Yeah, but are you male or female? Everyone knows that a real man will not ever, under any circumstances whatsoever ask for directions, even if he is lost in the wilderness, starving and dying of thirst;)
You are painting Christians with a pretty broad brush there. Without a doubt, there are religious leaders who get too full of their own importance and do some pretty unconscionable things. But in all fairness, there are also an awful lot of religious leaders who don't make fools of themselves on regular occasions. Stereotyping a religious group because of the failures of some of its more loudmouthed members is no different than stereotyping any other group because of the actions of a relatively small group of its constituents. Should we judge all athletes by Dennis Rodman, O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson or Barry Bonds? Should we judge all atheists by Stalin or Mao Tse Tung? Are all wealthy heiresses as patently ridiculous as Paris Hilton?
If you want to see what true Christianity is about, don't look for the loud, obnoxious busybodies screaming at you on T.V. Look in the soup kitchens, in the neonatal ICU wards in the hospital, in the retirement homes.
My most sincere condolences to you and your families. I can't imagine how that must have torn you up. May you find peace and happiness in your future.
--Mike
Ummm, no. A radio station pays a royalty check to the copyright holders for the right to broadcast the music. Somehow I doubt the defendants in this case wrote any royalty checks to the copyright holders.
Proof that, as in most things in life, moderation is the key.
I'm not an audio engineer, but I am a practicing, amateur musician who dabbles in recording. A proper amount of dynamic range compression is good, both for the reasons you mention above and also because a lot of consumer-grade audio equipment can't handle the dynamic range of a guitar/bass amp or a PA system like you find in a local club. So, a recording engineer at the studio who knows boatloads more about audio than I ever will spends a great deal of time tweaking the compression, E.Q. and psychoacoustic processing of the final recording to provide a sound appropriate to the musical genre than will play reasonably well on the bulk of consumer audio systems out there, and the end result is entirely dependent upon the skill, experience and taste of the engineer who does the audio mastering.
I suspect it is entirely possible to find current recordings that are done really well, but that there are also plenty of other recordings that -- due to the taste (or lack thereof) of the artists, their producers or the label, among other reasons -- are done rather poorly.
Quote: Or take shuttle. It was designed on paper, and the very first hardware iteration was declared operational configuration.
Ummmm....not exactly. First, I'm just barely old enough to remember a lot of this, so no doubt a lot of the/. crowd isn't either, but IIRC, the Space Shuttle was preceded by a lot of hardware developed to test ideas and concepts that were milestones to the Space Shuttle as we know it today. Remember the X-15 rocket plane? Or how about the lifting body airplanes of the late '60s (?) and '70s -- you know, like the one that crashed and burned during the opening credits of "The Six Million Dollar Man" (really dating myself now). Second, the Shuttle *was* tested and redesigned during it's lifetime. The original Shuttle, the Enterprise, was essentially a proof-of-concept vehicle. Again, I'm just barely old enough to remember (I think I was 7 or so when it first flew) so I might be a little off on the details, but as I recall, it was flown to altitude on a 747, then released to glide back to a landing at...Edwards AFB?...several times, and the data collected resulted in modifications to the design before the first production Shuttle ever flew. Then there was the SRB redesign in the wake of the Challenger, and more recently, the external tank modifications after the Columbia disaster. So while I'll admit that the Space Shuttle itself was the first and only version of a reusable launch vehicle, I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the Shuttle was designed and built in a single iteration.
Nevertheless, your point about the approach taken by Armadillo Aerospace and the like is entirely accurate -- it's an evolutionary approach with a lot of iterations. There's still a long ways to go before commercial orbital and suborbital flights are as common as airline traffic is today.
1) "stealing" because you are blocking ads? Give me a break! Is there a EULA on the page saying that unless you view the adds, you are prohibited from viewing content on the page? Is there some other type of explicit contract stating this? Then in my non-expert IANAL opinion, if it's publicly accessible, it's free for use, and if I *happen* to view an add that brings some revenue to the webmaster/owner/whatever then that's cool, and if I don't then oh well.
2) Even IE users can edit their hosts file to redirect ads.doubleclick.net and the like to 127.0.0.1. It's a pretty simple way to block undesired content.
Solution: What if everyone decides this webmaster is a schmuck and boycotts his website? What would his ad revenue be, then?
Nak. Only objects with mass are thought to be unable to exceed -- or even reach -- c. But there is no theory of which I am aware that that prohibits an "object" (using the term loosely) with a mass of 0 from exceeding the speed of light. But IANAP, so YMMV.
Also, don't forget, it was only 50 or 60 years ago that people thought the speed of sound was an impenetrable barrier as well...until Chuck Yeager proved them wrong.
not exp log srand xor s qq qx xor s x x length uc ord and print chr ord for qw q join use sub tied qx xor eval xor print qq q q xor int eval lc q m cos and print chr ord for qw y abs ne open tied hex exp ref y m xor scalar srand print qq q q xor int eval lc qq y sqrt cos and print chr ord for qw x printf each return local x y or print qq s s and eval q s undef or oct xor time xor ref print chr int ord lc foreach qw y hex alarm chdir kill exec return y s gt sin sort split
Simply elegant! My younger brother sent it to me; not sure where he got it. It's Perl, by the way.
Couldn't that same argument be used to shut down the **AA if broadcasters get their way?
Step 1: Broadcasters vs. Joe Public -- broadcasters convince a judge that users must pay to share media over any kind of a home network.
Step 2: John Q. Doe vs. Broadcasters -- user shows that even a single computer is essentially a home network, using the same arguments you used above. Judge, realizing that the user is correct, and realizing that the broadcasters' position is essentially untenable throws the case out, thus establishing new case law that works in the users' favor.
...where you take what someone says, apply their words to a slightly different context, then make something that was said in innocence into something that is socially embarrassing? I've played both sides of that game from the time I was a teenager, and when you are just goofing off with friends, it's all in fun. Someone turns red and gets flustered, then everything they say to clear up what they really meant only digs the hole deeper.
We've all played that game, and we all know how easy it can be to string someone up with their own words when the context has been subtlety altered. Now imagine that it's not your friends trying to embarrass you for fun, but it's a prosecutor and he's trying to send you to the deepest, darkest hole he can find. What you said and what you did that got recorded in some computer database may be perfectly innocent, but that doesn't mean someone sufficiently motivated -- or paranoid -- can't twist your actions into something that appears very sinister to twelve of your peers. *That's* why privacy is important.
...it's that people used to using Photoshop on Windows have to learn a different UI to make Gimp sing and dance the way they can make Photoshop sing and dance, and after mastering one program, most people don't want to have to learn something new.
Back in the day, I used the freeware Paint Shop Pro (v.4, IIRC) on Win 3.1 and later Win 98. It took me a long time to learn Paint Shop Pro's UI, but I did finally learn it, and even really liked it. Eventually I upgraded to PSP 7.0 on Win2K, and had to learn the UI all over again. At first, I hated it and wanted to use the old UI I was used to, but finally, I figured it out. A little later, I switched to Linux and started using the Gimp. At first, just like I had done with both versions of PSP, I was unproductive because it was new, and I hadn't figured out how to use all the tools. A year or two later, my wife took a web design class at the local university where they used...you guessed it, Photoshop. She can't stand Paint Shop Pro or the Gimp, because she learned Photoshop, and is used to the way it works. So....when she ran into difficulty with Photoshop, guess who she always asked for help? And you know what? I had as much trouble doing anything in Photoshop as a Photoshop pro would have using the Gimp. Fast forward to the present, and while I'd rather use the Gimp simply because it's what I use most, and therefore what I am most familiar with, I *can* use any one of these three programs. I find PSP is a little easier for creating animated gif's (to be fair, I've not tried this with Photoshop). My wife has added some phenomenal effects to photos with Photoshop that I haven't been able to duplicate with the Gimp, but I find the Gimp easiest for most everything else.
Okay, that's anecdote, I'm a computer geek, and maybe I'm just weird. However, my experience at work bears out my personal observations. We're a small company, and we simply can't afford to buy Photoshop for everyone here who needs to occasionally edit or retouch an image, so we put the Gimp on our employees' computers. Guess what -- while they might need a little help getting started, everyone that has used the Gimp has learned to use it with very little fuss, and most of them who have also used Photoshop gripe about what a PITA it is compared to the Gimp...because they use the Gimp more often.
IMHO, the Gimp isn't really that hard, but it is different enough from what most graphical design people who trained on Photoshop are used to using, and that difference can be a real barrier to someone who views computers and software as merely a tool for accomplishing something else (i.e., most everyone who doesn't read/. on a daily basis).
Dude, I'm Christian too, but seriously -- comments like this are entirely counter-productive. Let me dissect your, and I use the term loosely, "logic" point by point:
1) Quote: Why does AIDS get such a huge amount of funding? Perhaps because it is a truly horrible disease that brings a boatload of suffering to millions of people around the world?
2) Quote: Other diseases kill far more people every year...
True. Do you think no one is working on them?
3) Quote:...and most of them aren't caught by immoral behavior.
Is AIDS/HIV only caught by immoral behavior? Back in the late '80s, there was a huge story on the news about a kid in Florida (IIRC) who caught AIDS from a blood transfusion (this was before screening blood for HIV was as common as it is now). In what type of immoral behavior did this kid engage? How about EMT's, paramedics, doctors, nurses or other good Samaritans who contract AIDS while attempting to render assistance to someone else who has AIDS? If you are a paramedic or E.R. nurse, can you tell for certain which of your patients is "moral" before supplying medical care? Or would you just prefer to let everyone care for themselves?
4) Quote: The pastor at my church says it's the gays promoting their choices as normal behind all this.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that it requires everyone involved in the conspiracy to carry the secret to the grave. Most people can't keep a secret. Ergo, conspiracies of the magnitude you are describing tend to be very, very rare.
5) Quote: The homosexuals are indoctrinating your children and making them choose their lifestyle. They can't reproduce so they have no choice BUT to recruit. They are forcing the government to back their behavior with laws... Laws against God and Jesus.
Like I said above, I am a Christian, too. I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for the same reasons that you don't agree with it. But I'm also the first person to say, yeah, I've made mistakes in my life, too. I'm no more or less perfect than the very people you want to turn your back to, and neither are you. You say God gave laws prohibiting homosexuality. He also gave laws prohibiting adultery. Do you remember the story in the New Testament where the Pharisees wanted to stone the woman "caught in the act of adultery"? Do you remember Jesus' answer? "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Now let's take this one step further. What do you think is a Christian's purpose on earth? Somehow I doubt it's to work hard five days a week, sit in a pew on Sunday morning, buy a big house and a nice car and watch the world turn. I suspect it has a little more to do with telling others that they can be freed from the screwed up lives we tend to live when left to our own devices. If that's the case, then do you think someone is going to listen to you if you start out by telling them that, because of their own immorality, funding to cure the disease that is slowly taking their life away should be canceled? How callous is that? On the contrary, I think a true Christian -- someone who really lives the life modeled by Jesus -- would instead be rushing to the sides of the AIDS victims in an attempt to reach them with the gospel before the end of their lives. If researchers can develop a drug to buy you more time to reach such a person, a Christian should be all over that.
The pastor at my church says you should hate the sin, but never the sinner. That, in my humble opinion, is pretty good logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but are you male or female? Everyone knows that a real man will not ever, under any circumstances whatsoever ask for directions, even if he is lost in the wilderness, starving and dying of thirst ;)
You are painting Christians with a pretty broad brush there. Without a doubt, there are religious leaders who get too full of their own importance and do some pretty unconscionable things. But in all fairness, there are also an awful lot of religious leaders who don't make fools of themselves on regular occasions. Stereotyping a religious group because of the failures of some of its more loudmouthed members is no different than stereotyping any other group because of the actions of a relatively small group of its constituents. Should we judge all athletes by Dennis Rodman, O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson or Barry Bonds? Should we judge all atheists by Stalin or Mao Tse Tung? Are all wealthy heiresses as patently ridiculous as Paris Hilton?
If you want to see what true Christianity is about, don't look for the loud, obnoxious busybodies screaming at you on T.V. Look in the soup kitchens, in the neonatal ICU wards in the hospital, in the retirement homes.
My most sincere condolences to you and your families. I can't imagine how that must have torn you up. May you find peace and happiness in your future. --Mike
Ummm, no. A radio station pays a royalty check to the copyright holders for the right to broadcast the music. Somehow I doubt the defendants in this case wrote any royalty checks to the copyright holders.
Well, at least, not yet.
Proof that, as in most things in life, moderation is the key.
I'm not an audio engineer, but I am a practicing, amateur musician who dabbles in recording. A proper amount of dynamic range compression is good, both for the reasons you mention above and also because a lot of consumer-grade audio equipment can't handle the dynamic range of a guitar/bass amp or a PA system like you find in a local club. So, a recording engineer at the studio who knows boatloads more about audio than I ever will spends a great deal of time tweaking the compression, E.Q. and psychoacoustic processing of the final recording to provide a sound appropriate to the musical genre than will play reasonably well on the bulk of consumer audio systems out there, and the end result is entirely dependent upon the skill, experience and taste of the engineer who does the audio mastering.
I suspect it is entirely possible to find current recordings that are done really well, but that there are also plenty of other recordings that -- due to the taste (or lack thereof) of the artists, their producers or the label, among other reasons -- are done rather poorly.
Quote: Or take shuttle. It was designed on paper, and the very first hardware iteration was declared operational configuration.
/. crowd isn't either, but IIRC, the Space Shuttle was preceded by a lot of hardware developed to test ideas and concepts that were milestones to the Space Shuttle as we know it today. Remember the X-15 rocket plane? Or how about the lifting body airplanes of the late '60s (?) and '70s -- you know, like the one that crashed and burned during the opening credits of "The Six Million Dollar Man" (really dating myself now). Second, the Shuttle *was* tested and redesigned during it's lifetime. The original Shuttle, the Enterprise, was essentially a proof-of-concept vehicle. Again, I'm just barely old enough to remember (I think I was 7 or so when it first flew) so I might be a little off on the details, but as I recall, it was flown to altitude on a 747, then released to glide back to a landing at...Edwards AFB?...several times, and the data collected resulted in modifications to the design before the first production Shuttle ever flew. Then there was the SRB redesign in the wake of the Challenger, and more recently, the external tank modifications after the Columbia disaster. So while I'll admit that the Space Shuttle itself was the first and only version of a reusable launch vehicle, I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the Shuttle was designed and built in a single iteration.
Ummmm....not exactly. First, I'm just barely old enough to remember a lot of this, so no doubt a lot of the
Nevertheless, your point about the approach taken by Armadillo Aerospace and the like is entirely accurate -- it's an evolutionary approach with a lot of iterations. There's still a long ways to go before commercial orbital and suborbital flights are as common as airline traffic is today.
1) "stealing" because you are blocking ads? Give me a break! Is there a EULA on the page saying that unless you view the adds, you are prohibited from viewing content on the page? Is there some other type of explicit contract stating this? Then in my non-expert IANAL opinion, if it's publicly accessible, it's free for use, and if I *happen* to view an add that brings some revenue to the webmaster/owner/whatever then that's cool, and if I don't then oh well.
2) Even IE users can edit their hosts file to redirect ads.doubleclick.net and the like to 127.0.0.1. It's a pretty simple way to block undesired content.
Solution: What if everyone decides this webmaster is a schmuck and boycotts his website? What would his ad revenue be, then?
Crap. And now I forget to add the /., apparently....sigh.
tags because I have HTML formatting turned on. Not my day on
Ah...sorry. I missed the parent post ;)
-------> (joke)
O
-----
| (me)
/ \
/ \
Nak. Only objects with mass are thought to be unable to exceed -- or even reach -- c. But there is no theory of which I am aware that that prohibits an "object" (using the term loosely) with a mass of 0 from exceeding the speed of light. But IANAP, so YMMV.
Also, don't forget, it was only 50 or 60 years ago that people thought the speed of sound was an impenetrable barrier as well...until Chuck Yeager proved them wrong.
...looked like this:
not exp log srand xor s qq qx xor
s x x length uc ord and print chr
ord for qw q join use sub tied qx
xor eval xor print qq q q xor int
eval lc q m cos and print chr ord
for qw y abs ne open tied hex exp
ref y m xor scalar srand print qq
q q xor int eval lc qq y sqrt cos
and print chr ord for qw x printf
each return local x y or print qq
s s and eval q s undef or oct xor
time xor ref print chr int ord lc
foreach qw y hex alarm chdir kill
exec return y s gt sin sort split
Simply elegant! My younger brother sent it to me; not sure where he got it. It's Perl, by the way.
"Evacuation comple-...evac-...evacuatio-...evacuation complete."
...contribute to this guy's legal defense fund?
Couldn't that same argument be used to shut down the **AA if broadcasters get their way?
Step 1: Broadcasters vs. Joe Public -- broadcasters convince a judge that users must pay to share media over any kind of a home network.
Step 2: John Q. Doe vs. Broadcasters -- user shows that even a single computer is essentially a home network, using the same arguments you used above. Judge, realizing that the user is correct, and realizing that the broadcasters' position is essentially untenable throws the case out, thus establishing new case law that works in the users' favor.
Or am I just dreaming?
Liberty isn't bleeding, it's hemorrhaging :(
Ah....that's true. Point taken. :)
Not to be the devil's advocate, but isn't that exactly what a public defender is?
Quote: That's why we have Habeas Corpus
h tml).
No we don't. Alberto Gonzales said so himself (http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.s
Dude, if I'm on the beach, the last thing I want to be looking at is my laptop ;)
Does this happen to you often?!?!
I've seen that quote before, and I really like it. I may at times be a poor reflection of Christ, but I'm working on it :)
...where you take what someone says, apply their words to a slightly different context, then make something that was said in innocence into something that is socially embarrassing? I've played both sides of that game from the time I was a teenager, and when you are just goofing off with friends, it's all in fun. Someone turns red and gets flustered, then everything they say to clear up what they really meant only digs the hole deeper.
We've all played that game, and we all know how easy it can be to string someone up with their own words when the context has been subtlety altered. Now imagine that it's not your friends trying to embarrass you for fun, but it's a prosecutor and he's trying to send you to the deepest, darkest hole he can find. What you said and what you did that got recorded in some computer database may be perfectly innocent, but that doesn't mean someone sufficiently motivated -- or paranoid -- can't twist your actions into something that appears very sinister to twelve of your peers. *That's* why privacy is important.
I'd donate my step-daughter's little shi^H^H^Hdog for testing.
...it's that people used to using Photoshop on Windows have to learn a different UI to make Gimp sing and dance the way they can make Photoshop sing and dance, and after mastering one program, most people don't want to have to learn something new.
/. on a daily basis).
Back in the day, I used the freeware Paint Shop Pro (v.4, IIRC) on Win 3.1 and later Win 98. It took me a long time to learn Paint Shop Pro's UI, but I did finally learn it, and even really liked it. Eventually I upgraded to PSP 7.0 on Win2K, and had to learn the UI all over again. At first, I hated it and wanted to use the old UI I was used to, but finally, I figured it out. A little later, I switched to Linux and started using the Gimp. At first, just like I had done with both versions of PSP, I was unproductive because it was new, and I hadn't figured out how to use all the tools. A year or two later, my wife took a web design class at the local university where they used...you guessed it, Photoshop. She can't stand Paint Shop Pro or the Gimp, because she learned Photoshop, and is used to the way it works. So....when she ran into difficulty with Photoshop, guess who she always asked for help? And you know what? I had as much trouble doing anything in Photoshop as a Photoshop pro would have using the Gimp. Fast forward to the present, and while I'd rather use the Gimp simply because it's what I use most, and therefore what I am most familiar with, I *can* use any one of these three programs. I find PSP is a little easier for creating animated gif's (to be fair, I've not tried this with Photoshop). My wife has added some phenomenal effects to photos with Photoshop that I haven't been able to duplicate with the Gimp, but I find the Gimp easiest for most everything else.
Okay, that's anecdote, I'm a computer geek, and maybe I'm just weird. However, my experience at work bears out my personal observations. We're a small company, and we simply can't afford to buy Photoshop for everyone here who needs to occasionally edit or retouch an image, so we put the Gimp on our employees' computers. Guess what -- while they might need a little help getting started, everyone that has used the Gimp has learned to use it with very little fuss, and most of them who have also used Photoshop gripe about what a PITA it is compared to the Gimp...because they use the Gimp more often.
IMHO, the Gimp isn't really that hard, but it is different enough from what most graphical design people who trained on Photoshop are used to using, and that difference can be a real barrier to someone who views computers and software as merely a tool for accomplishing something else (i.e., most everyone who doesn't read
Dude, I'm Christian too, but seriously -- comments like this are entirely counter-productive. Let me dissect your, and I use the term loosely, "logic" point by point:
...and most of them aren't caught by immoral behavior.
1) Quote: Why does AIDS get such a huge amount of funding?
Perhaps because it is a truly horrible disease that brings a boatload of suffering to millions of people around the world?
2) Quote: Other diseases kill far more people every year...
True. Do you think no one is working on them?
3) Quote:
Is AIDS/HIV only caught by immoral behavior? Back in the late '80s, there was a huge story on the news about a kid in Florida (IIRC) who caught AIDS from a blood transfusion (this was before screening blood for HIV was as common as it is now). In what type of immoral behavior did this kid engage? How about EMT's, paramedics, doctors, nurses or other good Samaritans who contract AIDS while attempting to render assistance to someone else who has AIDS? If you are a paramedic or E.R. nurse, can you tell for certain which of your patients is "moral" before supplying medical care? Or would you just prefer to let everyone care for themselves?
4) Quote: The pastor at my church says it's the gays promoting their choices as normal behind all this.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that it requires everyone involved in the conspiracy to carry the secret to the grave. Most people can't keep a secret. Ergo, conspiracies of the magnitude you are describing tend to be very, very rare.
5) Quote: The homosexuals are indoctrinating your children and making them choose their lifestyle. They can't reproduce so they have no choice BUT to recruit. They are forcing the government to back their behavior with laws... Laws against God and Jesus.
Like I said above, I am a Christian, too. I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle for the same reasons that you don't agree with it. But I'm also the first person to say, yeah, I've made mistakes in my life, too. I'm no more or less perfect than the very people you want to turn your back to, and neither are you. You say God gave laws prohibiting homosexuality. He also gave laws prohibiting adultery. Do you remember the story in the New Testament where the Pharisees wanted to stone the woman "caught in the act of adultery"? Do you remember Jesus' answer? "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Now let's take this one step further. What do you think is a Christian's purpose on earth? Somehow I doubt it's to work hard five days a week, sit in a pew on Sunday morning, buy a big house and a nice car and watch the world turn. I suspect it has a little more to do with telling others that they can be freed from the screwed up lives we tend to live when left to our own devices. If that's the case, then do you think someone is going to listen to you if you start out by telling them that, because of their own immorality, funding to cure the disease that is slowly taking their life away should be canceled? How callous is that? On the contrary, I think a true Christian -- someone who really lives the life modeled by Jesus -- would instead be rushing to the sides of the AIDS victims in an attempt to reach them with the gospel before the end of their lives. If researchers can develop a drug to buy you more time to reach such a person, a Christian should be all over that.
The pastor at my church says you should hate the sin, but never the sinner. That , in my humble opinion, is pretty good logic.