You speak the truth. MMORPGs don't cater to those that care about story, roleplaying, challenge, strategy, or even just fooling around having fun. No, they just cater to those that are unconsciously addicted to the exp grind or phat lewt. Heck, it's ridiculous that some people play MMORPGs primarily solo. No, that's beyond ridiculous. It just proves how essential the levelling treadmill is to MMORPGs.
It's been fixed on the trunk (which will lead to Firefox 2.0 or 3.0), not the branch that Firefox 1.5 is on. It was too late to land the fix on branch for RC2.
Have you RTFA? No where does MS say they invented the Gaussian curve. They even have a link to Math World on that page.
I swear, the first thing some/.ers think when they see anything related to MS is "FUD" or "EEE" or "world domination". Just like that Avalanche research paper. *sigh*
The Golden Rule as you call it is derived directly from the Bible
Luk 6:31 Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you.
quote from www.netbible.org,hence without Religion, in particular Christianity there wouldn't be a golden rule in Western Societies. And the reason for the apparent lack of Athiest killers, The thing keeping them straight as you call it, is the moral and legal system that derives directly for Judeo-Christian Values.
And pray tell me why this is significant? Let's summarize your argument:
Bible (religion) states rules of morality.
Therefore, morality requires religion.
...
How exactly does that follow?
It is not enough to provide evidence that a certain religious text defines morality. That does not prove that morality requires religion.
Umm... what evidence do you have for this claim? Can you prove that this is not provable? Just because we don't yet know the answer doesn't mean it won't be known in the future (I suspect to the great dismay of some).
and
To assume that there can't be a provable answer to a question just because it seems way too hard to answer now is pretty weak."
First, I wasnt suggesting that the answers the the questions of the origins of man and the universe were hard.
Simple fact of the matter is, those who believe in evolution, big bang etc will never be able to provide enough evidence to discount the theory the God made it all, and those who hold to the theory that God made it all will never be able to provide suffienct evidence to discount the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang. Hence neither will ever be provable.
You say we "will never be able to provide enough evidence to discount the theory the God made it all". Then it follows that it is equally impossible to discount the "theory" that God is screwing with my mind right now and making me type all this stuff, and moreso, He is moving every single particle manually, directly controlling weather, and managing the death of each bacteria, and so forth.
All of which is true. That fact that it can't be disproven, that is. But consider this.
Suppose God really did directly create the universe, the earth, and humans and all the species on the planet, AND suppose He intentionally planted all that background radiation, all the fossils, all the genetic artifacts, all the evidence for the big bang and evolution just to fool us.
Then, even if the big bang and evolution never actually happened, wouldn't God still make the world consistent with the evidence for the big bang and evolution? That is, we could still use the theory of big bang to help examine the contents of the universe, and we could still use the theory of evolution to aid medicine, and we could still use both (and any other scientifically proven theory) to predict the future. Is that not right?
That, in essence, is the basic idea behind science: it just works. Despite what the Bible says or whatever other religious authority states, if there's something that has a bunch of explanatory power and can be applied usefully, then that's true enough in my eyes.
I've noticed that no one (or almost no one) here has replied along the lines of "wow, he's amazingly smart" or "what a genius". I find it funny that everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room, and that being the fact that this guy is probably much smarter than you, and even moreso, you're probably very jealous. Now this is a generalization for sure, but I'm sure it applies to many people here. Is this some sort of slashdot taboo? Priding oneself on his/her intellect, yet when something comes to challenge this pride, just ignore it? Or think "this is obvious but I'm not going to be the one to admit it"?
Well, I will mention it. This guy is amazingly smart. Smarter than me. Probably smarter than 99%+ people here. And I'm jealous to boot.
I really really doubt they're trying to "knock Flock out". In fact, many of these extensions will probably work right out of the box in Flock. Not all extensions are going to be about tagging or blogging or whatever else Flock specializes in.
What do you mean by "they don't work when I move to Opera or MSIE"? Did some syntax error happen? Or was it some DOM incompatibility issue? In any case, this would be pretty useless to make as an extension - if anything, this should be an extension to to the IDE you're using, not the browser!
Well, there's SVG that is supposed to fill in the graphics gap, and the latest browsers are starting to support that. IE has its own proprietary markup called VML.
But what's really exciting is the new element that's already in Safari 1.3+ and will be in Firefox 1.5 and Opera 9.0. Check out this raycaster demo. Another example.
And to nitpick, what you're describing is not AJAX. "simple document markup system with scripting grafted on" is DHTML. Nothing asynchronous there.
He's not a core Firefox developer, but a developer working on Firefox nevertheless. If anybody wants to support XForms or Firefox in general, someone please lend him a job:)
I haven't really used Google's personalized homepage that much, but from what I've seen, MS's version looks better. Not only are the colors better, I like the way the X appears only when the box is hovered over, and how the boxes can be minimized. And unlike Google, adding new boxes doesn't temporarily freeze the browser. For a beta product and with partial support for Firefox, I'm somewhat surprisingly impressed.
Seriously, slashdotters are always saying MS is spreading FUD, but IMO they spread just as much as FUD. Mod me down if you want, but I think this whole FUD war thing is stupid. If this wasn't made by MS, I doubt people would criticize nearly as much as they are right now.
Oh it has been successful. Internet Explorer. 85%-usage successful.
Of course, that's mainly due to smart marketing and anti-competitive measures rather than engineering, but hey, we're talking about "success" here.
Actually, I take that back. IE 4-6 were great browsers when they came out. Although they introduced a bunch of proprietary crap, they were cutting-edge and did advance many standards, namely CSS.
Re:likely story
on
Slacker or Sick
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
'cause gaming isn't work. It's like sex for geeks.
That won't work. It would end up looking really weird. Just imagine a single sentence that composed of 4 different colors, even if they're really similar. Also, it may end up putting emphasis on the "unstable" sections, which is the exact opposite of what we want.
I use OpenOffice myself, mainly because the version of MS Office I have on this computer is in a different language and a bit outdated, and I'm too lazy to figure out how to change the language.
So far, I've had mixed feelings with OpenOffice. It's a decent product, but it still has several shortcomings. It's PowerPoint equivalent keeps crashing. It's table support still sucks. And of course, the load time. Bottom line is that IMHO, OpenOffice.org is only a barely suitable replacement for MS Office.
which is the point. 95% of that page is devoted to silly arguments about the spelling of aluminum - oh my bad, aluminium. My god, it's amazing how much time people can waste over trivialities...
I'm not sure what your point is (and you're lack of capitalization in your ramble doesn't help reading either). The GP already agrees with you that the misuse of medical terminology is unfortunate. I'll go further and agree with you that the medical terminology itself can be misleading.
However, you seem to be saying that it's wrong to apply medical terms to personality traits. There's nothing wrong with that, since personality lies in the realm of psychology. What's wrong are how pharmaceuticals market those terms as pathologies, or if they generalize personality traits into disorders. You use the "shyness => anxiety disorder" example a lot. Shyness most definitely is not some anxiety disorder - it's just an emphasized fear of social rejection. But shyness is often a component of anxiety disorders, and this is something marketers capitalize on. Again, the fault doesn't lie behind trying to apply medical terminology to personality - it lies on those that exploit such terminology.
You say that "we can argue about language and semantics until the cows come home, it's all very subjective". Well, there's a simple solution: provide a definition. According to answers.com and what I feel, the definition of psychology is: "science that deals with mental processes and behavior."
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno about Java, but try Adblock Plus instead of Adblock.
You speak the truth. MMORPGs don't cater to those that care about story, roleplaying, challenge, strategy, or even just fooling around having fun. No, they just cater to those that are unconsciously addicted to the exp grind or phat lewt. Heck, it's ridiculous that some people play MMORPGs primarily solo. No, that's beyond ridiculous. It just proves how essential the levelling treadmill is to MMORPGs.
Main bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22090 0
It's been fixed on the trunk (which will lead to Firefox 2.0 or 3.0), not the branch that Firefox 1.5 is on. It was too late to land the fix on branch for RC2.
I swear, the first thing some /.ers think when they see anything related to MS is "FUD" or "EEE" or "world domination". Just like that Avalanche research paper. *sigh*
Bible (religion) states rules of morality.
Therefore, morality requires religion.
How exactly does that follow?
It is not enough to provide evidence that a certain religious text defines morality. That does not prove that morality requires religion.
You say we "will never be able to provide enough evidence to discount the theory the God made it all". Then it follows that it is equally impossible to discount the "theory" that God is screwing with my mind right now and making me type all this stuff, and moreso, He is moving every single particle manually, directly controlling weather, and managing the death of each bacteria, and so forth.All of which is true. That fact that it can't be disproven, that is. But consider this.
Suppose God really did directly create the universe, the earth, and humans and all the species on the planet, AND suppose He intentionally planted all that background radiation, all the fossils, all the genetic artifacts, all the evidence for the big bang and evolution just to fool us.
Then, even if the big bang and evolution never actually happened, wouldn't God still make the world consistent with the evidence for the big bang and evolution? That is, we could still use the theory of big bang to help examine the contents of the universe, and we could still use the theory of evolution to aid medicine, and we could still use both (and any other scientifically proven theory) to predict the future. Is that not right?
That, in essence, is the basic idea behind science: it just works. Despite what the Bible says or whatever other religious authority states, if there's something that has a bunch of explanatory power and can be applied usefully, then that's true enough in my eyes.
Well, I will mention it. This guy is amazingly smart. Smarter than me. Probably smarter than 99%+ people here. And I'm jealous to boot.
Just an observation.
I really really doubt they're trying to "knock Flock out". In fact, many of these extensions will probably work right out of the box in Flock. Not all extensions are going to be about tagging or blogging or whatever else Flock specializes in.
What do you mean by "they don't work when I move to Opera or MSIE"? Did some syntax error happen? Or was it some DOM incompatibility issue? In any case, this would be pretty useless to make as an extension - if anything, this should be an extension to to the IDE you're using, not the browser!
But what's really exciting is the new element that's already in Safari 1.3+ and will be in Firefox 1.5 and Opera 9.0. Check out this raycaster demo. Another example.
And to nitpick, what you're describing is not AJAX. "simple document markup system with scripting grafted on" is DHTML. Nothing asynchronous there.
On first glance, I actually read "Bill threatens to plug anal hole"... *cough*
He's not a core Firefox developer, but a developer working on Firefox nevertheless. If anybody wants to support XForms or Firefox in general, someone please lend him a job :)
Seriously, slashdotters are always saying MS is spreading FUD, but IMO they spread just as much as FUD. Mod me down if you want, but I think this whole FUD war thing is stupid. If this wasn't made by MS, I doubt people would criticize nearly as much as they are right now.
Considering that they eat their own feces, I don't they'd be disgusted.
Of course, that's mainly due to smart marketing and anti-competitive measures rather than engineering, but hey, we're talking about "success" here.
Actually, I take that back. IE 4-6 were great browsers when they came out. Although they introduced a bunch of proprietary crap, they were cutting-edge and did advance many standards, namely CSS.
'cause gaming isn't work. It's like sex for geeks.
That won't work. It would end up looking really weird. Just imagine a single sentence that composed of 4 different colors, even if they're really similar. Also, it may end up putting emphasis on the "unstable" sections, which is the exact opposite of what we want.
Kinda proves those Martians don't want us ruining their world (after they've seen what we've done with ours) :)
So far, I've had mixed feelings with OpenOffice. It's a decent product, but it still has several shortcomings. It's PowerPoint equivalent keeps crashing. It's table support still sucks. And of course, the load time. Bottom line is that IMHO, OpenOffice.org is only a barely suitable replacement for MS Office.
I'm not familiar with the OpenDocument standard, but if it's an XML file, it can be transformed (via XSL) into a XHTML+SVG+CSS compound document.
Behold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aluminium
However, you seem to be saying that it's wrong to apply medical terms to personality traits. There's nothing wrong with that, since personality lies in the realm of psychology. What's wrong are how pharmaceuticals market those terms as pathologies, or if they generalize personality traits into disorders. You use the "shyness => anxiety disorder" example a lot. Shyness most definitely is not some anxiety disorder - it's just an emphasized fear of social rejection. But shyness is often a component of anxiety disorders, and this is something marketers capitalize on. Again, the fault doesn't lie behind trying to apply medical terminology to personality - it lies on those that exploit such terminology.
You say that "we can argue about language and semantics until the cows come home, it's all very subjective". Well, there's a simple solution: provide a definition. According to answers.com and what I feel, the definition of psychology is: "science that deals with mental processes and behavior."