Thats like figuring out that a magician is using a trapdoor to escape from a locked cabinet, but then still insisting it's real magic by arbitrarily assuming he uses a magic spell to open the trapdoor.
It's just a totally unnecessary logical leap that you've inserted purely to carry on believing in magic.
If anything, it shows what God does to people. Through his mystical God powers he induces these types of stimulations in the brains of this followers.
And what about the hindus and atheists that experience these sensations? I suppose that must be Satan giving them one of god's free acid trips...
when someone points out that you're MISSING A CRITICAL FEATURE... y'all act like cunts and scream that "no one owes you anything".
The only person "screaming" is you. Nice rhetorical maneuver to project your own rabidity into a strawman though. The fact is the developers of GIMP don't owe anyone anything. It's your own expectation that is disappointing you, not some promise the GIMP developers made you.
Release a commercial level product or get the fuck out of the market.
What market? A market is a place where you sell things. The GIMP developers aren't selling anything. They are simply allowing everyone to use the software they developed. Why do you think this entitles you to curse and bitch and demand they tailor it to your expectations or "get the fuck out of the market?". If someone was giving away free cakes and you tried one but didn't like it because it didn't have cream in the middle, would you be entitled to start swearing and shouting and saying "hey you fucking bitch cunt put fucking cream in my cake or fuck off!!!" No that would make you a self absorbed ASSHOLE. The fact you claim most people agree with you says more about the people you hang around with than the validity of your attitude.
That may be your interpretation of the motivation of the FSF, but RMS and Eben Moglen have stated quite clearly a number of times that reason they came up with GPLv3 was because GPLv2 has exploits involving patents and Tivoisation that can be exploited by unscrupulous people/businesses who want to circumvent the freedoms that are the raison detre of the GPL.
So the GPLv3 is a bug-fix. That's all. If jackasses like tivo and MS/Novell weren't trying to hack the GPLv2, I doubt this revision would have even crossed their minds. They arent trying to tell people what to do with their software - they're just trying to ensure everyone gets access to the source code, no matter what underhanded schemes other individuals might try to pull.
it also doesn't restrict how you *run* it. Run it on DRMed hardware to your heart's content. It just specifies what information you must include should you wish to redistribute it.
well you dont "end up" with a broken phone, Apple deliberately vandalises it, therefore it is not immoral to get your money back off them.
If you bought a car off of ford and they said "if you use it for racing you might break it" then you say whatever and buy it and race it anyway and it's fine, then ford sends out a "representative" to put sand in your gearbox and smash your windscreen, who then turns round and says "well i told you it might break if you raced it", would it be immoral to get your money back from ford?
then you'd be happy to pay for access to it, thus making a grid a worthwhile business endeavour. my point is that no matter what way you cut it, a grid is either useful and worth money, or useless and not.
This isnt a reponse to the parent poster, just felt like making sure people were on the same page.
There are a lot of loose lazy understandings of occam's razor flying around on this thread. To be precise, Occam's Razor states that the explanation with the least number of arbitrary assumptions is the most likely to be correct.
Not the most plausible, or the most intuitive, or even the most "simple" if we are being exact. Just the least number of arbitrary assumptions.
This is because every arbitrary assumption you introduce has a chance of being wrong. So the more there are, the more chance your explanation is wrong.
Of course, this is probabilistic and therefore is not guaranteed to indicate the definite correct explanation. But given no further information, it is the most prudent explanation to choose.
The scientific approach to exploring other explanations is to introduce one arbitrary assumption, and devise various experiments to find evidence for that assumption. Should enough evidence be found to back it up, its no longer an arbitrary assumption, and we are back to an explanation with no arbitrary assumptions, and can safely add another and begin testing it.
A lot of people decry Occams Razor as a refuge of the closed minded, but in reality it's just a sensible default on which to gradually build a more thorough explanation. In terms of directions of enquiry, it does not discriminate. If you want to say you lost your car keys because of a poltergeist, fine. Occams Razor says it's more likely you just misplaced them, but if you like the ghost idea, it doesnt tell you not to look for evidence of a poltergeist. And if you find the evidence Occams Razor shifts position to back you up.
100 years ago it was a made up story, as it is now. The confirmation bias applies to the person who now, after the fact is cherry picking parts of the text that concur with reality, but ignoring all the stuff that is demonstrably wrong.
I dont think you really understand the concept of confirmation bias.
If i tell you i am a clairvoyant and then make 10 claims about what will happen tomorrow, and only 1 of them comes true, and does so only in a vague interpretive way, it is clearly blind luck. But if you then look only at the 1 i got right and ignore all the others and say "ahhh, but how could he have known.... mull on that for a while" then you are clearly falling foul of confirmation bias, because a rational response would have been to say: "he barely got anything right, and the one prediction he got right was a bit vague and only kind of fits the facts if your trying to make it do so, he clearly isn't clairvoyant."
that's confirmation bias. like reading your horoscope every day until it happens to get something right and going "that proves it works" whilst ignoring all the stuff it gets obviously wrong, or the times it contradicts itself.
when the price comes down. i think thats the key point being made. of course faster is better. just not if it costs a stupid amount of money. so when ddr3 costs the same or not much more than ddr2 then it will indeed become an attractive proposition.
I'm vaguely interested in this stuff too. If you listen episode 7 and episode 33 of
astronomy cast (bottom of the page) the rather foxy Dr. Pamela Gay will give you lots of interesting advice.
I heartily recommend listening to all the other episodes too.
I want an operating system, not a political movement.
then support that operating system by buying hardware that it is allowed to interact with by the vendor. activism is also sometimes pragmatic you know.
when i was about 5 years old it was all about star wars and dinosaurs. At primary school we were taught about dinosaurs straight away and that fostered an interest in natural history. all the kids were into star wars and the space shuttle was doing interesting stuff. i think we were taught about the moon landing when we were about 7.
i used to love watching "the black hole" probably before i'd even seen star wars, and back to the future had a massive impact on me when it came out, so between the two of them i've had a strong interest in physics.
i dont know about maths. i just used to be good at it because liked puzzles and playing chess and stuff like that.
well i live in britain and most ISPs do this. The only mainstream one i know of that doesnt is AOL who ironically are the best ISP in the UK in my opinion (for broadband anyway, and yes i feel dirty for saying it).
You mean "proprietary software vendors should not link GPL'd code into their proprietary software products". Saying "Businesses should stay away from the GPL" is over generalised to the point where it is misleading and wrong, and would qualify as FUD if bandied around by MS or some other company with a vested interest.
Businesses should have no fear USING GPL'd software, or distributing proprietary software that relies on GPL software in order to run, provided they don't link the code directly in to theirs. For instance distributing a proprietary App that has a GPL database system distributed with it for a back end is not a violation of the GPL, as long as you include access to the source code of the database system.
Isaiah 40:22 uses the Hebrew word "chugh", which can be translated as either "circle" or "ball". A ball is not a two dimentional object, but it is, in fact, the only object that projects upon your retina as a circle when viewed from any angle. And seeing as how Isaiah penned that passage nearly 3000 years ago, I doubt he had the instruments available to him to measure that the Earth is an oblate spheroid rather than a plain ol' sphere.
Chugh or Chuwg cannot be translated as ball. The reason people think it can is because it is one of the many misleading and intellectually dishonest pieces of "evidence" used by fundamentalist propagandists, and so gets parroted a lot by people who want to believe its true.
Regarding the oblate spheroid bit, that was just pedantry on my part and doesn't really reflect on the validity of the passage, which is already destroyed by the fact that it claims the earth is a flat circle.
When I said "what 6 phases are those" I was asking about the 6 phases you think that "most geologists, biologists, and anyone else with half a clue about science" would say that the biblical phases concur with.
5) Fish and birds (Gen. 1:20).
According to science, birds did not exist before land animals. This is just flat out false. I really love the rationalisation that the genesis account is given from the perspective of someone watching it happen from the earth. Superficially it seems to smooth out the obvious wrongness of the account. But it doesn't quite work, as with the birds / land animals thing. And according to science, sea creatures came waaay before land plants of any kind, let alone fruit bearing plants. Not so according to the bible. To say that the genesis account concurs with science is absolutely wrong.
It wasn't until the last 50 years that humans have had a perspective that didn't stay within 30,000 ft. of solid ground. Only recently did we as a group start thinking about things in a universal perspective rather than an earth-based one... It should come as no surprise that ancient people told the creation story from an earth-dweller's perspective.
Well for a start off, they weren't there when it happened so God must have directly told them what happened. So it being "no surprise" is not true as God could have got them to relay the story any way he wanted.
And that excuse doesn't change the fact that the bible is not in concordance with science. The "perspective" argument is irrelevant, because even with the change in perspective, the account is still wrong. The bible makes claims which are at odds with well established scientific fact, despite some very clever rhetorical maneuvering on the part of apologists.
well that's one way to read it, ignoring the fact east and west are not places but directions. unfortunately the bible also says in a couple of places that if you go up high enough you can see all of the surface of the earth at once. Unambiguously indicating a flat object. Oh but wait, that bit must be allegorical, and any other times that happens its allegorical. And whenever there is a very tenuous convoluted way to take something out of context that appears to indicate a sphere, then its that.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a totally unnecessary logical leap that you've inserted purely to carry on believing in magic.
If anything, it shows what God does to people. Through his mystical God powers he induces these types of stimulations in the brains of this followers.
And what about the hindus and atheists that experience these sensations? I suppose that must be Satan giving them one of god's free acid trips...
"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to be its PRAT."
No wonder they cost $8000. :D
The only person "screaming" is you. Nice rhetorical maneuver to project your own rabidity into a strawman though. The fact is the developers of GIMP don't owe anyone anything. It's your own expectation that is disappointing you, not some promise the GIMP developers made you.
Release a commercial level product or get the fuck out of the market.
What market? A market is a place where you sell things. The GIMP developers aren't selling anything. They are simply allowing everyone to use the software they developed. Why do you think this entitles you to curse and bitch and demand they tailor it to your expectations or "get the fuck out of the market?". If someone was giving away free cakes and you tried one but didn't like it because it didn't have cream in the middle, would you be entitled to start swearing and shouting and saying "hey you fucking bitch cunt put fucking cream in my cake or fuck off!!!" No that would make you a self absorbed ASSHOLE. The fact you claim most people agree with you says more about the people you hang around with than the validity of your attitude.
So the GPLv3 is a bug-fix. That's all. If jackasses like tivo and MS/Novell weren't trying to hack the GPLv2, I doubt this revision would have even crossed their minds. They arent trying to tell people what to do with their software - they're just trying to ensure everyone gets access to the source code, no matter what underhanded schemes other individuals might try to pull.
it also doesn't restrict how you *run* it. Run it on DRMed hardware to your heart's content. It just specifies what information you must include should you wish to redistribute it.
it's like each post is a buick, right up till the point someone mentions a car analogy, then it's all toyotas. god i'm insightful today.
If you bought a car off of ford and they said "if you use it for racing you might break it" then you say whatever and buy it and race it anyway and it's fine, then ford sends out a "representative" to put sand in your gearbox and smash your windscreen, who then turns round and says "well i told you it might break if you raced it", would it be immoral to get your money back from ford?
then you'd be happy to pay for access to it, thus making a grid a worthwhile business endeavour. my point is that no matter what way you cut it, a grid is either useful and worth money, or useless and not.
There are a lot of loose lazy understandings of occam's razor flying around on this thread. To be precise, Occam's Razor states that the explanation with the least number of arbitrary assumptions is the most likely to be correct.
Not the most plausible, or the most intuitive, or even the most "simple" if we are being exact. Just the least number of arbitrary assumptions.
This is because every arbitrary assumption you introduce has a chance of being wrong. So the more there are, the more chance your explanation is wrong.
Of course, this is probabilistic and therefore is not guaranteed to indicate the definite correct explanation. But given no further information, it is the most prudent explanation to choose.
The scientific approach to exploring other explanations is to introduce one arbitrary assumption, and devise various experiments to find evidence for that assumption. Should enough evidence be found to back it up, its no longer an arbitrary assumption, and we are back to an explanation with no arbitrary assumptions, and can safely add another and begin testing it.
A lot of people decry Occams Razor as a refuge of the closed minded, but in reality it's just a sensible default on which to gradually build a more thorough explanation. In terms of directions of enquiry, it does not discriminate. If you want to say you lost your car keys because of a poltergeist, fine. Occams Razor says it's more likely you just misplaced them, but if you like the ghost idea, it doesnt tell you not to look for evidence of a poltergeist. And if you find the evidence Occams Razor shifts position to back you up.
if everyone had solar power, a grid would be pointless any way. hence it becoming worthless to everyone.
I dont think you really understand the concept of confirmation bias.
If i tell you i am a clairvoyant and then make 10 claims about what will happen tomorrow, and only 1 of them comes true, and does so only in a vague interpretive way, it is clearly blind luck. But if you then look only at the 1 i got right and ignore all the others and say "ahhh, but how could he have known.... mull on that for a while" then you are clearly falling foul of confirmation bias, because a rational response would have been to say: "he barely got anything right, and the one prediction he got right was a bit vague and only kind of fits the facts if your trying to make it do so, he clearly isn't clairvoyant."
that's confirmation bias. like reading your horoscope every day until it happens to get something right and going "that proves it works" whilst ignoring all the stuff it gets obviously wrong, or the times it contradicts itself.
when the price comes down. i think thats the key point being made. of course faster is better. just not if it costs a stupid amount of money. so when ddr3 costs the same or not much more than ddr2 then it will indeed become an attractive proposition.
I heartily recommend listening to all the other episodes too.
then support that operating system by buying hardware that it is allowed to interact with by the vendor. activism is also sometimes pragmatic you know.
less than a slashdot sig
when i was about 5 years old it was all about star wars and dinosaurs. At primary school we were taught about dinosaurs straight away and that fostered an interest in natural history. all the kids were into star wars and the space shuttle was doing interesting stuff. i think we were taught about the moon landing when we were about 7. i used to love watching "the black hole" probably before i'd even seen star wars, and back to the future had a massive impact on me when it came out, so between the two of them i've had a strong interest in physics. i dont know about maths. i just used to be good at it because liked puzzles and playing chess and stuff like that.
well i live in britain and most ISPs do this. The only mainstream one i know of that doesnt is AOL who ironically are the best ISP in the UK in my opinion (for broadband anyway, and yes i feel dirty for saying it).
you mean the fact of evolution
you're not answering the question
perhaps it's true.
Businesses should have no fear USING GPL'd software, or distributing proprietary software that relies on GPL software in order to run, provided they don't link the code directly in to theirs. For instance distributing a proprietary App that has a GPL database system distributed with it for a back end is not a violation of the GPL, as long as you include access to the source code of the database system.
Chugh or Chuwg cannot be translated as ball. The reason people think it can is because it is one of the many misleading and intellectually dishonest pieces of "evidence" used by fundamentalist propagandists, and so gets parroted a lot by people who want to believe its true.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?n umber=02329
In reality, it is the word Duwr that can be translated as both.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?n umber=01754
Regarding the oblate spheroid bit, that was just pedantry on my part and doesn't really reflect on the validity of the passage, which is already destroyed by the fact that it claims the earth is a flat circle.When I said "what 6 phases are those" I was asking about the 6 phases you think that "most geologists, biologists, and anyone else with half a clue about science" would say that the biblical phases concur with.
5) Fish and birds (Gen. 1:20).
According to science, birds did not exist before land animals. This is just flat out false. I really love the rationalisation that the genesis account is given from the perspective of someone watching it happen from the earth. Superficially it seems to smooth out the obvious wrongness of the account. But it doesn't quite work, as with the birds / land animals thing. And according to science, sea creatures came waaay before land plants of any kind, let alone fruit bearing plants. Not so according to the bible. To say that the genesis account concurs with science is absolutely wrong.
It wasn't until the last 50 years that humans have had a perspective that didn't stay within 30,000 ft. of solid ground. Only recently did we as a group start thinking about things in a universal perspective rather than an earth-based one ... It should come as no surprise that ancient people told the creation story from an earth-dweller's perspective.
Well for a start off, they weren't there when it happened so God must have directly told them what happened. So it being "no surprise" is not true as God could have got them to relay the story any way he wanted.
And that excuse doesn't change the fact that the bible is not in concordance with science. The "perspective" argument is irrelevant, because even with the change in perspective, the account is still wrong. The bible makes claims which are at odds with well established scientific fact, despite some very clever rhetorical maneuvering on the part of apologists.
so that's $7.20 per 100km. Or £3.55 for 62 miles in english. Equivalent in petrol about 62 mpg. That's not bad at all.
well that's one way to read it, ignoring the fact east and west are not places but directions. unfortunately the bible also says in a couple of places that if you go up high enough you can see all of the surface of the earth at once. Unambiguously indicating a flat object. Oh but wait, that bit must be allegorical, and any other times that happens its allegorical. And whenever there is a very tenuous convoluted way to take something out of context that appears to indicate a sphere, then its that.