensible. Free Software is not open source, and it is not now "known as" open source. They're different things.
It also shows very poor use of XML, sadly. For instance, wouldn't it make more sense to have stuff*< /filespec></cmd>? It's not only shorter, but more future-proof, and more clear.
Still not short enough for me though. XML is OK for interchange, but it sucks as a human-readable markup language, even when used with forethought.
Furthermore, I'm not sure it makes ANY sense to have commands in XML. That's what programming languages are for -- it's the one thing they excel at. What's wrong with cmd(argname="val") or cmd(arg1, { a, b, c="10" })? It's complex to parse, sure, but that's why you make a parser once -- the point is, it IS parseable, without a human correcting the syntax before the computer can understand it.
A child draws a cube without realising its rotational symmetries are S_4
Of course, the child probably wouldn't care that you call it S_4, so that's irrelevant. Understanding does not mean "sharing our understanding". In the case of Mosques, Islamic artists might well have understood (yes, understood) it as a beautiful spiritual pattern, without ever codifying (or caring to codify) that understanding it in what we would call the "modern" way. A number of "modern" people might even agree with them.
It's been extremely frustrating for Mac users the last six years because they had this OS that, despite early flaws, was years ahead of its time, but the tech media continued to ignore it.
It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Furthermore, ISPs are not self-appointed judges/juries/executioners. They have NO right to single out bittorrent for traffic shaping.
On the other hand, they do have a right to make their networks perform as efficiently as possible for their customers, and for the good of the web in general. The problem is that there's a fine line between the two.
For those wondering how ISPs filter bittorrent traffic... it's called layer 7 (or application layer) traffic shaping. Various other names, too. But it's nothing (very) new -- it's old enough, in fact, to be installed *FOR* ISPs, by default, by some upstream providers.
It wouldn't matter. The part after the @ is the domain name, which is what.invalid would be part of. Unless the domain checks out, nothing left of the @ is used.
Wrong. Microsoft became a monopoly by many underhanded tactics, that they're STILL using, and are still in court for.
As for them being the greenest company... I'll have to put that down to lies, damned lies, and statistics. Microsoft have done a lot to harm competition, and as such, have stiffled innovative new technologies. Many of those technologies could have been greener. Now, we'll never know.
Go on IRC and ask how to fix it next time. I haven't had to reinstall a debian system for YEARS now, with very frequent upgrades, third-party software, and unstable versions of packages. Chances are, they'll be able to explain what you did that made it not work, too.
Ohh, right... I was thinking I had ignored the free Opera because it was full of adverts. It was because it was still closed source, and therefore wouldn't run on my non-x86 platforms.
The guy who provided details had his installation fail because he had modified his system in non-standard ways. If he's doing that, he should also be capable of upgrading himself, otherwise, he should have stayed with what he had working, or consulted someone before upgrading, or even paid an expert to help him upgrade.
Ubuntu is apt-based. Contrary the the "OS upgrades are typically fraught with trouble" claims of the article, upgrades for debian-like systems are usually flawless -- people do them on a DAILY basis with debian sid and (k)ubuntu's development versions, never mind once every 6 months or so. This article is FUD.
Many people believe that what goes around comes around. Who knows?
This is exactly why more socialist countries help citizens more. Because, by helping the members of the society you live in, you help yourself to live in a better environment.
I think the idea is that people are naturally busy and creative, in some way. By providing for immediate human needs such as food and heat and shelter, you prevent animalism, such as theft in order to survive, etc. You also (according to Maslow) free people to think about loftier things such as science and helping humanity.
CSS has nothing to do with programming languages, and little to do with XML. It's perfectly usable in HTML now, and HTML can be layout- and platform-independent without it, too. You just have to use it the way it was always intended, with tags like em instead of i.
You can exercise greater control over your socioeconomic standing? Honestly? (no, really, I want to know). It seems to me that, if people have less taxes to pay, then people who don't value their social security or health cover will work for less, because they don't factor those things into their living expenses. As such, the average person is probably paid an effectively lower wage. Almost by definition, add-ons like health care would seem to be expensive "extras" to most workers. So... with an average (mode, not mean) salary, how much can you HONESTLY change your lifestyle? Are you saying that people can lift themselves up, into better neighbourhoods and lifestyles, just by giving up their healthcare for a while? I doubt it. Even if they could, I'm not sure that's a fair way to judge, when some people may have illnesses that require healthcare, and those individuals should not be dismissed, but rather treated as equals in every way.
Slashdot Mirror
The only belief that's relevant here is the modern belief in the usefulness of statistics. Personally, I'm a follower of the "lies, damned lies and statistics" anti-cult ;)
;)
More seriously... there are lots of people who have a spiritual or ethical basis for their adult understanding of the world, yet have NO belief in the supernatural. In fact, at least one major religion has no deity. Many of the others have no deity or even supernatural entities, in the sense that westerners understand the word.
The problem with religious people isn't that they believe in the supernatural -- it's that most of them can't talk about their experiences logically, and so it either comes out as a supernatural thing, or is explained in terms of their culture's words for such things. In much of the west, people explain their beliefs, moral compasses, fuzzy logic and cultural understandings in terms of "God" and "ghosts" etc. In some western subcultures, it's "mother earth" and "gaia". In still others, it's "science" or "law and order" or "democracy".
Belief has many faces. My belief is that some people stay children, but most of us grow up at 22-30 or so, get some wisdom, find our place in the world, form our adult beliefs, and put a name to it, as best we can.
Of course, others are still figuring out the point of life, so they conduct surveys and come up with things like "73.34% of people answered X when I asked Y, so there must (or must not, or might be, depending on the surveyor) be a God."
Don't assume he said something sensible, just because you might have used similar words to mean something sensible. Free Software is not open source, and it is not now "known as" open source. They're different things.
It also shows very poor use of XML, sadly. For instance, wouldn't it make more sense to have stuff*< /filespec></cmd>? It's not only shorter, but more future-proof, and more clear.
Still not short enough for me though. XML is OK for interchange, but it sucks as a human-readable markup language, even when used with forethought.
Furthermore, I'm not sure it makes ANY sense to have commands in XML. That's what programming languages are for -- it's the one thing they excel at. What's wrong with cmd(argname="val") or cmd(arg1, { a, b, c="10" })? It's complex to parse, sure, but that's why you make a parser once -- the point is, it IS parseable, without a human correcting the syntax before the computer can understand it.
Free Software might predate linux by that long. And it's worth noting that Linux IS Free Software (GPLv2), NOT Open Source.
Of course, the child probably wouldn't care that you call it S_4, so that's irrelevant. Understanding does not mean "sharing our understanding". In the case of Mosques, Islamic artists might well have understood (yes, understood) it as a beautiful spiritual pattern, without ever codifying (or caring to codify) that understanding it in what we would call the "modern" way. A number of "modern" people might even agree with them.
Quality and target market has nothing to do with price. Anyone who has tried windows or seen alternative revenue models should know that.
In that case you're probably committing a crime of discrimination.
It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Furthermore, ISPs are not self-appointed judges/juries/executioners. They have NO right to single out bittorrent for traffic shaping.
On the other hand, they do have a right to make their networks perform as efficiently as possible for their customers, and for the good of the web in general. The problem is that there's a fine line between the two.
For those wondering how ISPs filter bittorrent traffic... it's called layer 7 (or application layer) traffic shaping. Various other names, too. But it's nothing (very) new -- it's old enough, in fact, to be installed *FOR* ISPs, by default, by some upstream providers.
It wouldn't matter. The part after the @ is the domain name, which is what .invalid would be part of. Unless the domain checks out, nothing left of the @ is used.
A URN ;)
Universal Resource Name, if I recall correctly (which I often don't)
"I don't know if the pants still fit, but I know the hat will"
This sounds like a reference to the (supposed) fact that Harrison stapled his hat to his head for stunts in earlier Indiana Jones films.
Wrong. Microsoft became a monopoly by many underhanded tactics, that they're STILL using, and are still in court for.
As for them being the greenest company... I'll have to put that down to lies, damned lies, and statistics. Microsoft have done a lot to harm competition, and as such, have stiffled innovative new technologies. Many of those technologies could have been greener. Now, we'll never know.
Go on IRC and ask how to fix it next time. I haven't had to reinstall a debian system for YEARS now, with very frequent upgrades, third-party software, and unstable versions of packages. Chances are, they'll be able to explain what you did that made it not work, too.
That sentence is irrelevant to what I said. RTFC next time.
Huh? What's the problem? 640k of memory should be enough for that... or anyone, actually! ;)
Ohh, right... I was thinking I had ignored the free Opera because it was full of adverts. It was because it was still closed source, and therefore wouldn't run on my non-x86 platforms.
The guy who provided details had his installation fail because he had modified his system in non-standard ways. If he's doing that, he should also be capable of upgrading himself, otherwise, he should have stayed with what he had working, or consulted someone before upgrading, or even paid an expert to help him upgrade.
Ubuntu is apt-based. Contrary the the "OS upgrades are typically fraught with trouble" claims of the article, upgrades for debian-like systems are usually flawless -- people do them on a DAILY basis with debian sid and (k)ubuntu's development versions, never mind once every 6 months or so. This article is FUD.
This is exactly why more socialist countries help citizens more. Because, by helping the members of the society you live in, you help yourself to live in a better environment.
I think the idea is that people are naturally busy and creative, in some way. By providing for immediate human needs such as food and heat and shelter, you prevent animalism, such as theft in order to survive, etc. You also (according to Maslow) free people to think about loftier things such as science and helping humanity.
Nicely put. Perhaps a bit too subtle for the average gun-wielder though ;)
Konqueor or Mozilla, if you're not a glutton for corporate advertising ;)
CSS has nothing to do with programming languages, and little to do with XML. It's perfectly usable in HTML now, and HTML can be layout- and platform-independent without it, too. You just have to use it the way it was always intended, with tags like em instead of i.
You can exercise greater control over your socioeconomic standing? Honestly? (no, really, I want to know). It seems to me that, if people have less taxes to pay, then people who don't value their social security or health cover will work for less, because they don't factor those things into their living expenses. As such, the average person is probably paid an effectively lower wage. Almost by definition, add-ons like health care would seem to be expensive "extras" to most workers. So... with an average (mode, not mean) salary, how much can you HONESTLY change your lifestyle? Are you saying that people can lift themselves up, into better neighbourhoods and lifestyles, just by giving up their healthcare for a while? I doubt it. Even if they could, I'm not sure that's a fair way to judge, when some people may have illnesses that require healthcare, and those individuals should not be dismissed, but rather treated as equals in every way.