The base of most of my cooking tends to be onion, garlic, and mushrooms stir-fried in some (olive) oil. You can pretty much take that in any direction you want, depending on the vegetables and herbs you add.
A direction that rates highly on my convenience factor is to add e.g. some green beans and some peas, or whatever vegetables are easily available to you. After stir frying the whole thing for a couple of minutes, add (part of) a jar of tomato chunks, and while that's heating up add some seasoning (salt, pepper, oregano, basil, whatever rocks your boat). By the time you're done adding the seasonings and stirring it all in, the dish will be done. Then you have a sort of tomato soup you can eat with some bread on the side, or if you boiled some pasta in the meantime you've got a pasta dish. All that within about 10 minutes. If you want to eat it with e.g. lentils just be sure to start those on time, but besides that it takes no extra effort.
I imagine I'm not telling you much, if anything, you don't already know. But if I am, I'll be glad to share some other possible directions.
The title at the very top and the "DnD Sanctuary" link both above and below a topic also lead to the same location as "Home".
I'll remove the margin-bottom from #upper_section and I'll add a margin-top to .dropmenu li. That way the navigational items won't be so close together if they become two lines.
Elinks is a text-based web browser. I use Elink as well as Links 2 and Lynx occasionally. If I recall correctly they all handle certain language-related issues better than graphical browsers, like falling back from ø to oe if ø is not available.
This puppy is hoping that Frenzie can find it in his warm heart to somehow implement the same here!
You should now see "My Bookmarks" in the top navigation and "Add Bookmark" alongside the "Notify" option on topics. I think it addresses all concerns, but please be sure to point out any issues.
Also, in lieu of xErath's permission to modify his script, I added a premade inferior quick quoting ability. I will create a better solution one way or the other, but I'd prefer to adapt xErath's script rather than work from scratch. For example, it already deals with links, lists, and some varieties of text styling correctly.
What if you hold false beliefs? How would you revise them? For example, I find your implicit suggestion that "synapses in your brain" correspond to beliefs as open to immediate attack. How do you justify this contention? Any evidence? If it turns out dubious, would you revise it?
If you're ignorant of basic neuroscience, here's a semi-random place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphasia Semi-random because you could say Broca was the first neuroscientist, or at least the most famous early one, and that's what he studied.
My "implicit suggestion" was more of a pars pro toto. If there was an implicit suggestion, it's that it's all wholly and completely physical. Would I revise that suggestion if it turned out to be dubious? Well, why wouldn't I?
I most definitely didn't ask you to formulate it this way. What was wrong with some formulation more true to Russell's? Was he wrong after all? If so, why not admit it and revise your belief?
You're clearly still missing the point about the evolution of ideas. Okay, so there's a teapot in space undetectable by telescope. And as you indicated, a teapot undetectable by telescope might still be detectable by e.g. sending over some kind of space vessel. This changes what exactly? Even adding the undetectable by telescope attribute is already part of the evolution.
By logical inference from knowing you and knowing what china is. Note: The basis for the judgement would be knowledge, not ignorance. This is inverted in your case.
That's the only potentially valid objection to the teapot you've managed to muster thus far: we know a thing or two about teapots. The teapot argument presumes that knowledge about teapots to be correct, while that's actually the point it sets out to prove. However, you feign knowledge where there is none, which is the problem I've been pointing out all along.
I've seen Christians quite rationally tear down Islamic concepts without realizing much the same arguments would dismantle their own faith. Sure, there are some caveats, but it's all about not applying a double standard.
It's not a test of rationality. It's applicable only to adherents of traditional religion. Converts don't qualify and atheists don't qualify either. Hence we both don't qualify here.
The point is to subject your own beliefs to the same amount of skepticism and rational inquiry that you do others. Your contention that converts and atheists already do is special pleading.
Its connection with Russell's analogy (the analogy that is either false or meant as a joke, most likely both) also remains unexplained.
You think it's an analogy to your god concept, but it's an analogy to its infancy and to its development.
The connection is that this is how it sounds to outsiders. You obviously don't think it's ridiculous, so one has to come up with something everyone thinks is ridiculous to demonstrate. Is it a joke? Maybe, but a joke with utility.
But we're talking about the GUI responsiveness, not page loading time. Opera remaining more responsive while the page is loading is just one aspect of it.
(Hear that, Opera? Lack of little things the user even doesn't necessarily need everyday cause them to not stick with your product...sorry :p )
For instance, I use IRC something like twice a year, but it's there.
I find Gnome Shell horrible for window management. It's like they expect you to use only fullscreen apps. This is my desktop (or even my netbook), not my phone with a screen so small that just about everything has to be fullscreen.
KDE actually seems to understand that different devices require different input mechanisms. Gnome Shell is something of a tablet UI on desktop, and Windows 8 is more like a phone UI on desktop. Yet the same Metro UI (or whatever it's called now) works great on phones.
The programmer doesn't have to be diligent, the programmer doesn't have to have experience with the threading library; but automatically, without even trying, the app gets a separate thread for every window that is distinct from the main event loop. That means that even if the event loop spends some time doing something expensive, the GUI will continue to redraw, resize, render button clicks, etc. just as smoothly as if nothing were happening.
That's a big part of what made the BeOS GUI faster on late 90s hardware than Windows, Linux, OR OS X are on today's hardware.
So problem #1 is that today's GUI frameworks suck. They let the GUI become unresponsive far too often by failing to isolate the UI's responsiveness from long-running work that the application should be doing in the background.
I concur - I've switched to firefox but the sluggishness of UI is plain annoying, compared to blazing fast and fluid UI of Opera 12 (and earlier). But... I' surviving, and it's million times better than Opera 15 both feature and resource wise...
It's because they're measuring exactly those aspects that have the least to do with whether the browser feels slow and sluggish or not. The Opera/Presto UI responds when you do things, possibly at the expense of page loading time but who cares? Only Safari also understands how important responsiveness is, at least on Apple's mobile devices. It stops rendering when you interact with it.
Which reminds me - and should have reminded you: Define "real".
Been there, done that. Your favorite physicist, Lawrence Krauss, had something interesting to say about it:
Quote from: Lawrence Krauss
To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature.
Your self-contradiction on the other hand is marked. It could be easily remedied with proper rational prioritisation. The self-contradiction I refer to is emphasising empiricism as a great positive value in the first part of your post and rationality in the latter part, while ignoring that they are contradictory.
Empiricism provides the anchor to reality and truth that unbounded reason does not. While contradictory is the wrong word, the fact that they restrain each other is precisely the point.
In philosophy and logic, when you "make up", then it comes to be. It means it will exist. And its seeds are already here and now.
[…]
My argument, therefore, is: Be very careful what you make up, because it *will* become reality, if it already isn't.
That's all trivially true, because of course the synapses in your brain are real. That doesn't mean the synapses correspond to real things outside of your brain. It's also the very reason people should have a strongly vested interest in eradicating false beliefs. Steven Weinberg wrote, "for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." That's true insofar as religion corresponds to false beliefs. But any false belief will do, and one needn't be religious to hold a false belief.
Disregarding all about detection and granting that the "insiders" have a different idea of the teapot than the outsider - how do you determine that the outsider's view is correct? And when you have a way of determining this, doesn't this make *you* the true impartial otsider rather than the outsider your argument is referring to? Isn't the outsider of your argument enmeshed in his own ideas about other things with regard to which he is an insider? In other words, how do you define the outsider? An example/analogy would be helpful, thanks.
Gravatar is slow, and a central point of failure for avatars to possibly be moderated and taken down. Maybe it's not an issue yet. But if we accept such sites, then the next step is to move posts up there, or and videos to another place, and screenshots elsewhere. And in the end we don't own nothing and must "deal with it"™.
A proper Gravatar implementation locally caches the Gravatars and allows Gravatar-independent local avatars.
If I ban Gravatar entirely, I lose also the default/blank avatar of poeple who haven't picked one, but the site becomes much snappier (relatively speaking, since it still runs the modern IPB).
That, too, is a sign of a bad Gravatar implementation.
A somewhat odd thing about the subscriptions is that the code probably exists, but it only outputs e-mails. Perhaps there's some kind of mod available; you might have to remind me to check for that.
Isn't Gravatar more a matter of implementation? If you can choose between a Gravatar or a locally set avatar, it sounds like nothing but added value to me.
Basically you got a tool tip at a fairly random point in your browsing history telling users about this great new feature.
Yeah, that's how I found out about it. But it was a somewhat puzzling "You performed a mouse gesture for the first time. Enable mouse gestures?" kind of dialog.
