if you look at the username it's not him at all, it's someone with ID 1344097 pretending to be him. Still, what he says is sensible, and what's wrong with this piece? If it doesn't interest you, why are you reading the comments?
The point is that yes sure we can do a lot of things, but when you put limits in place it precludes certain results. You still can't break 60mph or reach the moon if the only vehicle you allow is a horse..
I think having the touch screen sloped towards you would be better, otherwise you'd have to crane over it to use it.. you don't get touch feedback like you do on an actual keyboard so you'd need to be looking at it all the time
I can't see speech to text working in most noisy office environments (meaning even if the computer is 100% accurate, do you want to have to say "computer" before every command, or have to tell it when you start and stop dictating, then forget to tell it to stop note taking when you get a phone call and have to get it to delete the last 5 minutes of text, etc.. a computer that can intelligently tell the context of your speech is a long way off..), or situations where you want to keep your work and/or personal conversations confidential. I see the mouse as far more likely to be replaced than any text input device.. it is a good piece of kit, but there are many more possibilities for replacing mice than keyboards.
There are uses for touch in mobile and public devices sure, but why would you stretch over to your screen just to hit "reply to this" on slashdot when you have the mouse right next to you? There is no reason to have a touch screen in any situation where you can conveniently use a mouse or even a touchpad - which is mostly limited to sitting at a desk of course, but that's probably still where the majority of PC based computing is done these days, even with the rise in popularity of laptops. I would probably prefer a touchscreen over one of those little rubbery keyboard nipples though - I'm not a big fan of joysticks for mouse input, despite getting used to it on my PS3.
People stupid enough to get they Windows boxes repeatedly owned by viruses would still be stupid enough to let trojans onto their Linux boxes.. and good advertising for the masses wouldn't simply about "it doesn't get viruses" - that is important, but it's still incredibly geeky and uninteresting to most if it also means running a "second rate" OS.
Not really. It would be more like being accused of being a drug dealer because you run a messageboard where people happen to be able to meet drug dealers. If the messageboard was called thecrackhouse.com or something then it does make it harder to try and defend it with a straight face of course.
Personally I have used The Pirate Bay a few times, though in recent years (since I now have a job) I've started buying all the music that I had downloaded/been-sent as a student, so these days I just download stuff that I have legally paid for but the CD is copyright protected/defective etc. I've also downloaded a few ISOs of software which I have legal keys to but lost the original CDs. That's probably still copyright violation, but I don't think it's "wrong". In a few years hopefully all publishers will be using Steam-like distribution so sites like The Pirate Bay won't be necessary. Of course a lot of people will still be tight-fisted bastards and not bother paying for stuff, but others will move to the legitimate versions when they are just as convenient as torrenting. Amazon's MP3 store gives me quick and cheap access to DRM free MP3s of most of the music I want these days..
Wow, you have "bank". You aren't by any chance a chat bot are you? One that's designed to simulate a sex-crazed retard? It's a bit sad that you see sex as the main purpose of your existence. Sure, it's fun - but now that you have "replicated", what do you do with your time?
Carrying around a big flaming torch probably wouldn't make you a very successful hunter.. fire to me seems more useful for warmth.. tool use is an evolutionary advantage though so I suppose you could count fire and cars and things as human traits:P
As a mammal though, I'd imagine birds would be very disinclined to land on water, just like I won't sit down on hot steaming magma on a mountain trip
Except that there are plenty of birds that rest on water - I was watching some last weekend bobbing away happily on the ocean surface and disappearing every now and then to try and catch some fish. Admittedly when they are actually going to sleep they probably go back to land, I walked past a big flock of about 1000 seagulls on a big grassy area next to the beach a few weeks ago.. they probably could have killed me or buried me in shit quite easily if they wanted, but speaking loudly to them freaked them out and they flew out of the way. Hehe.
If evolution were perfect, we'd be able to see in the dark as well as cats
Would we also have lovely strokeable fur, retractable claws and a nice long tail? Are you a furry? If we needed to see in the dark to survive, we would be able to see in the dark.. doesn't seem to me that there's anything wrong with evolution just because we aren't all superman..
Oh great, I had a massive reply but somehow clicked cancel or reloaded the page after stretching!
I already have stopped believing, so no I certainly don't think it's working! My ex-denomination, and probably the whole of the UK isn't big on faith healing, prophecying, speaking in tongues and so on. The excuse I have heard for it was that the spirit was given out in a special way to the apostles on pentecost, and that it was only for them (I suppose you could say as a boost to the fledgling church). Some churches still do claim to do all that stuff (as well as having fits or dancing around strangely through 'the spirit'), or at least are open to the idea that these things still go on, but I've always been rather skeptical of it all. Unless someone I'd known to be incurably ill was miraculously healed then I'd probably think it was an act.. there's a lot of deceit in the world.
The way I view it would be that if the bible is true, Jesus is the son of God and therefor rather uniquely qualified (he amazed the teachers in the synagogue when he was only 12 years old), and that his disciples would have had a lot of good teaching through Jesus, and later probably through the influence of the Holy Spirit.
I think the requirement for qualification in preaching in the Free Church or any church would more be just to ensure that complete garbage is not being taught, and to help improve general oration skills etc (one of my friends who went in for the ministry used to speak in a dreadful monotone when he was preaching, I noticed after a few months at the college that he had much improved). My local church was without a full-time minister for the last 5 years and so we basically had members of the congregation taking the mid-week prayer meeting each week, and sometimes on sundays too (though usually it was ordained ministers from other congregations), so it's not like they are extremely snobbish or strict when it comes to matters of qualification. Some churches don't even require that their ministers are Christians, which I don't really get at all.
I think it does make sense to make sure that preachers get some decent training if they're going to be doing it full time though. Knowledge of Hebrew/Greek and having good oratory skills aren't strictly essential elements for being a preacher, but they are very beneficial for reading scripture in its purest form and then expounding on it in such a way that people don't have to struggle to stay awake!
Yep, the Free Church of Scotland College generally require that you have a degree (and are a Christian) before entering, though they also take other life experience/jobs into account. You can preach in church without qualification, but to be an ordained Free Church minister with your own full time congregation I presume you'd have to have gone through the college. Actually, my brother in law's father never finished his training at the college due to illness, but he does have a congregation. I think he refers to himself as a pastor or something rather than a 'minister' though.
There is no promise from god to send all the people to hell that aren't in a particular group. Any biblical statement along those lines should be seen as instruction to the believer, not a binding commitment on god.
That is an interesting logical construct. So in your opinion would you say (post-Jesus'-first-coming for the sake of simplicity) that being baptised and having literal knowledge of and faith in Jesus is not actually a requirement of having eternal life? I think too many people are willing to just believe "god is good and so he will treat those who never hear of Jesus fairly" etc - seriously, what would even be the point in witnessing and mission if that were the case?
Any way I look at it, the whole situation the bible puts forth just doesn't make sense to me these days unless I think of it as just another man-made book. I do miss having faith and the feeling of security for the future that it brings (not to mention that I had a great relationship going earlier in the year but my gf ended up feeling too guilty that I'm not a Christian and we had to split up), but I no longer see the argument for a creator-god any more than those that don't believe in evolution see how human life and intelligence could exist without a higher power getting involved (which is such a Catch-22). I'm done with wishful thinking for now..
Slashdot Mirror
I usually ignore sigs. And obviously some people still thought it was KDawson. You can't act like he didn't think that would ever happen.
if you look at the username it's not him at all, it's someone with ID 1344097 pretending to be him. Still, what he says is sensible, and what's wrong with this piece? If it doesn't interest you, why are you reading the comments?
google to the rescue
Don't forget that it's also a colloquialism for 100mph!
The point is that yes sure we can do a lot of things, but when you put limits in place it precludes certain results. You still can't break 60mph or reach the moon if the only vehicle you allow is a horse..
I think having the touch screen sloped towards you would be better, otherwise you'd have to crane over it to use it.. you don't get touch feedback like you do on an actual keyboard so you'd need to be looking at it all the time
I can't see speech to text working in most noisy office environments (meaning even if the computer is 100% accurate, do you want to have to say "computer" before every command, or have to tell it when you start and stop dictating, then forget to tell it to stop note taking when you get a phone call and have to get it to delete the last 5 minutes of text, etc.. a computer that can intelligently tell the context of your speech is a long way off..), or situations where you want to keep your work and/or personal conversations confidential. I see the mouse as far more likely to be replaced than any text input device.. it is a good piece of kit, but there are many more possibilities for replacing mice than keyboards.
There are uses for touch in mobile and public devices sure, but why would you stretch over to your screen just to hit "reply to this" on slashdot when you have the mouse right next to you? There is no reason to have a touch screen in any situation where you can conveniently use a mouse or even a touchpad - which is mostly limited to sitting at a desk of course, but that's probably still where the majority of PC based computing is done these days, even with the rise in popularity of laptops. I would probably prefer a touchscreen over one of those little rubbery keyboard nipples though - I'm not a big fan of joysticks for mouse input, despite getting used to it on my PS3.
People stupid enough to get they Windows boxes repeatedly owned by viruses would still be stupid enough to let trojans onto their Linux boxes.. and good advertising for the masses wouldn't simply about "it doesn't get viruses" - that is important, but it's still incredibly geeky and uninteresting to most if it also means running a "second rate" OS.
Not really. It would be more like being accused of being a drug dealer because you run a messageboard where people happen to be able to meet drug dealers. If the messageboard was called thecrackhouse.com or something then it does make it harder to try and defend it with a straight face of course.
Personally I have used The Pirate Bay a few times, though in recent years (since I now have a job) I've started buying all the music that I had downloaded/been-sent as a student, so these days I just download stuff that I have legally paid for but the CD is copyright protected/defective etc. I've also downloaded a few ISOs of software which I have legal keys to but lost the original CDs. That's probably still copyright violation, but I don't think it's "wrong". In a few years hopefully all publishers will be using Steam-like distribution so sites like The Pirate Bay won't be necessary. Of course a lot of people will still be tight-fisted bastards and not bother paying for stuff, but others will move to the legitimate versions when they are just as convenient as torrenting. Amazon's MP3 store gives me quick and cheap access to DRM free MP3s of most of the music I want these days..
Do you even know what the phrase "true Scotsman" refers to? Doesn't look like it from here.
Wow, you have "bank". You aren't by any chance a chat bot are you? One that's designed to simulate a sex-crazed retard? It's a bit sad that you see sex as the main purpose of your existence. Sure, it's fun - but now that you have "replicated", what do you do with your time?
Someone needs their Geek Card confiscated.
So say we all!
Carrying around a big flaming torch probably wouldn't make you a very successful hunter.. fire to me seems more useful for warmth.. tool use is an evolutionary advantage though so I suppose you could count fire and cars and things as human traits :P
As a mammal though, I'd imagine birds would be very disinclined to land on water, just like I won't sit down on hot steaming magma on a mountain trip
Except that there are plenty of birds that rest on water - I was watching some last weekend bobbing away happily on the ocean surface and disappearing every now and then to try and catch some fish. Admittedly when they are actually going to sleep they probably go back to land, I walked past a big flock of about 1000 seagulls on a big grassy area next to the beach a few weeks ago.. they probably could have killed me or buried me in shit quite easily if they wanted, but speaking loudly to them freaked them out and they flew out of the way. Hehe.
If evolution were perfect, we'd be able to see in the dark as well as cats
Would we also have lovely strokeable fur, retractable claws and a nice long tail? Are you a furry? If we needed to see in the dark to survive, we would be able to see in the dark.. doesn't seem to me that there's anything wrong with evolution just because we aren't all superman..
The answer? 42 orders of magnitude bigger."
* Read More...
* 42 comments
Now that's cool :)
And Mr Hitroll, you should go read up on irony. You might then find yourself even more hilarious.
I believe the unit was standardised on the weight of Winston Churchill's right testicle.
for what it's worth from news reports I've seen and from talking to people, UK still seems to use stones to measure human weight.
Yes we do, in general :) And a stone is 14lbs.
I've got a broken toaster that I'd rather consult for spiritual advice.
I don't know, toasters can be pretty annoying. But you're probably right.
Do polar bears shit in igloos?
Oh great, I had a massive reply but somehow clicked cancel or reloaded the page after stretching!
I already have stopped believing, so no I certainly don't think it's working! My ex-denomination, and probably the whole of the UK isn't big on faith healing, prophecying, speaking in tongues and so on. The excuse I have heard for it was that the spirit was given out in a special way to the apostles on pentecost, and that it was only for them (I suppose you could say as a boost to the fledgling church). Some churches still do claim to do all that stuff (as well as having fits or dancing around strangely through 'the spirit'), or at least are open to the idea that these things still go on, but I've always been rather skeptical of it all. Unless someone I'd known to be incurably ill was miraculously healed then I'd probably think it was an act.. there's a lot of deceit in the world.
The way I view it would be that if the bible is true, Jesus is the son of God and therefor rather uniquely qualified (he amazed the teachers in the synagogue when he was only 12 years old), and that his disciples would have had a lot of good teaching through Jesus, and later probably through the influence of the Holy Spirit.
I think the requirement for qualification in preaching in the Free Church or any church would more be just to ensure that complete garbage is not being taught, and to help improve general oration skills etc (one of my friends who went in for the ministry used to speak in a dreadful monotone when he was preaching, I noticed after a few months at the college that he had much improved). My local church was without a full-time minister for the last 5 years and so we basically had members of the congregation taking the mid-week prayer meeting each week, and sometimes on sundays too (though usually it was ordained ministers from other congregations), so it's not like they are extremely snobbish or strict when it comes to matters of qualification. Some churches don't even require that their ministers are Christians, which I don't really get at all.
I think it does make sense to make sure that preachers get some decent training if they're going to be doing it full time though. Knowledge of Hebrew/Greek and having good oratory skills aren't strictly essential elements for being a preacher, but they are very beneficial for reading scripture in its purest form and then expounding on it in such a way that people don't have to struggle to stay awake!
Yep, the Free Church of Scotland College generally require that you have a degree (and are a Christian) before entering, though they also take other life experience/jobs into account. You can preach in church without qualification, but to be an ordained Free Church minister with your own full time congregation I presume you'd have to have gone through the college. Actually, my brother in law's father never finished his training at the college due to illness, but he does have a congregation. I think he refers to himself as a pastor or something rather than a 'minister' though.
There is no promise from god to send all the people to hell that aren't in a particular group. Any biblical statement along those lines should be seen as instruction to the believer, not a binding commitment on god.
That is an interesting logical construct. So in your opinion would you say (post-Jesus'-first-coming for the sake of simplicity) that being baptised and having literal knowledge of and faith in Jesus is not actually a requirement of having eternal life? I think too many people are willing to just believe "god is good and so he will treat those who never hear of Jesus fairly" etc - seriously, what would even be the point in witnessing and mission if that were the case?
Any way I look at it, the whole situation the bible puts forth just doesn't make sense to me these days unless I think of it as just another man-made book. I do miss having faith and the feeling of security for the future that it brings (not to mention that I had a great relationship going earlier in the year but my gf ended up feeling too guilty that I'm not a Christian and we had to split up), but I no longer see the argument for a creator-god any more than those that don't believe in evolution see how human life and intelligence could exist without a higher power getting involved (which is such a Catch-22). I'm done with wishful thinking for now..