I'm not talking about a performance rating, or a number on a box; I'm talking about taking it into consideration when you make a comparison.
I made some other comments on this same topic as well. However, I believe my point was "RDRAM is too expensive *and* it doesn't offer a real performance boost, for general-purpose memory". Do you see why price/performance would be an important metric here? (or even some consideration or mention of price?)
Also, benchmarks are fundamentally flawed in the first place. Depending on how they are conducted, and the *exact* components, software and hardware, for the entire system, plus configuration tweeks, the result can vary by a huge amount! So I wouldn't argue that performance doesn't change. The system I buy won't be anything like the one they benchmarked; I might not be using the same chipset, operating system, or bus, let alone tweeked settings in my nonexistent "Windows Registry". So performance can be just as artificial as price.
Your other point about letting the reader compare for themselves is valid, but I wasn't intending to advocate eliminating performance metrics entirely; I just wanted to see someone mention how *#@$ expensive RDRAM is now, and how useless it is to buy it for performance as system RAM. Also, any decent benchmark should have full disclosure as to how the performance numbers were achieved, and all the information possible about the testbed, so that people can recreate the results, or change another parameter and compare to those results. In a perfect world, that is... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, I'll buy that. Some people will always want maximum performance, and benchmarks are always going to be slanted towards a certain group, or excluding another group.
However, in this case it doesn't matter until RDRAM gets cheaper, or it gets a killer app that works massively better with it. I think it could make a pretty good long-term, frequently accessed data cache; maybe something like a BIOS shadow? --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Benchmark: RDRAM vs. SDRAM General Purpose RAM as a memory system for a PC Rated on Price/Performance and Performance.
Since RDRAM, if anything, tends to be slower, *and* it is massively more expensive, it loses.
Any other uses for it are just that--other uses. i.e. not what I would be benchmarking, and not what I was talking about.
Also, I'm going to buy a new computer, and I'm going to get an Athlon with PC133 SDRAM, both for cost and for performance. If you could find me an equivalently priced and performing Pentium III with RDRAM, I'd buy it. Do you see the relevance of this metric now? If their performance was *significantly* better for the general tasks I'd perform, then we could change the weights on Price/Performance. Until then, it's a sucker bet. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Test them on price/performance instead of performance; for general-purpose memory, I see no compelling reason to use RDRAM except to say that you're using it. (As in, "Wow, RDRAM, that's new, isn't it? I bet that set you back quite a bit...")
Now, for some special-purpose applications, RDRAM might be an excellent choice, just like in some circumstances, a P-III might work out better than an Athlon, or an 8086 might be the better choice than a G4, or a hammer might work better than a screwdriver. But for general purpose, plain old RAM, RDRAM is underwhelming.
...now watch the price of RAMBUS drop. I can hear the screams from here.:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hmm. That's an interesting argument, but it's tricky stuff once you bring intent and assumptions into the picture. I like bricks much better.:)
Basically, as long as the artists *wants* to get paid, then it's immoral to listen to their music without reimbursing them. But if it's their hobby, or they have enough money, then it's okay to take it all and play it all the time.
I guess the artist would want to slap some sort of license controlling distribution or terms of use, instead. Maybe a shareware license would be appropriate? ("Listen to this music for up to 30 days; if you like it, send me money!") --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, considering what we do know about Echelon and whatnot (it gets posted on slashdot enough, that is), I think that was sarcasm.
At least, I hope that was sarcasm...
Anyhow, I'll just go home and watch Big Brother, content in the fact that no one is watching me..... Is that a two-way mirror? --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Huh? That's not a shell, it's a scripting language with a 'Play' button.
That's like if I told you that the "Command Prompt" interface for Windows was accessible by opening Word, choosing Record Macro, scripting some actions, pressing play...
If you want to actually have a directory tree and some rudimentary shell commands on a Mac, you have to find a third-party shell application. And they generally suck, because the Mac "naming conventions" and whatnot are not shell-friendly. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Stealing is when (a) I take something (b) It wasn't mine (c) You don't have it anymore
(c) Is false; it isn't stealing; make up a new word.
If you don't want people to be able to *copy* music, either don't give anyone a copy, or make sure there's no way they can copy it. This doesn't seem viable, because music exists to be played, and if you can play it, it shouldn't be too hard to copy it.
Therefore, try selling bricks instead. And don't expect to have any "intellectual property rights" to them, either. If someone copies your brick, tough; they made it themselves. It just so happens that copying digital music is far, far easier. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The author claims that Open Source projects get their stability from their minimalism--and constantly uses Perl as an example of what is wrong with Open Source projects.
In the meantime, the Mac has to be the most minimal, sparse, stupid, unusable machine. It can be as friendly as a frickin' perky Walmart greeter--that doesn't help you when the only buttons you have to choose from are "Ok" and "Less Options"!
I mean, really, the Mac only has one (annoying!) widget toolkit, it doesn't know what a "console" is; if you want a shell, you have to get some third-party GUI app! And if something goes wrong... uh-oh, it's a cute little bomb, and you didn't restart your mac properly, did you? Silly user, it's all your fault.
Now I admit, a lot has probably changed on the Mac in the few years since I've been avoiding it, but I'm sure that whatever the Mac people come up with next, it will annoy me just as much; except possibly MacOS X. Since they were doomed to reinvent UNIX anyhow, at least they cribbed some notes.
Now, the other side. The strengths and weaknesses of Perl are that it tries to be all things to all people. Perl can be programmed in many different styles, and none of them are "right", because TMTOWTDI. You can program it in an object-oriented, C++ looking fashion, you can make it look like C, or shell script, or even in Scheme if you squint at it a bit. (car, cdr and cons are trivial to impelement; always use references to get closures; always use references and closures to implement functions...) It has native support for the C libraries, native implementations of many handy shell commands, and an enormous number of add-ons.
So does it have a consistent, clean syntax? Well, yeah, if you're used to C, shell, C++, Scheme, and Java. Rather, say that it has a rich history, and it isn't designed for minimalists. However, if they use a little self-discipline, I'm sure that Mac people could write their Perl just like C, or maybe Pascal, with a few little hacks. They wouldn't get the power of Perl, but they can feel superior in their artificially clean syntax.
I don't really see the point to it, though; it all compiles to the same code at the end, and you should be able to write it however you want. Why should a company force you to do it just one way if you don't want to? You are the customer, after all. Could there perhaps be a big button on the Mac that says "More Options", or even better, "Don't treat me like a frickin' moron"? I'd rather write my own code than make my living selling condescension. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I had the same experience; I learned nothing about computers from my teachers, and I taught myself everything that was important, by trial and error, or from books. I think you had a pretty typical experience.
However, I am still forever indebted to my old elementary school for introducing me to computers. I don't know if I would have known what one was in my previous school system.
So, we all know that the average K-12 school teacher is incompetent to teach us about computers, *and* that elementary-level computers probably shouldn't be on the internet, (at the least just to avoid the public outcry about it) but that doesn't reflect on the computers, just the educational establishment. Heck, let kids use the computers for half of their play session. If they want to. That's the key. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
If it wasn't for that Apple ][ I saw in 3rd grade, I might never have gotten my C64 or my PC's, or learned to program, or majored in computer science...
I have no idea what I'd be doing if I hadn't become a programmer. Math? Bleh.
So tell me: what could possibly be bad about introducing computers to kids? If they don't like them, they don't have to use them, but I have a feeling they will all have to know what they are, and most of them will have to know how to use one...
The only possible cool slogan I could think up for such uneducated luddites would be "Fight the Future!" --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The right hand knows not what the left hand is doing.
IBM isn't a `lateral monopoly'; they do have a lot of vertical integration, but for a lateral monopoly, you'd have a better case aruing, say, AOL. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
(actually, I'm just happy I got a Nintendo recently; I never should have sold mine anyhow... Anyone ever write a cart to run C64 stuff on the Nintendo?;) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'll eventually try it out; all I remember is that the older version was a pale shadow of Photoshop 3...
If Gimp isn't a tool for artists, who is it for? I agree that it isn't very intuitive for an artist, but it isn't a pencil, either. It's also at least as intuitive (IMO) as Photoshop, and I see a lot of artists using that to create drawings ("but is it art?") lately, for important stuff. Some of that might have merit.
I'll agree with you that there are some poorly-coded Gtk applications, but Gimp is not one of them. The Gimp is the proof-of-concept app that shows you can write excellent gtk applications. In my experience, qt apps don't tend to flicker as much (as poorly coded gtk apps) but also have a heavy footprint. I like fltk, but a lot of people would find it primitive, or even ugly. Also, gtk is incredibly flexible in its user interface. It isn't commercial, but I wouldn't call it unprofessional.
The best "art" program I ever saw was Fractal Image Painter. It was for the Mac, it had an interface just like all other graphical programs, and it had a scripting language. It was also intuitive, powerful, and incredibly easy to use. In fact, it could do anything except draw a straight line, it seemed.:)
I'd love to see The Gimp incorporate some of their tools, but I think there are some patent / copyright issues... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, both the Publius project and Slashdot mentioned this; I'm just surprised they didn't mention their Roman origins, as well.
Heck, I caught the public interest reference, too, but they didn't even say that. And Virgil was quite the writer.
...and even the Apache Project knows how to provide a link for those curious about the Apache people... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'm sure there were many other people named "Publius" at some point in time, but I would venture to say that he is probably the most well-known one, as well as being far older than the others you cite.
(So why didn't they use "Virgil" as their pen-names? Too obvious? Or "Publico"? Was that the image they wanted?) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Of course they'd make a software patch for it, if possible; that's much cheaper and more convenient for them.
If that doesn't work, though, a replacement would definitely be in order. Also, I know if I paid that much for a Palm, I'd be pissed, and want any and all faulty hardware replaced.
I find it hard to blame them, though: someone else shipped them faulty components! It's a shame that this didn't show up when either company should have been testing them, but I'd still blame the original manufacturer in this case. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Re: I'll tell you who the Christians are...
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
Good quotes; I'll have to save them, to remind the local hate-mongering fanatics. However, they will continue to purport to "love God, but hate the sin".
I'm an Atheist, but that doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion. (otherwise, it wouldn't be a very fair discussion, would it?:)
Ultimately, it shouldn't be about denominations at all. If it isn't about the worth of individual people, then those people aren't being judged at all, and we should all avoid a religion that doesn't consider its people over itself. The people *are* the religion. Without them, God wouldn't have anyone around to worship him, and whatnot...
(I mean, really, how egotistical is that? Create people so they can bask in Your glory? He must have a God Complex, or... um... never mind.:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Re:Catholics are not Bible-believing Christians: L
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
Hmm. So Christians use a trust model based on the Bible, and Catholics extend this trust to Tradition. ("Do you wish to believe anything you hear from St. Augustine?")
I'll stick to strong cryptography. When the PGP signature says "God" on it, I'll have to give up my Atheism.;) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about a performance rating, or a number on a box; I'm talking about taking it into consideration when you make a comparison.
I made some other comments on this same topic as well. However, I believe my point was "RDRAM is too expensive *and* it doesn't offer a real performance boost, for general-purpose memory". Do you see why price/performance would be an important metric here? (or even some consideration or mention of price?)
Also, benchmarks are fundamentally flawed in the first place. Depending on how they are conducted, and the *exact* components, software and hardware, for the entire system, plus configuration tweeks, the result can vary by a huge amount! So I wouldn't argue that performance doesn't change. The system I buy won't be anything like the one they benchmarked; I might not be using the same chipset, operating system, or bus, let alone tweeked settings in my nonexistent "Windows Registry". So performance can be just as artificial as price.
Your other point about letting the reader compare for themselves is valid, but I wasn't intending to advocate eliminating performance metrics entirely; I just wanted to see someone mention how *#@$ expensive RDRAM is now, and how useless it is to buy it for performance as system RAM. Also, any decent benchmark should have full disclosure as to how the performance numbers were achieved, and all the information possible about the testbed, so that people can recreate the results, or change another parameter and compare to those results. In a perfect world, that is...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, I'll buy that. Some people will always want maximum performance, and benchmarks are always going to be slanted towards a certain group, or excluding another group.
However, in this case it doesn't matter until RDRAM gets cheaper, or it gets a killer app that works massively better with it. I think it could make a pretty good long-term, frequently accessed data cache; maybe something like a BIOS shadow?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, let me make this a little more clear:
Benchmark:
RDRAM vs. SDRAM
General Purpose RAM as a memory system for a PC
Rated on Price/Performance and Performance.
Since RDRAM, if anything, tends to be slower, *and* it is massively more expensive, it loses.
Any other uses for it are just that--other uses. i.e. not what I would be benchmarking, and not what I was talking about.
Also, I'm going to buy a new computer, and I'm going to get an Athlon with PC133 SDRAM, both for cost and for performance. If you could find me an equivalently priced and performing Pentium III with RDRAM, I'd buy it. Do you see the relevance of this metric now? If their performance was *significantly* better for the general tasks I'd perform, then we could change the weights on Price/Performance. Until then, it's a sucker bet.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Test them on price/performance instead of performance; for general-purpose memory, I see no compelling reason to use RDRAM except to say that you're using it. (As in, "Wow, RDRAM, that's new, isn't it? I bet that set you back quite a bit...")
:)
Now, for some special-purpose applications, RDRAM might be an excellent choice, just like in some circumstances, a P-III might work out better than an Athlon, or an 8086 might be the better choice than a G4, or a hammer might work better than a screwdriver. But for general purpose, plain old RAM, RDRAM is underwhelming.
...now watch the price of RAMBUS drop. I can hear the screams from here.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hmm. That's an interesting argument, but it's tricky stuff once you bring intent and assumptions into the picture. I like bricks much better. :)
Basically, as long as the artists *wants* to get paid, then it's immoral to listen to their music without reimbursing them. But if it's their hobby, or they have enough money, then it's okay to take it all and play it all the time.
I guess the artist would want to slap some sort of license controlling distribution or terms of use, instead. Maybe a shareware license would be appropriate? ("Listen to this music for up to 30 days; if you like it, send me money!")
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, considering what we do know about Echelon and whatnot (it gets posted on slashdot enough, that is), I think that was sarcasm.
At least, I hope that was sarcasm...
Anyhow, I'll just go home and watch Big Brother, content in the fact that no one is watching me..... Is that a two-way mirror?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
All I can say is, better to let Linux have The One Ring than Apple. :)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Huh? That's not a shell, it's a scripting language with a 'Play' button.
That's like if I told you that the "Command Prompt" interface for Windows was accessible by opening Word, choosing Record Macro, scripting some actions, pressing play...
If you want to actually have a directory tree and some rudimentary shell commands on a Mac, you have to find a third-party shell application. And they generally suck, because the Mac "naming conventions" and whatnot are not shell-friendly.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Stealing is when
(a) I take something
(b) It wasn't mine
(c) You don't have it anymore
(c) Is false; it isn't stealing; make up a new word.
If you don't want people to be able to *copy* music, either don't give anyone a copy, or make sure there's no way they can copy it. This doesn't seem viable, because music exists to be played, and if you can play it, it shouldn't be too hard to copy it.
Therefore, try selling bricks instead. And don't expect to have any "intellectual property rights" to them, either. If someone copies your brick, tough; they made it themselves. It just so happens that copying digital music is far, far easier.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
What a stupid piece of FUD.
The author claims that Open Source projects get their stability from their minimalism--and constantly uses Perl as an example of what is wrong with Open Source projects.
In the meantime, the Mac has to be the most minimal, sparse, stupid, unusable machine. It can be as friendly as a frickin' perky Walmart greeter--that doesn't help you when the only buttons you have to choose from are "Ok" and "Less Options"!
I mean, really, the Mac only has one (annoying!) widget toolkit, it doesn't know what a "console" is; if you want a shell, you have to get some third-party GUI app! And if something goes wrong... uh-oh, it's a cute little bomb, and you didn't restart your mac properly, did you? Silly user, it's all your fault.
Now I admit, a lot has probably changed on the Mac in the few years since I've been avoiding it, but I'm sure that whatever the Mac people come up with next, it will annoy me just as much; except possibly MacOS X. Since they were doomed to reinvent UNIX anyhow, at least they cribbed some notes.
Now, the other side. The strengths and weaknesses of Perl are that it tries to be all things to all people. Perl can be programmed in many different styles, and none of them are "right", because TMTOWTDI. You can program it in an object-oriented, C++ looking fashion, you can make it look like C, or shell script, or even in Scheme if you squint at it a bit. (car, cdr and cons are trivial to impelement; always use references to get closures; always use references and closures to implement functions...) It has native support for the C libraries, native implementations of many handy shell commands, and an enormous number of add-ons.
So does it have a consistent, clean syntax? Well, yeah, if you're used to C, shell, C++, Scheme, and Java. Rather, say that it has a rich history, and it isn't designed for minimalists. However, if they use a little self-discipline, I'm sure that Mac people could write their Perl just like C, or maybe Pascal, with a few little hacks. They wouldn't get the power of Perl, but they can feel superior in their artificially clean syntax.
I don't really see the point to it, though; it all compiles to the same code at the end, and you should be able to write it however you want. Why should a company force you to do it just one way if you don't want to? You are the customer, after all. Could there perhaps be a big button on the Mac that says "More Options", or even better, "Don't treat me like a frickin' moron"? I'd rather write my own code than make my living selling condescension.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
That cheesy rap?
That crappy music?
"Under Fifty Bucks /
That's a special low price"?
God no, tell me that wasn't what you meant; I've been trying to *forget* that for YEARS!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I had the same experience; I learned nothing about computers from my teachers, and I taught myself everything that was important, by trial and error, or from books. I think you had a pretty typical experience.
However, I am still forever indebted to my old elementary school for introducing me to computers. I don't know if I would have known what one was in my previous school system.
So, we all know that the average K-12 school teacher is incompetent to teach us about computers, *and* that elementary-level computers probably shouldn't be on the internet, (at the least just to avoid the public outcry about it) but that doesn't reflect on the computers, just the educational establishment. Heck, let kids use the computers for half of their play session. If they want to. That's the key.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Testimonial time:
If it wasn't for that Apple ][ I saw in 3rd grade, I might never have gotten my C64 or my PC's, or learned to program, or majored in computer science...
I have no idea what I'd be doing if I hadn't become a programmer. Math? Bleh.
So tell me: what could possibly be bad about introducing computers to kids? If they don't like them, they don't have to use them, but I have a feeling they will all have to know what they are, and most of them will have to know how to use one...
The only possible cool slogan I could think up for such uneducated luddites would be "Fight the Future!"
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
This is fun! Everybody, repeat after me!
The right hand knows not what the left hand is doing.
IBM isn't a `lateral monopoly'; they do have a lot of vertical integration, but for a lateral monopoly, you'd have a better case aruing, say, AOL.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Topic: Transmeta
----------------
Joe Q. IBM: Market competition... Intel... long term IIS strategies... SCSI RDMS domination...
Joe Q. PowerUser: Where's my dual processor Athlon? I want it *YESTERDAY*!
Joe Q. LaptopUser: What's a Transmeta? It'll never replace my Powerbook!
Joe Q. Slashdot: I want one! What is it again? I bet it's slow and vaporware, whatever it is. Intel? Yuk.
Joe Q. NASA: Cheap, low-power consumption, new and funky technology... I bet we could build a Beowulf out of these things...
Alan Cox: What are we going to do today, Linus?
Linus Torvalds: The same thing we do every day, Alan: try to take over the WORLD!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yay! My C64 ruled over the inferior "IBM PC Jr."!
;)
(actually, I'm just happy I got a Nintendo recently; I never should have sold mine anyhow... Anyone ever write a cart to run C64 stuff on the Nintendo?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
...so if you upgrade the hospital computers to NT, and the installation bluescreens...
...are you guilty of murder? Manslaughter? Is Microsoft liable?
...I didn't think so...
Why should hackers take any responsibility for their actions? Software companies don't...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'll eventually try it out; all I remember is that the older version was a pale shadow of Photoshop 3...
:)
If Gimp isn't a tool for artists, who is it for? I agree that it isn't very intuitive for an artist, but it isn't a pencil, either. It's also at least as intuitive (IMO) as Photoshop, and I see a lot of artists using that to create drawings ("but is it art?") lately, for important stuff. Some of that might have merit.
I'll agree with you that there are some poorly-coded Gtk applications, but Gimp is not one of them. The Gimp is the proof-of-concept app that shows you can write excellent gtk applications. In my experience, qt apps don't tend to flicker as much (as poorly coded gtk apps) but also have a heavy footprint. I like fltk, but a lot of people would find it primitive, or even ugly. Also, gtk is incredibly flexible in its user interface. It isn't commercial, but I wouldn't call it unprofessional.
The best "art" program I ever saw was Fractal Image Painter. It was for the Mac, it had an interface just like all other graphical programs, and it had a scripting language. It was also intuitive, powerful, and incredibly easy to use. In fact, it could do anything except draw a straight line, it seemed.
I'd love to see The Gimp incorporate some of their tools, but I think there are some patent / copyright issues...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
There's no other price they could offer it where I'd take it over The Gimp / Photoshop / just about anything.
:)
Maybe not even free, but this way I'll at least try it eventually.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
These guys really are insane:
* For doing this in the first place
* For getting such an image-intensive, long site linked to Slashdot
Mirrors, anyone?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, both the Publius project and Slashdot mentioned this; I'm just surprised they didn't mention their Roman origins, as well.
Heck, I caught the public interest reference, too, but they didn't even say that. And Virgil was quite the writer.
...and even the Apache Project knows how to provide a link for those curious about the Apache people...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Virgil was Publius Virgilius Maro.
I'm sure there were many other people named "Publius" at some point in time, but I would venture to say that he is probably the most well-known one, as well as being far older than the others you cite.
(So why didn't they use "Virgil" as their pen-names? Too obvious? Or "Publico"? Was that the image they wanted?)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Of course they'd make a software patch for it, if possible; that's much cheaper and more convenient for them.
If that doesn't work, though, a replacement would definitely be in order. Also, I know if I paid that much for a Palm, I'd be pissed, and want any and all faulty hardware replaced.
I find it hard to blame them, though: someone else shipped them faulty components! It's a shame that this didn't show up when either company should have been testing them, but I'd still blame the original manufacturer in this case.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Good quotes; I'll have to save them, to remind the local hate-mongering fanatics. However, they will continue to purport to "love God, but hate the sin".
:)
:)
I'm an Atheist, but that doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion. (otherwise, it wouldn't be a very fair discussion, would it?
Ultimately, it shouldn't be about denominations at all. If it isn't about the worth of individual people, then those people aren't being judged at all, and we should all avoid a religion that doesn't consider its people over itself. The people *are* the religion. Without them, God wouldn't have anyone around to worship him, and whatnot...
(I mean, really, how egotistical is that? Create people so they can bask in Your glory? He must have a God Complex, or... um... never mind.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hmm. So Christians use a trust model based on the Bible, and Catholics extend this trust to Tradition. ("Do you wish to believe anything you hear from St. Augustine?")
;)
I'll stick to strong cryptography. When the PGP signature says "God" on it, I'll have to give up my Atheism.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.