Slashdot Mirror


Greed, Zealotry, and the Commodore 64

jira writes "On the occasion of the Commodore 64's rebirth as an Atom-equipped nettop, the Guardian's Jon Blyth remembers what the original Commodore 64 taught him. Among other things: 'But look at it, all brown, ugly and lovely. It taught me so much. The Commodore 64 taught me about zealotry. After upgrading from the inferior ZX Spectrum, I would try to convince the Sinclair loyalists to follow me. I would invite them to my house, and let them see that with just eight colors and a monophonic sound chip, their lives lacked true depth. My evangelism quickly faded into impatience. So, I can now see why American Baptists get so miffy about atheists — it's horrible dealing with people who don't realize how much better you are.'"

66 of 645 comments (clear)

  1. monophonic sound chip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    there is no ZX spectrum with a "monophonic sound chip"

    the original 16 and 48k machines have no sound chip, the sound is software driven by toggling an I/O bit.
    the 128k machines use the AY which is 3 channel

    so there! :p

    1. Re:monophonic sound chip? by noidentity · · Score: 2

      So you're saying that the sound chip in the original ZX Spectrum is a latch (that retains what is last written to the sound port).

    2. Re:monophonic sound chip? by arisvega · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never could understand why Spectrum was so popular.

      It was damn cheap, that's why!

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    3. Re:monophonic sound chip? by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

      Price. I was in the market at the time, and the C64 was several times more expensive. In France, the competition was the Oric 1 or Atmos.

      The Spectrum also had a nice CPU (Z80, much more fun to do assembly in than the 6502) and a good software library, as well as tremendous peripheral suppport. And it was the logical step up from the cheap as dirt ZX81 (Timex in your parts).

      It's not so much about why would people get anSpectrum instead of a C64... it's more about a Spectrum versus nothing.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    4. Re:monophonic sound chip? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yes.

      --
      No sig today...
  2. Goes both ways... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, I can now see why American Baptists get so miffy about atheists -- it's horrible dealing with people who don't realize how much better you are.

    That's funny... that's the same reason I, an atheist, get so miffy about Christians, especially Baptists, especially young-earth Creationists.

    Hopefully this is a whoosh and there's some sarcasm I'm missing or something...

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Goes both ways... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a medicinal chemist working on a program to cure Alzheimer's disease, and I thank God for my abilities.

      Tell me, what part of your abilities came from God? Did he go through the years of school for you? Perhaps he inspired you with the knowledge of how chemical reactions work?

      Thanking God for your abilities is just pushing it back a step. Instead of me disrespecting a doctor by giving God the credit instead, that's you disrespecting every human teacher you ever had. If you're thanking God for the aptitude alone, thank your parents -- nature or nurture, the part you're crediting God with likely came from them.

      If you're thanking God for every single event that deterministically led to you being where you are now, basically for setting the universe in motion, even if that were true, that seems absurdly far removed from what you're actually doing with medicine -- how do you know you're even doing what the creator of the universe would want?

      I think you presume too much of the Doctor when you deny the existence of miracles.

      What is it I'm supposed to be presuming that isn't possible?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:Goes both ways... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a medicinal chemist working on a program to cure Alzheimer's disease, and I thank God for my abilities. I think you presume too much of the Doctor when you deny the existence of miracles.

      The human body will fight for its survival just as much as its owner, sometimes beating what looks like impossible odds. Just like some people have extreme allergies, others have extreme resistances. I'll agree that despite modern medicine sometimes the doctor is not the one to thank, but it's a fairly good stretch from there to interference from a supernatural being.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Goes both ways... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. The "whoosh" is that both groups think they're superior to each other, and get frustrated that no one will listen to their superior ways. Just because they think they are superior doesn't mean they are; similarly, just because you think you're superior doesn't mean you are.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    4. Re:Goes both ways... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I actually don't claim superiority. I'm only playing devil's advocate here -- I consider my opinion to be superior, because it's actually based on evidence and reason, but that doesn't say all that much about my character, and I don't necessarily know that there is not a theistic position based on evidence and reason, I just haven't found one yet.

      But the clue is in the subject: "Goes both ways."

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Goes both ways... by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lion in a Kiev, Ukraine, zoo after he crept into the animal’s enclosure, a zoo official said Monday.

      “The man shouted, ‘God will save me, if he exists,’ lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions,” the official said.

      “A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery.”

    6. Re:Goes both ways... by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

      Upon interview, God was reportedly commented:

      "What? The guy was a fucking moron!"

    7. Re:Goes both ways... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      “A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery.”

      ...and thanked God for her lunch?

    8. Re:Goes both ways... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you define yourself with the things you don't believe in.

      No one word is sufficient to define me. I'm also a software developer, son, brother, gamer, geek, martial artist, and forever a student -- and these are not sufficient to define me, either.

      How do you define yourself?

      But when most of the world actually spends a significant amount of time talking to the ceiling, following the same bronze-age mythology that many use to justify atrocities, I am appalled, and I deliberately do take pains to say, "No, I don't do that, I'm sane."

      I also don't watch Twilight, and I don't use Facebook. But I'm also not aware of anyone who's used either Twilight or Facebook to justify rape, murder, institutionalized slavery, or ritualized genital mutilation. What's more, even of the hordes who watch Twilight, most are sane enough to know the difference between fantasy and reality, at least as far as Twilight is concerned.

      you're an ignorant hypocrite.... you're also an idiot.

      Citation needed.

      Which of the things I have said is ignorant, hypocritical, or idiotic?

      why do you cower behind a chosen pseudonym which puts your sanity into question?

      I don't see how it puts my sanity into question. The intention is that I am sane, even in the midst of a world which seems anarchic at times. That, and it's mostly historical; I stole it from a warez site back when that was cool.

      And I happily back this position up in reality, in several local atheist/freethought groups. Other than the pseudonym, I haven't made any particular effort to hide.

      If you were that determined to track me down, it'd take you only a few minutes of Googling.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:Goes both ways... by Sparx139 · · Score: 2

      I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this one managed to get to me.

      Or maybe God didn't give you mod points because you would have modded down his post? Perhaps God didn't give me mod points to mod you down, because he's embarrassed to be involved in this rather pathetic argument?

      Seriously, what's wrong with his post? He expressed a belief in a God. He didn't attack anyone, or scream at us that we're all going to burn in hell unless we follow the teachings of the Bible/Torah/Quarn/whatever. He simply expressed his view on the matter in a polite way. You, however, are being an asshat.

      You probably consider yourself superior to the religious types, and throw them all in the one "evangelical nutcase" basket. Let's presume for a moment that you're right, and that everyone that believes in a higher power are all idiots who've never truly examined what they believe. They all want to convert you to their faith or they won't associate with you, and they all refuse to have a logical discussion about their beliefs.
      If you really want to consider yourself better then these types of people, then be better than these types of people. Wanting to mod something down because you don't agree with it doesn't just make you as bad as these people, it makes you worse because you consider yourself to be above such things.

      Let's leave close-minded bigotry to a small but loud group out of the religious crowd

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    10. Re:Goes both ways... by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 2

      In other news, lionesses can pray!

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    11. Re:Goes both ways... by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Careful -- if god is responsible for everything, doesn't that make him an evil fuck-wad?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    12. Re:Goes both ways... by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you believe that your abilities are the work of God then whom do you believe is responsible for Alzheimer's?

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    13. Re:Goes both ways... by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      nature or nurture, the part you're crediting God with likely came from them.

      The two need not be mutually exclusive.

    14. Re:Goes both ways... by anagama · · Score: 2

      How many victims would Dahmer have to eat before god figures out he's a bad dude? I would think any reasonably intelligent god could figure it out after two human meals (who knows -- the first one might have been some kind of mistake, but coming back for seconds ...). God either all powerful and responsible for evil either directly or by not doing anything about it (which makes god as good as satan), or not all powerful and just a big blowhard trying to get everything to think he is. Either way, if god existed, he isn't worthy of me.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    15. Re:Goes both ways... by Toonol · · Score: 2

      ATTENTION EVERYBODY.

      MichaelKristopeit is a prolific troll. He's ruined a vast number of slashdot threads with his rambling and repetitive comments. He has at least thirty different accounts. If you see him, do not respond, no matter HOW stupid he is (and he IS stupid). If you are a moderator, just mod him down and move on.

      DO NOT try to engage him; he is either insane or gets his giggles from pretending to be.

    16. Re:Goes both ways... by aarggh · · Score: 2

      The only difference is that people like Richard Dawkins are actually very talented and educated people,

      It may suprise you that it is possible to be intelligent AND believe in the supernatural. As Stephen Gould famously put it,

      "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism."

      Quotes are always great, here's one I like from no less than the esteemed US Governor "Jessy "the body" Ventura: "Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business." And another great one from George Bernard Shaw: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."

      I would extend his argument to just about any belief-- just because it may be wrong (be it scientific, religious, or political), doesnt mean you have to be a moron to believe it.

      If I believe I can fly by taping feathers to my arms does that make me a moron? Or is EVERY level of irrationality or stupidity perfectly acceptable in order to attempt to throw some form of legitimacy on or promote someone's totally illogical and UNVERIFIABLE view and opinion?

      believe that the bible (created by MEN centuries AFTER the supposed birth of Christ)

      Youre going to have a rather tough time explaining the Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

      No, not really, they are right up there with my other favourite (literal) fictional books, the Illiad, the Golden Fleece, and of course "Christine by Stephen King. Btw, do some research on how the church refused dissemination over the decades on the contents of the dead sea scrolls as initial discoveries indicated it contradicted the modern churchs teachings and standing. It's quite interesting.

    17. Re:Goes both ways... by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Actually, troll-boy, I'm pretty sure all those groups/people you listed would want me dead. But you're too busy riding the itchy trigger to realize what I said.

      Here's a hint: The point was that someone risked his life, and died, expecting his sky daddy to save him. That person was a fool.

      Attributing the quote to god was this little thing called "humor." Stop being one of "those" atheists and learn to appreciate the concept. You'll enjoy life a lot more.

    18. Re:Goes both ways... by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what if he wants to thank God for his abilities? What is it to you? Are you offended by this? If God is as useless as you claim to be, then of what harm is his belief? Presumably, he is a competent scientist and would produce the same output regardless whether you agree to his beliefs or not. We who believe in God (I'm a muslim microbiologist) thank God for allowing us the opportunity to become what we are, to achieve what we have set out in life. In Islam, a core belief is the belief of predestination (qada' and qadar) meaning what has happened, is happening and will happen is already written. As humans we are given the gift of "free will", but this free will is limited by events out of our control. A child may inherit genes that confer him the abilities of a mathematical genius for example, but if he was born say in the Gaza Strip, then such potential will probably never be reached. As such, when good things happens to us, we thank God, when bad things happens, we ask for his protection and we say "insyallah" (God Willing) when we plan for the future.

    19. Re:Goes both ways... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

      Pretty convincing,don't you agree?

      The difference is, "Science" isn't just something somebody said once. It's something which can actually be backed up. You don't need a degree to contribute, if your work is sound -- and by the same token, nothing in science is considered valid simply because of the credibility of the people who said so. Its authority rests on its repeatability and accessibility -- if you don't think something science says is right, you can certainly find flaws in the existing theory.

      Oh, and it really is pretty much all of science.

      By contrast, The Bible actually is just something somebody said once. Its entire authority rests on whether or not it's divine. The only other attempts I've seen people make are either trying to use it as an authoritative historical source (but if it's not authoritative, that fails), or finding "fulfilled" prophecies, which either end up being fantastically unimpressive, unfulfilled, or actually wrong.

      Stereotyping religions based on the actions of a few is not enlightened. You cannot judge a philosphy by its abuse.

      I agree.

      However, the abuse is why it matters whether or not the philosophy is actually true. I know more than a few atheists who are activists of sorts, who run all sorts of atheist events and do all sorts of atheist promotion, and most of them say they wouldn't bother if it weren't for exactly that abuse. If Islam actually was a religion of peace, if Christians actually did keep church and state separate, if Mormons quit showing up on their door, they'd leave well enough alone.

      And if the religion isn't true, then you start to realize: The fundamentalists couldn't exist without the moderates. Without ideas like faith as a virtue, belief as a core part of your identity, eternal rewards and punishments, that kind of thing, there are all sorts of lines of thinking which just don't happen. The kind of cognitive dissonance it takes to exercise critical thinking towards every aspect of your life except this one thing, this most important thing, is also the kind of thinking that can lead do, well, anything.

      Now, if there actually is a god, and it's possible to know there's a god, then most of what I've said is moot, and it really is just a matter of not letting people corrupt a good thing. But if there isn't, what I inevitably arrive at is that faith is dangerous, and it just isn't worth it.

      I hope I've made you think. And I love your sig.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    20. Re:Goes both ways... by pugugly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I find fascinating is how God never sent boat's and helicopters until after we invented them. I can only assume he saves us with our own inventions because we're a much more moral people than we used to be.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    21. Re:Goes both ways... by haruchai · · Score: 2

      Those books didn't magically collect themselves into a bound and translated volume. They were chosen based on the motives of the powers-that-were at the time.
      A lot of what became Christian (Catholic?) doctrine was only agreed upon at the council of Nicea and the fact that the Emperor's man was in charge of the proceedings may have had a lot to do with what got decided, what got kept and what got scrapped.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    22. Re:Goes both ways... by Hooya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i know this ain't going anywhere.. but, in good fun, here goes:

      "The Dragon In My Garage" - Carl Sagan.

      Or this:

      "Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
      — Steve Eley

      You are correct in that just because you can't observe something at your command doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But the burden of proof falls on the one claiming something exists to demonstrate the existence. In the case of lightning, it's been demonstrated. In the case of $YOU_FAV_DAITY, not so much. If the burden of proof fell on disproving the existence, I got one mean dragon in my garage.

      bbhhh my friend.

    23. Re:Goes both ways... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      everyone that believes in a higher power are all idiots who've never truly examined what they believe.

      That's the polite version. The other is that believing in omnipotent invisible friends who listen and talk to them make them all clinically insane. Either or, I don't mind. Which do you assign to the irrational fabrication of invisible friends who have some personal interest in them? How about people who rely on omnipotent and omniscient creatures to threaten them with eternal torture if they don't act "good" or else they wouldn't be good people?

      If you discount the fact that it's believed by so many, any objective analysis seems to indicate it to be a mental disease. In fact, the commonly used definitions of such mental disease specifically exclude religion, otherwise it would be a mental disease. So yes, "idiots" is the polite version. "Fucking loons" is considered not politically correct.

      Wanting to mod something down because you don't agree with it doesn't just make you as bad as these people, it makes you worse because you consider yourself to be above such things.

      I'm not superior because I don't believe in Santa Claus. I'm just sane.

    24. Re:Goes both ways... by WillKemp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Islam, a core belief is the belief of predestination (qada' and qadar) meaning what has happened, is happening and will happen is already written. As humans we are given the gift of "free will" [......]

      You're a scientist and you can't see that those two things are mutually exclusive?

    25. Re:Goes both ways... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Nope. Go grab a DSM IV and tell me which definition that falls under. Oh, it doesn't. You are making shit up to make yourself feel better.

      There's a difference between not believing blue+yellow=green and thinking that green only exists because the god of green personally makes all greens. One is ignorance, and the other is insanity.

    26. Re:Goes both ways... by jd · · Score: 2

      Do you believe in free will? After reading this? How do you explain the contradiction?

      I don't agree with Islam on virtually anything, predestination included, but the fact is that we all hold mutually contradictory beliefs. You wouldn't survive otherwise. To slam someone for such a belief is therefore a little hypocritical. This is not to say you should accept such errors. Nor would I claim that you cannot address one fault in isolation. Just don't pretend you're innocent of the very thing you blame them of.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    27. Re:Goes both ways... by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      I didnt say that the memory was correct. I said any conclusions based on the delusions would be correct for that delusion.

      No Faith.

    28. Re:Goes both ways... by ChatHuant · · Score: 2

      So what you're saying is that everyone who is capable of doing something is obligated to do so?

      In the case of God, yes, he is. Or else he's not omnibenevolent. If on one hand I'm told he's a creature of infinite love, and on the other hand he doesn't bother lifting a finger to save his loved ones from pain and misery, I have to call nonsense.

    29. Re:Goes both ways... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

      The two are the same.

      ...oh dear.

      If you are without the belief that there is a theos, that is practically the same as the belief that there is no theos.

      There is a world of difference between a positive assertion and a simple lack of belief. Let me put it this way:

      Do you believe I'm wearing a black shirt?
      Do you believe I'm not wearing a black shirt?

      If you said "yes" to either of the above questions, that's a belief -- you're saying you believe something which, particularly in this case, you don't have sufficient evidence to know. And why couldn't you say "no" to both questions? The only thing you can't do is say "yes" to both questions and be consistent.

      That doesn't mean all things you don't believe are of equal certainty. For example:

      Do you believe I have a million dollars?
      Do you believe I don't have a million dollars?

      Well, especially if you knew me, you'd be a bit more skeptical. But could you say you absolutely know for certain I don't? Have you searched every bank in the world, under my mattress, everywhere it could possibly be to be sure I don't have the money?

      Now, it may be that people who positively assert that there are no gods end up with similar ideas and opinions to those who don't assert any positive belief whatsoever about the existence of gods -- but then, it could also be argued that secular ethical systems are very similar to liberal Christian ethical systems. That doesn't change the fact that the underlying philosophies are very different.

      To put it another way, saying that atheism is a "belief system" is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. (That isn't mine, but I don't remember who said it.)

      you are losing sight of the fact that in modern english, athiesm is an ism (to quote wikipedia [wiktionary.org], "a principle, belief or movement").

      Note the 'or'. It's a principle, and a very simple one, with no dogmas and very little to unify those who profess it. The only thing I mean when I say I'm an atheist is that I lack a belief in God.

      I dont know what the fuss is about,

      This is about basic understanding, even definitions, which you seem to be getting repeatedly and profoundly wrong.

      ...discomfort at the idea that everyone has a belief system of their own, even if they would prefer to think of their own as mere rejection of all others...

      I never said that. In fact, I said pretty much just the opposite, early in this thread:

      No one word is sufficient to define me. I'm also a software developer, son, brother, gamer, geek, martial artist, and forever a student -- and these are not sufficient to define me, either.

      That encompasses a lot of opinions, beliefs, preferences, and other things that make up a personality. I'll extend that list: I am generally a naturalist, in that I believe that there is nothing supernatural -- that things we might consider to be supernatural (ghosts, aliens, gods), if they existed, would only be following natural laws we don't yet understand.

      I also care about what's true -- I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. To that end, I currently don't see sufficient evidence to believe in any gods, but that's entirely a result of the evidence. If presented with sufficient evidence, I will change my mind. So atheism isn't even a core principle for me, it's entirely secondary.

      Point is, atheism itself doesn't imply any of that. There are atheists who believe all kinds of crazy things. There are even atheists who pray -- a significant subset of Jews and Buddhists are atheists.

      The point isn't that I believe nothing, or that atheists believe nothing. The point is that atheism, by itself, is not a belief system and does not say what you think it says.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  3. Speaking of greed... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this the third or fourth vaporware company to claim that it somewhere scooped up the rights to flay Commodore's carcass and smear the mutilated skin of the brand onto some boring x86 whitebox?

    In these days of emulators and cheap FPGAs, it just seems tasteless to throw a plastic skin around the winning architecture and call it a C64(even more tasteless to claim to do that, then not follow through, of course...) If you want to bring the past into the present, take advantage of the fact that modern tech should be able to reproduce old gear for considerably less, even in small quantities. If you want to hearken back to the days of the architecture wars, when numerous competing systems existed, featuring a variety of exotic design choices, perhaps one of the hobby projects in creating something exotic, for its own sake, is a more appropriate homage...

    1. Re:Speaking of greed... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > the days of the architecture wars

      One man's architecture war is another man's platform diversity and healthy competition.

      And every programer's porting nightmare.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Speaking of greed... by jd · · Score: 2

      Which got people thinking about how to structure code to encapsulate the non-portable bits. I'd argue that poor portability forced software engineers to develop some excellent practices, and that since the improvement in portability, good practices have deteriorated.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  4. Re:The best C64 programs were 1 line long. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

    The best C64 programs were zero lines long. They tossed the Commodore ROM in the trash, thereby freeing-up all 64 k of memory, and loaded directly from the 1541 (or 71) disk drive.

    "64k should be enough for anybody." With GEOS you can turn your 64k machine into a clone of the original Mac (with WYSIWYG word processing, a trashcan, and everything). My church pastor did all his newsletters on the Commodore=64. And it doesn't cost $4000. More like $400. With music and color! ;-)

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  5. Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If I didn't have a Commodore, I would sooner have an 8-bit Atari or Apple instead, not a Sinclair.

    I'm sure most Spectrum owners would too, considering that those machines were, AFAIR, around three times the price.

    The Spectrum was the cheapest computer that could play half-decent games, and its popularity became self-supporting as it lead more game developers to make games for it.

  6. Primary Programming. by headkase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's easy to develop mental blind-spots when you are receiving your primary programming. Try teaching belief systems to someone who has been raised without myths and given reason and critical thinking skills. In that fully formed individual, they usually tear the mythos to shreds and do not accept it. When you are a child you do not have the thinking skills to reject fantastical ideas. Those basic thinking patterns are then used to "hang" your later learning off of. I'd be ashamed to handicap my children with such outmoded ideas. Religion fulfills a societal function only which is diminishing rapidly, at least in first-world nations.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Primary Programming. by hawguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your daughter's question *is* answered in the bible -- I don't know which version of the bible your daughter and mother are reading, but the answer is in Genesis 1 in the KJV:

      13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

      14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

      So it took him 1 day to create the stars (and presumably the planets, but since they weren't visible to the naked eye from earth there seems no need to mention them, perhaps god backfilled the universe with planets while humans were going about their business eating forbidden apples and such).

      As for your second question, I don't recall anywhere in the bible where it says if you pray for something it will happen, no matter how miraculous. There is a lot of documented suffering in the bible, even to true believers, even god's own son was tortured (if you believe that new testament). God's job isn't to erase all human suffering (what kind of life would that be? I don't see how he could do that and still give humans free will?)

    2. Re:Primary Programming. by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      The bible clearly states if I prayed with my heart, he should have been healed

      The Bible teaches no such thing. In fact I distinctly remember it teaching "In this life, you will have trouble" and "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me."

      Now that you mention it I seem to recall Jesus praying "that this cup be taken from me", and yet he faced the cross. Im well aware that some people preach "name it and claim it" theology (that is, "if you pray for something you will receive it unless your faith is defective"), but theres a reason thats considered to be a false teaching.

    3. Re:Primary Programming. by JonySuede · · Score: 2

      We take it at face value because the Vatican had a branch named Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition. and the christian before Luther were accepting the authority of the Vatican. But I must admit that according to the teaching of the Christ they were not Christian (as most of today christian)

      Also the worst thing about the Spanish inquisition that is that is lasted from 1480 to 1830. Creating a tradition of ignorance and fear that was hard to overcome.

      Sure our modern mass murders were a lot more intense but they were also a lot more time-bounded. We were also a lot quicker to realize how wrong they were.

      Anyway my sleeping pill is making it hard to type in a coherent fashion so I hope that this stream of words gave you the beginning of an answer to your first question.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    4. Re:Primary Programming. by Cruciform · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ideology being the key.

      Atheism is not an ideology any more than not believing in Tarot cards is one.

      Stalin and Mao changed the figure of authority from an unquestionable man in the sky to one in a mansion. They made a religion of themselves and their politics.

      The dogmatic faith of their ideologies was the danger, not the fact that they didn't believe in gods.

      That is what make any religious or political ideology dangerous, dogma and the belief in it.

    5. Re:Primary Programming. by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      Religion provides more than one societal function, and the diminishment of religious influence in the U.S. does not seem, to me, to be an improvement.

      The United States was founded in an attempt to remove religion from government. The founding father were hardly religious, so much so that any modern politician spouting similar views publicity wouldn't be elected.

    6. Re:Primary Programming. by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      You have your quotes mixed up, that is not Matthew 16, but rather Mark 16. And I will note that Jesus was speaking specifically at that point to his disciples, one of whom later did go, get bitten by a viper, and live (Acts 28). Nowhere in there is a statement that "if you pray for something, it will happen".

      You made an interesting claim at the end of your post-- are you saying that if one cannot prove their own beliefs by invalidating all others, then their own beliefs are, themselves, invalid?

      (And by the way, I dont think "leprechaun" is really warranted, Its "Jesus of Nazareth", not "Sheamus O'Malley")

    7. Re:Primary Programming. by WillKemp · · Score: 2

      would mao or stalin work for you?

      Not really. How about the Taliban?

    8. Re:Primary Programming. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      I don't see how he could do that and still give humans free will?

      That is an oxymoron, actually. The bible claims god is omnipotent; he knows the past, the now, and the future, forever, every single small detail. Now, that means that when he created humans he already knew what was going to happen to them, including eating the forbidden fruit and all that, yet he still created them. The thing is, if every single little thing we as a mankind do from the beginning of time to the end of it is already known then "free will" is simply an illusion and we are in fact just all following a pre-defined path. So, basically, either there is no "free will", or god is in fact not omnipotent; those two things can't coexist.

      But what if god was omnipotent and free will didn't exist, merely an illusion of such? Well, it would mean god knew from the beginning all the sins and atrocities we will commit and created us anyway, we can't change the fact that we will commit those things and as such when we were created god knew already whether we are going to hell or heaven, and basically whatever the FUCK you do to yourself, your neighbours, your neighbour's dog, your children or anyone else you're just doing as god had already planned for you to do and you're just doing his will. A scary thought, eh.

    9. Re:Primary Programming. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      Therefore -- God is certainly aware of all potential sins by humanity - but free will allows the choice not to sin. Simply put, God knows the worst we can be -- and simply wishes us the best possible world (and future).

      You're not quite thinking this through. If god created us with free will he wouldn't know what the outcome is, and thus god wouldn't be omnipotent. If he was omnipotent he would already know the final outcome. It is not possible to have both, they exclude eachother.

    10. Re:Primary Programming. by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      we still have the choice of which fork of the decision tree is taken. That's free will.

      If god doesn't know what decision we will make then god is not omnipotent, simple as that. Omnipotent means knowing everything, past, future and present, but if god doesn't know what we will do then he doesn't know everything and is not omnipotent.

      That's what I've been saying all the time. Knowing all possible outcomes but not knowing the actual choice being made simply means he doesn't know everything.

  7. First company to actually do something... by Belial6 · · Score: 2

    CommodoreUSA seems to be the first company since the original Commodore's fall that has a plan to do something that both is associated with the original, and still is plausable. They actually have a case. A simple case with a Atom based motherboard is a realistic goal. As a retro gaming fan, I find the idea of having a PC in a C64 looking case really attractive, and if I get board of it, I can just use it as a standard PC. That takes all of the risk out of buying some specialty hardware, and the work out of trying to gut a real C64 and fit in a PC.

  8. Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair by 0123456 · · Score: 2

    Aha, 'Computing Today', January 1983, all prices in pounds before sales tax:

    48k Apple II (no disk drives, etc): 525
    16k Atari 800: 449
    16k Spectrum: 125
    48k Spectrum: 175
    4k VIC-20: 120

    I can't find a Commodore-64 ad.

  9. Re:Atheism... by Tr3vin · · Score: 3, Funny

    I teach people Sindarin, you insensitive clod. Why would I teach them a language that nobody speaks?

  10. I win! by headkase · · Score: 2

    Ok, I'm going to settle the issue for now! ;)

    The proper position to take is igtheism. Basically being an igtheist means saying we can't talk about the existence or non-existence of God without defining better what God is. Right now, Physics is not complete. This means that until we have a full understanding of Physics (if ever, see Godel's incompleteness theorem) then the existence of God must remain undecided. God may very well be hiding behind the last theorem. Beware! ;)

    Now, the argument for "God," exists but it is absolutely not anything that is given in a traditional teaching. It is meta-physical. Consider the most fundamental unit in our Universe, the Quanta. Anything that requires exactly more than a single quanta to represent is abstract. This means that the definition of the thing relies on having a relationship across multiple real things versus just being a singular real thing. Only Quanta are "real," everything else is abstract. The reality we experience through our senses is not real, it is spread over countless quanta and is far removed from the base, real, Universe which is just the quanta without relationships. There are abstract layers of reality on all scales and any relationships between them qualifies for a "name." One of these names is "God," and in a pantheistic viewpoint it can be the sum of all relationships in the totality of our Universe. God's thought on you is you. With any relationship qualifying as an entity in itself then any computation or action that causes another action is just as "real" as the reality you and I perceive. GOD can be thought of as existing within the network of actions in how we treat each other. If I am a right Christian and I treat you well, that tenet of how you treat others spread across many like-minded individuals has a measurable affect. The nebulous web of actions, or computations, has a reality that is equal in "realness" to what you and I experience through our senses.

    So, God is undecided for now but of all the levels of reality there are plenty God could fit into. Just not a traditional definition of "God."

    --
    Shh.
  11. That's not a Commodore 64 by Announcer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good grief. Sure, it's outdated, but the Commie 64 was more than just another computer. It was a hobby. It was a pastime. It was a learning tool. It was an EXPERIENCE. If you had the ability and knowledge, you could add new features and functionality to the machine by cutting traces and soldering wires to the leads on chips, to your extension circuitry. I added all kinds of extras to mine, including a BASIC extension, MicroMon Assembler, a cartridge "bypass" switch, etc. Can't do those kinds of things with modern PC's.

    My first word processor was "Speedscript". I typed it in from COMPUTE! Magazine over several days. That program did, in six kilobytes, what WORD was doing in hundreds, back in the early 90's! I used it more than any other software on that Ol' 64!

    Now, want to talk about emulators? How about this one:

    http://www.mymorninglight.org.nyud.net/C64/J64.htm

    Now THAT is a COOL C= 64 emulator, if I do say so myself! :)

    --
    Willie...
  12. Mind your sects... by louks · · Score: 3, Informative

    Be careful how you use the term "American Baptists". The American Baptist Churches of the USA are a fairly liberal and ecumenical bunch that believe in religious freedom (and humility) better than Richard Stallman believes in software freedom (and humility).

    There are other baptists sects in America that are considered stricter groups and might be more likely to fit your stereotype, so beware how you capitalize "American".

    Sure we believe in God, and I won't deny there are some zealots among our ranks, but as a denomination, we believe in autonomy, and the members certainly cannot be categorized the way it's being used here.

    www.abc-usa.org ...if you're interested.

  13. Re:Yeah can't figure the appeal of the Sinclair by danhuby · · Score: 2

    The Spectrum was significantly cheaper than the rivals. The CPU ran faster than the C64 but the graphics weren't as good - but what really sold it was the huge following it had in the UK. At one point there were three separate mainstream magazines available (I used to buy all three and still have them somewhere).

    On price, here's the Argos catalogue circa 1985:

    Spectrum: £119.95
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/38301877@N05/3593465768/in/set-72157619206330728/

    Commodore 64: £189.00
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/38301877@N05/3592657253/in/set-72157619206330728/

  14. DAMN! 5 A.M. here... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lionesses can HAS prey!

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  15. Re:Has Pray by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    LolCats can has pray in yur congregation?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  16. Great book about Commodore's history by pauljlucas · · Score: 3, Insightful
    On the Edge: the Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore. It's pretty astonishing that much of computer history ignores Commodore when they were really innovative. For example, all of "Fire in the Valley" (book), "Pirates of Silicon Valley" (movie made from the book), and "Triumph of the Nerds" (PBS documentary) either fail to mention Commodore at all or vastly downplay its importance -- huge amount of revisionist history!

    In the end, it was (as is often the case) really bad management that killed Commodore.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  17. A fraction of infinity is still infinite by james_gnz · · Score: 2

    If the Christian god exists, and is all powerful, then helping out those who most need and deserve it (like children about to be raped and murdered for instance) would consume an infinitesimal fraction of his effort. If he is all loving, then he surely wouldn't begrudge us that.

  18. Re:Polyphonic sound toggle by Alioth · · Score: 2

    People have got 8 channels out of the Spectrum's beeper. The 3.5MHz Z80 is fast enough to do pulse density modulation for this many channels (essentially the beeper circuit contains a low pass filter, which acts as a DAC, just like SA-CD works except it's not as refined).

    Some of the Speccy beeper music demos are pretty astonishing.

  19. I hate to admit by DCFusor · · Score: 2

    That I canceled my charter subscription to BYTE when they kept dissing my PDP-8 machines in favor of that little 8 bit piece of crap.
    Which is now wider and still a piece of crap, just a fast one. Other machines can actually be fun to program in assembler. Ever tried on an intel box?
    Sigh.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  20. Re:Higher Goals by operagost · · Score: 2

    A Speccie zealot, eh?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  21. Re:Atheism... by jd · · Score: 2

    Why is that modded funny? Elves are people, too, you know!

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)