I don't know for sure, but i was thinking about WordPerf 8 for Linux. I use the free version, but it doesn't come with the equation editor, the full version should. I allways prefered it bigtime over the Word equation editor. I'm now still using WP7 for Windows95 for those tasks where i need formula's. I'm intending to buy WP8 for linux in the near future, for just this reason.
off topic: I like the effort Corel is putting into Linux, although i myself use SuSE, they've also been one of the victims of M$ monopoly. (but they also ignored windows 3 in the beginning, so WP6.0 for DOS really sucked, WP6.1 for Win fixed most, but by then they had allready lost the windows market to Word 6. I still think my good old WP5.1 had more features than even Word97. e.g. it can number equations, Word still can't.) Having StarOffice, KOffice and CorelOffice will give some nice competition. My favorite office suite would be the spreadsheet from StarOffice (AKA Excel lookalike), with WordPerfect. But then i'm basically a converted Windows user. allthough i prefer Mac's for their interface.
Diamond SpeedStarA50 8MB 350 MHz Accelerated-X v5 9.7 12.7 16.9 N/A XF_SVGA 3.3.3.1 -0- -0- -0- N/A NOTES: Tested Apr 99. XFree supports this chipset, but does not support this card, XF86_SVGA will not run with this card.
This is what i found on their website. I have this card! I bought SuSe 6.1 on 1th april with FX86 3.3.3, and it works perfectly with my card, so they're plain lying!
There aren't any "higher" and "lower" creatures in the theory of evolution, just creatures that survive and creatures that don't. (some are more succesfull at it as others, like rats and bacteria are a lot more succesfull as humans, or horses, for example.)
I think it's up to schools & universities to teach about the currently most widely accepted theories. And their basis. Then students have a profound basis to question these theories. Even Einstein first had to learn the old theory before he could see what's wrong with it, and come up with a correction.
THe Theory of Gravity is a theory that proposes a Law of gravity, and there is a lot of evidence that this law of graivty, as proposed by the theory of gravity is quite close to the actual law of gravity, but einstein and others have given reson to think that Newton's proposal for the law of gravity isn't exactly correct, but neither id einsteins, alltough it's closer as newton's, but still we may never get a theory of gravity that actually gives us the true Law of gravity, if such a thing exists, because maybe that theory of gravity would be to difficult for a human to understand, but we can try, and at the moment the best theory of gravity giving us a law of gravity is derived from Einsteins thoery of relativity. If you know a more accurate one, please let me know.
n biology classes, should the teachers explain that "when humans die, their bodies decompose and they become food for worms. Also, some people believe ghosts or spirits rise out of their bodies and go to heaven."
Nah, they should do that in Theology classes, along with explaining that some other Humans believe that they'll enter another body (reincarnation), etc. Believes are to be taught in a theology class. Like Buddism, Jewism, christianism, Hare Krishna, etc.
You're right about that. If the theories of nuclear decay are wrong, then that changes a lot. The point that scientists supporting creation make is that it's possible our theories on nuclear decay are wrong, and that the rate of decay is not constant (i.e. we haven't been observing decay for 5700 years to know for sure the half-life of Carbon-14, and haven't observed that the protons emitted by the sun for the past 700 centuries has been a constant (i.e. the decay is caused by proton bombardment, and 700 centuries is the "upper limit" of C-14 dating).
B***sh*t. It's neurton bombardment, and if you question that, you're questioning a lot of scientific law's including gravity, nuclear fussion, etc. There are a LOT of reasons to accept these presumptions of C-14 dating. Maybe we're wrong but then you better come up with some solid scientific agrument (or a url to it). Otherwise i prefer to believe the theories i've confirmed with experiments during my education as a phyiscs student.
You can't really put creationism in a school. It isn't science.
I agree. It isn't. I certainly wouldn't support the presentation of creationism as science. But please don't make the mistake that everything in your science book is good science either. See things like: there is no gravity in space, sound travels better though solids and liquids than air, friction is caused by rough surfaces, infrared light = heat, rainbows have only seven colors, laser light is "in phase", air is weightless, water drops are "pointy ovals", batteries store electrical charge, hot water freezes faster, water drains clockwise/anti-clockwise depending on your hemisphere, etc. So I wouldn't call Creationism science either. But then I would correct all the falsehoods that are taught as science also.
most of the things you say there are actually "right", exept for the hot water thing. Here "right" means in the meaning of "an apple falls to the ground when dropped". This isn't allways "right" and completely accurate, but it's what i mean by "right".
You can't just teach children all the things "right" to the point where contemprairy science understands them. Even 10 years of university education isn't capable of doing that to the brightest of students.
better come up with something better if you want to convince me that evolution is generally wrong.
We've got creationist like guys around here to. Their argument out here is like: Science is right until about 7000 years ago, everything they put before that is fake, God put it there to make us tempt us into sin (of disbelieveing).
That's fine with me, i don't agree. I'm simply happy that out here schoolt teach scientific theory (like the evolution), and churches teach faith (like creationism). I think the two shouldn't be mixed.
** Schools are for teaching scientific theories,**
that is the most accepted ones. (you have to LEARN something there) When the kinds grow up, and they become a scientist, that way they can investigate the theories, and maybe prove them wrong.
I myself do believe in God, but i think you shouldn't take the bible to litterally, it's a man made book afterall. I've seen a lot of proof that the scientific theories for evolution are sound, so i think the theory of evolution has a good chance of being near the truth, and until i hear something better i'll keep with it. Just like i kept with Newtonian mechanics, until i was taught Einsteins theory of relativity. And later in life Einstein understood that God does throw dice, as far as Heisenbergs unceratinty principle was concerned. (AFAIK)
I'm more or less a newbie Linux user. I recently bought my first Linux distru.
To me things were easy: RH 1 CD 149 Dfl. SuSe 5 CD 79 Dfl. -> much more value for you money (and a nice book)
secondly SuSe is more up to date here, because RH is allways takes about 2 months before it hits the shops, after release in the USA.
I don't know if RH is more secure, more into SMP, or whatever. SuSe ran clean out of the box for me. I was running KDE and X windows within an hour after inserting the CD. (on pretty new hardware, i had waited until there was a distri in the shop with Xfree 3.3.3, because older didn't support my hardware) Within 2 days i had figured out how to compile my own kernel. And now i'm writing here about it... (now on my own machine, it has no connection to the Inet.)
Downloading from Inet isn't an option for me, , maybe in the future, CableModem is gaining rapidly in the Netherlands, and the bandwith promisses are sky high. Next year my town will get cablemodem.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know for sure, but i was thinking about
WordPerf 8 for Linux. I use the free version, but
it doesn't come with the equation editor,
the full version should.
I allways prefered it bigtime over the
Word equation editor.
I'm now still using WP7 for Windows95 for
those tasks where i need formula's.
I'm intending to buy WP8 for linux in the near
future, for just this reason.
off topic:
I like the effort Corel is putting into Linux,
although i myself use SuSE, they've also
been one of the victims of M$ monopoly.
(but they also ignored windows 3 in the beginning,
so WP6.0 for DOS really sucked, WP6.1 for Win
fixed most, but by then they had allready lost
the windows market to Word 6.
I still think my good old WP5.1 had more features than even Word97. e.g. it can number equations,
Word still can't.)
Having StarOffice, KOffice and CorelOffice will
give some nice competition.
My favorite office suite would be the spreadsheet
from StarOffice (AKA Excel lookalike), with
WordPerfect.
But then i'm basically a converted Windows user.
allthough i prefer Mac's for their interface.
Have Fun!
Adriaan Renting
Diamond SpeedStarA50 8MB 350 MHz
Accelerated-X v5 9.7 12.7 16.9 N/A
XF_SVGA 3.3.3.1 -0- -0- -0- N/A
NOTES: Tested Apr 99. XFree supports this chipset, but does not support this card, XF86_SVGA will not run with this card.
This is what i found on their website.
I have this card!
I bought SuSe 6.1 on 1th april with FX86 3.3.3, and it works perfectly with my card, so they're plain lying!
There aren't any "higher" and "lower"
creatures in the theory of
evolution, just creatures that survive and
creatures that don't.
(some are more succesfull at it as others,
like rats and bacteria are a lot more succesfull
as humans, or horses, for example.)
greetings,
I think it's up to schools & universities to
teach about the currently most widely accepted
theories. And their basis. Then students
have a profound basis to question these theories.
Even Einstein first had to learn the old theory
before he could see what's wrong with it, and
come up with a correction.
greetings,
THe Theory of Gravity is a theory that
... ;)
proposes a Law of gravity, and there is a lot
of evidence that this law of graivty, as
proposed by the theory of gravity is quite
close to the actual law of gravity, but
einstein and others have given reson to think
that Newton's proposal for the law of gravity
isn't exactly correct, but neither id einsteins,
alltough it's closer as newton's, but still
we may never get a theory of gravity
that actually gives us the true Law of gravity,
if such a thing exists, because maybe that
theory of gravity would be to difficult for a
human to understand, but we can try, and at
the moment the best theory of gravity giving us
a law of gravity is derived from Einsteins
thoery of relativity.
If you know a more accurate one, please let me know.
greetings,
Roger Wilco (from Space Quest
n biology classes, should the teachers explain
that "when humans die, their bodies decompose and
they become food for worms. Also, some people
believe ghosts or spirits rise out of their bodies
and go to heaven."
Nah, they should do that in Theology classes,
along with explaining that some other Humans
believe that they'll enter another body (reincarnation), etc.
Believes are to be taught in a theology class.
Like Buddism, Jewism, christianism, Hare Krishna,
etc.
greetings,
You're right about that. If the theories of nuclear decay are wrong, then that changes a lot. The point that scientists supporting creation make is
that it's possible our theories on nuclear decay are wrong, and that the rate of decay is not constant (i.e. we haven't been observing decay for
5700 years to know for sure the half-life of Carbon-14, and haven't observed that the protons emitted by the sun for the past 700 centuries has
been a constant (i.e. the decay is caused by proton bombardment, and 700 centuries is the "upper limit" of C-14 dating).
B***sh*t. It's neurton bombardment, and if you question that, you're questioning a lot of scientific law's including gravity, nuclear fussion, etc.
There are a LOT of reasons to accept these presumptions of C-14 dating. Maybe we're wrong
but then you better come up with some solid scientific agrument (or a url to it). Otherwise
i prefer to believe the theories i've confirmed with experiments during my education as a phyiscs
student.
You can't really put creationism in a school. It isn't science.
I agree. It isn't. I certainly wouldn't support the presentation of creationism as science. But please don't make the mistake that everything in your
science book is good science either. See things like: there is no gravity in space, sound travels better though solids and liquids than air, friction is
caused by rough surfaces, infrared light = heat, rainbows have only seven colors, laser light is "in phase", air is weightless, water drops are
"pointy ovals", batteries store electrical charge, hot water freezes faster, water drains clockwise/anti-clockwise depending on your hemisphere,
etc. So I wouldn't call Creationism science either. But then I would correct all the falsehoods that are taught as science also.
most of the things you say there are actually "right", exept for the hot water thing. Here "right" means in the meaning of "an apple falls to
the ground when dropped".
This isn't allways "right" and completely accurate, but it's what i mean by "right".
You can't just teach children all the things
"right" to the point where contemprairy science
understands them. Even 10 years of university
education isn't capable of doing that to the brightest of students.
better come up with something better if you want to convince me that evolution is generally wrong.
greetings.
Hi there in the USA, this is from Europe,
We've got creationist like guys around here to.
Their argument out here is like:
Science is right until about 7000 years ago,
everything they put before that is fake,
God put it there to make us tempt us into
sin (of disbelieveing).
That's fine with me, i don't agree.
I'm simply happy that out here schoolt teach
scientific theory (like the evolution),
and churches teach faith (like creationism).
I think the two shouldn't be mixed.
** Schools are for teaching scientific theories,**
that is the most accepted ones.
(you have to LEARN something there)
When the kinds grow up, and they become a
scientist, that way they can investigate
the theories, and maybe prove them wrong.
I myself do believe in God, but i think you
shouldn't take the bible to litterally, it's a man made book afterall.
I've seen a lot of proof that the scientific
theories for evolution are sound, so i think the theory of evolution has a good chance of being near the truth, and until i hear something better i'll keep with it. Just like i kept with Newtonian mechanics, until i was taught Einsteins
theory of relativity.
And later in life Einstein understood that God does throw dice, as far as Heisenbergs unceratinty principle was concerned. (AFAIK)
Greetings,
You have a point here.
from The Nethelands:
I'm more or less a newbie Linux user.
I recently bought my first Linux distru.
To me things were easy:
RH 1 CD 149 Dfl.
SuSe 5 CD 79 Dfl. -> much more value for
you money (and a nice book)
secondly SuSe is more up to date here,
because RH is allways takes about 2
months before it hits the shops, after
release in the USA.
I don't know if RH is more secure,
more into SMP, or whatever.
SuSe ran clean out of the box for me.
I was running KDE and X windows within
an hour after inserting the CD.
(on pretty new hardware, i had waited until
there was a distri in the shop with Xfree 3.3.3,
because older didn't support my hardware)
Within 2 days i had figured out how to compile
my own kernel.
And now i'm writing here about it...
(now on my own machine, it has no connection to
the Inet.)
Downloading from Inet isn't an option for me,
, maybe in the future, CableModem is gaining
rapidly in the Netherlands, and the bandwith
promisses are sky high. Next year my town will
get cablemodem.
Goetjes,