You know, if we assume (I feel this is a fairly safe assumption) that Jesus believed the things that he said in the Bible, then he believed his entire reason for being alive at all was to die. I'd call that a bit of a special case, there, when someone believes their reason for living is to die. In either case, since I don't particularly believe Christian doctrine and believe that Jesus was born to die for our sins, Jesus didn't accomplish anything by his death. Gained a lot o followers, sure, but he didn't accomplish anything practical.
all the starving kids in Iraq who steal because they are hungry...or because they don't have any skills or education to get work in a war-shattered country, it is still *their* choice and theirs alone to make the decision to steal or enlist in a terrorist camp for getting cash to buy food and things for their family. Oh yes, I clearly see how these two situations are similar. The children in Iraq, who are stealing to get the food they need to live, are on the same moral level as priests who molest children, who need their sexual gratification to live! I tip my hat to you sir, not many would be able to see how these two situations are so similar.
Yes! If tomorrow the pope declares that priests should sleep for just one hour every day, because sleep is a waste of time, since while you are asleep you are not worshipping... well ofcourse, we will deny our bodily needs and obey the pope blindly. If our prists go slight nuts from the lack of sleep and whip out an uzi at the next sunday sermon and shoot down all the church-goers... hey it is fine! It was their *own* personal decision to slaughter their flock and Church didn't have *any* hand in causing it. Because we all know that there are no psychological ramifications of denying our basic bodily urges and needs! Again, congratulations! Your keen insight pierced the veil of mystery, and saw that sleep and sex are both equally necessary for our bodies to function! Bravo!
Now that we've gotten your complete bullshit out of the way, I can address the parts of your post which aren't ridiculous.
Oh why not? Let us free all the pedophiles, embezzlers, murderers and rapists. Let us let go of all their pasts, no? Or is that foreign to you as well? Or are we being selective about what crimes to punish as per the popular opinion of the day about different terrible crimes of the day i.e. whether practicing witchcraft etc. deserves tortoue and burning alive, or not? There's a big difference between the two situations here. Pedophiles, embezzlers, etc etc, all directly did something wrong, which (in my sole estimation, granted) is far less of a crime than failing to stand up when perhaps you should have. Not to mention that I find it hard to blame ANYONE (not just the pope) for not standing up to the Nazi regime, as it wouldn't have accomplished a damn thing, except to get themselves killed. Martyrs are a nice symbol to rally to, perhaps, but nothing else. You can accomplish a whole hell of a lot less to help anyone at all when you're dead.
I mean we all know, there is not much higher standard required for being the head of Christianity. Catholicism. Very important distinction there, as the Catholic denomination is hardly all of Christianity (it may still be most, but quite frankly I'm too lazy to look it up right now. What matters is that there's more than just Catholicism).
I think you also need to get it through your head that just because some people misuse Christianity, doesn't mean that the religion as a whole is worthless. Judge individuals, not the religion, because it has followers (all religions do, really) on the whole damn spectrum: crazy, sane, good, evil. Don't lump them all together.
You can stop the war singlehandedly that way if you want, you know? I don't believe the pope has any real influence on politics, but that's just me.
For most of the so-called religious folks, religion is actually simply a luxury for good times and a better-than-thou thing. In modern world, you can either be officially a patriot and free, or you can truly religious. You know the wrong religious folks, then. Example primo is my parents (not that I'm an unbiased source on them, but they're the best I have to work with off the top of my head), who really BELIEVE in their religion. It's not just some excuse to judge people, or something that's convenient to believe in because the times are good, it's something that they believe as firmly as the Slashdot crowd believes Linux is the best OS out there. Oh yeah, and they also are patriots and free, in my estimation, but I don't know how you're defining it. Feel free to elaborate.
Inane? No, sensible. Since the original accusation was that the Catholic church's stance against birth control leads to poverty due to uncontrolled childbirth, we obviously have the following situation going on:
These people with too many children are too poor to support them.
They're unwilling to use contraceptives because of their religious beliefs.
Thus, the solution is simple! Don't have sex! If you want to have sex that badly, choose to ignore your religious beliefs, then. It really doesn't take much thinking to settle on a course of action here (unless, of course, you think bringing children who'll starve into the world is an ok alternative). It's not like there's some church doctrine which says, "Thou shalt bone regularly and often, and without protection". These people aren't being FORCED to do anything, they have ways out of this situation. That's all my point was, although perhaps I should have worded it more carefully.
And I have no interest in becoming a priest. I didn't suggest (or didn't mean to, I suppose) that no sex is an easy choice, but if you consider your religious beliefs unchangeable, and you can't risk more children... that is the only option.
Thanks for bringing up the poster girl of the Catholic Church - Mother Theresa. Did you know she never got around to actually reading the whole bible? Not even the whole new testament...
How can you say you believe something you never even read.
Its not like a whole lifetime wasn't enough. She died at 87. If she had started reading the Bible at 18, she would have only had to read 30 words a DAY. If its such a central document, why the fuck don't people read it? 3 chapters a day, and you're through the whole thing in a year. Or is it because a lot of the stuff in it is clearly contrary to the church's teachings, or just brain-dead. My point is that Mother Theresa was a member of the church you despise, and is widely held to be an example of a good person who worked to help others. Hm, I guess the church might not be 100% evil after all, eh?
BTW - the Crusades is NOT a selling point... I'm well aware of that. I include things like the Crusades in a discussion on the worth of the church, because I'm not claiming that the church is all good. My claim is that the church, like any other organization in the history of the world, has done both good and evil in its time, and should not be judged solely by either one.
And yes, I am under no illusion of having a "soul". Or any other superstitious beliefs. That's not what "soulless" means in that context, and you should know it.
the church should be taxed same as any other business... The church isn't a business, but there's room to argue that they should be taxed. It really depends on what the church's funds are being used for, imo.
bans on promoting intolerance towards minority groups. Or has the Pope finally declared that gays, lesbians, etc., are now free to be themselves without having the church pin the label of "sinner" on them? People are free to think what they want, you know. I fail to see what's so unreasonable about being labeled a sinner by any religion, if you're breaking that religion's precepts. Hell, by the standards of Islam, pretty much all of us are sinners... doesn't bug me any. Of course, most people wouldn't care, because it's just some church they don't give a damn about... and if they give a damn, why don't they go about changing (or trying to change) the behaviors that the church condemns? It's not really the church's fault if someone places weight on what it says, and gets irritated because of it.
In any case, it's not the government's business. It's not like it negatively affects people's ability to live their lives.
The catholic church's own internal studies show that a celibate priesthood attracts the wrong kind of person. 20% struggle with desires to have sex with children, and half with desires to have same-sex partners; these numbers are WAY over the average for the ppulation at large.
That still doesn't change the fact that the priests themselves are responsible for their own actions. No one else. Don't sit and blame the Vatican for the failings of individuals.
... riiiiiight... dream on. The urge to have sex is part of human wiring. Why do you think there are so many ugly people? Do you really believe that their ugly parents found it easy to "choose not to have sex"? No - they wanted to get laid, same as everyone else, just their options were limited to other ugly people, or the local sheep.
...did you seriously just imply that there's something wrong with having ugly children, so that ugly people should choose not to have sex, or use birth control? wtf?
While we're at it, where in the bible does it say that priests must be celibate? Oh, it doesn't - it says priests must be MARRIED! Fucktard pope in the middle ages got his underwear in a twist because a priest and a bishop were having a "good time enjoying each other's company", and while the bishop was keeping it all quiet, his lover went on and on to anyone who would listen about how great it was. So the pope declared that, from that point on, priests be celibate.
Way to not address my argument at all. I asked for evidence or proof that your ludicrous assertion that it was ok to rape non-virgins was true, either in the Bible or church doctrine. Cough up, or choose to not answer the point, don't give a response that has nothing to do with my point.
Your papal "bull"...
My papal bull? I'm not Catholic, nor of any religious bent. I guess technically I am Catholic, since I was baptized when I was young (my parents were Catholic at the time). Doesn't really mean anything though, I don't consider myself a member.
... and this is reasonable how?
I didn't say it was.
Its fucked up, same as everything else the church pushes.
You're exaggerating, or blind to the truth. Not sure which. The church is fallible, like any other organization. The church has done evil in its history, but also good. Remember: the Crusades and Mother Theresa both came from the same faith which you so despise, and think is completely twisted. Try to keep a balanced view based on the facts, not bigotry.
It results in thinking like this: "You can't get remarried - but if you kill her, you can get remarried." Say hello to Hans Resier next visitors' day.
Anyone who thinks like this has serious issues quite independent of religion, but I never said the position was good (or bad, for that matter), just what it was.
Forgive his past? No - he's still a fascist bastard using the same tactics to regiment people's lives that any other cult uses.
You know, the people in this "cult" that you despise so (my family, for example, is Christian even though I'm not) don't feel their lives are being regimented. They can choose not to follow the rules at any time, with no pressure or repercussions from anyone else. They're not engaging in any of the atrocities typically attributed to cults. Despite the fact that there are some pretty reprehensible Christians out there... most aren't! They're just people trying to live good lives, and they have an organization where they try to support one another in that goal--why do you hate that so much?
Explains both Bush and the Nazi Pope. Forgive his past? No...
You're a soulless bastard. His past isn't that bad, for fuck's sake. He deserves to be forgiven for something that happened so long ago, and isn't that big a deal, in the end (did he kill anyone? Steal? Rape? etc, etc... all he was
Also, the "rights" of business owners might be impinged upon by smoking bans, but the rights of non-smokers are of greater concern, are they not? Attendance increases with smoking bans and laws are enacted to protect the common good with the side effect of infringing upon some freedoms. Actually, I disagree here. Unless it's necessary for you to be a customer of that particular business establishment, the owner's rights are more important than your own. Bargoers, for example, complain about smoking at bars... but no one forces them to go to the bar at all, much less to any particular bar.
Moreover, the anti-smoking crowd can be downright stupid (they are in my city). Real situation: my city instituted a smoking ban for restaurants, bars, etc. The town which directly neighbors us (they may as well be a part of the city I live in, they blend right into each other) has no such ban, so people apparently tend to prefer the bars located slightly further away from home, and go there. Thus, my city is trying to put pressure on the neighboring town to put a smoking ban in place, saying that their lack of a smoking ban is hurting our businesses. No, our smoking ban is hurting our businesses! If the government were truly concerned about the businesses so much, they'd lift our smoking ban, not try to dictate to our neighbors how they should run their lives. At this point, the smoking issue in my locale is coming across to me as more of a moral crusade than a personal choice, because of that nonsense. It's ridiculous.
You do realize that it's attitudes like yours that keep the two-party system in place, right? If people stopped believing that bullshit, we'd have more variety in politics today.
The only reason we can't call him a dirty nazi is because he (probably) takes a bath once in a while, when not figuring out ways to try to maintain respectability while continuing to demand that his priests remain celibate, thus perpetuating holy buggery and child sexual abuse. I guess letting go of someone's past is foreign to you? I'm not intimately familiar with the details of the current pope's youth, but as far as I'm aware, he didn't do anything BAD while in the Hitler Youth, he was just there. imo, that's pretty forgiveable, but I guess you don't agree.
Moreover, it's basically the biggest fallacy ever that maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood perpetuates child sexual abuse. The decisions that those priests make are THEIRS, and theirs alone... not the Vatican's. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting laid, I should be going and molesting little boys, by your logic. Well, except for the fact that no one's forcing it on me, I guess, so I have no one to blame the molestation on.
Hey, how about that "no birth control" policy? Nice way to doom another generation to overpopulation and starvation. And the "no condoms" bit. The Pope is promoting AIDS, herpes, clamydia, etc. As someone else so succinctly points out in a thread further down the page, that isn't true at all. If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex. It's not hard.
How about the whole "virgins are better, they're pure" so its not so bad to rape a woman who's had sex, because she's a slut anyway, since she's not a virgin. ...wow. Please, find me actual proof that this is the position of the church. That's not in the Bible, nor is it the church's position in the least, as far as I'm aware. Until you present some evidence or proof, this is an absolutely ludicrous assertion.
Or the "divorce is wrong" so stay with hubby as he beats the shit out of you and the kids. My understanding of the position on divorce (which may well vary by denomination, too) isn't that you can't divorce, it's that you shouldn't remarry if you get a divorce, unless it's to your original spouse, who you've somehow magically worked things out with.
I guess Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are the king of trolls. One could look at it that way, yes.
And as far as your subject goes: there's no truth here which can hurt me. I don't have any opinion in particular on the church, I'm not Catholic, nor Christian for that matter, nor of any religion for that matter. I have no stake in this, I just wanted to rebut someone attacking the mods for doing their job.
No, that was pretty solidly troll/flamebait... and I'm definitely agnostic, not religious at all. Not only was it nothing more than a rant against the pope and religion, there was a good dose of profanity thrown in for good measure. Just because you may agree with those sentiments, doesn't mean that the post wasn't written in an extremely flameish and abrasive manner.
Your analysis of Mac cultists (they don't even really deserve the title of "zealot" any more...) is spot-on. However, it's good to remember that not all Mac users are a part of the cult of Jobs, and that the GP may not be one of them. Don't lump them all together, etc.
BSD and GPL promote freedom in different ways. BSD maximizes freedom for each developer, GPL maximizes freedom for anyone who likes that developer's work based on GPL code. I prefer BSD's philosophy (by far), but it's ludicrous to say that either license hinders freedom.
That's true, and I don't deny it. I use a mixture of a GUI and a command line even in Windows. However, the average user is scared shitless by a command line, so they need to have a GUI, which is comfortable for them. Also, I don't feel the need to have everything available via GUI, just everything the average user will need to do. More advanced stuff can be relegated to whichever interface works better (or both, for that matter).
No, my post wasn't a troll. First of all, I wanted to point out to the AC that a command-line tool doesn't really suffice, but I also was curious to know if there was a GUI to accomplish the same thing. Apparently there is, and that's great. I'm sorry if I struck you as a troll, that's not really my thing.
anonymouscoward@localhost:~$ apt-get install youarearetard That's wonderful. That's not a GUI though. Maybe there is a GUI which functions as a unified program installation thingy (I wouldn't know, I don't use Linux, so my point may be invalid), but the command line does NOT suffice.
Until every task the average user needs to do can be done with a GUI, Linux will not be ready for prime time.
Linus and RMS really haven't quite gotten to the level of tech giants yet (although they are well on their way to doing so). I mean, seriously, those guys are nowhere near the level of godliness as the Woz.
Oh. Heck, I thought you were going to say we should put them together in one large, well-insulated box, and then drop it to the ocean floor. In the process we'd probably rid ourselves of 85 percent of the people who use the word "canon" to refer to something not related to the Roman Catholic Church. And what the hell else are we supposed to call the official continuity of an ongoing series? The word canon is in common use for this purpose, even if that isn't what it originally meant... do you have a better idea? And for that matter, what's wrong with canon (Lord knows, it wouldn't be the first word to acquire additional meanings)?
Damn... there must've been a speck of dirt on my monitor or something, because I read, at first, "...a movie set in the evil goatse universe...". Horrifying thought, let me tell you.
given Paramount's history with the franchise, I really don't think they'll ever get it right. Welllll... I don't know. I liked all the series up until Enterprise. Enterprise blew, but oh well, we'll always have TNG.
What does that have to do with Spock/McCoy banter though?
I... I can't comprehend what you're trying to say. It seems like you're trying to accuse him of being a 360 fanboy, but he has a PS3, and is happy to see the system getting something that'll help it. You could be accusing him of being a PS3 fanboy, but you bash Halo 3.
Yeah, the "bad" in their review was pretty bogus. I normally like Gamespot's reviews, but now and then they leave me scratching my head, and this was one. Games that have good controls, and follow the successful formula set down by their predecessors? We can't have that!
I've played the demo. I didn't really think anything of the game one way or the other before, but the demo floored me. The framerate is fine, don't worry. It is a lot like God of War... but then again, that's really the highest compliment you could pay to a game of this genre.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, if we assume (I feel this is a fairly safe assumption) that Jesus believed the things that he said in the Bible, then he believed his entire reason for being alive at all was to die. I'd call that a bit of a special case, there, when someone believes their reason for living is to die. In either case, since I don't particularly believe Christian doctrine and believe that Jesus was born to die for our sins, Jesus didn't accomplish anything by his death. Gained a lot o followers, sure, but he didn't accomplish anything practical.
Now that we've gotten your complete bullshit out of the way, I can address the parts of your post which aren't ridiculous.
Oh why not? Let us free all the pedophiles, embezzlers, murderers and rapists. Let us let go of all their pasts, no? Or is that foreign to you as well? Or are we being selective about what crimes to punish as per the popular opinion of the day about different terrible crimes of the day i.e. whether practicing witchcraft etc. deserves tortoue and burning alive, or not? There's a big difference between the two situations here. Pedophiles, embezzlers, etc etc, all directly did something wrong, which (in my sole estimation, granted) is far less of a crime than failing to stand up when perhaps you should have. Not to mention that I find it hard to blame ANYONE (not just the pope) for not standing up to the Nazi regime, as it wouldn't have accomplished a damn thing, except to get themselves killed. Martyrs are a nice symbol to rally to, perhaps, but nothing else. You can accomplish a whole hell of a lot less to help anyone at all when you're dead. I mean we all know, there is not much higher standard required for being the head of Christianity. Catholicism. Very important distinction there, as the Catholic denomination is hardly all of Christianity (it may still be most, but quite frankly I'm too lazy to look it up right now. What matters is that there's more than just Catholicism).I think you also need to get it through your head that just because some people misuse Christianity, doesn't mean that the religion as a whole is worthless. Judge individuals, not the religion, because it has followers (all religions do, really) on the whole damn spectrum: crazy, sane, good, evil. Don't lump them all together.
You can stop the war singlehandedly that way if you want, you know? I don't believe the pope has any real influence on politics, but that's just me. For most of the so-called religious folks, religion is actually simply a luxury for good times and a better-than-thou thing. In modern world, you can either be officially a patriot and free, or you can truly religious. You know the wrong religious folks, then. Example primo is my parents (not that I'm an unbiased source on them, but they're the best I have to work with off the top of my head), who really BELIEVE in their religion. It's not just some excuse to judge people, or something that's convenient to believe in because the times are good, it's something that they believe as firmly as the Slashdot crowd believes Linux is the best OS out there. Oh yeah, and they also are patriots and free, in my estimation, but I don't know how you're defining it. Feel free to elaborate.These people with too many children are too poor to support them.
They're unwilling to use contraceptives because of their religious beliefs.
Thus, the solution is simple! Don't have sex! If you want to have sex that badly, choose to ignore your religious beliefs, then. It really doesn't take much thinking to settle on a course of action here (unless, of course, you think bringing children who'll starve into the world is an ok alternative). It's not like there's some church doctrine which says, "Thou shalt bone regularly and often, and without protection". These people aren't being FORCED to do anything, they have ways out of this situation. That's all my point was, although perhaps I should have worded it more carefully.
And I have no interest in becoming a priest. I didn't suggest (or didn't mean to, I suppose) that no sex is an easy choice, but if you consider your religious beliefs unchangeable, and you can't risk more children... that is the only option.
In any case, it's not the government's business. It's not like it negatively affects people's ability to live their lives.
The catholic church's own internal studies show that a celibate priesthood attracts the wrong kind of person. 20% struggle with desires to have sex with children, and half with desires to have same-sex partners; these numbers are WAY over the average for the ppulation at large.
That still doesn't change the fact that the priests themselves are responsible for their own actions. No one else. Don't sit and blame the Vatican for the failings of individuals.
... riiiiiight ... dream on. The urge to have sex is part of human wiring. Why do you think there are so many ugly people? Do you really believe that their ugly parents found it easy to "choose not to have sex"? No - they wanted to get laid, same as everyone else, just their options were limited to other ugly people, or the local sheep.
While we're at it, where in the bible does it say that priests must be celibate? Oh, it doesn't - it says priests must be MARRIED! Fucktard pope in the middle ages got his underwear in a twist because a priest and a bishop were having a "good time enjoying each other's company", and while the bishop was keeping it all quiet, his lover went on and on to anyone who would listen about how great it was. So the pope declared that, from that point on, priests be celibate.
Way to not address my argument at all. I asked for evidence or proof that your ludicrous assertion that it was ok to rape non-virgins was true, either in the Bible or church doctrine. Cough up, or choose to not answer the point, don't give a response that has nothing to do with my point.
Your papal "bull"...
My papal bull? I'm not Catholic, nor of any religious bent. I guess technically I am Catholic, since I was baptized when I was young (my parents were Catholic at the time). Doesn't really mean anything though, I don't consider myself a member.
... and this is reasonable how?
I didn't say it was.
Its fucked up, same as everything else the church pushes.
You're exaggerating, or blind to the truth. Not sure which. The church is fallible, like any other organization. The church has done evil in its history, but also good. Remember: the Crusades and Mother Theresa both came from the same faith which you so despise, and think is completely twisted. Try to keep a balanced view based on the facts, not bigotry.
It results in thinking like this: "You can't get remarried - but if you kill her, you can get remarried." Say hello to Hans Resier next visitors' day.
Anyone who thinks like this has serious issues quite independent of religion, but I never said the position was good (or bad, for that matter), just what it was.
Forgive his past? No - he's still a fascist bastard using the same tactics to regiment people's lives that any other cult uses.
You know, the people in this "cult" that you despise so (my family, for example, is Christian even though I'm not) don't feel their lives are being regimented. They can choose not to follow the rules at any time, with no pressure or repercussions from anyone else. They're not engaging in any of the atrocities typically attributed to cults. Despite the fact that there are some pretty reprehensible Christians out there... most aren't! They're just people trying to live good lives, and they have an organization where they try to support one another in that goal--why do you hate that so much?
Explains both Bush and the Nazi Pope. Forgive his past? No...
You're a soulless bastard. His past isn't that bad, for fuck's sake. He deserves to be forgiven for something that happened so long ago, and isn't that big a deal, in the end (did he kill anyone? Steal? Rape? etc, etc... all he was
Moreover, the anti-smoking crowd can be downright stupid (they are in my city). Real situation: my city instituted a smoking ban for restaurants, bars, etc. The town which directly neighbors us (they may as well be a part of the city I live in, they blend right into each other) has no such ban, so people apparently tend to prefer the bars located slightly further away from home, and go there. Thus, my city is trying to put pressure on the neighboring town to put a smoking ban in place, saying that their lack of a smoking ban is hurting our businesses. No, our smoking ban is hurting our businesses! If the government were truly concerned about the businesses so much, they'd lift our smoking ban, not try to dictate to our neighbors how they should run their lives. At this point, the smoking issue in my locale is coming across to me as more of a moral crusade than a personal choice, because of that nonsense. It's ridiculous.
You do realize that it's attitudes like yours that keep the two-party system in place, right? If people stopped believing that bullshit, we'd have more variety in politics today.
Moreover, it's basically the biggest fallacy ever that maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood perpetuates child sexual abuse. The decisions that those priests make are THEIRS, and theirs alone... not the Vatican's. Hell, I guess since I'm not getting laid, I should be going and molesting little boys, by your logic. Well, except for the fact that no one's forcing it on me, I guess, so I have no one to blame the molestation on.
Hey, how about that "no birth control" policy? Nice way to doom another generation to overpopulation and starvation. And the "no condoms" bit. The Pope is promoting AIDS, herpes, clamydia, etc. As someone else so succinctly points out in a thread further down the page, that isn't true at all. If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex. It's not hard. How about the whole "virgins are better, they're pure" so its not so bad to rape a woman who's had sex, because she's a slut anyway, since she's not a virgin. ...wow. Please, find me actual proof that this is the position of the church. That's not in the Bible, nor is it the church's position in the least, as far as I'm aware. Until you present some evidence or proof, this is an absolutely ludicrous assertion. Or the "divorce is wrong" so stay with hubby as he beats the shit out of you and the kids. My understanding of the position on divorce (which may well vary by denomination, too) isn't that you can't divorce, it's that you shouldn't remarry if you get a divorce, unless it's to your original spouse, who you've somehow magically worked things out with.And as far as your subject goes: there's no truth here which can hurt me. I don't have any opinion in particular on the church, I'm not Catholic, nor Christian for that matter, nor of any religion for that matter. I have no stake in this, I just wanted to rebut someone attacking the mods for doing their job.
No, that was pretty solidly troll/flamebait... and I'm definitely agnostic, not religious at all. Not only was it nothing more than a rant against the pope and religion, there was a good dose of profanity thrown in for good measure. Just because you may agree with those sentiments, doesn't mean that the post wasn't written in an extremely flameish and abrasive manner.
Your analysis of Mac cultists (they don't even really deserve the title of "zealot" any more...) is spot-on. However, it's good to remember that not all Mac users are a part of the cult of Jobs, and that the GP may not be one of them. Don't lump them all together, etc.
BSD and GPL promote freedom in different ways. BSD maximizes freedom for each developer, GPL maximizes freedom for anyone who likes that developer's work based on GPL code. I prefer BSD's philosophy (by far), but it's ludicrous to say that either license hinders freedom.
That's true, and I don't deny it. I use a mixture of a GUI and a command line even in Windows. However, the average user is scared shitless by a command line, so they need to have a GUI, which is comfortable for them. Also, I don't feel the need to have everything available via GUI, just everything the average user will need to do. More advanced stuff can be relegated to whichever interface works better (or both, for that matter).
That doesn't make it not awesome, just not as awesome as it could be.
No, my post wasn't a troll. First of all, I wanted to point out to the AC that a command-line tool doesn't really suffice, but I also was curious to know if there was a GUI to accomplish the same thing. Apparently there is, and that's great. I'm sorry if I struck you as a troll, that's not really my thing.
Until every task the average user needs to do can be done with a GUI, Linux will not be ready for prime time.
Linus and RMS really haven't quite gotten to the level of tech giants yet (although they are well on their way to doing so). I mean, seriously, those guys are nowhere near the level of godliness as the Woz.
Oh. Joke > me, I guess. I thought you were seriously objecting to the use of the word.
(On a serious note, the number of fans who like the prequels really isn't as low as it's made out to be, in my experience.)
Damn... there must've been a speck of dirt on my monitor or something, because I read, at first, "...a movie set in the evil goatse universe...". Horrifying thought, let me tell you.
What does that have to do with Spock/McCoy banter though?
I just don't get it! /headasplode
Yeah, the "bad" in their review was pretty bogus. I normally like Gamespot's reviews, but now and then they leave me scratching my head, and this was one. Games that have good controls, and follow the successful formula set down by their predecessors? We can't have that!
I've played the demo. I didn't really think anything of the game one way or the other before, but the demo floored me. The framerate is fine, don't worry. It is a lot like God of War... but then again, that's really the highest compliment you could pay to a game of this genre.