No, OSS won't succeed on the desktop until the project leads stop thinking that everyone's computer-literate and start catering to the lowest common denominator when it comes to usage experience. The attitude that every user should be as smart and proficient with computers as the person coding the software is what kills OSS adoption on the desktop.
Obviously, some people have taken this to mean that OSS has to be more "business-like" instead of "hobby-like." But being "business-like" doesn't really address the fundamental flaw, it only wraps the issue in a likely agenda-motivated argument. You can still have UI experts and graphic designers and marketers on board a project while still maintaining its hobby status and culture. You can even have a lawyer too, but that lawyer needs to be pretty damn good and understand the OSS philosophy. The company that sent out authorization notices to fan sites violating their trademark comes to mind.
Install XP SP1 on connected directly to your ISP. Before you're even done installing, you'll have five different types of malware on your system. After a week when it gets to be too much, rinse and repeat.
If you really need to defend yourself, say you have no NAT and no way to install SP2 offline.
So is libel and slander. As is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is actually none. Free speech does have limits. In particular, when speech causes harm, it has to be scrutinized closely for validity. And if it is invalid, then it may not be legal after all.
Spam causes harm, and conveys a message that is false in more ways than one. Therefore, it isn't protected by the first amendment. However, maybe the existing law was too broad...
Back on topic, the job of a sysadmin is never easy. There's a very little difference between developers and scientists, the big being that developers tend to know what they're doing so that they don't create small fuck ups, but since they know what they're doing, they end up creating big ones when it does happen. Developers are equally as demanding resource-wise, especially doing database development.
Millenia? Think eons. Today's bacteria ares not all that different from the ones that existed 2 billion years ago. Only, 2 billion years ago, there wasn't much else.
Even if said artificial organism is capable of survival beyond a clean room (it is impervious to attack by existing organisms for whatever reason), it would be many, many generations before it could become interesting, and I mean interesting beyond the novelty factor of it having been created by a human being.
Contrary to what your "common sense" says, elephants can in fact run. A quick google search will tell you that an elephant runs nearly as fast as a human being. Or at the very least, they sprint as fast as humans. They might or might not be able to sustain the same speeds as a human being.
Spore is designed so that the player can start at any one of the five stages. So you don't actually have to play through the first three stages to play the last two.
That having been said, you don't need to enjoy all five stages to enjoy the game, though you might feel a bit gypped. But that's how the game was designed to be like. It's also perfectly reasonable for people to enjoy different stages on different days. If you're tired from work, you might not want to play the last two stages. You might like the simplicity of the first two stages though. At the same time, if you're at home on a weekend bored out of your mind, you might want to spend your time on the last two stages instead of the first two.
Granted, you are only one person, but you should do what you can to help others understand the actual situation. File-sharing isn't illegal, only the sharing of copyrighted works is illegal (and not a criminal act but a tort for that matter). You might also want to give people who are interested instructions on how to get around the school's restrictions. Obviously, you should prevent the instructions from being traceable back to you (print them out at home, carry them in a backpack, and put them in bathrooms or something).
Which is perfectly legal where escort services are legal. And escort services are legal, because there's no requirement on the escort to actually engage in sexual activity with the patron.
There may be local laws prohibiting escort services or denying escort services certain abilities, but these may or may not be constitutional.
Perhaps the maximum amount of energy the brain uses when thinking doesn't increase, but perhaps people who are required to think more keep up that level of energy consumption for longer periods of time, while people who spend their time not thinking only sporadically use that level of energy.
It's anecdotal, but I know that when I am glucose-deprived, I can only do quick bursts of serous thinking activity before my mind goes to mush again, while when I'm fully fueled, I can and often do sustain longer thoughts. It's like the difference between thinking one or two moves or hundreds of moves ahead in a chess game.
Well, there's this little problem called "free will." See, for some reason or another, this all-knowing, all-powerful diety decided to inject a bit of randomness into the "perfect" world. So somehow, that means this diety cannot interfere anymore. Well, except for miracles.
Yeah, that's it! Maybe if they pray hard enough, there'll be a miracle, and a pipeline would get raised from the ground. Who needs funding and manpower when there's prayer?
But it seems obvious to me it's not harmful to teach, for it can also serve as an introduction to the scientific method and explanations about why it's not a theory in the scientific sense.
Why not just teach the scientific method and leave it at that. If someone does bring up the question, it would be appropriate to explain why it isn't science. But otherwise, why mention it at all? That's just asking for a controversy to erupt, and given how "sensitive" religion is, I'm pretty sure the science teacher won't be on the winning side. It's hard enough to teach knowledge when parents are already so opposed to teaching knowledge they don't know.
are other religious folks diametrically opposed to science?
Only the ones who advocate blind faith, or who follow blindly. Science challenges their faith and reveals their ignorance, and so they oppose science.
The truth is, I agree with you: it doesn't matter. None of it does. Religion is non-testable and hence is not science, and cannot be argued for or against using a scientific paradigm. The same applies to any ideology in fact, but religion is on everybody's mind these days. So religion or the lack thereof shouldn't have a place in the reality beyond the self. But that's a very difficult thing to do, to separate the internal from the external, what is on faith and what is on evidence. If you are capable of this, I applaud you, and as ironic as it may seem, you may be one of the more rational people here.
Slashdot Mirror
I say it's this one.
It's still good that Wikileaks picked it up. If the original blog that broke this news goes down for whatever reason, Wikileaks still has a copy.
At least, that's how I see it.
Hey, leave Yahweh out of this.
It's also pretty annoying when people go, "I don't like either candidate so I'm not voting."
When living in a democracy, voting isn't simply a right--it's a responsibility.
No, OSS won't succeed on the desktop until the project leads stop thinking that everyone's computer-literate and start catering to the lowest common denominator when it comes to usage experience. The attitude that every user should be as smart and proficient with computers as the person coding the software is what kills OSS adoption on the desktop.
Obviously, some people have taken this to mean that OSS has to be more "business-like" instead of "hobby-like." But being "business-like" doesn't really address the fundamental flaw, it only wraps the issue in a likely agenda-motivated argument. You can still have UI experts and graphic designers and marketers on board a project while still maintaining its hobby status and culture. You can even have a lawyer too, but that lawyer needs to be pretty damn good and understand the OSS philosophy. The company that sent out authorization notices to fan sites violating their trademark comes to mind.
Install XP SP1 on connected directly to your ISP. Before you're even done installing, you'll have five different types of malware on your system. After a week when it gets to be too much, rinse and repeat.
If you really need to defend yourself, say you have no NAT and no way to install SP2 offline.
So is libel and slander. As is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is actually none. Free speech does have limits. In particular, when speech causes harm, it has to be scrutinized closely for validity. And if it is invalid, then it may not be legal after all.
Spam causes harm, and conveys a message that is false in more ways than one. Therefore, it isn't protected by the first amendment. However, maybe the existing law was too broad...
Without a master server, you're basically looking at freenet. And uh, we know how well freenet works.
Miracles are masturbating after having sat on your hand long enough - it feels like an external force is acting on you.
I hope they'll protest by refusing to come back down.
Apparently its something about a lost patrol.
Maybe the ninjas have infiltrated.
Back on topic, the job of a sysadmin is never easy. There's a very little difference between developers and scientists, the big being that developers tend to know what they're doing so that they don't create small fuck ups, but since they know what they're doing, they end up creating big ones when it does happen. Developers are equally as demanding resource-wise, especially doing database development.
To be fair, it was billed as a "dogfight" and so he thought he could win by just shooting the dogs.
Based on the recent drop in demand for oil, I think people are actually going back to walking.
Millenia? Think eons. Today's bacteria ares not all that different from the ones that existed 2 billion years ago. Only, 2 billion years ago, there wasn't much else.
Even if said artificial organism is capable of survival beyond a clean room (it is impervious to attack by existing organisms for whatever reason), it would be many, many generations before it could become interesting, and I mean interesting beyond the novelty factor of it having been created by a human being.
Contrary to what your "common sense" says, elephants can in fact run. A quick google search will tell you that an elephant runs nearly as fast as a human being. Or at the very least, they sprint as fast as humans. They might or might not be able to sustain the same speeds as a human being.
Spore is designed so that the player can start at any one of the five stages. So you don't actually have to play through the first three stages to play the last two.
That having been said, you don't need to enjoy all five stages to enjoy the game, though you might feel a bit gypped. But that's how the game was designed to be like. It's also perfectly reasonable for people to enjoy different stages on different days. If you're tired from work, you might not want to play the last two stages. You might like the simplicity of the first two stages though. At the same time, if you're at home on a weekend bored out of your mind, you might want to spend your time on the last two stages instead of the first two.
Are you subtly implying that there'll be something wrong with the airlock on the vacuum module too?
If the loser plays his cards right, he has more to gain than the winner*.
* Does not apply to picking up women.
Granted, you are only one person, but you should do what you can to help others understand the actual situation. File-sharing isn't illegal, only the sharing of copyrighted works is illegal (and not a criminal act but a tort for that matter). You might also want to give people who are interested instructions on how to get around the school's restrictions. Obviously, you should prevent the instructions from being traceable back to you (print them out at home, carry them in a backpack, and put them in bathrooms or something).
Which is perfectly legal where escort services are legal. And escort services are legal, because there's no requirement on the escort to actually engage in sexual activity with the patron.
There may be local laws prohibiting escort services or denying escort services certain abilities, but these may or may not be constitutional.
Perhaps the maximum amount of energy the brain uses when thinking doesn't increase, but perhaps people who are required to think more keep up that level of energy consumption for longer periods of time, while people who spend their time not thinking only sporadically use that level of energy.
It's anecdotal, but I know that when I am glucose-deprived, I can only do quick bursts of serous thinking activity before my mind goes to mush again, while when I'm fully fueled, I can and often do sustain longer thoughts. It's like the difference between thinking one or two moves or hundreds of moves ahead in a chess game.
Well, there's this little problem called "free will." See, for some reason or another, this all-knowing, all-powerful diety decided to inject a bit of randomness into the "perfect" world. So somehow, that means this diety cannot interfere anymore. Well, except for miracles.
Yeah, that's it! Maybe if they pray hard enough, there'll be a miracle, and a pipeline would get raised from the ground. Who needs funding and manpower when there's prayer?
But it seems obvious to me it's not harmful to teach, for it can also serve as an introduction to the scientific method and explanations about why it's not a theory in the scientific sense.
Why not just teach the scientific method and leave it at that. If someone does bring up the question, it would be appropriate to explain why it isn't science. But otherwise, why mention it at all? That's just asking for a controversy to erupt, and given how "sensitive" religion is, I'm pretty sure the science teacher won't be on the winning side. It's hard enough to teach knowledge when parents are already so opposed to teaching knowledge they don't know.
Only if you're a woman. You're still expected to be wide if you're a man, just above the waist instead of at it.
are other religious folks diametrically opposed to science?
Only the ones who advocate blind faith, or who follow blindly. Science challenges their faith and reveals their ignorance, and so they oppose science.
The truth is, I agree with you: it doesn't matter. None of it does. Religion is non-testable and hence is not science, and cannot be argued for or against using a scientific paradigm. The same applies to any ideology in fact, but religion is on everybody's mind these days. So religion or the lack thereof shouldn't have a place in the reality beyond the self. But that's a very difficult thing to do, to separate the internal from the external, what is on faith and what is on evidence. If you are capable of this, I applaud you, and as ironic as it may seem, you may be one of the more rational people here.