It's a good thing there no need to provide support for anything else on the motherboard. I know Microsoft is completely wasting screen real-estate with all the extra chipset drivers (PCI, bridge, northbridge, etc)
> The question I ask is, "Will Thunderbird 4 or SeaMonkey 3 support Exchange's default MAPI protocol?"
No they won't... and they really don't need to. Use Web Services (EWS), like the new Beta Entourage client is doing, and like the new window clients are using (for OCS, etc)
I'd say buying gold is more like paying to have Chess lessons rather than learn the strategy on your own. It's a way to accelerate through the boring part.
What you're describing seems more like cheat codes and hacks.
They do tend to work with copies of the data, so as to preserve the evidence. If they didn't, even on a simple system, they might screw up the last access dates, etc... and once you've shown they've messed up part of the evidence, the whole shebang is useless.
> You, like many slashdotters (at times myself included), need to check your ego at the door
But that's part of the system. If someone makes an statement that conflicts with what you know... you take that into account. That's part of why there are 12 of you.
From an example given by a judge to us when I was in Jury duty: "If pencil is on a desk, a person's arm is next to it and nobody else is in the room... you look away look back and the pencil is now on the floor, it's reasonable to assume they caused the pencil to end up on the floor." (or something like that). You don't need truth in a formal logical sense... it's about practicality, and you experience factors into that. Maybe you notice the pencil is round and the table is tilted, so you see a flaw in the presented argument... that observation is not off limits.
>it's time to get off your high horse and play the role the justice system is designed to have you play.
And that is your role. The attorney's will decide during selection whether they think you're experience is too relevant to let you judge properly, etc. That's part of the system.
At least where I am in SoCal, many people don't have garages. If they're lucky, they have a covered outdoor spot, that has no power.
I personally do, but my classic vehicles get my spot, and roomie's hybrid gets the other, so my daily driver gets the driveway... which isn't quite as easy to safely plug in.
Assuming the blank/ammend thing isn't allowed in TX (I haven't seen confirmation either way), it would be nice to have seen one or both of McCain and Obama say something like "Rule of law rules... we're out, sorry guys. Next time get your communities organized a little better to support a local party that can read the rules" and move on.
I have never heard their stories used that way. Interesting.
I've not read of their executions outside traditional stories though... nothing in anything that wasn't either Christian, or something the Christians rejected. ("Acts of Philip", which describe miracles attributed to him...) It always comes, in my experience, from traditions, not histories.
Thank you for answering though. In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter as we're all saved anyway, but you've definitely given me a perspective I've not run across before.
I remember getting saved multiple times as a child because I wasn't sure.
I like how taking "no man cometh unto the father but by me" as "if it weren't for me you wouldn't go to heaven, but now you are" as opposed to "you must believe in me specifically" takes God's a-holishness out of the picture. (you created us knowing we'd sin, then you "sacrificed" your son to save us from damnation that your judgement will send us to, etc... just not a problem anymore)
I can also see following some of what Jesus said as good examples, but there were good examples of this same behavior from many earlier sources, and most societies of any size have developed them in one form or another.
It's largely as if Jesus, in a useful sense, has been written out of the picture. We're all saved, so let's just try to live like reasonable humans and not try to kill each other. (which, excluding the saving part, is very secular humanist)
So, with no Extra-Biblical support for Jesus in a miraculous sense, or even documentation that he said the things he said, and with as much of the Bible has written off our current need for him, and with as much of the Bible is misunderstood... I'm still not following how you can believe in Him.
Humans wrote the books, humans spoke the traditions, humans screwed up and altered and lost so much of it, how can you believe that that one part is actually true?
Careful with the word absolute there... there isn't absolute proof of anything, including that the holocaust happened. However, the proof we have of the holocaust is so incredibly convincing that we can safely call it truth.
Alchemy was taken to be truth during the time it was actually taught, the difference is that now we know more by using the scientific method. Making predictions, testing theories, and throwing out those that don't fit.
While we don't have absolute proof of what happened millions of years ago, what we do have is pretty darn convincing, and getting better every year. (with minor adjustments from time to time)
I think the thing gp was describing was that alchemy wasn't taught as chemistry in chemistry class. It was taught as "here's what people though, and here's why we know it's wrong".
I would love to have this same level of discourse in biology classes with respect to creationism, but for one thing. Saying creationism is not scientific and not factually based will be construed by too many as an attack on their religion and you end up in a real mess. Or you end up with the folks in Texas who are allowed to answer that "it doesn't agree with my beliefs", and get credit.
We are incapable of handling the controversy appropriately in general, so I think its best to just leave it out. Science is X, following from X and these observable facts we learn Y...
I'm kinda curious what this "evidence that contradicts evolution" is, and whether it truly contradicts it, or just fits in a part we haven't figured out yet. There's a difference between refining a theory and destroying it.
General relativity didn't destroy Newtonian mechanics, though it directly contradicted several of its predictions.
Also... you can look at the fossil layers and how the match with the timeline of evolution. The prediction is that you're not going to find modern evolved creature fossils in 300 million year old sediment beds. So far, every run of that test has succeeded.
Similarly, genetic analysis of some higher level creatures gives us clues of other things to look for in specific other creatures, or gives us clues as to how some features might have developer, and when we go look for them, where we think they'll be... they're there.
The trick is that because you're dealing with such long timelines, you have to broaden your mind a little as to what an experiment is. You set up conditions, make a prediction as to what you will find, gather new unknown data (the results) and see if it matches.
In a normal lab test, you set up the experiment, make a prediction, then do the experiment and confirm/deny. In these evolutionary tests, your initial conditions are preset, you make your prediction based on your theories, and try to find new data that confirms or denies it. It's not an experiment until new data is applied to it.
So, I gotta ask... if you can figuratively throw out so much of the scripture as a misunderstanding, what says that doesn't extend to Jesus himself?
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
FTFY Use of "fixed that for you" shall be considered proof of nothing that the user is a complete tool^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Hasty Generalization. Or did I just prove it myself? Damn
Good point on catwoman... not sure I buy the Riddler bit though... unless maybe the Riddler ends up being sort of a progeny of the Joker? One of his existing guys who thinks he can use the connections now that Joker is out of the picture?
Not that I need an "origin story" for the Riddler, but there'd need to be a good reason why the Joker was fronting for him.
Having 3 villains (2.5?) and 2 good guys (1.5?) could easily have drawn focus and killed the movie. They used them just enough to let the Joker do his thing, Scarecrow by getting out of the way, and Two Face by extending the psych-work/corruptibility thing the Joker was doing.
I thought of Riddler too, but to follow the Joker up with the Riddler just doesn't track all that well. Too similar sounding. Another story with the Scare crow would be workable, but it'd have to be strong. Catwoman? You'd need a serious amount of buzz on both the actress and the script to be able to get around both recent performances. Penguin/Freeze? Might be too goofy for this universe, unless they surprise there as well.
I dunno, I'd love to see more, but I'm OK for just letting it die before they kill it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good thing there no need to provide support for anything else on the motherboard. I know Microsoft is completely wasting screen real-estate with all the extra chipset drivers (PCI, bridge, northbridge, etc)
Your theory might otherwise have a hole in it.
Even if MS has signed an NDA with your company?
> The question I ask is, "Will Thunderbird 4 or SeaMonkey 3 support Exchange's default MAPI protocol?" No they won't... and they really don't need to. Use Web Services (EWS), like the new Beta Entourage client is doing, and like the new window clients are using (for OCS, etc)
I'd say buying gold is more like paying to have Chess lessons rather than learn the strategy on your own. It's a way to accelerate through the boring part.
What you're describing seems more like cheat codes and hacks.
They do tend to work with copies of the data, so as to preserve the evidence. If they didn't, even on a simple system, they might screw up the last access dates, etc... and once you've shown they've messed up part of the evidence, the whole shebang is useless.
> You, like many slashdotters (at times myself included), need to check your ego at the door
But that's part of the system. If someone makes an statement that conflicts with what you know... you take that into account. That's part of why there are 12 of you.
From an example given by a judge to us when I was in Jury duty: "If pencil is on a desk, a person's arm is next to it and nobody else is in the room... you look away look back and the pencil is now on the floor, it's reasonable to assume they caused the pencil to end up on the floor." (or something like that). You don't need truth in a formal logical sense... it's about practicality, and you experience factors into that. Maybe you notice the pencil is round and the table is tilted, so you see a flaw in the presented argument... that observation is not off limits.
>it's time to get off your high horse and play the role the justice system is designed to have you play.
And that is your role. The attorney's will decide during selection whether they think you're experience is too relevant to let you judge properly, etc. That's part of the system.
Excellent. I have traffic court coming up soon... I'll see if the judge like that idea when defending my fine.
It's trivially easy to setup a folder action that imports music into iTunes when a file is dropped in it. (At least on the Mac)
> I read nothing about hunting
Then that means the Federal government can't take it away, right?
(Though that reading leaves it open for the states to do so)
At least where I am in SoCal, many people don't have garages.
If they're lucky, they have a covered outdoor spot, that has no power.
I personally do, but my classic vehicles get my spot, and roomie's hybrid gets the other, so my daily driver gets the driveway... which isn't quite as easy to safely plug in.
In that case I'd say drop it from your resume entirely... If you were in school, you don't necessarily need to explain what else you were doing.
Especially if you have some other projects to talk about
And a good point...
Assuming the blank/ammend thing isn't allowed in TX (I haven't seen confirmation either way), it would be nice to have seen one or both of McCain and Obama say something like "Rule of law rules... we're out, sorry guys. Next time get your communities organized a little better to support a local party that can read the rules" and move on.
I have never heard their stories used that way. Interesting.
I've not read of their executions outside traditional stories though... nothing in anything that wasn't either Christian, or something the Christians rejected. ("Acts of Philip", which describe miracles attributed to him...) It always comes, in my experience, from traditions, not histories.
Thank you for answering though.
In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter as we're all saved anyway, but you've definitely given me a perspective I've not run across before.
I remember getting saved multiple times as a child because I wasn't sure.
I like how taking "no man cometh unto the father but by me" as "if it weren't for me you wouldn't go to heaven, but now you are" as opposed to "you must believe in me specifically" takes God's a-holishness out of the picture. (you created us knowing we'd sin, then you "sacrificed" your son to save us from damnation that your judgement will send us to, etc... just not a problem anymore)
I can also see following some of what Jesus said as good examples, but there were good examples of this same behavior from many earlier sources, and most societies of any size have developed them in one form or another.
It's largely as if Jesus, in a useful sense, has been written out of the picture. We're all saved, so let's just try to live like reasonable humans and not try to kill each other. (which, excluding the saving part, is very secular humanist)
So, with no Extra-Biblical support for Jesus in a miraculous sense, or even documentation that he said the things he said, and with as much of the Bible has written off our current need for him, and with as much of the Bible is misunderstood... I'm still not following how you can believe in Him.
Humans wrote the books, humans spoke the traditions, humans screwed up and altered and lost so much of it, how can you believe that that one part is actually true?
(I presume it boils down to faith)
Careful with the word absolute there... there isn't absolute proof of anything, including that the holocaust happened.
However, the proof we have of the holocaust is so incredibly convincing that we can safely call it truth.
Alchemy was taken to be truth during the time it was actually taught, the difference is that now we know more by using the scientific method. Making predictions, testing theories, and throwing out those that don't fit.
While we don't have absolute proof of what happened millions of years ago, what we do have is pretty darn convincing, and getting better every year. (with minor adjustments from time to time)
I think the thing gp was describing was that alchemy wasn't taught as chemistry in chemistry class. It was taught as "here's what people though, and here's why we know it's wrong".
I would love to have this same level of discourse in biology classes with respect to creationism, but for one thing. Saying creationism is not scientific and not factually based will be construed by too many as an attack on their religion and you end up in a real mess.
Or you end up with the folks in Texas who are allowed to answer that "it doesn't agree with my beliefs", and get credit.
We are incapable of handling the controversy appropriately in general, so I think its best to just leave it out. Science is X, following from X and these observable facts we learn Y...
I'm kinda curious what this "evidence that contradicts evolution" is, and whether it truly contradicts it, or just fits in a part we haven't figured out yet.
There's a difference between refining a theory and destroying it.
General relativity didn't destroy Newtonian mechanics, though it directly contradicted several of its predictions.
Also... you can look at the fossil layers and how the match with the timeline of evolution. The prediction is that you're not going to find modern evolved creature fossils in 300 million year old sediment beds. So far, every run of that test has succeeded.
Similarly, genetic analysis of some higher level creatures gives us clues of other things to look for in specific other creatures, or gives us clues as to how some features might have developer, and when we go look for them, where we think they'll be... they're there.
The trick is that because you're dealing with such long timelines, you have to broaden your mind a little as to what an experiment is.
You set up conditions, make a prediction as to what you will find, gather new unknown data (the results) and see if it matches.
In a normal lab test, you set up the experiment, make a prediction, then do the experiment and confirm/deny.
In these evolutionary tests, your initial conditions are preset, you make your prediction based on your theories, and try to find new data that confirms or denies it.
It's not an experiment until new data is applied to it.
So, I gotta ask... if you can figuratively throw out so much of the scripture as a misunderstanding, what says that doesn't extend to Jesus himself?
FTFY
Use of "fixed that for you" shall be considered proof of nothing
that the user is a complete tool^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Hasty Generalization.
Or did I just prove it myself? Damn
Why couldn't this simply have been a mistake?
There was a lot going on that day, and we've seen how poorly news agencies tend to fact check things when they're trying to get a scoop.
Good point on catwoman... not sure I buy the Riddler bit though... unless maybe the Riddler ends up being sort of a progeny of the Joker? One of his existing guys who thinks he can use the connections now that Joker is out of the picture?
Not that I need an "origin story" for the Riddler, but there'd need to be a good reason why the Joker was fronting for him.
I second that.
Having 3 villains (2.5?) and 2 good guys (1.5?) could easily have drawn focus and killed the movie.
They used them just enough to let the Joker do his thing, Scarecrow by getting out of the way, and Two Face by extending the psych-work/corruptibility thing the Joker was doing.
I thought of Riddler too, but to follow the Joker up with the Riddler just doesn't track all that well. Too similar sounding.
Another story with the Scare crow would be workable, but it'd have to be strong.
Catwoman? You'd need a serious amount of buzz on both the actress and the script to be able to get around both recent performances.
Penguin/Freeze? Might be too goofy for this universe, unless they surprise there as well.
I dunno, I'd love to see more, but I'm OK for just letting it die before they kill it.
You'd think that having incorrect information would tend to dissuade customers from parting with their money