Please excuse my utter ignorance, but what is wrong (philosophically, security-wise, or wishing leprosy on oneself, etc.) with installing Moonlight for a quick peek at the picture?
Just about everything you mentioned is wrong with it, yeah.
I want flash to die. Now, even if it reminds me of Vampires in my browser, sucking my CPU-blood, I don't want it to die because of Silverlight or any other Werewolf which could turn at moonlight into something else. I want them to die together. There is absolutely no need to use Silverlight to display a picture. Not even a big one. There is JavaScript. And there is flash.
Forgive my stupidness, but how does a prove of something happened help you get a probability, I thought the main concept behind probability was to say how probable things are...
Taking your probability measurement, I can't really tell if a coin will be heads or tails in the future. Since a series of tests showed me, sometimes it turns up with 0% probability. Everything I know is, before I threw it, I didn't know, it will be 100% or 0%, so that gives me 50% in that situation, and 0 or 100 after the situation.
If time is determinant, however, you are right, there was never a 50% probability, since it would have been head, which you proved. So you tell me, by accepting a one time result I accept a determinant future.
Now since I can't tell you if it is right, since I still have a future in front of me, not happened yet, I can't tell you, if this assumption is 0% or 100% right. can you?
Nobody has ANY problems if ms enhances css with ie- settings. really. they are welcome!
It's more or like, what you can do with those webkit- and moz- settings. like using css3 features already now. and so on. You can enhance specific browsers without breaking standards.
But MS does not enhance it with obviously local flavour, like naming their own finetuning tags "ms-" or "ie9-" or sth. They do crazy stupid exceptional stuff, that does not reveal itself and reinterprete standard tags breaking compatibility. And that was horrible and we hope all, they never repeat it.
maybe GPUs can solve life then. Real Life Problems meet most of the criteria. infinite amounts all at the same time, many numbers floating, small description size, tends to branch in an endless tree of solutions never to be achieved...
maybe women mostly are not so much interested in IT, as are men not interested in fashion.
but there are women who are as dorky and geeky, like male dorks and geeks. and there are IT people who are very brilliant and very nice.
also in my lifetime, i learned one thing: there are smart people, and dumb people. but both are people. there are females and males. but both are people.
and, males tend to specialize more, getting extraorbitantly smart in a specific sector. most successful men however had a brilliant woman at their side. most successful men also were not quite as smart.
being intelligent is cool. being intelligent also gets an obstacle in daily life. not everybody who thinks he is intelligent, is really that intelligent. he may know more, but knowledge is the data disk and bus frequency, intelligence is the max clock frequency and ram.
I pity condescending selfish people or people who know everything better. but they are also people.
Love to say it, but things getting more closed is not something "new", it was always around, and in fact, the things are getting more open all the time. Even for handheld devices.
Why the "open it" movement is called a movement, is exactly, because it began in circumstances, were not much was open.
Being consumer oriented, by decidinig, what a costumer should be able to do, and what not, is only decided by what makes first mentioned become second mentioned in greatest percentages, nothing more.
The iPhone is for people who want to use a cool gadget, not for people who want to have a gadget for all their things they want to use it to.
And yes, everybody is both a little bit. That's why adapting of dinosaurs does not build upon change of "antiquated" views, but instead on having an idealistic opinion while getting a realistic attitude.
that's maybe the point of god, not writing his name on the sky. we would still question him. on the other hand, this proves freedom. and in my opinion most of the time he hides in plain sight.
science never will bring the proof of god (not) existing, since it is not it's task. various beliefs and religious systems can be analyzed logically and you can get to a point where you say: well, that's not very cool. but that is (and always will be) a personal thing - since it is a kind of "judging" or "decision". but science still is there for analyzing the thing we call creation. and by sheer definition i would not spend a buck for a god, who is part of that and not outside of it, being a creator.
Of course, "modern humanity" has evolved to a point where we see the need of keeping our societies intact by building rules religions shall not trespass - I agree this is needed to keep people safe, in mind and in person. Some believe, this must be until the point of "every slight kind of influence", I myself regard this attitude to be influential in itself, therefore invalid.
Teaching Creationism therefore is a valid thing, but it should only be teached as part of a greater teaching, including evolution, and that the greater percentage of Science believes this to be the acting theory of the simple knowledge, that a frog does not look like a horse, but they both poop.
If Science reaches the point, where evolution is witnessed, however, we have to agree, that we only know of transformations inside a species itself, at the moment so we can't really burn those heretics fanatically*. We still go with the most probable assumption.
And I hope as long it is not proven to be so, we still regard our dominion over this planet a temporary thing, and accept responsibility for our actions, since we can't escape the fact, we evolved to a point where responsibility is something we can understand. And don't act upon our earth, as if everything might grow back somewhen anyway, since we are only acting in the interest of evolution doint nothing wrong because morale is only an illusion. G..Evolution grew it on us. Maybe for a purpose.
*) i do not believe this to be the right course of action, but you can find hyperbole and irony on wikipedia.
I, as a strong believer in God, have to agree completely with what you just said.
Let me tell about my side of the story...
I do believe, that nature is intelligently designed;) , but I do not agree with Intelligent Design, so do I not with Creationism. There is a part of the teaching about micro- and macroevolution (evolution inbetween species and from species to species), which I do like as a thought - there is also no hard proof of species converting to other either - but I do believe MacroEv in the long run to be possible, maybe even wanted or happening.
As I have researched back then in historical background, evolution, as many other theories, came out of scientific university background, and was used in media to bash christian beliefs (I think it was english media, a face off between some clergy guy and a professor). From there on, the normal cycle of historical developments, where science changed the view of deists and atheists at the same amount over time (mostly by some sacrifices of christian scientists facing christian clergy), did not take it's usual path. It became something which was a direct attack on God, and was used as such. Same goes for the Big Bang, which in theory still does not proof God not existing. Christians started to defend themselves using non scientific explanations or pseudo science to keep their face in the last century, forgetting, that also christians fought to have a separation, freedom of faith and so on.
It feels like, believers tried to create a chisma between science and religion and now we have to pay for it by being attacked from those we wanted to liberate. Because not all christians did or do support religious viewpoints.
Universities in itself, as also many other aspects of our humanist culture, is something, a Christian would have fought for, especially from the early churches, but I think especially our main figure in the bible would have. Many scientists before this event were strong believers. But nowadays they are silent, silent because their scientific work would not been taken seriously if they admitted they are christians, and sometimes troubled in faith, because fundamentalists question their faith - they are attacked from both worlds.
It is hard to know, who really is at fault, populistic science, or religious fundamentalists, and who fired the first shot - I think it could be the christians on the other side. But one thing is clear: this war is not needed. Universities were not the temples of Atheism, as many christians nowadays see them. Knowledge was a virtue, it could be a calling from God, some books in the bible were written by "scientific" people back in the days of Luke (Genealogy was for example the begin of a historic text) and many Universities were founded by liberal thinking christians.
I do have experience. If I say, I do believe in God, I am regarded as somebody who might not really understand science (well I would never say, I know very much). It's a hard life in universities, and certainly did affect my life in general, in both studies - medicine and computer science. As if my personal belief in a God would not make me somebody who wants to find out what's out there, how things work and so on.
Since I was an atheist for a good period of my life, and did ask myself, how God can exist if evolution is proposed, I do understand, that it is seen as a contrast to the bible, it does trouble people seeking a faith. Reading first chapter genesis and realising it's completely different aspect on creation as later in the book, seeing that even the timeline matches, and that it is only one chapter of a book afterwards going in a completely different direction, it made me realise, it's just a populistic hategame and talk-a-lot all around the world, like there is racism, and it should not stand in the way to only read, what that book has to say to me - or not. So I did continue. Many questions ahead. Still quite sceptical. Love Gen1,1 though.
In the electronic age we started from scratch with a magnetic needle on the hard disk. But I started a next generation rewrite by killing some moths just yesterday. Yes. Moths. Because my alignment is chaotic evil.
The computer would have told her to keep alert. She however trusted in her phone. Never trust your phone telling you what to do, even if it is supposed to be smart. Criminal little nasties, waiting for the jailbreak.
The Old Testament contains historical, spiritual, philosophical, pragmatically oriented, prayer oriented, prophetical and other contents, you can't even compare a pre-israelistic book like Hiob with the books of Moses or the Psalms. Or my personal philosphical favourite, the book of Salomo.
Since a Christian believes in the Old Testament being a complex conglomerate of these things, containing the prophecies about the Christ combined with the history of struggle between man and god and the history of Israel, also partly figurative and partly spiritual, you can't really say, they don't believe in "it".
Maybe you mean, they don't take it literally. Which is clearly (if you turn your brians [sic] on), not always the intent of the texts.
However without the Old Testament, the New Testament does not make ANY sense at all.
I know many people seek a book handwritten by God, but usually the bible never was taken as a book fallen from the sky or dictated by angels or anything other. Since it is very natural while seeking "the ultimative truth" to expect a book directly edited by God himself, the reality of the bible being written by humans who were inspired by God is often causing doubts in the seeker, which leads to religious fundamentalisms. However you will very soon see, that fundamentalists try to circumvent a lot of books in the bible very likely. Also in the Old Testament.
Have to agree on this. Both authors felt a need to tell about Christianity in their works (which is a strong urge in most Christian authors).
But even as a full-blown Christian, I never liked Lewis so obviously trying to preach. I find he was not a good story author, I like his philosophical works more. Even if in the movie, Aslan does make you shiver and moves you strongly as a believer, being a portrait of Christ, the whole story about the resurrection is just like "duh!".
I can especially understand the annoyance in that, if you don't agree with Christianity.
Tolkien did it better, he just tried to tell you about christian values, about temptation, and a huge story, even if he planned a Christ figure in the Sil, too. He definitely comes through as a narrator in his works, but I do like that. He is a funny and sweet person, sometimes a bit harsh however. It's definitely visible, the father speaking to Christopher. If a narrator comes through in a book, and you are too different from him, this basic alienation ruins the book mostly. It's all more about sympathy, it's a risky writing style.
I read his comment, and could not see the hate you read out of it.
Part of humanity is religion. Why would be worshipping ancestors be any kind of a non human act? The only civilization not interested in worship would be mostly a robot society in my eyes. Even Atheists worship things. Everybody does. And only if it is their individuality.
I think, what the person you responded to only got wrong, is where it is worship, and where it is respectful tradition to obey. Dead Ancestors are worshipped (oh, and we got that in western culture, too, it only faded away or is semiconcious, but we also still do it in some extent), elders are seen as wiser. However, of course that changes.
Actually I regard it as a value having a strong family in society - one of western societies greatest illnesses is the alienation to the concept of family resulting in climbing numbers of depression and behavioural disorders.
To add something to the game, I say, some people actually want to become spies, believe in their system of government, and, use the new power, which is above family or other traditional hierarchies, to be individual. Actually, if you look back to Europe's history, most extraordinary positive and negative people have rebelled against their "closer" social ties by joining a bigger one. Because if Grandmother says something, and Mother is military, Mother does not have to follow.
So, I don't think, every spy is threatened and acts out of fear. That just simply would not work. You get better spies, if you take the people, who really believe in the same thing you believe. I find it a little bit anti-chinese to say, that they only hurt the great western society, because they are threatened by eliminating their family. That may be the case in some cases, but primarily, maybe some of them even only do it to shut up their fathers, or they love their country, or whatever - and want to do it. Think about it. Because all in all we are all humans, and the thing influences us most is our closest relationships. And we dont always love the traditions we are born in.
Oh yeah, the states do employ spies, too. And it's mostly the weird guys you knew when you grew up, who join such things.
I just imagine if the torrent standard would support adding files to the share, we could simply host a torrent with torrents and update it. This way searching for a torrent will be searching in the torrent's files and selectively download it. calling it vtorrent or something would distinguish it from normal torrents.
I know DHT exists, and several other protocols to decentralize, however this way there would be a way to distribute even further.
This would not kill the need of a tracker and some hierarchy to define who can add files, but certainly would decentralize by another factor. However clients would have to implement search features to cope with this new kind of file first of course.
Once plugged in into the tracker network, all decentralized methods would take effect, resulting in a subnet not relying completely on an ever present tracker.
where is win 2.1x, win32k, winxp home, winxp media center, winxp tablet, win vista home premium, win vista ultimate, os2 warp, mac os 9,... waitaminute...
We use water since it takes away heat faster, than oxygen, but still we rely on transporting it into something, which is cooler, and therefore the air surrounding us, leading to the fact, that it is harder to cool things in hot surroundings and building hot things under the surface of the earth is better for cooling.
Water gets frozen in space, does it not? therefore cooling the water would be possible by transporting it away? Sorry, I never was in space and did not study astrophysics, therefore I only know what movies tell me:D
As far as I understand it, if that's not the case, space would be however more efficient in keeping heat, therefore requiring less energy input because nothing would take away the heat OR be more efficient in cooling. Each situation has it's benefits.
If energy dispersion is limited, you don't need as much energy to keep heated water hot, making energy input smaller.
Also, heat by movement as a factor would be smaller if there is no atmosphere? Okay, you still have to shield against solar radiation.
Unobtainium is hard to get however, since it is always guarded by big blue sexy hot chics.
No Blizzard game in the world needs to be buyed*, if you don't want to do so.
Even the one's with the controlled content.
Since WOW has most things stored client sided, building emulators for it was even easier, than for Ultima Online. And they have a great success. In the meantime, Blizzard does not even pursue those big servers anymore.
Blizzard did following:
* Their code is very good, proven by running blizzard games on wine and their cross platform availbility
* They always included means of extending gaming experience by adding editors, hence treating their customers as creative beings.
* They provide fairly good atmosphere by having a lot of artists, writers, and so on.
* They provide bonuses like exclusive material on their battle.net services.
* They only try to limit piracy at the release of their games, leaving these changes behind by introducing no-cd after a year or so.
* They provide balancing even long after, not trying to hinder unforseen game mechanics, but encouraging and incorporating new developments of balance learned from their playerbase (see the changes they did to diablo2 upon the development of so called "builds" for characters, most notably reskilling in d2 since the newest patch)
* They love their own work, play their own games.
* They treat their customers with respect.
* They rather choose innovation upon profit, getting both in the end.
As anything in the universe besides the idealistic idea of a perfect god**, they are not perfect of course. And their marketshare and power and size has increased leading them to questionable actions, however, overall, they did acquire their status by creating good games and not by sheer marketing or control abuse. Nothing I can tell about some other major game publishers.
*) I do own all blizzard games I like to play **) no, thats not declaring god as fiction, since I am not an atheist, but I do not believe in delusions being an effective way of faith, but do respect it as a choice. Just a disclaimer to spare hateful sinful thoughts of religiously offended readers.
Besides Solar Energy being more present in space (I think most of it gets "mirrored away" by the atmosphere), which would make solar energy far more efficient in space, than on earth, I can only think of the heat argument as somewhat questionable, since I always thought, that space is "somewhat" cold.
Correct me if I am wrong, but cooling systems should be far superior in space, too, or not?
I mean if you shield away sunheat with your solar collectors, behind that it should be pretty cold, or not?
I see now clearly, it does not matter what your choice of your EDITOR environment variable is, may it be vi, nano, emacs or Nota Bene, for a beautiful anthology post mortem.
Slashdot Mirror
i did wonder about who just put the MASSIVE canoe in my pocket.
Just about everything you mentioned is wrong with it, yeah.
I want flash to die. Now, even if it reminds me of Vampires in my browser, sucking my CPU-blood, I don't want it to die because of Silverlight or any other Werewolf which could turn at moonlight into something else. I want them to die together.
There is absolutely no need to use Silverlight to display a picture.
Not even a big one.
There is JavaScript. And there is flash.
Forgive my stupidness, but how does a prove of something happened help you get a probability, I thought the main concept behind probability was to say how probable things are...
Taking your probability measurement, I can't really tell if a coin will be heads or tails in the future. Since a series of tests showed me, sometimes it turns up with 0% probability. Everything I know is, before I threw it, I didn't know, it will be 100% or 0%, so that gives me 50% in that situation, and 0 or 100 after the situation.
If time is determinant, however, you are right, there was never a 50% probability, since it would have been head, which you proved. So you tell me, by accepting a one time result I accept a determinant future.
Now since I can't tell you if it is right, since I still have a future in front of me, not happened yet, I can't tell you, if this assumption is 0% or 100% right. can you?
For me to poop on.
you still dont get it.
its not about the signal blocking of the flesh pressing at your phone. thats perfectly normal. causes signal strengh DECREASE.
its about the antenna touching other materials inside your phone resulting in complete signal LOSS.
first every phone has.
second is a design flaw of iphone4.
Some prefer Reggae.
Nobody has ANY problems if ms enhances css with ie- settings. really. they are welcome!
It's more or like, what you can do with those webkit- and moz- settings. like using css3 features already now. and so on. You can enhance specific browsers without breaking standards.
But MS does not enhance it with obviously local flavour, like naming their own finetuning tags "ms-" or "ie9-" or sth. They do crazy stupid exceptional stuff, that does not reveal itself and reinterprete standard tags breaking compatibility.
And that was horrible and we hope all, they never repeat it.
maybe GPUs can solve life then. Real Life Problems meet most of the criteria. infinite amounts all at the same time, many numbers floating, small description size, tends to branch in an endless tree of solutions never to be achieved...
maybe women mostly are not so much interested in IT, as are men not interested in fashion.
but there are women who are as dorky and geeky, like male dorks and geeks. and there are IT people who are very brilliant and very nice.
also in my lifetime, i learned one thing:
there are smart people, and dumb people. but both are people.
there are females and males. but both are people.
and, males tend to specialize more, getting extraorbitantly smart in a specific sector. most successful men however had a brilliant woman at their side. most successful men also were not quite as smart.
being intelligent is cool. being intelligent also gets an obstacle in daily life. not everybody who thinks he is intelligent, is really that intelligent. he may know more, but knowledge is the data disk and bus frequency, intelligence is the max clock frequency and ram.
I pity condescending selfish people or people who know everything better. but they are also people.
And sometimes, I am one of them.
@topic: Thats just numbers. nothing to see there.
My only wish about civ is, that I can turn down graphics more, than in part 4.
It should really get a more heatfriendly graphics mode.
Love to say it, but things getting more closed is not something "new", it was always around, and in fact, the things are getting more open all the time. Even for handheld devices.
Why the "open it" movement is called a movement, is exactly, because it began in circumstances, were not much was open.
Being consumer oriented, by decidinig, what a costumer should be able to do, and what not, is only decided by what makes first mentioned become second mentioned in greatest percentages, nothing more.
The iPhone is for people who want to use a cool gadget, not for people who want to have a gadget for all their things they want to use it to.
And yes, everybody is both a little bit. That's why adapting of dinosaurs does not build upon change of "antiquated" views, but instead on having an idealistic opinion while getting a realistic attitude.
some people need distractions to get done in the first place.
actually, all people do.
that's maybe the point of god, not writing his name on the sky. we would still question him. on the other hand, this proves freedom. and in my opinion most of the time he hides in plain sight.
science never will bring the proof of god (not) existing, since it is not it's task. various beliefs and religious systems can be analyzed logically and you can get to a point where you say: well, that's not very cool. but that is (and always will be) a personal thing - since it is a kind of "judging" or "decision".
but science still is there for analyzing the thing we call creation. and by sheer definition i would not spend a buck for a god, who is part of that and not outside of it, being a creator.
Of course, "modern humanity" has evolved to a point where we see the need of keeping our societies intact by building rules religions shall not trespass - I agree this is needed to keep people safe, in mind and in person. Some believe, this must be until the point of "every slight kind of influence", I myself regard this attitude to be influential in itself, therefore invalid.
Teaching Creationism therefore is a valid thing, but it should only be teached as part of a greater teaching, including evolution, and that the greater percentage of Science believes this to be the acting theory of the simple knowledge, that a frog does not look like a horse, but they both poop.
If Science reaches the point, where evolution is witnessed, however, we have to agree, that we only know of transformations inside a species itself, at the moment so we can't really burn those heretics fanatically*. We still go with the most probable assumption.
And I hope as long it is not proven to be so, we still regard our dominion over this planet a temporary thing, and accept responsibility for our actions, since we can't escape the fact, we evolved to a point where responsibility is something we can understand. And don't act upon our earth, as if everything might grow back somewhen anyway, since we are only acting in the interest of evolution doint nothing wrong because morale is only an illusion. G..Evolution grew it on us. Maybe for a purpose.
*) i do not believe this to be the right course of action, but you can find hyperbole and irony on wikipedia.
I, as a strong believer in God, have to agree completely with what you just said.
;) , but I do not agree with Intelligent Design, so do I not with Creationism.
Let me tell about my side of the story...
I do believe, that nature is intelligently designed
There is a part of the teaching about micro- and macroevolution (evolution inbetween species and from species to species), which I do like as a thought - there is also no hard proof of species converting to other either - but I do believe MacroEv in the long run to be possible, maybe even wanted or happening.
As I have researched back then in historical background, evolution, as many other theories, came out of scientific university background, and was used in media to bash christian beliefs (I think it was english media, a face off between some clergy guy and a professor). From there on, the normal cycle of historical developments, where science changed the view of deists and atheists at the same amount over time (mostly by some sacrifices of christian scientists facing christian clergy), did not take it's usual path. It became something which was a direct attack on God, and was used as such. Same goes for the Big Bang, which in theory still does not proof God not existing. Christians started to defend themselves using non scientific explanations or pseudo science to keep their face in the last century, forgetting, that also christians fought to have a separation, freedom of faith and so on.
It feels like, believers tried to create a chisma between science and religion and now we have to pay for it by being attacked from those we wanted to liberate. Because not all christians did or do support religious viewpoints.
Universities in itself, as also many other aspects of our humanist culture, is something, a Christian would have fought for, especially from the early churches, but I think especially our main figure in the bible would have. Many scientists before this event were strong believers. But nowadays they are silent, silent because their scientific work would not been taken seriously if they admitted they are christians, and sometimes troubled in faith, because fundamentalists question their faith - they are attacked from both worlds.
It is hard to know, who really is at fault, populistic science, or religious fundamentalists, and who fired the first shot - I think it could be the christians on the other side. But one thing is clear: this war is not needed. Universities were not the temples of Atheism, as many christians nowadays see them. Knowledge was a virtue, it could be a calling from God, some books in the bible were written by "scientific" people back in the days of Luke (Genealogy was for example the begin of a historic text) and many Universities were founded by liberal thinking christians.
I do have experience. If I say, I do believe in God, I am regarded as somebody who might not really understand science (well I would never say, I know very much). It's a hard life in universities, and certainly did affect my life in general, in both studies - medicine and computer science. As if my personal belief in a God would not make me somebody who wants to find out what's out there, how things work and so on.
Since I was an atheist for a good period of my life, and did ask myself, how God can exist if evolution is proposed, I do understand, that it is seen as a contrast to the bible, it does trouble people seeking a faith.
Reading first chapter genesis and realising it's completely different aspect on creation as later in the book, seeing that even the timeline matches, and that it is only one chapter of a book afterwards going in a completely different direction, it made me realise, it's just a populistic hategame and talk-a-lot all around the world, like there is racism, and it should not stand in the way to only read, what that book has to say to me - or not. So I did continue. Many questions ahead. Still quite sceptical. Love Gen1,1 though.
I do enjoy the company of atheistic
In the electronic age we started from scratch with a magnetic needle on the hard disk.
But I started a next generation rewrite by killing some moths just yesterday.
Yes. Moths. Because my alignment is chaotic evil.
I beg to differ.
The computer would have told her to keep alert.
She however trusted in her phone.
Never trust your phone telling you what to do, even if it is supposed to be smart.
Criminal little nasties, waiting for the jailbreak.
The Old Testament contains historical, spiritual, philosophical, pragmatically oriented, prayer oriented, prophetical and other contents, you can't even compare a pre-israelistic book like Hiob with the books of Moses or the Psalms. Or my personal philosphical favourite, the book of Salomo.
Since a Christian believes in the Old Testament being a complex conglomerate of these things, containing the prophecies about the Christ combined with the history of struggle between man and god and the history of Israel, also partly figurative and partly spiritual, you can't really say, they don't believe in "it".
Maybe you mean, they don't take it literally. Which is clearly (if you turn your brians [sic] on), not always the intent of the texts.
However without the Old Testament, the New Testament does not make ANY sense at all.
I know many people seek a book handwritten by God, but usually the bible never was taken as a book fallen from the sky or dictated by angels or anything other. Since it is very natural while seeking "the ultimative truth" to expect a book directly edited by God himself, the reality of the bible being written by humans who were inspired by God is often causing doubts in the seeker, which leads to religious fundamentalisms. However you will very soon see, that fundamentalists try to circumvent a lot of books in the bible very likely. Also in the Old Testament.
Have to agree on this. Both authors felt a need to tell about Christianity in their works (which is a strong urge in most Christian authors).
But even as a full-blown Christian, I never liked Lewis so obviously trying to preach. I find he was not a good story author, I like his philosophical works more. Even if in the movie, Aslan does make you shiver and moves you strongly as a believer, being a portrait of Christ, the whole story about the resurrection is just like "duh!".
I can especially understand the annoyance in that, if you don't agree with Christianity.
Tolkien did it better, he just tried to tell you about christian values, about temptation, and a huge story, even if he planned a Christ figure in the Sil, too.
He definitely comes through as a narrator in his works, but I do like that. He is a funny and sweet person, sometimes a bit harsh however. It's definitely visible, the father speaking to Christopher. If a narrator comes through in a book, and you are too different from him, this basic alienation ruins the book mostly. It's all more about sympathy, it's a risky writing style.
I read his comment, and could not see the hate you read out of it.
Part of humanity is religion. Why would be worshipping ancestors be any kind of a non human act? The only civilization not interested in worship would be mostly a robot society in my eyes. Even Atheists worship things. Everybody does. And only if it is their individuality.
I think, what the person you responded to only got wrong, is where it is worship, and where it is respectful tradition to obey. Dead Ancestors are worshipped (oh, and we got that in western culture, too, it only faded away or is semiconcious, but we also still do it in some extent), elders are seen as wiser. However, of course that changes.
Actually I regard it as a value having a strong family in society - one of western societies greatest illnesses is the alienation to the concept of family resulting in climbing numbers of depression and behavioural disorders.
To add something to the game, I say, some people actually want to become spies, believe in their system of government, and, use the new power, which is above family or other traditional hierarchies, to be individual. Actually, if you look back to Europe's history, most extraordinary positive and negative people have rebelled against their "closer" social ties by joining a bigger one. Because if Grandmother says something, and Mother is military, Mother does not have to follow.
So, I don't think, every spy is threatened and acts out of fear. That just simply would not work. You get better spies, if you take the people, who really believe in the same thing you believe.
I find it a little bit anti-chinese to say, that they only hurt the great western society, because they are threatened by eliminating their family. That may be the case in some cases, but primarily, maybe some of them even only do it to shut up their fathers, or they love their country, or whatever - and want to do it. Think about it. Because all in all we are all humans, and the thing influences us most is our closest relationships. And we dont always love the traditions we are born in.
Oh yeah, the states do employ spies, too. And it's mostly the weird guys you knew when you grew up, who join such things.
I just imagine if the torrent standard would support adding files to the share, we could simply host a torrent with torrents and update it. This way searching for a torrent will be searching in the torrent's files and selectively download it. calling it vtorrent or something would distinguish it from normal torrents.
I know DHT exists, and several other protocols to decentralize, however this way there would be a way to distribute even further.
This would not kill the need of a tracker and some hierarchy to define who can add files, but certainly would decentralize by another factor. However clients would have to implement search features to cope with this new kind of file first of course.
Once plugged in into the tracker network, all decentralized methods would take effect, resulting in a subnet not relying completely on an ever present tracker.
Does something similar exist?
wait
... waitaminute...
where is win 2.1x, win32k, winxp home, winxp media center, winxp tablet, win vista home premium, win vista ultimate, os2 warp, mac os 9,
We use water since it takes away heat faster, than oxygen, but still we rely on transporting it into something, which is cooler, and therefore the air surrounding us, leading to the fact, that it is harder to cool things in hot surroundings and building hot things under the surface of the earth is better for cooling.
:D
Water gets frozen in space, does it not? therefore cooling the water would be possible by transporting it away? Sorry, I never was in space and did not study astrophysics, therefore I only know what movies tell me
As far as I understand it, if that's not the case, space would be however more efficient in keeping heat, therefore requiring less energy input because nothing would take away the heat OR be more efficient in cooling. Each situation has it's benefits.
If energy dispersion is limited, you don't need as much energy to keep heated water hot, making energy input smaller.
Also, heat by movement as a factor would be smaller if there is no atmosphere? Okay, you still have to shield against solar radiation.
Unobtainium is hard to get however, since it is always guarded by big blue sexy hot chics.
No Blizzard game in the world needs to be buyed*, if you don't want to do so.
Even the one's with the controlled content.
Since WOW has most things stored client sided, building emulators for it was even easier, than for Ultima Online. And they have a great success. In the meantime, Blizzard does not even pursue those big servers anymore.
Blizzard did following:
* Their code is very good, proven by running blizzard games on wine and their cross platform availbility
* They always included means of extending gaming experience by adding editors, hence treating their customers as creative beings.
* They provide fairly good atmosphere by having a lot of artists, writers, and so on.
* They provide bonuses like exclusive material on their battle.net services.
* They only try to limit piracy at the release of their games, leaving these changes behind by introducing no-cd after a year or so.
* They provide balancing even long after, not trying to hinder unforseen game mechanics, but encouraging and incorporating new developments of balance learned from their playerbase (see the changes they did to diablo2 upon the development of so called "builds" for characters, most notably reskilling in d2 since the newest patch)
* They love their own work, play their own games.
* They treat their customers with respect.
* They rather choose innovation upon profit, getting both in the end.
As anything in the universe besides the idealistic idea of a perfect god**, they are not perfect of course. And their marketshare and power and size has increased leading them to questionable actions, however, overall, they did acquire their status by creating good games and not by sheer marketing or control abuse. Nothing I can tell about some other major game publishers.
*) I do own all blizzard games I like to play
**) no, thats not declaring god as fiction, since I am not an atheist, but I do not believe in delusions being an effective way of faith, but do respect it as a choice. Just a disclaimer to spare hateful sinful thoughts of religiously offended readers.
Besides Solar Energy being more present in space (I think most of it gets "mirrored away" by the atmosphere), which would make solar energy far more efficient in space, than on earth, I can only think of the heat argument as somewhat questionable, since I always thought, that space is "somewhat" cold.
Correct me if I am wrong, but cooling systems should be far superior in space, too, or not?
I mean if you shield away sunheat with your solar collectors, behind that it should be pretty cold, or not?
I see now clearly, it does not matter what your choice of your EDITOR environment variable is, may it be vi, nano, emacs or Nota Bene, for a beautiful anthology post mortem.