What about unicorns? Has everyone made the choice to believe or not believe in unicorns? What about the people that never sat down and made a decision one way or another?
Most definitely, belief in anything is a choice. You may not actually spend a significant amount of time on it but you have decided. This is not like sexual orientation where it is set in your mind or body or whatever from the day you are born. This is weighing the facts given to you and deciding what is correct. I'm sure if an atheist presented with undeniable evidence of a God (or alternatively, a theist presented with undeniable proof that there is no God) would change their mind, if they understood it.
And none of this addresses why there has to be a special word just for people that don't believe something when there aren't words for aunicornist, alochnessmonsterist, etc.
Aunicornists and alochnessmonsterists are unimportant to most people. Atheists are termed such because people need a way to refer to them in conversation, because the opinions they tend to have need to be dealt with in politics and the rest of the world. And I'm sure if you talked to someone who firmly believed in unicorns or the Loch Ness Monster, or someone who dealt with believers all the time, they will tell you they have a term for people who oppose their beliefs.
The great thing is that after tossing on that label, we can then group all of them together and pick the outlayers and assign the worst of their characteristics to all of the newly created group. Convenient, huh?
Yeah. We have a term for that (see how these things are useful?) and it's called stereotyping. I agree that stereotyping is wrong.
No. Individual artists won't get compensation without their own suit. You have to be part of an association (MPAA/RIAA) to get anything from them, and even then I doubt you'd see much.
They're also more likely to notice vandalism if it is an article frequently linked to or refrenced. If nobody cares about it or even knows it exists, they're probably not going to notice anything wrong with it. This person and his theory seemed to be pretty obscure subjects.
Go sit in front of your TV. After five minutes or so, look where your hands are. Likely they're just sprawled out at either side of your torso. Where they're likely not is sitting parallel to each other in the middle of your lap, where they'd be if you had a game controller. This isn't an unnatural position per se, but neither could it be called a rest position. Of course it works -- I've been doing it for twenty-odd years and have no problem with it, per se.
But the Wii controller is split in two halves. And you don't need to constantly be pointing the Wii remote half at the TV screen, because it doesn't control the camera and this isn't a first-person shooter. You only need point the remote at the TV when required by the game -- when you're going to shoot your slingshot, or for other purposes (which will be revealed when the final embargo date is up).
Get where I'm going with this? By hour two or so, my remote hand was resting on my right leg, twisted inwards. But my left hand was out of my lap entirely, just hanging over the arm of the chair as if I was holding a Dustbuster and cleaning the rug. And I was playing the game, actively, perfectly.
Had the only innovation of the Wii controller been to split the game pad up into two independent halves, it would have been worth it for that alone. You can't understand this with a five-minute trade show demo. You have to be at home, in your natural environment...
The other thing is that if Microsoft actually identifies a patent infringement, the community will patch around it in short time.
I'm not sure how true that is going to be. Since software patents don't cover an algorithm but the end result of the algorithm, it's not like they can write the software to just do it a different way. They will have to actually remove functionality to escape a patent lawsuit.
"Saw it on Digg"? Yeah, this gets frontpaged on Digg like three times a week. I saw this article in my RSS reader and I was about to go complain about dupes before I realized it had the Slashdot icon.
BTW, the candy haul was good this year. Many young children were frightened and other people successfully confused by our ninja antics. We also really freaked out one guy by climbing onto his roof and whispering to him through his skylight.
If you look at the source code it refrences "hmpro4.dtd", which with a quick googling turns out to be a DTD used only by "HoTMetaL Pro 4", a web development app released in 1997 by a company that was acquired by Corel in 2002. Blegh.
They didn't give the specifics of the task. It may have been something like 20 irregularly named files in a folder, copy every other one to separate folders. Or a large section of files from a folder that would normally require scrolling.
It's a leftover from working at small resolutions. At 1024x786 and below you don't really have enough real-estate to do anything unless it's maximized. When users migrate to large resolutions, they maximize just because that's what they always did before.
Of course, this totally defeats the purpose of a windowing system. You lose the multitasking capability when all you can see is one program.
They never really should have invented the maximize button. It promotes bad habits, and is really useless (even an annoyance) when you use windows the way they're meant to be used.
Slashdot Mirror
Aunicornists and alochnessmonsterists are unimportant to most people. Atheists are termed such because people need a way to refer to them in conversation, because the opinions they tend to have need to be dealt with in politics and the rest of the world. And I'm sure if you talked to someone who firmly believed in unicorns or the Loch Ness Monster, or someone who dealt with believers all the time, they will tell you they have a term for people who oppose their beliefs.
Yeah. We have a term for that (see how these things are useful?) and it's called stereotyping. I agree that stereotyping is wrong.
Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists!
No. Individual artists won't get compensation without their own suit. You have to be part of an association (MPAA/RIAA) to get anything from them, and even then I doubt you'd see much.
In Soviet Russia, Titanics get icebergy and run into your cock.
That's terrible. Please tell me that isn't true.
Like this: <a href="http:// url goes here">link text</a>
No, it was $3000 for the .com and $2000 for the .net, the aggreg8 project kept .org and .co.uk. But I guess it was too much trouble for you to RTFA.
What?? There was no chicken. Cows chase goats. Proof!
They're also more likely to notice vandalism if it is an article frequently linked to or refrenced. If nobody cares about it or even knows it exists, they're probably not going to notice anything wrong with it. This person and his theory seemed to be pretty obscure subjects.
I'll take it off your hands, for free! :)
I wish I had mod points so I could do it myself.
"Saw it on Digg"? Yeah, this gets frontpaged on Digg like three times a week. I saw this article in my RSS reader and I was about to go complain about dupes before I realized it had the Slashdot icon.
That other guy's link seems to be a rip of this: http://www.rit.edu/~djl5698/images/ninjalesson.jpg
BTW, the candy haul was good this year. Many young children were frightened and other people successfully confused by our ninja antics. We also really freaked out one guy by climbing onto his roof and whispering to him through his skylight.
Heh, this post's capcha is "mischief".
If you look at the source code it refrences "hmpro4.dtd", which with a quick googling turns out to be a DTD used only by "HoTMetaL Pro 4", a web development app released in 1997 by a company that was acquired by Corel in 2002. Blegh.
What a great opportunity. Now you can sue for retroactive payment on the movie rights!
Coincedentally, they also work very well for meat storage.
They didn't give the specifics of the task. It may have been something like 20 irregularly named files in a folder, copy every other one to separate folders. Or a large section of files from a folder that would normally require scrolling.
It's a leftover from working at small resolutions. At 1024x786 and below you don't really have enough real-estate to do anything unless it's maximized. When users migrate to large resolutions, they maximize just because that's what they always did before.
Of course, this totally defeats the purpose of a windowing system. You lose the multitasking capability when all you can see is one program.
They never really should have invented the maximize button. It promotes bad habits, and is really useless (even an annoyance) when you use windows the way they're meant to be used.
Combine this with the recently renewed efforts by the marines to develop a system to deploy soldiers from space, and we're pretty much there.
Examine the edges and surrounding areas. It looks like it's just a hole where four sections came together.
5. to read (data) for use by a computer or computerized device, esp. using an optical scanner.