USA: You should shut this down or we'll make your life a legal hell.
Prove that statement. Links to court case's, arrest records, public records. Conspiracy web sites do not count as legitimate references to prove your point.
Back that statement up with some facts. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
In this case there are no court case's, arrest records, public records, etc, because the website was taken down "voluntarily".
The operator was forced to a) give up records about their customers, b) fight the government, or c) shutting down the website using the provision that the government kindly directed them towards in the letter.
The great thing about plants is that they don't move when you turn your back on them. Also, our efforts to 'genetically alter' plants have previously been over time scales of at least decades, and more usually centuries.
Controlled experiments in this area are a good thing. Exposing mutants to the only ecosystem we have should be done with extreme caution, and carefully monitored for a very long time.
Declaring 'success' after only a few generations is silly as the real problems occur when the mutants _evolve_.
You do realise that KDE and Gnome are not operating systems? "OS X" is also not an operating system in the typical sense of the word; it has Darwin under the covers, responsible for managing all the hardware and important functions like permissions, ensuring that the core system can't be hosed when an rogue application is somehow allowed to be run as a user.
It is comforting to know that if something goes wrong on Linux or OS X (or similar), that the problem is almost always limited to only a single 'user' account, and problems which allow escalation of privilege are treated as critical (i.e. not left unpatched for four weeks like this F1 bug).
Information is valuable. Organized information that no one else has is "invaluable"!
This is precisely why I dont mind giving my information to Google in exchange for very good services. Google's business plan depends on being very careful with my information; their assets plummet the moment they share my information with another organisation.
I agree that an older version of Firefox will be sufficient. The new version of Firefox are already built with the presumption that modern memory management is available, and consume lots of memory. However, this will mean that in another year or so Web Developers will look upon Firefox 1.0 in much the same way we dread Netscape 4.x.
Seriously though, who could still be running an original installation of Windows 98?
My aging father, who has upgraded from 3.1 to 95 and then 98 and does not want to keep upgrading. He has lots of lovely educational games from Windows 3.1 that don't work on Windows 2000.
I don't mind the mozilla.org decision; provided they keep releasing security fixes for Firefox 1.0 or 1.5 on Windows 98, that is enough.
It's no wonder America doesn't mind paying for 1/4 of the UN budget. Money well spent if it prevents decent intellectual property from being developed in other nations.
I suspect that most Americans and associated countries dont even contemplate a revolution as a possibility; they are now too comfortable, and have been acclimatised to dissidents being identified before the crime has been committed. As a result, temperate large scale protests are the accepted means of people expressing their power and venting a bit of steam.
I certainly dont want Rome to crumble as it will bring down everything around it. It was a big wake up call when Australia, where I live, followed USA into the ``war on terror''. Our society and economic market is rapidly becoming so interconnected that all nations need to stand behind each other, or whoever is strongest -- even sovereign states are not free to make their own decisions based on public opinion.
You've made a mistake, confusing criminal and civil courts.
Anti-trust is supposed to be a criminal matter. The DOJ has refined the law so that only three types of violations are considered criminal: price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation schemes.
Microsoft has been found guilty of two of the three illegal activities.
Spot on. OSS developers are often employed by companies such as redhat, suse and IBM. Sometimes they need to focus on boring features proposed by their respective marketing divisions, but these horrible tasks are divided between the competing companies so that the developers can spend more of their time doing whatever the hell they like, i.e. working on neat features and rewriting the core.
Nations that have been around a lot longer than the United States of America have had plenty of time to think about waste management and other issues that can be swept under the table for only a few hundred years; certainly more than you chose to put into your comment.
For example, in Germany the cost of the individual throwing away the MP3 player would be calculated in advance of the product being placed on the shelf, and the company producing the MP3 player would be required to pay for the disposal costs of each unit sold. This approach does not favour any specific technology or product; it merely ensures that products sold are accountable for the waste or damage they place on society.
OpenOffice inherited a lot of this bloat from its predecessor, StarOffice.
Also, a more appropriate comparison is that the OpenOffice codebase includes a subset of the KDE functionality. This "bloat", written to be cross-platform from the outset, is why OpenOffice works on Microsoft Windows now, and KOffice does not.
I am glad you have taken my comment in the spirit it was intended. I have read the Bible cover to cover a number of times, and have very few problems with its content. I was brought up as part of the Charismatic movement to believe the evolution was wrong, and find it very important to dispel the ignorance and/or arrogance amoungst Christians that propogates this myth.
btw, history may yet be proven to be repeatable or reversible, but that is currently beyond my comprehension. In this case I was using repeatable to mean humans creating or simulating a universe to a level of detail that it resembles our own universe, and results in life.
One of the key principles in science is that a theory must be repeatable, in order that others can verify the experiment or otherwise arrive at the same conclusion via action rather than thought. This is why Intelligent Design based theories of life are irrelevant -- they doesnt further the body of human knowledge.
Personally, I do philosophically agree with Intelligent Design, because even if the big bang theory and universal common descent theory are refined sufficiently that they become fact, the first cause of all this wonderful chaos is still not explained. To my mind, the more science shows the intricacies of this universe, the greater the creator must be.
There are many metaphysical alternatives to the existence question, and one I do like, Idealism, was summed by George Berkeley: "To be is to be perceived". Even this seemingly humanistic statement does not negate the Bible, it merely implies that our existence as we know it is not ruled by the physical properties we experience, but that our (global) perception is the underpinning of the physical laws we are still coming to understand. This then implies that science does not need to underpin theology. For all we know everything is physically a sludge of energy that has always existed, and has a brilliant imagination utilising extremely complex laws to ensure it's dreams are interesting. Or, we are just a simulaation.
In all of this, it is important to recognise that the Bible does not provide scientific answers to the to origin of life. So no matter what theological or philosophical theories are used to answer this question, scientific investigation is still worth pursuing and ultimately provides the only answers that will be universally accepted. For example, most religions have come to accept that the Big Bang is a plausible explanation of the origin of life, and have consequently aligned their respective concepts of God by reducing or increasing the level mysticism such that it doesnt conflict with our physical experience, often having profound benefits to humanity.
Panspermia may not directly answer the origin of life (as we know it), but it could be significant as it implies that pursuing that question using knowledge obtainable here on earth is a waste of time, and that we need to seek the answers elsewhere in the cosmos.
theory for life. Your theory is not acceptable. Here is why it's useless. (One or more of the following may apply)
( ) It has been proven to be inaccurate
(x) It contains unprovable statements
( ) It doesn't propose any additions to knowledge
(x) It is not repeatable
( ) It can not be used to make predictions
(x) It purports to contain sufficient knowledge to live
Specifically, your theory fails to provide answers for
(x) When the universe first came into existence
(x) How the universe started
(x) How long will the universe exist
(x) Why life began
( ) Where life began
( ) How life began
( ) When did life begin
( ) How did life start on earth
(x) When did life start on earth
(x) Can extraterrestrial life exist
(x) Does extraterrestrial life exist
( ) What happens when we die
(x) Can we create life
(x) 42.
and the following philosophical objections prevent it from being taken seriously:
(x) The work this theory is based on is hotly contested by its many proponents
and your position is not clear.
(x) This work is too vague to be useful
(x) This theory fails to acknowledge that the scientific method is constantly
explaining acts previously attributed to gods
(x) Predictions made using this theory are usually wrong
(x) People who have supported this theory have also strongly denied theories
now accepted as fact
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but you need to look up the definition of 'knowledge'.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
Slashdot Mirror
USA: You should shut this down or we'll make your life a legal hell.
Prove that statement. Links to court case's, arrest
records, public records. Conspiracy web sites do not count as legitimate references to prove your point.
Back that statement up with some facts. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
In this case there are no court case's, arrest records, public records, etc, because the website was taken down "voluntarily".
The operator was forced to a) give up records about their customers, b) fight the government, or c) shutting down the website using the provision that the government kindly directed them towards in the letter.
The Chinese are merely creating a market for the Australian space debris tracking system.
The great thing about plants is that they don't move when you turn your back on them. Also, our efforts to 'genetically alter' plants have previously been over time scales of at least decades, and more usually centuries.
Controlled experiments in this area are a good thing. Exposing mutants to the only ecosystem we have should be done with extreme caution, and carefully monitored for a very long time.
Declaring 'success' after only a few generations is silly as the real problems occur when the mutants _evolve_.
You do realise that KDE and Gnome are not operating systems? "OS X" is also not an operating system in the typical sense of the word; it has Darwin under the covers, responsible for managing all the hardware and important functions like permissions, ensuring that the core system can't be hosed when an rogue application is somehow allowed to be run as a user.
It is comforting to know that if something goes wrong on Linux or OS X (or similar), that the problem is almost always limited to only a single 'user' account, and problems which allow escalation of privilege are treated as critical (i.e. not left unpatched for four weeks like this F1 bug).
The all-optical transister is not imaginary.
Not really; it just brings back memories of a time when circuit boards were "printed" using photoengraving.
And NFS, NIS, OpenSPARC, etc
I am sure that Microsoft would want to know about this hidden feature you are using!
This is precisely why I dont mind giving my information to Google in exchange for very good services. Google's business plan depends on being very careful with my information; their assets plummet the moment they share my information with another organisation.
I agree that an older version of Firefox will be sufficient. The new version of Firefox are already built with the presumption that modern memory management is available, and consume lots of memory. However, this will mean that in another year or so Web Developers will look upon Firefox 1.0 in much the same way we dread Netscape 4.x.
My aging father, who has upgraded from 3.1 to 95 and then 98 and does not want to keep upgrading. He has lots of lovely educational games from Windows 3.1 that don't work on Windows 2000.
I don't mind the mozilla.org decision; provided they keep releasing security fixes for Firefox 1.0 or 1.5 on Windows 98, that is enough.
It's no wonder America doesn't mind paying for 1/4 of the UN budget. Money well spent if it prevents decent intellectual property from being developed in other nations.
> In other words, we're Rome waiting to crumble.
Nicely put.
I suspect that most Americans and associated countries dont even contemplate a revolution as a possibility; they are now too comfortable, and have been acclimatised to dissidents being identified before the crime has been committed. As a result, temperate large scale protests are the accepted means of people expressing their power and venting a bit of steam.
I certainly dont want Rome to crumble as it will bring down everything around it. It was a big wake up call when Australia, where I live, followed USA into the ``war on terror''. Our society and economic market is rapidly becoming so interconnected that all nations need to stand behind each other, or whoever is strongest -- even sovereign states are not free to make their own decisions based on public opinion.
You've made a mistake, confusing criminal and civil courts.
Anti-trust is supposed to be a criminal matter. The DOJ has refined the law so that only three types of violations are considered criminal: price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation schemes.
Microsoft has been found guilty of two of the three illegal activities.
OSS developers are not like Microsoft developers.
Spot on. OSS developers are often employed by companies such as redhat, suse and IBM. Sometimes they need to focus on boring features proposed by their respective marketing divisions, but these horrible tasks are divided between the competing companies so that the developers can spend more of their time doing whatever the hell they like, i.e. working on neat features and rewriting the core.
Nations that have been around a lot longer than the United States of America have had plenty of time to think about waste management and other issues that can be swept under the table for only a few hundred years; certainly more than you chose to put into your comment.
For example, in Germany the cost of the individual throwing away the MP3 player would be calculated in advance of the product being placed on the shelf, and the company producing the MP3 player would be required to pay for the disposal costs of each unit sold. This approach does not favour any specific technology or product; it merely ensures that products sold are accountable for the waste or damage they place on society.
There are already a few extensions on https://addons.mozilla.org/ that provide online bookmarks:
* Foxmarks, currently featured: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2410/
* del.icio.us: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1153/
* de.lirio.us: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1566/
Also, the Flock browser includes this functionality natively. http://flock.com/
It has been in use in Comm. Sci. theory since Object Orientated Design was first conceived.
Wikipedia calls it an "Electrochemcial" reaction.
I hope you took the time to fix the mistake!
OpenOffice inherited a lot of this bloat from its predecessor, StarOffice.
Also, a more appropriate comparison is that the OpenOffice codebase includes a subset of the KDE functionality. This "bloat", written to be cross-platform from the outset, is why OpenOffice works on Microsoft Windows now, and KOffice does not.
You're actually going to coin it?? Heaven forbid!!
I'll race you to the trademark office...
make a lot more money.
I am glad you have taken my comment in the spirit it was intended. I have read the Bible cover to cover a number of times, and have very few problems with its content. I was brought up as part of the Charismatic movement to believe the evolution was wrong, and find it very important to dispel the ignorance and/or arrogance amoungst Christians that propogates this myth.
btw, history may yet be proven to be repeatable or reversible, but that is currently beyond my comprehension. In this case I was using repeatable to mean humans creating or simulating a universe to a level of detail that it resembles our own universe, and results in life.
One of the key principles in science is that a theory must be repeatable, in order that others can verify the experiment or otherwise arrive at the same conclusion via action rather than thought. This is why Intelligent Design based theories of life are irrelevant -- they doesnt further the body of human knowledge.
Personally, I do philosophically agree with Intelligent Design, because even if the big bang theory and universal common descent theory are refined sufficiently that they become fact, the first cause of all this wonderful chaos is still not explained. To my mind, the more science shows the intricacies of this universe, the greater the creator must be.
There are many metaphysical alternatives to the existence question, and one I do like, Idealism, was summed by George Berkeley: "To be is to be perceived". Even this seemingly humanistic statement does not negate the Bible, it merely implies that our existence as we know it is not ruled by the physical properties we experience, but that our (global) perception is the underpinning of the physical laws we are still coming to understand. This then implies that science does not need to underpin theology. For all we know everything is physically a sludge of energy that has always existed, and has a brilliant imagination utilising extremely complex laws to ensure it's dreams are interesting. Or, we are just a
simulaation.
In all of this, it is important to recognise that the Bible does not provide scientific answers to the to origin of life. So no matter what theological or philosophical theories are used to answer this question, scientific investigation is still worth pursuing and ultimately provides the only answers that will be universally accepted. For example, most religions have come to accept that the Big Bang is a plausible explanation of the origin of life, and have consequently aligned their respective concepts of God by reducing or increasing the level mysticism such that it doesnt conflict with our physical experience, often having profound benefits to humanity.
Panspermia may not directly answer the origin of life (as we know it), but it could be significant as it implies that pursuing that question using knowledge obtainable here on earth is a waste of time, and that we need to seek the answers elsewhere in the cosmos.
The definition of porn has already been determined by case history.
Your comment advocates a
(x) theological (x) philosophical ( ) scientifictheory for life. Your theory is not acceptable. Here is why it's useless. (One or more of the following may apply)
( ) It has been proven to be inaccurate(x) It contains unprovable statements
( ) It doesn't propose any additions to knowledge
(x) It is not repeatable
( ) It can not be used to make predictions
(x) It purports to contain sufficient knowledge to live
Specifically, your theory fails to provide answers for
(x) When the universe first came into existence(x) How the universe started
(x) How long will the universe exist
(x) Why life began
( ) Where life began
( ) How life began
( ) When did life begin
( ) How did life start on earth
(x) When did life start on earth
(x) Can extraterrestrial life exist
(x) Does extraterrestrial life exist
( ) What happens when we die
(x) Can we create life
(x) 42.
and the following philosophical objections prevent it from being taken seriously:
(x) The work this theory is based on is hotly contested by its many proponents and your position is not clear.(x) This work is too vague to be useful
(x) This theory fails to acknowledge that the scientific method is constantly explaining acts previously attributed to gods
(x) Predictions made using this theory are usually wrong
(x) People who have supported this theory have also strongly denied theories now accepted as fact
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but you need to look up the definition of 'knowledge'.( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.