I live in Sydney, most of my family lives in Melbourne. Let's say that in a completely green society I wish to visit said family.
Currently there are no green alternatives for powering a commercial jet... can't fly.
The electric car with the longest range goes less than 400km - so I'll need to stop and recharge for 3hrs twice on my journey. The trip time becomes 18hrs... that's puts it firmly in the realm of a two day road trip. No longer can I just pop down and visit over a long weekend, let alone just a normal weekend.
And this will seriously isolate Perth and Darwin, both of which have have gaps of > 500km between towns no matter which way you take trying to get there. It's a little more than inconvenient.
I'm all for moving to renewable energy sources; but let's not rush into something we're not ready for.
I think the prevailing reactions to teachers using colours other than red for marking when I was at school ranged from "This teacher is crazy" to "It makes it so hard to find the comments". I do remember one person saying that red was a kinda depressing colour, but she was also the one who complained to another teacher when they used a different colour...
I really don't understand the point of this.
That assumes that the only thing present is the apple. If we need to find the apple and then extract the 'a', you would do something like this: /\b(a)pple\b/i
Reasons to use one of the 'pretty much everyone else'
1. Customer service: They have it, BigPond doesn't.
2. Price: They might not so generous as to have 'free sites', but the plans are more than generous on a download to dollar ratio to make up for it. And most of them don't charge for uploads like BigPond.
3. Resale: There is no resale of ADSL2 that I know of. Most of the 'pretty much everyone else' got tired of Telstra's excuses and setup their own. If you have access to that, what's your problem?
Oh, and what the hell is wrong with Optus?
Bigpond doesn't rip people off on the basis that they 'really have little alternative'. They rip people off on the basis that people have a perception that this is the case, or by sucking people into the whole 'Wow! I can save $2 by bundling my internet with my phone line!' thing.
I really don't mind scripting the order of the missions; it would be nice to have a more dynamic order but as long as doing the missions themselves is fun I don't care. I'm either playing the game because I enjoy the gameplay (like GTA), or I'm playing to see what their story is (like in Drake's Fortune). I do have a problem with missions that force you to do them in one and only one way.
There are at least two forced motorbike missions in GTA IV; and I'll readily admit I suck at riding motorbikes in that game, and shooting at the same time is just annoying (which is not helped by the fact I prefer the controls with x as accelerate, which stops you aiming while driving). I got lucky on the first one, in that at the point I crashed I landed right next to the door of a taxi, and I rule the roads in cars, so the rest of the mission was a cinch. I haven't really tried the other one... I don't feel the need to work hard to improve a skill that is only useful for two missions in one game.
The thing I like about GTA is that there are so many ways that you can do most missions. You can sneak around and take out the guards quietly, or you can go in guns blazing; whatever is most comfortable. It's just a pity that there are missions like these where even if you place a car deliberately to help you with the mission, the game will take it away in the cutscene and magically make the traffic jam on the road disappear so you're forced to take the bike. And when the bike isn't fun, neither is the mission.
I find it a hell of a lot easier to find the matching braces when they are all on their own line. If you've got a large set of long lines, you don't have to always scan back to the start of the lines to see where the block starts and ends, you can see the almost empty line that shows where it starts and ends while you're scrolled far to the right. I was so glad when I started work and found that was the standard they used.
I only ever had one lecturer who put his own publication as a textbook. The first thing he said in the first lecture (apart from 'hello') was 'don't buy the textbook.'
At my uni the CS department was notorious for marking harshly. I was a bit frustrated at first because I felt that my work was being undervalued. But comparing the graduates of my uni with the graduates of more lenient unis at my workplace you can tell the difference. Lower marks make good students work harder and bad students quit. The system works.
Just so we're all clear, people realise that unreasoned opinions are not a religion-specific thing, right? I mean stupid loud people are everywhere, especially in politics! If someone has randomly decided that evolution is wrong, wouldn't that make them fit in better?
Loud people win in politics. Stupid people spend less time in quiet contemplation and more time working on their loudness.
We shouldn't be removing religious opinions from government, but instead should be working to increase the diversity of other opinions in government. This way, even if everyone is there stupid, they are less likely to agree on a stupid decision because they will all have different stupid opinions and actually have to work on them to create the consensus needed to get them through.
Sorry. When I'm frustrated with an issue I tend to over use the word stupid. This seems especially true of stupid politics.
I bought a brand new AGP motherboard just as the first PCI-E boards were coming out, thinking 'sure PCI-E is newer but I won't be upgrading the new graphics card I bought with it sooner than the motherboard, right?' The stupid graphics card died, so I had to settle with the only graphics card that would fit the board, a $100 piece of carp.
Sure, the fibre network is more expensive, but it's got a whole lot more bandwidth. It may not be much better, but it's better right? So the only thing that would make it bad is if something much better comes out soon and we need our network to be that technology, and we wish we had that $3.75 billion we would have saved building Howard's equally obsolete network, so we could upgrade to this new one. Is there any such technology or need on the horizon? Maybe, but my bet is that we'd be just as safe with the great fast network that would with all probability last longer than the decent fast-but-two-tiered network that Howard is proposing.
Of course, all of this is dependant on the promises of politicians. And on that we have much less reason to doubt Rudd (if only because he hasn't been tried yet, but I'm all for forgetting this fact because I'm kinda sick of Howard).
How 'bout this... I'm here reading about all these 'features', and another page I was on spawned a pop-up, which due to the settings I have opened in a new tab. The pop-up resizes my Firefox window, and disabled every function of the browser except creating and closing empty tabs, and scrolling (but only by the little knob thing on the scrollbar, the up-down buttons didn't work, nor the keyboard shortcuts). Apparently Firefox thought it had died long before this, because when I restored my session all the tabs I had closed when playing around with the paralysed browser (trying to revive it) were opened again. Thankfully this didn't include the pop-up, though.
In summary the most annoying feature of any product is Microsoft Office's insistence that no matter what I say, I should spell my words the American way; without the colour, flavour, honour, and organisation of Australian English. I could very much do without all the extra labour required by constantly being the saviour of other people's spelling when they don't check the lies the Microsoft spell checker is telling them. Especially since the new version of Word takes forever to load the language box, and at best setting the default will only buy one or two correct new documents before it changes the default back again. Why, Microsoft? Why? Apart from taking every available opportunity to insult you and actively trying to move people to Linux, what have I ever done to you?
---
Beware of the seductive semicolon; it only means your sentences harm.
The difference between Gravity and Evolution is that you can jump up and down and say, 'You know what, I think there may be something to this gravity thing.' With evolution no one has yet instigated such an experiment. But apparently we're working on it, what with this global warming and all...
I don't have a problem with 'macro evolution'. My question is how on earth did a self replicating cell form by chance in the first place. That's what just seems to boggle my mind; how did all the necessary parts get into the right place at the right time, it's like by chance having a binary data file that by chance happened to be interpreted by the computer as a self-replicating executable. Sure, it's possible, but if you saw it you'd expect someone had planned that to happen.
My real problem with evolution is not what it proposes; technically the bible does actually say how the world was made, only that God ordered it. What my problem is that people claim it to positively disprove God. Science doesn't have the ability to deal with the question of God, that question is far out of its scope. Science only deals with what it can see demonstrated. You can use forensic science to prove that a knife used in an attack was held by someone, but you can't prove by forensic science that someone else has ordered an attack because there is no physical evidence of that fact; police have to look elsewhere for that (testimonies, other physical evidence that ties them to the location, etc.). In summary, can people stop saying stupid things like "Rational people don't buy that stuff", or "The church tries to hide people from facts"; neither of those statements are true and they don't incite the harmony that you claim to want. For every stupid person trying to mute evolution, there is another stupid person trying to mute religion...
Why on EARTH would you need a newer display for a server? You don't even have a display connected to them most of the time, so why even bother with X, or anything else that just takes away from its ability to do its job?
Translations differ in wording, yes. But there is nothing stopping you checking between versions if you are really worried about it. And there is nothing hidden in the translations; the original versions in Greek and Hebrew are still available (None was originally written in Latin). The point of having all this available is so that powers of the interpreter are greatly mitigated. Translators are human after all, we all make mistakes.
Christians is a name Christians define as those who believe the bible with first preference and everything else in relation to that. The reason we do it that way is because we don't want people saying they have more authority than what's there because what's there is what Jesus taught or fairly well consistent with what Jesus taught. Is this not a fair distinction?
As for the King James being mis-translated (which someone mentioned above), that's hardly significant, especially in the modern era, as all the different translations are based on the earliest available manuscripts (not on previous translations, and the dead sea scrolls have since been included).
Also, on the topic of Nick Gisburne, can we have this article changed slightly; I don't generally accept misquotes as part of logical arguments. For example, he asserts that Mark 7:9-10 is telling us that "Jesus criticises the Jews for not killing their disobedient children", which is grossly inaccurate. Jesus is being criticised for not following the law to the letter (something Gisburne tries to tell us Jesus is all for at another place), which Jesus replies to by giving an example of where the Jews don't follow the law to the letter, but consider themselves justified in doing so. I'm doing a quick statistical analysis of his claims, and so far he's averaging around 13% accuracy per claim (weighting based on the severity of the quotes as presented, the relative severity in context, and how fair what he claims the verse says is, given the first two points), but keep in mind he gives no hint of counter points (verses that contradict his view); that 13% is purely on the points he gives as arguments for Jesus supporting cruelty.
Sadly, despite the hype this is just another in a long line of arguments that attempts to explain why a rational person can't believe in God and fails miserably. If you do have a rational argument against Christianity, or just that disproves God, please let me know. (I'd give you my email, but the spam protection it has is lousy; I'm looking into an alternative address (preferably that I control) that I can publish safely for this purpose)
It's funny how people base so much of their view of others on the basis of the loud and stupid. I'm a Christian and the general consensus amongst all the Christians I know is that clubbing people to our point of view is pointless as they learn nothing and become little more than pew fillers. And no, we don't think pew fillers are a good thing.
While we're debunking myths about Christianity, here's a few more:
- We're not in it for the money. Except for one or two of the biggest guys in the 'business', the money is terrible.
- Evolution doesn't disprove God. The best it does is say "well there is a chance that God doesn't exist."
- Starting religious wars isn't an encouraged course of action. I don't know what the Irish are doing, but generally we discourage violence; it never solves anything.
Hope to have cleared these things up.
I love this arguement, it's so stupid. The only thing that is really known about the salinity issue is that some farming areas have become unusable. It has been deduced that this is due to the farming because it started after the farms were planted; a fair enough point. But nobody actually knows either why or can tell you how to fix it (I saw this on Landline on the ABC last year I think, one of those farming shows at least). With the biggest drought on us, is it impossible to that this could be a natural event caused by something else though? We don't know. We don't know the cause or the solution, only the problem; so what on earth is the government supposed to do?
We don't have a president, they have too much influence. We prefer our constitutional monarchy where the head of state has absolutely no say whatsoever (though that's probably not technically how it's supposed to work, I don't know).
Whingers are bad not because they see problems, but all they do about it is whinge. Even for a minority there is always the option of provoking a politician into a stupid 'politically incorrect' remark and then forcing his hand into doing what you want. Gotta love democracy.
McDonalds may take care of it's management, but I don't see kebab shops refusing to hire/give shifts to people for the shop front because they're over 18 and therefore entitled to full adult wages.
I have to agree, we're not that bad yet. And all we need to stem the flow of further decline is a decent opposition party, unlike other places where a head of state has influence over the direction of the government's decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Sydney, most of my family lives in Melbourne. Let's say that in a completely green society I wish to visit said family.
Currently there are no green alternatives for powering a commercial jet... can't fly.
The electric car with the longest range goes less than 400km - so I'll need to stop and recharge for 3hrs twice on my journey. The trip time becomes 18hrs... that's puts it firmly in the realm of a two day road trip. No longer can I just pop down and visit over a long weekend, let alone just a normal weekend.
And this will seriously isolate Perth and Darwin, both of which have have gaps of > 500km between towns no matter which way you take trying to get there. It's a little more than inconvenient.
I'm all for moving to renewable energy sources; but let's not rush into something we're not ready for.
I realized this is either a joke, or Jobs has gone mental.
Yeah, trouble is both are possible explanations...
I think the prevailing reactions to teachers using colours other than red for marking when I was at school ranged from "This teacher is crazy" to "It makes it so hard to find the comments". I do remember one person saying that red was a kinda depressing colour, but she was also the one who complained to another teacher when they used a different colour... I really don't understand the point of this.
That assumes that the only thing present is the apple. If we need to find the apple and then extract the 'a', you would do something like this:
/\b(a)pple\b/i
Reasons to use one of the 'pretty much everyone else'
1. Customer service: They have it, BigPond doesn't.
2. Price: They might not so generous as to have 'free sites', but the plans are more than generous on a download to dollar ratio to make up for it. And most of them don't charge for uploads like BigPond.
3. Resale: There is no resale of ADSL2 that I know of. Most of the 'pretty much everyone else' got tired of Telstra's excuses and setup their own. If you have access to that, what's your problem?
Oh, and what the hell is wrong with Optus?
Bigpond doesn't rip people off on the basis that they 'really have little alternative'. They rip people off on the basis that people have a perception that this is the case, or by sucking people into the whole 'Wow! I can save $2 by bundling my internet with my phone line!' thing.
There are at least two forced motorbike missions in GTA IV; and I'll readily admit I suck at riding motorbikes in that game, and shooting at the same time is just annoying (which is not helped by the fact I prefer the controls with x as accelerate, which stops you aiming while driving). I got lucky on the first one, in that at the point I crashed I landed right next to the door of a taxi, and I rule the roads in cars, so the rest of the mission was a cinch. I haven't really tried the other one... I don't feel the need to work hard to improve a skill that is only useful for two missions in one game.
The thing I like about GTA is that there are so many ways that you can do most missions. You can sneak around and take out the guards quietly, or you can go in guns blazing; whatever is most comfortable. It's just a pity that there are missions like these where even if you place a car deliberately to help you with the mission, the game will take it away in the cutscene and magically make the traffic jam on the road disappear so you're forced to take the bike. And when the bike isn't fun, neither is the mission.
I find it a hell of a lot easier to find the matching braces when they are all on their own line. If you've got a large set of long lines, you don't have to always scan back to the start of the lines to see where the block starts and ends, you can see the almost empty line that shows where it starts and ends while you're scrolled far to the right. I was so glad when I started work and found that was the standard they used.
At my uni the CS department was notorious for marking harshly. I was a bit frustrated at first because I felt that my work was being undervalued. But comparing the graduates of my uni with the graduates of more lenient unis at my workplace you can tell the difference. Lower marks make good students work harder and bad students quit. The system works.
Just so we're all clear, people realise that unreasoned opinions are not a religion-specific thing, right? I mean stupid loud people are everywhere, especially in politics! If someone has randomly decided that evolution is wrong, wouldn't that make them fit in better?
Loud people win in politics. Stupid people spend less time in quiet contemplation and more time working on their loudness.
We shouldn't be removing religious opinions from government, but instead should be working to increase the diversity of other opinions in government. This way, even if everyone is there stupid, they are less likely to agree on a stupid decision because they will all have different stupid opinions and actually have to work on them to create the consensus needed to get them through.
Sorry. When I'm frustrated with an issue I tend to over use the word stupid. This seems especially true of stupid politics.
I bought a brand new AGP motherboard just as the first PCI-E boards were coming out, thinking 'sure PCI-E is newer but I won't be upgrading the new graphics card I bought with it sooner than the motherboard, right?' The stupid graphics card died, so I had to settle with the only graphics card that would fit the board, a $100 piece of carp.
Sure, the fibre network is more expensive, but it's got a whole lot more bandwidth. It may not be much better, but it's better right? So the only thing that would make it bad is if something much better comes out soon and we need our network to be that technology, and we wish we had that $3.75 billion we would have saved building Howard's equally obsolete network, so we could upgrade to this new one. Is there any such technology or need on the horizon? Maybe, but my bet is that we'd be just as safe with the great fast network that would with all probability last longer than the decent fast-but-two-tiered network that Howard is proposing.
Of course, all of this is dependant on the promises of politicians. And on that we have much less reason to doubt Rudd (if only because he hasn't been tried yet, but I'm all for forgetting this fact because I'm kinda sick of Howard).
Buy Vista. The rest of the OS goes to hell, but at least you have a "No to All" button.
How 'bout this... I'm here reading about all these 'features', and another page I was on spawned a pop-up, which due to the settings I have opened in a new tab. The pop-up resizes my Firefox window, and disabled every function of the browser except creating and closing empty tabs, and scrolling (but only by the little knob thing on the scrollbar, the up-down buttons didn't work, nor the keyboard shortcuts). Apparently Firefox thought it had died long before this, because when I restored my session all the tabs I had closed when playing around with the paralysed browser (trying to revive it) were opened again. Thankfully this didn't include the pop-up, though.
In summary the most annoying feature of any product is Microsoft Office's insistence that no matter what I say, I should spell my words the American way; without the colour, flavour, honour, and organisation of Australian English. I could very much do without all the extra labour required by constantly being the saviour of other people's spelling when they don't check the lies the Microsoft spell checker is telling them. Especially since the new version of Word takes forever to load the language box, and at best setting the default will only buy one or two correct new documents before it changes the default back again. Why, Microsoft? Why? Apart from taking every available opportunity to insult you and actively trying to move people to Linux, what have I ever done to you? --- Beware of the seductive semicolon; it only means your sentences harm.
It's not that we want to blow the guy up; but give a nerd a problem...
The difference between Gravity and Evolution is that you can jump up and down and say, 'You know what, I think there may be something to this gravity thing.' With evolution no one has yet instigated such an experiment. But apparently we're working on it, what with this global warming and all...
I don't have a problem with 'macro evolution'. My question is how on earth did a self replicating cell form by chance in the first place. That's what just seems to boggle my mind; how did all the necessary parts get into the right place at the right time, it's like by chance having a binary data file that by chance happened to be interpreted by the computer as a self-replicating executable. Sure, it's possible, but if you saw it you'd expect someone had planned that to happen.
My real problem with evolution is not what it proposes; technically the bible does actually say how the world was made, only that God ordered it. What my problem is that people claim it to positively disprove God. Science doesn't have the ability to deal with the question of God, that question is far out of its scope. Science only deals with what it can see demonstrated. You can use forensic science to prove that a knife used in an attack was held by someone, but you can't prove by forensic science that someone else has ordered an attack because there is no physical evidence of that fact; police have to look elsewhere for that (testimonies, other physical evidence that ties them to the location, etc.).
In summary, can people stop saying stupid things like "Rational people don't buy that stuff", or "The church tries to hide people from facts"; neither of those statements are true and they don't incite the harmony that you claim to want. For every stupid person trying to mute evolution, there is another stupid person trying to mute religion...
Why on EARTH would you need a newer display for a server? You don't even have a display connected to them most of the time, so why even bother with X, or anything else that just takes away from its ability to do its job?
Translations differ in wording, yes. But there is nothing stopping you checking between versions if you are really worried about it. And there is nothing hidden in the translations; the original versions in Greek and Hebrew are still available (None was originally written in Latin). The point of having all this available is so that powers of the interpreter are greatly mitigated. Translators are human after all, we all make mistakes.
Christians is a name Christians define as those who believe the bible with first preference and everything else in relation to that. The reason we do it that way is because we don't want people saying they have more authority than what's there because what's there is what Jesus taught or fairly well consistent with what Jesus taught.
Is this not a fair distinction?
As for the King James being mis-translated (which someone mentioned above), that's hardly significant, especially in the modern era, as all the different translations are based on the earliest available manuscripts (not on previous translations, and the dead sea scrolls have since been included).
Also, on the topic of Nick Gisburne, can we have this article changed slightly; I don't generally accept misquotes as part of logical arguments. For example, he asserts that Mark 7:9-10 is telling us that "Jesus criticises the Jews for not killing their disobedient children", which is grossly inaccurate. Jesus is being criticised for not following the law to the letter (something Gisburne tries to tell us Jesus is all for at another place), which Jesus replies to by giving an example of where the Jews don't follow the law to the letter, but consider themselves justified in doing so. I'm doing a quick statistical analysis of his claims, and so far he's averaging around 13% accuracy per claim (weighting based on the severity of the quotes as presented, the relative severity in context, and how fair what he claims the verse says is, given the first two points), but keep in mind he gives no hint of counter points (verses that contradict his view); that 13% is purely on the points he gives as arguments for Jesus supporting cruelty.
Sadly, despite the hype this is just another in a long line of arguments that attempts to explain why a rational person can't believe in God and fails miserably. If you do have a rational argument against Christianity, or just that disproves God, please let me know. (I'd give you my email, but the spam protection it has is lousy; I'm looking into an alternative address (preferably that I control) that I can publish safely for this purpose)
It's funny how people base so much of their view of others on the basis of the loud and stupid. I'm a Christian and the general consensus amongst all the Christians I know is that clubbing people to our point of view is pointless as they learn nothing and become little more than pew fillers. And no, we don't think pew fillers are a good thing. While we're debunking myths about Christianity, here's a few more: - We're not in it for the money. Except for one or two of the biggest guys in the 'business', the money is terrible. - Evolution doesn't disprove God. The best it does is say "well there is a chance that God doesn't exist." - Starting religious wars isn't an encouraged course of action. I don't know what the Irish are doing, but generally we discourage violence; it never solves anything. Hope to have cleared these things up.
The only way to win is not to play at all.
Which is a very geeky perspective on all active games.
I love this arguement, it's so stupid. The only thing that is really known about the salinity issue is that some farming areas have become unusable. It has been deduced that this is due to the farming because it started after the farms were planted; a fair enough point. But nobody actually knows either why or can tell you how to fix it (I saw this on Landline on the ABC last year I think, one of those farming shows at least). With the biggest drought on us, is it impossible to that this could be a natural event caused by something else though? We don't know. We don't know the cause or the solution, only the problem; so what on earth is the government supposed to do?
We don't have a president, they have too much influence. We prefer our constitutional monarchy where the head of state has absolutely no say whatsoever (though that's probably not technically how it's supposed to work, I don't know).
Whingers are bad not because they see problems, but all they do about it is whinge. Even for a minority there is always the option of provoking a politician into a stupid 'politically incorrect' remark and then forcing his hand into doing what you want. Gotta love democracy.
McDonalds may take care of it's management, but I don't see kebab shops refusing to hire/give shifts to people for the shop front because they're over 18 and therefore entitled to full adult wages.
I have to agree, we're not that bad yet. And all we need to stem the flow of further decline is a decent opposition party, unlike other places where a head of state has influence over the direction of the government's decisions.