Yes I've been planning to get Rosegarden for a long time - it does look spectacular. Does anybody else recommend it? Also can anybody tell me if it will work (through Linux) with a Yamaha keyboard? (PSR-550 to be exact) The keyboard required its own driver under Windows, does Linux have some generic MIDI keyboard driver or am I screwed?
thought so but the wording was one of complaint - hence I tried to help and answe the complaint at the same time.
Well I think it could be improved, hence the complaint. But your reply and links have helped me understand this better, so thanks again.
Remember that deb packages are binaries not source. They have been built on another system which had it's libraries in the same place as yours and had particular ones installed.
Right. So does this mean that the binaries actually require the dependencies to be in the same place (there is no way to configure them to point to somewhere else?) I guess that is true, now that I think about it. Which is kind of annoying in itself.
Compared to Windows (which looks for DLLs in the current app directory, and the system directory), it seems a bit easier (though Windows is prone to DLL version hell). (Also I hate Windows with a passion, hence why I'm using Linux). The point being that windows binaries do not get hardwired with a specific path to the libraries.
You can also install deb source packages which will compile and install on your system discovering what they can and asking the rest of you. Check out man apt and look for the source command (you'll need a source repository in your sources list for this to work).
There's a strong school of thought that says that piracy in general is a huge driving force behind music and movie purchases. In other words, people a) purchase content so they can share them with their friends, which they otherwise wouldn't purchase, and b) people download or otherwise pirate content to "try it out" and are afterwards happy enough to purchase the real thing.
This line of reasoning would suggest that all of the RIAA/MPAA's attacks on file sharing, use of DRM, etc, is harmful to their own industry. (And don't get me started on how DRM is harmful, in fact particularly dangerous, to their own industry).
Give me something simple that doesn't involve typing sudo something
Hmm, well this is a bit of a problem since it's Linux's security model. You can't install anything (unless you're installing into your home directory) without sudo (or ksudo, or another graphical frontend asking for your admin password).
The XP model is inferior - it just lets.exe files install themselves all over the place, effectively all programs automatically have sudo powers. That's dreadful for security.
And Vista is apparently the same. We hear about all these shit-annoying prompts, yet then we read on slashdot last week that Vista automatically scans exe files to see if they look like setup programs, and if they are, it completely sudos them automatically. So that's just as bad as XP.
Would you rather have to type "sudo" every time you install something, or just have anything windows thinks is a setup program be allowed to piss all over your machine?
(Note that sudoing a deb installer is a lot safer than sudoing a Windows setup.exe, because you theoretically trust your deb installer, and the.deb /.rpm / etc files you install do not contain arbitrary code, while.exes obviously do).
Linux has 5, none of them simple.
Also it isn't really fair to say "Linux has 5, Windows has just one simple one", since the choices are:
Installing directly from source code - Windows can do that too.
Ports-based installation - OK that's Linux.
Installing from distribution-specific packages - OK that's Linux.
Installing from distribution-independent binaries - That's Windows primarily.
Using another distribution-independent system like autopackage - It says these aren't popular, and they could just as easily run on Windows too.
So really, looking at it it isn't about 5 vs 1, it's really about 2 vs 1 (the 2 being source builds or package manager), and the problem being that Linux favours these package managers which are harder to use than simple.exe files. For what it's worth, they are a lot more secure.
Hey dude, thanks for your reply. I think my post came off as a complaint but maybe it was more of a call for help.
I think my problem is that these packaging systems have these annoying dependencies in the first place. I think I'd rather be able to install anything, and if it was broken, it just wouldn't work when I ran it. Then the package manager could list the dependencies (without actually requiring them), and offer to install them if possible (but not require them to be installed, as apt does). That way I could just get the sources, or rpm files, or whatever, for those dependencies which the APT system doesn't provide.
In my experience, compiling from source works because libraries provide these "xxx-config --libs" sort of scripts which are available in $PATH, which means the concept of a "dependency" comes down to simply, is it installed anywhere on the system, under any name.
The php4 thing was just an example of the many times I've been burned by endless lists of dependencies which can't be installed for whatever reason.
c) mixing pre-built and self-compiled binaries leads to problems
I think that's a valid complaint.
Let's say package B depends on package A, and I compiled package A from source. Now apt-get package-B won't work because apt doesn't know about my package A existing. Yet compiling package B from source will work, because it will use `packageA-config --libs` to find out where the libs are. So why should package B's configure/make scripts be able to figure out that I have package A installed, and apt-get not be able to?
Perhaps you should think about using Synaptic
Yeah I use Synaptic, I was just generalising it to apt.
Thanks for the tip with dpkg-buildpackage, I will check that out.
I found a hack (at least on my region 4 dvds), before it shows you MPAA propaganda, it asks you "which language would you prefer to see MPAA propaganda in?" Weirdly, some languages have no propaganda, they just skip straight to the film. On my discs, the conveniently first option ("Shqip" (Albanian)) won't play any ads.
Now I'm not saying it's right in any way - I absolutely detest being forced to even see this language menu from an evil organisation with nothing better to do than waste my time telling me how bad I would have been if I illegally pirated this movie I paid $170 for. But that's a way around it.
(Having said that, the electricity bill isn't a very strong argument, but I know I know - principles).
While we're talking about these ads, does anyone know what broadband service that girl is using? I want to be able to download a feature length movie in 12 seconds...
At least not as far as I've seen. I've been using Ubuntu and I'm in package hell.
apt works fine for the most part on its own - it just downloads and installs binaries. And it seems to keep its own internal dependency or tagging system. The problem is: these "dependencies" aren't compatible with anything I installed outside apt: source builds, rpm installation, even if I used debian apt packages they aren't compatible with Ubuntu apt packages.
The situation becomes a nightmare as soon as I install something from source - I can no longer use apt for anything that depends on it. Trying to set up a webserver was the biggest pain because for some reason php4 wasn't in the ubuntu apt packages, so I installed it separately, and then I couldn't install anything that required php4 because they all needed "php4-ubuntu".
This has to be fixed. Maybe I should just go to Gentoo and compile everything myself!
No, that's not great. It's a fucking disgusting waste of resources. It's harmful for everybody to have landfills filling up with discarded "useless" discs, and it's harmful for us the waste of petrochemical resources that go into producing that disc.
Woops... Sometimes in our murderous rage at DRM we forget to think about the environment..... well anyway if we change everything I said from "renting a disc which can be thrown away" to "downloading a file off the internet which can be deleted" - then I think that's a valid form of DRM... once again IF AND ONLY IF I have the option of fully purchasing the content in a DRM-free form.
It would really suck if my car got stolen. That's why I go to the effort of carrying a key with me everywhere I go to protect it. It would also really suck if my house got broken into. Or my bank account. These things are so important that it's worth carrying around a piece of metal or plastic just for that wherever I go.
If someone copied my music off my iPod... well frankly that would be between them and the RIAA. In other words, I as a consumer have no interest in protecting my music from being stolen (especially when it's being protected from myself), therefore I have no interest in carrying a dongle to access my music.
Furthermore, my car, my house and my bank account are probably the 3 most expensive things I own, so once again I go to such lengths to protect them. If I am forced to go to such lengths to protect something like my music, then why not have a dongle to activate my toaster, my chair or my shirt?
As with all DRM, the issue here is that unlike other forms of security (where I go to as much or as little lengths as I wish to protect myself) this is about me being forced to go to exactly the lengths they tell me to go to to protect them. This is a hopeless solution, and I don't think consumers would even be stupid enough to go along with it unlike other forms of DRM.
DRM is uniquely suitable for metering usage rights, so that consumers who don't want to own content, such as a movie, can "rent" it.
I fully agree that the Single And Only Fair Usage of DRM is to enable rentals. I hate DRM, but if I'm going to pay $3 to rent a film, it's in everyone's best interests to give me a disc which I don't need to return, I can just throw away as it becomes useless after a week. That's great, and it's a great use for DRM.
Problem: I don't want DRM to "meter my usage rights". In other words, I don't want DRM to say "you own this" "you rent that". By the very nature of DRM, I don't own it. In my eyes there is one and only one solution: Anything I am renting has DRM on it. Anything I own does not, or by definition, I don't own it.
Similarly, consumers who want to consume content on only a single device can pay less than those who want to use it across all of their entertainment areas - vacation homes, cars, different devices and remotely.
Correction: Consumers who want to use content across all of their entertainment areas can pay more than those who just want to consume it only on a single device. This was never about making things cheaper.
The entire concept of this is complete bullshit. You buy content. You own it. You do whatever the hell you want with it. There is no free or convenient consumer market for "only using content on a certain device". No market like that is ever in the consumer's best interests.
Abandoning DRM now will unnecessarily doom all consumers to a "one size fits all" situation that will increase costs for many of them.
You know... if I could buy a shirt that fits any size body, like I can buy hats or socks that do, I'd be happier with my shirts (in case I grow, or I want to give it to my friends, or I don't want to fuss about with shirt sizes, or whatever, it's just more convenient to have one-size-fits-all shirts). Digital media is great, because it is one-size-fits-all! Yay! Now why would you use the phrase "doom all consumers to a one-size-fits-all situation"? One-size-fits-all is good for consumers, if it's feasible. And it is.
"DRM needs to be interoperable and open"
There is no such thing as open DRM. There is only different shades of interoperability. So you can get FairPlay vs Zune going at each other, or you can unify them into a single DRM model which is interoperable. That's better for consumers, yes, but it isn't open. DRM, by design, can never be open, because as soon as it is, it can be cracked. In other words, you may get the same DRM working on Zune, iPod, Windows and Mac, but you will never get it working in open source software (unless it's been hacked, like DVD).
Without reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home.
The delay, I assume, being from the corporate shits who can't stand to see their content go on a format without DRM. What about the years of setbacks in products such as PS3 and Vista just to get the overblown and insane DRM specs working?
I didn't know people could get sick and overloaded and mess up their projects just because they participate in flame wars. If that was true, what would become of Slashdot?
Well that's the sad thing. About 98% of people who get Vista will need nothing besides what was already in XP. Yet they'll get Vista anyway - not even because they're sheep and they're told to, but because they were literally forced to. It's a completely virtual market. I don't know why Microsoft don't just release a new OS every year with a new logo, it would be just as effective.
1. Find a way to write cross-platform (and use it)
Well there are 2 ways to write cross-platform.
One is the C way - write code which is as general as possible, and then write loads of extra code to make it work on each system. It's difficult and time-consuming and costly, but it's my preferred way because you end up with a product which is tested and works natively on each platform. Of course, cross-platform libraries which have been written this way (eg. SDL, wxWidgets, etc) are a great boon because it means the code you write (which uses these libraries) can just use them and compile on any platform.
The second way is the Java way - the "write once, run anywhere". Which is a commendable notion but has issues - mostly due to the fact you're really running on an abstract machine. Still, if it means I can run software on whatever I want, then I salute it.
Oh, and the third way is the way of the web: writing web apps that run on browsers which are not IE! Obviously this doesn't work for desktop apps, but it's good for certain uses.
2. Find a way to abstract or emulate other OS's
I think this is the best way to go - WINE. I don't really want to have to *emulate* Windows, but if we can abstract its API (ie. WINE) then we win. Everything is then cross platform (at least all the windows software - ironically this would make writing Windows software the most cross platform way to do it other than Java).
3. Bow to Redmond until they implode
I don't see the logic...
Anyway I think both #1 and #2 are important - #1 is for all developers, and #2 is a general solution which the open source community can do without mass support from the general development community.
I think the reason we have OS X is that Microsoft put out good enough software for Apple to see the writing on the wall and realize that OS 8 wasn't going to keep up.
:blink:
You do realise that OS X is 'X' as in the roman numeral, 10, right? And that OS 9 came out two years before XP? And that this was followed by OS X in 2001, 6 months or so before XP?
And do you further realise that most of the features in Vista are a long-awaited attempt to catch up to the features which were in OS X, either before XP or at some point since then?
Making statemtents like this (following a Dumbest Car Analogy Award-winning car analogy) just make you look silly.
Same goes for Linux. Do you think Ubuntu came about in a vacuum? No, its compared to XP's ease of use every day by just about anybody trying to get a Windows user to switch.
Do you mean Ubuntu has a GUI? Just because they're trying to get people to switch away from Windows doesn't mean they're desperately trying to catch up. That's Microsoft's job - they play catch up in the technology side in order to keep themselves massively ahead on the market share.
Wow this video is scary, sad and hilarious. Continually. Now, obviously these guys are shameless logicless nutters, and I'm certainly not saying all religious people are like this (certainly I expect it's the minority). But I must must must protest against this sort of... the only word for it is brainwashing of young impressionable children. This goes for any religious teacher, not just crazy fanatics.
I was one of them (and this is in Australia, which is a very religiously-open society) - at my primary school (grade 3 and 4) we had a "religious education" class each week where a special teacher would come to tell us about God and the bible and all these things. It was a fun class, we got to sing songs and play games and learn all of these historical facts.
From these classes I learned to love God, and pray, and fear the apocalypse, and chastise my mother for not believing, and all the things which you might expect an eight-year-old to do when told of such things.
And I feel very fortunate to have grown up in a society which otherwise does not emphasise religion (though it is quite tolerant). As a teenager, I began to realise that maybe these "facts" I had been taught along with maths and english and science and history weren't entirely based on anything tangible. It took me a long time - years and years - to rationalise this down. I sort of went from believing in the bible, to realising that the bible didn't work for me, but God was still looking out for me, to deciding that maybe he wasn't, and I should be an agnostic - and I think for my whole life I had been so scared by these stories to openly say "God doesn't exist".
By now I'm finished my path to athiesm;) I still respect whatever people want to believe about the unknown - that's fine. I still fear that maybe He's up there, waiting to smack me for everything I've said against Him. But what I resent and hate is that they take children, who have this unwavering trust that adults tell the truth, and then feed them this stuff as fact. It's a horrible abuse of this trust.
Now I haven't been mentally scarred or anything, but looking back, I resent the fact that I was made to believe something for so many years of my life which has no basis in fact, when I could have been told to make up my own mind (isn't that, after all, what the word "belief" means?)
I guess, as always, I should have listened to my mother!
I don't know why I am wasting my bandwidth still downloading this crap, but what can I say, I like YouTube.
Don't you love some of this logic: "Adolf hitler once said "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state"". THEREFORE, we have reason to believe this textbook is a lie.
Anyway while I hate to bring myself to the level of argument with a religious nutter, I just... couldn't... resist... researching on whales to find out that these "crazy evolutionists" didn't in fact claim that Whales evolved into Cows - rather that land mammals evolved into whales. Which is why the article he himself quotes states that leg bones are "retained as useless appendages".
Whoa, after the 5 minute mark his logic just goes insane. "Evolution is the opposite of the bible - they are diametrically opposed. In fact this is proof that the Bible is right, because evolution is the exact opposite of the bible".
To summarise this in a simple logical equation: A is not equal to B. Therefore A.:?
Again, I'm really sorry to even be arguing with this guy but it's just so stupid...
"a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives - and without regard for the negative impact on consumer choice and technological innovation"
Wow... I just never heard anyone sum up Microsoft so concisely.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I've been planning to get Rosegarden for a long time - it does look spectacular. Does anybody else recommend it? Also can anybody tell me if it will work (through Linux) with a Yamaha keyboard? (PSR-550 to be exact) The keyboard required its own driver under Windows, does Linux have some generic MIDI keyboard driver or am I screwed?
Compared to Windows (which looks for DLLs in the current app directory, and the system directory), it seems a bit easier (though Windows is prone to DLL version hell). (Also I hate Windows with a passion, hence why I'm using Linux). The point being that windows binaries do not get hardwired with a specific path to the libraries.Hey, that does sound like a good idea.
There's a strong school of thought that says that piracy in general is a huge driving force behind music and movie purchases. In other words, people a) purchase content so they can share them with their friends, which they otherwise wouldn't purchase, and b) people download or otherwise pirate content to "try it out" and are afterwards happy enough to purchase the real thing.
This line of reasoning would suggest that all of the RIAA/MPAA's attacks on file sharing, use of DRM, etc, is harmful to their own industry. (And don't get me started on how DRM is harmful, in fact particularly dangerous, to their own industry).
They're doing a lousy job of it.
The XP model is inferior - it just lets
And Vista is apparently the same. We hear about all these shit-annoying prompts, yet then we read on slashdot last week that Vista automatically scans exe files to see if they look like setup programs, and if they are, it completely sudos them automatically. So that's just as bad as XP.
Would you rather have to type "sudo" every time you install something, or just have anything windows thinks is a setup program be allowed to piss all over your machine?
(Note that sudoing a deb installer is a lot safer than sudoing a Windows setup
- Installing directly from source code - Windows can do that too.
- Ports-based installation - OK that's Linux.
- Installing from distribution-specific packages - OK that's Linux.
- Installing from distribution-independent binaries - That's Windows primarily.
- Using another distribution-independent system like autopackage - It says these aren't popular, and they could just as easily run on Windows too.
So really, looking at it it isn't about 5 vs 1, it's really about 2 vs 1 (the 2 being source builds or package manager), and the problem being that Linux favours these package managers which are harder to use than simpleI think my problem is that these packaging systems have these annoying dependencies in the first place. I think I'd rather be able to install anything, and if it was broken, it just wouldn't work when I ran it. Then the package manager could list the dependencies (without actually requiring them), and offer to install them if possible (but not require them to be installed, as apt does). That way I could just get the sources, or rpm files, or whatever, for those dependencies which the APT system doesn't provide.
In my experience, compiling from source works because libraries provide these "xxx-config --libs" sort of scripts which are available in $PATH, which means the concept of a "dependency" comes down to simply, is it installed anywhere on the system, under any name.
The php4 thing was just an example of the many times I've been burned by endless lists of dependencies which can't be installed for whatever reason.I think that's a valid complaint.
Let's say package B depends on package A, and I compiled package A from source. Now apt-get package-B won't work because apt doesn't know about my package A existing. Yet compiling package B from source will work, because it will use `packageA-config --libs` to find out where the libs are. So why should package B's configure/make scripts be able to figure out that I have package A installed, and apt-get not be able to?Yeah I use Synaptic, I was just generalising it to apt.
Thanks for the tip with dpkg-buildpackage, I will check that out.
I found a hack (at least on my region 4 dvds), before it shows you MPAA propaganda, it asks you "which language would you prefer to see MPAA propaganda in?" Weirdly, some languages have no propaganda, they just skip straight to the film. On my discs, the conveniently first option ("Shqip" (Albanian)) won't play any ads.
Now I'm not saying it's right in any way - I absolutely detest being forced to even see this language menu from an evil organisation with nothing better to do than waste my time telling me how bad I would have been if I illegally pirated this movie I paid $170 for. But that's a way around it.
(Having said that, the electricity bill isn't a very strong argument, but I know I know - principles).
While we're talking about these ads, does anyone know what broadband service that girl is using? I want to be able to download a feature length movie in 12 seconds...
I don't believe they're usually 25 million years old.
At least not as far as I've seen. I've been using Ubuntu and I'm in package hell.
apt works fine for the most part on its own - it just downloads and installs binaries. And it seems to keep its own internal dependency or tagging system. The problem is: these "dependencies" aren't compatible with anything I installed outside apt: source builds, rpm installation, even if I used debian apt packages they aren't compatible with Ubuntu apt packages.
The situation becomes a nightmare as soon as I install something from source - I can no longer use apt for anything that depends on it. Trying to set up a webserver was the biggest pain because for some reason php4 wasn't in the ubuntu apt packages, so I installed it separately, and then I couldn't install anything that required php4 because they all needed "php4-ubuntu".
This has to be fixed. Maybe I should just go to Gentoo and compile everything myself!
Lol how would you like to be the owner... the entire scientific community on the planet just waiting for an "accident" ;)
You do realise that in Jurassic Park they filled in the gaps in the DNA with frog DNA right?
Let's see...
It would really suck if my car got stolen. That's why I go to the effort of carrying a key with me everywhere I go to protect it.
It would also really suck if my house got broken into. Or my bank account. These things are so important that it's worth carrying around a piece of metal or plastic just for that wherever I go.
If someone copied my music off my iPod... well frankly that would be between them and the RIAA. In other words, I as a consumer have no interest in protecting my music from being stolen (especially when it's being protected from myself), therefore I have no interest in carrying a dongle to access my music.
Furthermore, my car, my house and my bank account are probably the 3 most expensive things I own, so once again I go to such lengths to protect them. If I am forced to go to such lengths to protect something like my music, then why not have a dongle to activate my toaster, my chair or my shirt?
As with all DRM, the issue here is that unlike other forms of security (where I go to as much or as little lengths as I wish to protect myself) this is about me being forced to go to exactly the lengths they tell me to go to to protect them. This is a hopeless solution, and I don't think consumers would even be stupid enough to go along with it unlike other forms of DRM.
You're talking about a DONGLE..... possibly one of the most restrictive, annoying and inconvenient forms of copy protection there is.
This is true, and it's an argument I haven't seen before. Well done.
Problem: I don't want DRM to "meter my usage rights". In other words, I don't want DRM to say "you own this" "you rent that". By the very nature of DRM, I don't own it. In my eyes there is one and only one solution: Anything I am renting has DRM on it. Anything I own does not, or by definition, I don't own it.Correction: Consumers who want to use content across all of their entertainment areas can pay more than those who just want to consume it only on a single device. This was never about making things cheaper.
The entire concept of this is complete bullshit. You buy content. You own it. You do whatever the hell you want with it. There is no free or convenient consumer market for "only using content on a certain device". No market like that is ever in the consumer's best interests.You know... if I could buy a shirt that fits any size body, like I can buy hats or socks that do, I'd be happier with my shirts (in case I grow, or I want to give it to my friends, or I don't want to fuss about with shirt sizes, or whatever, it's just more convenient to have one-size-fits-all shirts). Digital media is great, because it is one-size-fits-all! Yay! Now why would you use the phrase "doom all consumers to a one-size-fits-all situation"? One-size-fits-all is good for consumers, if it's feasible. And it is.There is no such thing as open DRM. There is only different shades of interoperability. So you can get FairPlay vs Zune going at each other, or you can unify them into a single DRM model which is interoperable. That's better for consumers, yes, but it isn't open. DRM, by design, can never be open, because as soon as it is, it can be cracked. In other words, you may get the same DRM working on Zune, iPod, Windows and Mac, but you will never get it working in open source software (unless it's been hacked, like DVD).The delay, I assume, being from the corporate shits who can't stand to see their content go on a format without DRM. What about the years of setbacks in products such as PS3 and Vista just to get the overblown and insane DRM specs working?
I didn't know people could get sick and overloaded and mess up their projects just because they participate in flame wars. If that was true, what would become of Slashdot?
7 years is still ridiculously too long in Software. How about 2 years? Or 0.
And YOU CAN'T PATENT A SONG.
Well that's the sad thing. About 98% of people who get Vista will need nothing besides what was already in XP. Yet they'll get Vista anyway - not even because they're sheep and they're told to, but because they were literally forced to. It's a completely virtual market. I don't know why Microsoft don't just release a new OS every year with a new logo, it would be just as effective.
One is the C way - write code which is as general as possible, and then write loads of extra code to make it work on each system. It's difficult and time-consuming and costly, but it's my preferred way because you end up with a product which is tested and works natively on each platform. Of course, cross-platform libraries which have been written this way (eg. SDL, wxWidgets, etc) are a great boon because it means the code you write (which uses these libraries) can just use them and compile on any platform.
The second way is the Java way - the "write once, run anywhere". Which is a commendable notion but has issues - mostly due to the fact you're really running on an abstract machine. Still, if it means I can run software on whatever I want, then I salute it.
Oh, and the third way is the way of the web: writing web apps that run on browsers which are not IE! Obviously this doesn't work for desktop apps, but it's good for certain uses.I think this is the best way to go - WINE. I don't really want to have to *emulate* Windows, but if we can abstract its API (ie. WINE) then we win. Everything is then cross platform (at least all the windows software - ironically this would make writing Windows software the most cross platform way to do it other than Java).I don't see the logic...
Anyway I think both #1 and #2 are important - #1 is for all developers, and #2 is a general solution which the open source community can do without mass support from the general development community.
You do realise that OS X is 'X' as in the roman numeral, 10, right? And that OS 9 came out two years before XP? And that this was followed by OS X in 2001, 6 months or so before XP?
And do you further realise that most of the features in Vista are a long-awaited attempt to catch up to the features which were in OS X, either before XP or at some point since then?
Making statemtents like this (following a Dumbest Car Analogy Award-winning car analogy) just make you look silly.Do you mean Ubuntu has a GUI? Just because they're trying to get people to switch away from Windows doesn't mean they're desperately trying to catch up. That's Microsoft's job - they play catch up in the technology side in order to keep themselves massively ahead on the market share.
I couldn't care less about Aero either - it's as fugly as ass. (There's something awkward about translucent borders on a non-translucent window).
Wow this video is scary, sad and hilarious. Continually. Now, obviously these guys are shameless logicless nutters, and I'm certainly not saying all religious people are like this (certainly I expect it's the minority). But I must must must protest against this sort of ... the only word for it is brainwashing of young impressionable children. This goes for any religious teacher, not just crazy fanatics.
;) I still respect whatever people want to believe about the unknown - that's fine. I still fear that maybe He's up there, waiting to smack me for everything I've said against Him. But what I resent and hate is that they take children, who have this unwavering trust that adults tell the truth, and then feed them this stuff as fact. It's a horrible abuse of this trust.
I was one of them (and this is in Australia, which is a very religiously-open society) - at my primary school (grade 3 and 4) we had a "religious education" class each week where a special teacher would come to tell us about God and the bible and all these things. It was a fun class, we got to sing songs and play games and learn all of these historical facts.
From these classes I learned to love God, and pray, and fear the apocalypse, and chastise my mother for not believing, and all the things which you might expect an eight-year-old to do when told of such things.
And I feel very fortunate to have grown up in a society which otherwise does not emphasise religion (though it is quite tolerant). As a teenager, I began to realise that maybe these "facts" I had been taught along with maths and english and science and history weren't entirely based on anything tangible. It took me a long time - years and years - to rationalise this down. I sort of went from believing in the bible, to realising that the bible didn't work for me, but God was still looking out for me, to deciding that maybe he wasn't, and I should be an agnostic - and I think for my whole life I had been so scared by these stories to openly say "God doesn't exist".
By now I'm finished my path to athiesm
Now I haven't been mentally scarred or anything, but looking back, I resent the fact that I was made to believe something for so many years of my life which has no basis in fact, when I could have been told to make up my own mind (isn't that, after all, what the word "belief" means?)
I guess, as always, I should have listened to my mother!
I don't know why I am wasting my bandwidth still downloading this crap, but what can I say, I like YouTube.
... couldn't ... resist ... researching on whales to find out that these "crazy evolutionists" didn't in fact claim that Whales evolved into Cows - rather that land mammals evolved into whales. Which is why the article he himself quotes states that leg bones are "retained as useless appendages".
:?
Don't you love some of this logic: "Adolf hitler once said "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state"". THEREFORE, we have reason to believe this textbook is a lie.
Anyway while I hate to bring myself to the level of argument with a religious nutter, I just
Whoa, after the 5 minute mark his logic just goes insane. "Evolution is the opposite of the bible - they are diametrically opposed. In fact this is proof that the Bible is right, because evolution is the exact opposite of the bible".
To summarise this in a simple logical equation: A is not equal to B. Therefore A.
Again, I'm really sorry to even be arguing with this guy but it's just so stupid...