What do you make of the Mars rovers? Real? Computer generated? If it was fake in the first place, why go back? If it was just to intimidate the USSR with regard to our missile technology, that's a stupid plan since they beat us there using unmanned spacecraft.
What evidence would make you believe we went there and can you think of a good reason for using NASA resources, which probably bill somewhere in the $200/hr range, to get you the evidence you desire?
We're not laughing at foreigners... we're laughing at the big deal they are making of it. Once the original feat has been accomplished, it's not much reason for news anymore. Does anyone notice when someone runs a 4:00 mile, climbs Mt. Everest, or circumnavigates the globe? No, they've been done before, so no one cares. This has been done before, several times... are we supposed to give them a golf clap and throw a party to celebrate that they are 40 years behind?
Yup I forgot about that one. I think the comet is pretty impressive as well if not one of the most impressive feats. It's like taking a shot at a dime from 10 miles away.
A good point but it's not quite the same thing. They are considered one of the most powerful nations in the world. Celebrating over this is like a 30 year old celebrating their first steps or learning to use the toilet.
Now if Zimbabwe makes it to the moon, that would be impressive.
We are sending satellites to the far reaches of the solar system and beyond. We have rovers exploring Mars as we speak, which send back spectacular pictures and have performed far beyond the original specifications. We have a telescope in space that monitors distant galaxies. We have intercepted and collected samples from a comet. I fail to see why it is big news when the Chinese replicate a feat that was done nearly half a century ago by two other countries, one of which has sent humans there multiple times using computers less powerful than some people's cell phones. Are they also going to tell their people they were the first ones there and everything else is "Capitalist Propaganda"?
Are you kidding? Attaching the party affiliation to a Democrat for a story like this would completely ruin the mainstream media's case that the GOP is the great bastion of evil, careless, racists and bigots who's only mission it to control every facet of society and personal life. Reporters are just short of lawyers in their ability to manipulate the way we perceive the facts to situations which would normally have obvious solutions.
"Socialism is national healthcare, nationalised industries, nationalised housing, government control of resources."
Have you seen Hillary Clinton's platform? National Healthcare, increased government regulation of industry, return to welfare state... it has a lot of the principles you just listed as the earmarks of socialism.
Anything determined as "hate speech" is banned in Canada. This has extended into the censorship of a person like James Dobson when he talks about something in the Bible that lobbyists and politicians have labeled as "hate speech". Maybe you agree with it, but it's still censorship and limiting free speech.
First, the land the Jews live in was purchased... this is an old, old story that gets glossed over by Anti-Semites. Go into conspiracy theories if you like, but if you really want to talk about people who stole land, you have to look no further than the people who owned it. They sold their own people into poverty, don't blame that on us.
Second, getting rid of an expansionist nutjob like Hitler was the victory in WWII. Eastern Europe became Communist, I understand that, but in the end, we have won that battle as most of Eastern Europe has elected governments now. At least the USSR was not bent on destroying everything they couldn't have.
However, there's never been a truer statement, "We fight half-war after half-war, trying to win by not losing." Politics and war don't mix. If we're going to send them over there, we need to give them every resource they need and stop allowing politics and elections to stand in the way of their success.
Yup. People need to be held responsible for their actions. Even if they are not guilty of the allegations, it should still be tried.
I'm still ticked that Clinton got off for lying under oath.
Yup. There is a penchant for people to see the problems in front of them as much worse than what has been faced in the past. Some people thought Clinton was one of the worst presidents ever when he left office and many of those people want him back. Same thing with Regan, Carter, etc. The Vietnam era was a catastrophe at many levels. Nixon's problem wasn't Watergate, it was the fact that he thought he could do something like that because he was President and he could do whatever he wanted if he thought it was in the best interest of the country.
One, you said it yourself... you have not previously done an LDAP setup... so obviously it is not something that you can do in a few hours. Once you've done it one time you can easily set it up again. I have to also question your assertion that it took two weeks to figure it out. It took me two days the first time I ever did it and that was a Friday night and a Saturday.
I generally hold that one should not expect open source software to come in a box with a book and a support staff. There are some projects who get to this point but it's usually when a company like Red Hat takes that over when you get fully documented software with commercial support. Everyone must remember that open source is not built around a strict producer/consumer model. Rather, it encourages the consumers to add and make the product better while using something that is 95% of what they want giving them the ability to add the other 5%... in this case the consumer being the company who decides to use open source in their business.
As for groupware... what features were you using in Exchange that you couldn't get in OpenExchange? While I agree that Exchange has a larger feature set, most people use 35% of the functionality in Exchange, so are you paying for features you aren't using? Secondly, if you just want a big feature set, you may find this hard to believe, GroupWise has a larger set of features than Exchange, its compatible with clients on Linux and Windows, and it's licensing costs are cheaper than Exchange.
On TCO, the argument that "Windows + good admin is cheaper than Linux w/ mediocre admin", is probably true... but Windows with a mediocre admin can lead to complete failure where that is a bit harder to do with Linux. At this point there is no comparison, linux is cheaper. For instance, an admin who is not on top of patches can leave significant security holes open to attack. A windows admin who doesn't know how to adequately tune the server to the job that it does creates inefficiency, which creates more cost. Also, the argument that Windows + good admin ~ Linux + good admin is fine until your environment starts to scale. The is a simple principle... a linux admin can manage more of his machines than a windows admin can. There are just better tools for synchronizing, migrating settings, and overall enterprise management.
In my mind there are only 3 good arguments for Windows servers and that is in a small business that can hire 1 good admin, a business that is dependent on.NET, or a business with existing windows infrastructure and no need to scale beyond the abilities of the current admins.
It's interesting that who we call "respected" depends on which side of the fence we sit. That goes for any argument with no definitive solution.
Do we have an impact... I can only assume we have some impact. Is it 100% our fault? I find that difficult to believe given that we have not been collecting data for very long and we occupy such an insignificant amount of the surface of this planet it is ridiculous.
The thing that is inconvenient, and what I find so alarming about this prize, is that Gore says a lot with his mouth but does little as far as curbing his own usage. An e-mail went around talking about this when Gore launched his book. As with most politicians... their mouth says one thing, their lives say another. It's the same reason I despise anything run by the government. They find a way to screw up the simplest of endeavors because they all have agendas other than the best interests of the people.
So I say, who are you to be telling me which climate experts are respected?
The commandment is Jewish and I don't think it has ever meant anything but murder. If you look at the context, God commanded the Israelites to wipe out the tribes in Israel less than 50 years after He gave them the commandments. Also, capital punishment was used in the Old Testament as well.
However, there is something to war that made one unfit for ceremonial things as far as the ancient Jewish example. For instance, the Levities were priests, not warriors, so that delineation was made. Also, even though God declared David "a man after His own heart", He did not allow David to build the temple, something he left for Solomon because Solomon was a man of peace. Previous to the giving of the Law however, there seems to be no such delineation given the story of Abraham and the story of Melchizidek. From these examples, there is not much Biblical foundation for condemning all war.
It can't be a superior translation, because it's not a translation. It's a transliteration, that's a big difference. Not only that but it's a transliteration from a small number of questionable texts collected by questionable translators. Older, yes, but older does not necessarily mean better.
The first versions of the NIV were translated from the Westcott/Hort Greek Text, both great academics but not very good theologians. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, one must question if such men. From their own letters they rejected the deity of Jesus Christ... the Bible calls those people anti-Christ. There is no point to Christianity and no point to the Bible, Old or New Testament if Jesus Christ is not divine as well as mortal. ad hominem, fine, but not invalid in this circumstance.
Secondly, the the 3 main source texts which give all modern versions(not necessarily the NIV) their claim to "oldest and best" are questionable. We date them as being older, but their sources come from Alexandria, Sinai, and the Vatican library. The manuscript from Sinai had originally been thrown away since it was so annotated and some say changed, that they could not verify that it was valid at all. The text from Alexandria was heavily influenced by Origen(Stargate fans shudder), a philosopher and a mystic with no theological background. The text from the Vatican suffers from the same issues as the Sinaitic text and is considered off limits to research and scholarly review. The difficult thing is, none of these three texts completely agree in content or in thought.
Contrast that with texts from the Byzantine tradition which are consistent in content, thought, and there are thousands more of them. Remember that these many thousands of texts were all copied by hand and while they contain errors in spelling or punctuation, their content is nearly identical. It wasn't like now, where you put one bad copy in a copy machine and you can print off bad copies until you deforest a mountain in the Pacific Northwest. Hand copying, while leaving one open to mistakes in spelling and punctuation, actually prevents serious mistakes or alterations from propagating. Alterations like leaving out verses or changing the wording to say something else would have been much harder to propagate among that family of texts since there were so many and one person working from a poor text could only do so much damage in terms of accuracy.
So you'll have to forgive me if I have to disagree with your statement.
Jesus was hardly a preacher of "tolerance", at least not the way you are using it. Jesus taught people to love, but that love very clearly did not mean acceptance of their lifestyle. For instance, the story of the woman caught in adultery is often used to show how "tolerant" Jesus was. But that story also includes a command to "sin no more". That the act was wrong was never in question. Jesus taught that there is right and wrong and that, if you love a person, you would want to help them out of their self-destructive lifestyles.
In addition, the word tolerance indicates an acceptance of something that is otherwise hated. That you can tolerate something means that you "to endure without repugnance; put up with". There is a difference between love for a person because they are a person and acceptance of something that you despise.
He's a scientist with an ego... which most scientists have and is a danger and possibly a barrier to objectivity. Being corrected and somewhat mocked for his mistake is, I'm sure, embarrassing and a shot to his ego.
Of course, if he had simply released his findings instead of using them as a platform to promote his theories of climate change, I'm quite sure the response to the mistake would not have been so negative. The fact that they trumpeted the first findings and quietly released the second makes one wonder about the real reason for releasing them in the first place. Do real scientists keep things to themselves if their experiments don't fit with their original hypothesis? Do they tweak experiments until they come up with the intended outcome? That's not science... that's politics.
If you were here in Detroit you wouldn't be saying things like that. Didn't you know that President Bush doesn't like Michigan and wants to crush the domestic auto makers?
Missing libraries and other such things are the fault of the package maintainer, not necessarily Ubuntu.
If you don't like it, just install it the non-apt way and everything is fine.
Human is a species, not a state of being. To make this argument you have to redefine murder as the ending of a sentient, cognitive being regardless of if they are human or not human.
Of course, now you have to define what is sentient. Is a bug sentient? According to the definition of the word:
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
a bug is sentient. Therefore, you better not swat it when it sucks the blood out of you and spreads lyme disease... that's murder.
And as a person who recently became a father.... my son reacted to sounds and actions while still in the womb. To have done this he must have had the power of perception, or it had to be an amazing coincidence every time we started playing music or when certain people spoke. What about being 2 years old makes them suddenly conscious and aware of their environment. You and anyone else who makes this claim must not have kids or you are using a term you don't know the definition of.
So you're saying that you believe it's perfectly ok for someone to kill a baby for no particular reason until they are 2 and they suddenly, magically, become a human being? What if that baby is mentally handicapped?
I don't think he's saying "conservatives vs judges". The sentence "conservatives on the Supreme Court have long warned' about the dynamic of going against Congress when it comes to copyright." says that conservatives are warning that going against Congress on these matters is not the correct process.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you make of the Mars rovers? Real? Computer generated? If it was fake in the first place, why go back? If it was just to intimidate the USSR with regard to our missile technology, that's a stupid plan since they beat us there using unmanned spacecraft.
What evidence would make you believe we went there and can you think of a good reason for using NASA resources, which probably bill somewhere in the $200/hr range, to get you the evidence you desire?
We're not laughing at foreigners... we're laughing at the big deal they are making of it. Once the original feat has been accomplished, it's not much reason for news anymore. Does anyone notice when someone runs a 4:00 mile, climbs Mt. Everest, or circumnavigates the globe? No, they've been done before, so no one cares. This has been done before, several times... are we supposed to give them a golf clap and throw a party to celebrate that they are 40 years behind?
Yup I forgot about that one. I think the comet is pretty impressive as well if not one of the most impressive feats. It's like taking a shot at a dime from 10 miles away.
A good point but it's not quite the same thing. They are considered one of the most powerful nations in the world. Celebrating over this is like a 30 year old celebrating their first steps or learning to use the toilet. Now if Zimbabwe makes it to the moon, that would be impressive.
We are sending satellites to the far reaches of the solar system and beyond. We have rovers exploring Mars as we speak, which send back spectacular pictures and have performed far beyond the original specifications. We have a telescope in space that monitors distant galaxies. We have intercepted and collected samples from a comet. I fail to see why it is big news when the Chinese replicate a feat that was done nearly half a century ago by two other countries, one of which has sent humans there multiple times using computers less powerful than some people's cell phones. Are they also going to tell their people they were the first ones there and everything else is "Capitalist Propaganda"?
Is that a serious question?
There's been something wrong with Windows since 3.1. The fact that it's an inferior product and you still have to pay for it is absurd.
Can't be. This is the United States, all you need to know is pumped into your brain via movies and television. Reading? Poetry? Eh, too much work.
Are you kidding? Attaching the party affiliation to a Democrat for a story like this would completely ruin the mainstream media's case that the GOP is the great bastion of evil, careless, racists and bigots who's only mission it to control every facet of society and personal life. Reporters are just short of lawyers in their ability to manipulate the way we perceive the facts to situations which would normally have obvious solutions.
"Socialism is national healthcare, nationalised industries, nationalised housing, government control of resources." Have you seen Hillary Clinton's platform? National Healthcare, increased government regulation of industry, return to welfare state... it has a lot of the principles you just listed as the earmarks of socialism.
Anything determined as "hate speech" is banned in Canada. This has extended into the censorship of a person like James Dobson when he talks about something in the Bible that lobbyists and politicians have labeled as "hate speech". Maybe you agree with it, but it's still censorship and limiting free speech.
First, the land the Jews live in was purchased... this is an old, old story that gets glossed over by Anti-Semites. Go into conspiracy theories if you like, but if you really want to talk about people who stole land, you have to look no further than the people who owned it. They sold their own people into poverty, don't blame that on us. Second, getting rid of an expansionist nutjob like Hitler was the victory in WWII. Eastern Europe became Communist, I understand that, but in the end, we have won that battle as most of Eastern Europe has elected governments now. At least the USSR was not bent on destroying everything they couldn't have. However, there's never been a truer statement, "We fight half-war after half-war, trying to win by not losing." Politics and war don't mix. If we're going to send them over there, we need to give them every resource they need and stop allowing politics and elections to stand in the way of their success.
Yup. People need to be held responsible for their actions. Even if they are not guilty of the allegations, it should still be tried. I'm still ticked that Clinton got off for lying under oath.
Yup. There is a penchant for people to see the problems in front of them as much worse than what has been faced in the past. Some people thought Clinton was one of the worst presidents ever when he left office and many of those people want him back. Same thing with Regan, Carter, etc. The Vietnam era was a catastrophe at many levels. Nixon's problem wasn't Watergate, it was the fact that he thought he could do something like that because he was President and he could do whatever he wanted if he thought it was in the best interest of the country.
One, you said it yourself... you have not previously done an LDAP setup... so obviously it is not something that you can do in a few hours. Once you've done it one time you can easily set it up again. I have to also question your assertion that it took two weeks to figure it out. It took me two days the first time I ever did it and that was a Friday night and a Saturday. I generally hold that one should not expect open source software to come in a box with a book and a support staff. There are some projects who get to this point but it's usually when a company like Red Hat takes that over when you get fully documented software with commercial support. Everyone must remember that open source is not built around a strict producer/consumer model. Rather, it encourages the consumers to add and make the product better while using something that is 95% of what they want giving them the ability to add the other 5%... in this case the consumer being the company who decides to use open source in their business. As for groupware... what features were you using in Exchange that you couldn't get in OpenExchange? While I agree that Exchange has a larger feature set, most people use 35% of the functionality in Exchange, so are you paying for features you aren't using? Secondly, if you just want a big feature set, you may find this hard to believe, GroupWise has a larger set of features than Exchange, its compatible with clients on Linux and Windows, and it's licensing costs are cheaper than Exchange. On TCO, the argument that "Windows + good admin is cheaper than Linux w/ mediocre admin", is probably true... but Windows with a mediocre admin can lead to complete failure where that is a bit harder to do with Linux. At this point there is no comparison, linux is cheaper. For instance, an admin who is not on top of patches can leave significant security holes open to attack. A windows admin who doesn't know how to adequately tune the server to the job that it does creates inefficiency, which creates more cost. Also, the argument that Windows + good admin ~ Linux + good admin is fine until your environment starts to scale. The is a simple principle... a linux admin can manage more of his machines than a windows admin can. There are just better tools for synchronizing, migrating settings, and overall enterprise management. In my mind there are only 3 good arguments for Windows servers and that is in a small business that can hire 1 good admin, a business that is dependent on .NET, or a business with existing windows infrastructure and no need to scale beyond the abilities of the current admins.
I guess the only way to make Michigan's tax environment look better is to make everyone else's tax environment look just as bad.
It's interesting that who we call "respected" depends on which side of the fence we sit. That goes for any argument with no definitive solution. Do we have an impact... I can only assume we have some impact. Is it 100% our fault? I find that difficult to believe given that we have not been collecting data for very long and we occupy such an insignificant amount of the surface of this planet it is ridiculous. The thing that is inconvenient, and what I find so alarming about this prize, is that Gore says a lot with his mouth but does little as far as curbing his own usage. An e-mail went around talking about this when Gore launched his book. As with most politicians... their mouth says one thing, their lives say another. It's the same reason I despise anything run by the government. They find a way to screw up the simplest of endeavors because they all have agendas other than the best interests of the people. So I say, who are you to be telling me which climate experts are respected?
The commandment is Jewish and I don't think it has ever meant anything but murder. If you look at the context, God commanded the Israelites to wipe out the tribes in Israel less than 50 years after He gave them the commandments. Also, capital punishment was used in the Old Testament as well. However, there is something to war that made one unfit for ceremonial things as far as the ancient Jewish example. For instance, the Levities were priests, not warriors, so that delineation was made. Also, even though God declared David "a man after His own heart", He did not allow David to build the temple, something he left for Solomon because Solomon was a man of peace. Previous to the giving of the Law however, there seems to be no such delineation given the story of Abraham and the story of Melchizidek. From these examples, there is not much Biblical foundation for condemning all war.
It can't be a superior translation, because it's not a translation. It's a transliteration, that's a big difference. Not only that but it's a transliteration from a small number of questionable texts collected by questionable translators. Older, yes, but older does not necessarily mean better. The first versions of the NIV were translated from the Westcott/Hort Greek Text, both great academics but not very good theologians. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, one must question if such men. From their own letters they rejected the deity of Jesus Christ... the Bible calls those people anti-Christ. There is no point to Christianity and no point to the Bible, Old or New Testament if Jesus Christ is not divine as well as mortal. ad hominem, fine, but not invalid in this circumstance. Secondly, the the 3 main source texts which give all modern versions(not necessarily the NIV) their claim to "oldest and best" are questionable. We date them as being older, but their sources come from Alexandria, Sinai, and the Vatican library. The manuscript from Sinai had originally been thrown away since it was so annotated and some say changed, that they could not verify that it was valid at all. The text from Alexandria was heavily influenced by Origen(Stargate fans shudder), a philosopher and a mystic with no theological background. The text from the Vatican suffers from the same issues as the Sinaitic text and is considered off limits to research and scholarly review. The difficult thing is, none of these three texts completely agree in content or in thought. Contrast that with texts from the Byzantine tradition which are consistent in content, thought, and there are thousands more of them. Remember that these many thousands of texts were all copied by hand and while they contain errors in spelling or punctuation, their content is nearly identical. It wasn't like now, where you put one bad copy in a copy machine and you can print off bad copies until you deforest a mountain in the Pacific Northwest. Hand copying, while leaving one open to mistakes in spelling and punctuation, actually prevents serious mistakes or alterations from propagating. Alterations like leaving out verses or changing the wording to say something else would have been much harder to propagate among that family of texts since there were so many and one person working from a poor text could only do so much damage in terms of accuracy. So you'll have to forgive me if I have to disagree with your statement.
Jesus was hardly a preacher of "tolerance", at least not the way you are using it. Jesus taught people to love, but that love very clearly did not mean acceptance of their lifestyle. For instance, the story of the woman caught in adultery is often used to show how "tolerant" Jesus was. But that story also includes a command to "sin no more". That the act was wrong was never in question. Jesus taught that there is right and wrong and that, if you love a person, you would want to help them out of their self-destructive lifestyles. In addition, the word tolerance indicates an acceptance of something that is otherwise hated. That you can tolerate something means that you "to endure without repugnance; put up with". There is a difference between love for a person because they are a person and acceptance of something that you despise.
He's a scientist with an ego... which most scientists have and is a danger and possibly a barrier to objectivity. Being corrected and somewhat mocked for his mistake is, I'm sure, embarrassing and a shot to his ego. Of course, if he had simply released his findings instead of using them as a platform to promote his theories of climate change, I'm quite sure the response to the mistake would not have been so negative. The fact that they trumpeted the first findings and quietly released the second makes one wonder about the real reason for releasing them in the first place. Do real scientists keep things to themselves if their experiments don't fit with their original hypothesis? Do they tweak experiments until they come up with the intended outcome? That's not science... that's politics.
If you were here in Detroit you wouldn't be saying things like that. Didn't you know that President Bush doesn't like Michigan and wants to crush the domestic auto makers?
Missing libraries and other such things are the fault of the package maintainer, not necessarily Ubuntu. If you don't like it, just install it the non-apt way and everything is fine.
Human is a species, not a state of being. To make this argument you have to redefine murder as the ending of a sentient, cognitive being regardless of if they are human or not human. Of course, now you have to define what is sentient. Is a bug sentient? According to the definition of the word: 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness. a bug is sentient. Therefore, you better not swat it when it sucks the blood out of you and spreads lyme disease... that's murder. And as a person who recently became a father.... my son reacted to sounds and actions while still in the womb. To have done this he must have had the power of perception, or it had to be an amazing coincidence every time we started playing music or when certain people spoke. What about being 2 years old makes them suddenly conscious and aware of their environment. You and anyone else who makes this claim must not have kids or you are using a term you don't know the definition of.
So you're saying that you believe it's perfectly ok for someone to kill a baby for no particular reason until they are 2 and they suddenly, magically, become a human being? What if that baby is mentally handicapped?
I don't think he's saying "conservatives vs judges". The sentence "conservatives on the Supreme Court have long warned' about the dynamic of going against Congress when it comes to copyright." says that conservatives are warning that going against Congress on these matters is not the correct process.