It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.
The Hebrew word "yom" is often used non-literally, just like the word "day" is in English. Phrases such as "some day" and "the day will come" clearly do not mean a period of 24 hours. There's also the issue that solar days couldn't exist before the sun, which wasn't created until the fourth day.
IT is no fun any more it used to be about finding good solutions to problems; now its just about waste because you can also buy faster/denser hardware cheaper then you can pay someone to use their head.
No, it's just about solving different problems now. Many people would argue that the new problems are much more interesting to solve.
Everything in the universe is basically deterministic.
I believe quantum mechanics says the exact opposite. Everything in the universe is probabilistic, but nearly everything above the atomic scale has such lopsided probabilities that humans can consider them to be deterministic.
Indeed. Lots of people are under the impression that free will is a function of randomness. Sorry guys, but randomness is insanity. I would prefer that my actions flowed deterministically from my inner mental state. How else could I act according to my convictions?
Randomness does not imply equal probability for all possible outcomes. While it may be mathematically possible, it's a safe assumption that the randomness of quantum mechanics will not cause you to jump off the next bridge you come to instead of just crossing it normally.
I think the mistake you're making here is that free will is the only alternative to strict cause-and-effect, but much of quantum mechanics runs on probability, which isn't the same as free will.
What Shell is doing is reasonable and predictable...in the short term. Shell, like most modern for-profit corporations is proving to be exceedingly good at maximizing profits over the short term, and pretty bad at seeing past the end of their nose. Cheap oil isn't going to be around forever, and the technologies that will replace it aren't going to pop up overnight. Honestly the attitude that should really be demonized is the one you're displaying, that it's only philanthropists who should care about more than a few years into the future.
While I definitely agree with the general sentiment, it's not really fair to complain that Shell is only thinking about short term profits. Normally, you'd complain about such a company trying to maximize profits this quarter and not think about profits for next year. In this case, though, "short term" is 50 to 100 years, and long term is 200 years. Research in renewable energy sources is definitely important, but it's a bit unfair to group Shell together with other short term profit companies just because of this.
Yup, that's pretty much it. Like I said, I think the idea is good, but it would be so difficult to implement correctly that it's not really feasible. As you've pointed out, there's too much potential for abuse, and it would be too easy to wiggle out of.
So say something true that puts a person in less than favorable light on your blog, and you get a libel suit?
Not necessarily. Under this Massachusetts law, you could be sued if you say something that's true and the sole purpose of saying it is to harm the other person. Revealing information about a politician because you believe it's important for the public to know that information, despite any potential harm to the subject, shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit.
Personally, I like the general concept of the law (preventing an action that's sole purpose is to harm another person), but I know that there's no good way to implement such a concept. Saying something that's true but negative about a politician should never be subject to libel law, but I can see how this law would quickly get twisted away from its purpose.
Yes, you're right. The fact that the economy is in the shitter is clearly the only important thing in the world, and all activity not specifically directed at correcting it should be stopped immediately. We'll begin with shutting the police and fire services, then dismissing all court cases in all courts in the US, and finally we'll halt all work on any construction or repair projects.
Well, that's one way to do the spending reductions
So what would happen is that if the trial judge finds in favor of the fired employee, Staples could appeal the decision by claiming that the law that allowed the lawsuit is unconstitutional, at which point a judge would rule on the constitutionality of the law.
In a global perspective, US democrats and republicans are two peas in a pod -- both parties extremely far to the right, and with very small differences.
Personally, I recommend Political Compass to see how true this is. While I wouldn't say the Democrats are extremely far to the right, they're still generally right of center. They're both in the capitalist-authoritarian area of the map, the Democrats are just a little closer to the center than the Republicans. Unfortunately, since I'm in the socialist-libertarian area, I'm completely disenfranchised in American politics.
That's about the opinion I hold. Obama is closer to my beliefs than McCain, but neither of them are all that close to me. I think the only one that was near me was Kucinich, who is actually slightly left of center (what we call "liberal" or "socialist" in the United States is really just somewhat less right than what we call "conservative").
I think both of you are aiming for the same result, which is to remove the government's ability to restrict marriage, you're just disagreeing on which side (religion or government) gets to keep the term "marriage". Personally, I think a person should be able to designate anyone they want as the one that has the legal rights and responsibilities that are currently involved in marriages. Think of it as being the same as those "In case of emergency, contact..." forms you have to fill out for schools, camps, etc. Someone who doesn't want to "marry" anybody can then designate a favorite sibling or cousin as the person's "spouse".
I doubt the "exactly correct answer" is a simple fraction or integer percentage, anyway. And wouldn't the exact percentage change slightly as sea level rises and falls?
My hypothesis about why programmers tend to be more exacting about grammar is because you have to be in programming. In natural languages, other people can usually figure out what you meant if you leave out a word or swap the placement of two words. In programming, if you misspell a variable, the program usually doesn't work.
Say I format a floppy on a Windows machine using FAT and it has some long file names on it. Do I have to pay a royalty to Microsoft for for the privilege of owning the floppy or for the privilege of reading the floppy on my Linux machine sitting right next to it?
I would assume that your Windows license includes the right to use FAT on a floppy disk. The code on your Linux machine that reads the FAT-formatted disk would probably not be covered by your Windows license, but other laws, such as interoperability, may cover it.
I read that the other day, and I immediately thought of the Slashdot crowd. And nobody can say that JMS is one of those useless idiots that makes one top-40 album and then lives off their recording contract and television commercials for the rest of their lives. He was writing television shows and comic books for something like 30 years before "making it big", and now he's working on half a dozen scripts at a time. Definitely the kind of person that artists should aspire to be.
It's on youtube, fool. It's Web 2.0. It's a Määääääsch Up! Where have you been? Don't you know that combining exiting things in novel ways was invented together with HTTPXMLResponse?
Everyone tells me that I DON'T stagger or have bloodshot eyes when I'm drunk, but I do slur my speech. I also slur my speech when I haven't slept in over 24 hours. So if I don't smell of liquor and I'm slurring my speech, am I drunk?
I vaguely remember (sorry I can't cite anything, this is just from that big bank of random memories) that the effect on the brain of being tired, often including the first minute or two after you wake up, is very similar to the effect of alcohol. I know personally that I usually stagger a bit and have trouble seeing well if I get out of bed right after I wake up.
I like how this guy, whom I don't know much about, is painted a smart pick, coming as he does from the largest single computer security threat on the planet.
Yeah, how dare they pick a human that uses a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.
The Hebrew word "yom" is often used non-literally, just like the word "day" is in English. Phrases such as "some day" and "the day will come" clearly do not mean a period of 24 hours. There's also the issue that solar days couldn't exist before the sun, which wasn't created until the fourth day.
IT is no fun any more it used to be about finding good solutions to problems; now its just about waste because you can also buy faster/denser hardware cheaper then you can pay someone to use their head.
No, it's just about solving different problems now. Many people would argue that the new problems are much more interesting to solve.
Everything in the universe is basically deterministic.
I believe quantum mechanics says the exact opposite. Everything in the universe is probabilistic, but nearly everything above the atomic scale has such lopsided probabilities that humans can consider them to be deterministic.
Indeed. Lots of people are under the impression that free will is a function of randomness. Sorry guys, but randomness is insanity. I would prefer that my actions flowed deterministically from my inner mental state. How else could I act according to my convictions?
Randomness does not imply equal probability for all possible outcomes. While it may be mathematically possible, it's a safe assumption that the randomness of quantum mechanics will not cause you to jump off the next bridge you come to instead of just crossing it normally.
I think the mistake you're making here is that free will is the only alternative to strict cause-and-effect, but much of quantum mechanics runs on probability, which isn't the same as free will.
PHP doesn't have a sensible way to set the path it uses for library scanning. And if it does, I've yet to see it in widespread use.
I usually just set the include_path. Seems to work well for me.
What Shell is doing is reasonable and predictable...in the short term. Shell, like most modern for-profit corporations is proving to be exceedingly good at maximizing profits over the short term, and pretty bad at seeing past the end of their nose. Cheap oil isn't going to be around forever, and the technologies that will replace it aren't going to pop up overnight. Honestly the attitude that should really be demonized is the one you're displaying, that it's only philanthropists who should care about more than a few years into the future.
While I definitely agree with the general sentiment, it's not really fair to complain that Shell is only thinking about short term profits. Normally, you'd complain about such a company trying to maximize profits this quarter and not think about profits for next year. In this case, though, "short term" is 50 to 100 years, and long term is 200 years. Research in renewable energy sources is definitely important, but it's a bit unfair to group Shell together with other short term profit companies just because of this.
Oh, and then there's that whole "thou shalt not kill" thing.
It's "murder", not "kill". The Hebrew is pretty clear on this one.
What kind of idiot would spend money on something they never have any intention of needing ?
Because life doesn't always work out the way you intended?
Yup, that's pretty much it. Like I said, I think the idea is good, but it would be so difficult to implement correctly that it's not really feasible. As you've pointed out, there's too much potential for abuse, and it would be too easy to wiggle out of.
So say something true that puts a person in less than favorable light on your blog, and you get a libel suit?
Not necessarily. Under this Massachusetts law, you could be sued if you say something that's true and the sole purpose of saying it is to harm the other person. Revealing information about a politician because you believe it's important for the public to know that information, despite any potential harm to the subject, shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit.
Personally, I like the general concept of the law (preventing an action that's sole purpose is to harm another person), but I know that there's no good way to implement such a concept. Saying something that's true but negative about a politician should never be subject to libel law, but I can see how this law would quickly get twisted away from its purpose.
Yes, you're right. The fact that the economy is in the shitter is clearly the only important thing in the world, and all activity not specifically directed at correcting it should be stopped immediately. We'll begin with shutting the police and fire services, then dismissing all court cases in all courts in the US, and finally we'll halt all work on any construction or repair projects.
Well, that's one way to do the spending reductions
So what would happen is that if the trial judge finds in favor of the fired employee, Staples could appeal the decision by claiming that the law that allowed the lawsuit is unconstitutional, at which point a judge would rule on the constitutionality of the law.
In a global perspective, US democrats and republicans are two peas in a pod -- both parties extremely far to the right, and with very small differences.
Personally, I recommend Political Compass to see how true this is. While I wouldn't say the Democrats are extremely far to the right, they're still generally right of center. They're both in the capitalist-authoritarian area of the map, the Democrats are just a little closer to the center than the Republicans. Unfortunately, since I'm in the socialist-libertarian area, I'm completely disenfranchised in American politics.
That's about the opinion I hold. Obama is closer to my beliefs than McCain, but neither of them are all that close to me. I think the only one that was near me was Kucinich, who is actually slightly left of center (what we call "liberal" or "socialist" in the United States is really just somewhat less right than what we call "conservative").
I think both of you are aiming for the same result, which is to remove the government's ability to restrict marriage, you're just disagreeing on which side (religion or government) gets to keep the term "marriage". Personally, I think a person should be able to designate anyone they want as the one that has the legal rights and responsibilities that are currently involved in marriages. Think of it as being the same as those "In case of emergency, contact..." forms you have to fill out for schools, camps, etc. Someone who doesn't want to "marry" anybody can then designate a favorite sibling or cousin as the person's "spouse".
Heh, I thought of that, so I said "rises and falls" to try to ward it off.
I doubt the "exactly correct answer" is a simple fraction or integer percentage, anyway. And wouldn't the exact percentage change slightly as sea level rises and falls?
My hypothesis about why programmers tend to be more exacting about grammar is because you have to be in programming. In natural languages, other people can usually figure out what you meant if you leave out a word or swap the placement of two words. In programming, if you misspell a variable, the program usually doesn't work.
Farking ice hole.
Say I format a floppy on a Windows machine using FAT and it has some long file names on it. Do I have to pay a royalty to Microsoft for for the privilege of owning the floppy or for the privilege of reading the floppy on my Linux machine sitting right next to it?
I would assume that your Windows license includes the right to use FAT on a floppy disk. The code on your Linux machine that reads the FAT-formatted disk would probably not be covered by your Windows license, but other laws, such as interoperability, may cover it.
I read that the other day, and I immediately thought of the Slashdot crowd. And nobody can say that JMS is one of those useless idiots that makes one top-40 album and then lives off their recording contract and television commercials for the rest of their lives. He was writing television shows and comic books for something like 30 years before "making it big", and now he's working on half a dozen scripts at a time. Definitely the kind of person that artists should aspire to be.
It's on youtube, fool. It's Web 2.0. It's a Määääääsch Up! Where have you been? Don't you know that combining exiting things in novel ways was invented together with HTTPXMLResponse?
Actually, it's XMLHttpRequest </pedantic>
Everyone tells me that I DON'T stagger or have bloodshot eyes when I'm drunk, but I do slur my speech. I also slur my speech when I haven't slept in over 24 hours. So if I don't smell of liquor and I'm slurring my speech, am I drunk?
I vaguely remember (sorry I can't cite anything, this is just from that big bank of random memories) that the effect on the brain of being tired, often including the first minute or two after you wake up, is very similar to the effect of alcohol. I know personally that I usually stagger a bit and have trouble seeing well if I get out of bed right after I wake up.
I like how this guy, whom I don't know much about, is painted a smart pick, coming as he does from the largest single computer security threat on the planet.
Yeah, how dare they pick a human that uses a computer.