I just got done saying "I cant tell you", so no such answer will be forthcoming.
I will note there is a flaw in your assumption that desiring acclaim for oneself is only considered a bad thing because no human is worthy of such a thing. For a perfectly good God however, it would not be a bad thing, precisely because he would be worthy of it.
There's nothing wrong with ridiculing those who start with their preferred answer
I must be missing something. Isnt this what every atheist does when he ridicules a theist? And lets be honest here-- slashdot is no small contributor to that.
Especially when you're reading a translation of a translation of a translation.
Theres generally only one level of translation involved-- we have a remarkably good record of the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. Theres only the translation from hebrew to english in most bibles you will pick up (or greek to english for the NT).
But about why the heck he took the effort to create universe, life and everything, no sir, not a word.
You can draw inferences from the rest of the book on that, but perhaps its one of those "need to know basis" things. The tin soldier can question the toymaker as to why he was made, but the toymaker certainly isnt beholden to explain himself to the tin soldier (nor does he owe him anything).
Forensic scientists can come in later and determine exactly how it was made
CSI has created this myth of omniscient forensics. They can gather clues and form theories backed by evidence for how the table was formed; we do not presently have the technology to go back and definitively determine how that table was made; presumably that will come once we hammer the kinks out of time travel.
That's the sort of bullshit you get where people use religeon as an excuse to push their own agendas
Im sorry are you blaming me for something? Can you be more specific?
For the record, I dont think it is wrong for you to vote in line with your beliefs. Certainly that is what all people everywhere have always done, theistic or not.
Oh, great! But, wait a second, where does the Genesis say that?
Because it was not written as a scientific treatise. Before you go any further, you may want to acquaint yourself with the idea of "genre".
that shouldn't be taken literally,
I dont believe I said that. I said dont overliteralize it. There is a difference. I believe that what it says is fact, but that you cant infer above and beyond what was intended, which I believe can be ascertained pretty easily by remembering who the audience was and what the apparent themes are.
Otherwise how can we distinguish you from every other religious crank claiming to know the "truth"?
By using those wonderful critical thinking, reasoning, and reading skills you learned in school. My word, one wonders how anyone managed to get through English Lit.
Not to start a gigantic flame war, but it has LONG been an argument that things we regard as "constants" may not in fact be constant. Its also been inferred that you have no easy way of proving that they are-- any such attempts will rely on more assumptions of constancy.
Such speculation(?) has generally been met with ridicule; now theres research to suggest that, in fact, those constants ARENT constant in the way we thought they were. And yet there is more ridicule. What gives?
Or it may have been absolutely none of that, and people are trying to infer stuff that shouldnt be inferred. The point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific account, and trying to turn it into one utterly misses the point ("there is a creator"; "work is good, but so is rest"; as well as setting the model of 6 periods of work and 1 of rest).
This is all as absurd as if I said "good day" to someone, and they inferred that I meant that nothing bad had happened on that day in any part of the world. Just take it at face value, and dont go beyond it.
god had to see light to understand that it is good
Not really. You can see a Ferrari, and see that it is good, and still have had prior knowledge of it. I also think its a bit absurd to overliteralize it so that you infer from the word "see" that it was a visual phenomenon with photons and eyeballs with cones and rods connected to a brain.
Stop for a moment, remember who the audience was, put on your 7th grade reading hat, and then look at the text.
Its entirely possible that the point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific treatise on the exact method, mechanics, and timing of the creation of all things.
Im just gonna throw this out there, and maybe Im wrong, but I dont think that would have been terribly relevant to a bunch of nomadic shepherds. I would also note that trying to turn the hebrew word "yom" into "day" before there was a sun or moon, or anything else we commonly use to define "day", seems to make very little sense to me-- especially when "yom" is used for the 7th "period of time" which is generally agreed to not have ended.
In my opinion, some of practices it brings are totally at odds with free software values
Its possible that "free software values" are not a primary motivation for using a personal computer. Some (and I would say most) people just want to use their computer.
Don't necessarily need a server license with Samba
Thats true, but for any specific situation, the time for me (and presumably anyone else familiar with domains) to do the initial research for "how to set up LDAP / Samba to function as a ' domain controller'" far exceeds the cost of the license for a Windows server, so unless it is volunteer work or the client is willing to pay, there is no incentive to go that route. I could do it as a hobby, but researching re-implementing DC functionality on Linux doesnt strike me as a super-exciting weekend activity unless there was some specific goal I was shooting for.
Further, Im not super comfortable suggesting an alternative that tries to emulate a domain controller and probably has several caveats, when I can just use a windows domain controller and not have to take any flak when something like shared printer drivers dont work properly. Others have expressed exactly that, when it was suggested for volunteer projects. $500 is a small price to pay for knowing that others can easily pick up my work later on and continue where I left off, even if I get hit by a bus and cant explain how I connected a Samba server with the workstations.
The trust relationship Im referrring to is "I can grant X computer rights to this resource, based on who the computer itself is; and can grant Users on computer X rights to resources". Your ability to do either of those is very limited in a workgroup, because Windows can make some odd assumptions about what context the username should be interpreted in depending on how the two computers are configured. Further, in a workgroup, you do not have ANY ability AFAIK to grant a specific COMPUTER rights to a resource-- you can only do specific locally-defined users, or else grant anonymous access.
Putting them in a domain establishes a central authority and provides a common context for those usernames, and allows computers to trust each other based not only on the user's identity, but also the computer's identity (AKA something running as SYSTEM which requests a network resource). The computers thus have a "trust relationship" with each other (though perhaps more accurately they both have a trust with the domain / domain controllers, not directly with each other-- friend of a friend, so to speak).
At the point that owning an iPhone-like device and sideloading it becomes a fundamental right. Until then, kindly refrain from hyperbole that compares one vendor's distribution model to the authoritarian nightmare portrayed in 1984. Theyre not even remotely similar.
Consider that a few years ago the idea of "installing things" on your phone was restricted to a few niche devices. How did we go from "its amazing, I can install things on my iPhone" to "Apple is big brother for only letting me install certain things on my iPhone"?
so don't give me the "Windows uses RAM to store things it will need in the future" because my Linux does as well.
Apples to oranges. The two systems use different memory management schemes. Case in point: 8 GB laptop, with some explorer addons and several background services (including Forefront antivirus), and I use ~900MB of RAM. I understand that under memory pressure, Win7 can work quite well with as little as 512MB, which is about the minimum I have seen your average modern Linux desktop work well with.
Of course, if you want to compare a stock Win7 desktop with something like XFCE with no addons or icons or anything, you can do so, but its even more apples to oranges. What sound manager are you using? Is compositing on, or off? Do you have any indexing enabled? Are any background services running in the Windows box, or is it a fresh install? How did you measure the RAM usage? All of those uncertainties make the comparison you gave worthless.
And at the end of the day, it really doesnt matter what "free RAM numbers" are reported-- it is irrelevant if Windows 7 fills every spare bit of RAM with images of unicorns and always reports "100% RAM usage", so long as it releases that memory when needed. A more meaningful comparison would be to see what happens under memory pressure: Which box can open more tabs in Firefox without paging? THAT is a relevant question, since its the only one that has any meaningful impact on the computer's performance.
For the record, the recent Linux distros Ive tried (maybe a year or two ago?) performed rather poorly under 256MB RAM. I havent tried Win7 on anything less than 1GB, so cant comment on that.
Anyone who *actually* games wants to know who the fuck cares about underpowered Intel video card drivers
Starcraft 2 is 5 years old? Torchlight 1 / 2 are 5 years old? League of Legends is 5 years old? I suppose you could label TF2 and WoW as 5 years old, but that kind of ignores the whole "still actively developed" thing.
All of those work just fine on an underpowered Core i3 2310m, using HD3000. Current gen Ivy Bridge processors are expected to deliver ~10-15% better performance, and IIRC the HD4000 line is ~50% more performance over the 3000.
Gauntlet DOES have progression. IIRC there were several items that permenantly boosted your stats (speed, armor etc potions), and your HP increased after the accumulation of sufficient gold. I do not recall if there were specific stats that also leveled up with you, but there may have been.
Nothing is quite the same as Gauntlet. That game was brutal in a way that games simply dont have the heart to be these days.
I recall slogging through the first two realms years ago, then watching as my brother zipped through to realm 5, only to get stuck in some awful kind of loop around room 80. As the legend goes (never having made it to the final room), if you havent completed all of those awful "optional" questionmark rooms by the end, you simply die when you enter it.
Anyone who thinks theyre a guru gamer should go thru some of the old school NES and genesis games for a laugh. After picking up Donkey Kong Jr for a kick of nostalgia and promptly dying 3 times in a row, I realized just how easy modern games are compared to the stuff we used to play. I can remember playing GoldenEye and Perfect Dark, not ever realizing just how herculean it is to play an FPS on a joystick (bonus points if you have free-aim on always, and move with the directional C buttons in PD-- its the Halo experience several years before Halo).
The problem is buyers remorse. Has anyone ever been misled into thinking that the AppStore was a free-for-all, un-curated software repository? If so, you probably should have returned the device once you discovered your error.
Its like people are buying a SmartCar, and then getting upset that it doesnt have a truck bed in the back. Seems like the solution is to buy the product that has the features you want, rather than purchasing the wrong thing and then getting mad at everyone because its the wrong thing.
One of the worst thing to happen to political speech is people who think they see 1984 everywhere.
This is a corporate product by a private entity, part of whose attraction is the walled garden aspect. Dont like it? Get one of the other major smartphones out there.
The fact that you think this is remotely similar to 1984 is an indicator that you either havent read the book, or simply didnt understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
I just got done saying "I cant tell you", so no such answer will be forthcoming.
I will note there is a flaw in your assumption that desiring acclaim for oneself is only considered a bad thing because no human is worthy of such a thing. For a perfectly good God however, it would not be a bad thing, precisely because he would be worthy of it.
There's nothing wrong with ridiculing those who start with their preferred answer
I must be missing something. Isnt this what every atheist does when he ridicules a theist? And lets be honest here-- slashdot is no small contributor to that.
Especially when you're reading a translation of a translation of a translation.
Theres generally only one level of translation involved-- we have a remarkably good record of the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. Theres only the translation from hebrew to english in most bibles you will pick up (or greek to english for the NT).
But about why the heck he took the effort to create universe, life and everything, no sir, not a word.
You can draw inferences from the rest of the book on that, but perhaps its one of those "need to know basis" things. The tin soldier can question the toymaker as to why he was made, but the toymaker certainly isnt beholden to explain himself to the tin soldier (nor does he owe him anything).
Forensic scientists can come in later and determine exactly how it was made
CSI has created this myth of omniscient forensics. They can gather clues and form theories backed by evidence for how the table was formed; we do not presently have the technology to go back and definitively determine how that table was made; presumably that will come once we hammer the kinks out of time travel.
That's the sort of bullshit you get where people use religeon as an excuse to push their own agendas
Im sorry are you blaming me for something? Can you be more specific?
For the record, I dont think it is wrong for you to vote in line with your beliefs. Certainly that is what all people everywhere have always done, theistic or not.
Oh, great! But, wait a second, where does the Genesis say that?
Because it was not written as a scientific treatise. Before you go any further, you may want to acquaint yourself with the idea of "genre".
that shouldn't be taken literally,
I dont believe I said that. I said dont overliteralize it. There is a difference. I believe that what it says is fact, but that you cant infer above and beyond what was intended, which I believe can be ascertained pretty easily by remembering who the audience was and what the apparent themes are.
Otherwise how can we distinguish you from every other religious crank claiming to know the "truth"?
By using those wonderful critical thinking, reasoning, and reading skills you learned in school. My word, one wonders how anyone managed to get through English Lit.
iDRAC uses it, as does (IIRC) Equallogic SAN.
Not to start a gigantic flame war, but it has LONG been an argument that things we regard as "constants" may not in fact be constant. Its also been inferred that you have no easy way of proving that they are-- any such attempts will rely on more assumptions of constancy.
Such speculation(?) has generally been met with ridicule; now theres research to suggest that, in fact, those constants ARENT constant in the way we thought they were. And yet there is more ridicule. What gives?
Or it may have been absolutely none of that, and people are trying to infer stuff that shouldnt be inferred. The point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific account, and trying to turn it into one utterly misses the point ("there is a creator"; "work is good, but so is rest"; as well as setting the model of 6 periods of work and 1 of rest).
This is all as absurd as if I said "good day" to someone, and they inferred that I meant that nothing bad had happened on that day in any part of the world. Just take it at face value, and dont go beyond it.
god had to see light to understand that it is good
Not really. You can see a Ferrari, and see that it is good, and still have had prior knowledge of it. I also think its a bit absurd to overliteralize it so that you infer from the word "see" that it was a visual phenomenon with photons and eyeballs with cones and rods connected to a brain.
Stop for a moment, remember who the audience was, put on your 7th grade reading hat, and then look at the text.
Its entirely possible that the point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific treatise on the exact method, mechanics, and timing of the creation of all things.
Im just gonna throw this out there, and maybe Im wrong, but I dont think that would have been terribly relevant to a bunch of nomadic shepherds. I would also note that trying to turn the hebrew word "yom" into "day" before there was a sun or moon, or anything else we commonly use to define "day", seems to make very little sense to me-- especially when "yom" is used for the 7th "period of time" which is generally agreed to not have ended.
Sandbox [Java VM] externally
Using what, a VM?
Yo dawg, I heard you liked virtual machines...
In my opinion, some of practices it brings are totally at odds with free software values
Its possible that "free software values" are not a primary motivation for using a personal computer. Some (and I would say most) people just want to use their computer.
Don't necessarily need a server license with Samba
Thats true, but for any specific situation, the time for me (and presumably anyone else familiar with domains) to do the initial research for "how to set up LDAP / Samba to function as a ' domain controller'" far exceeds the cost of the license for a Windows server, so unless it is volunteer work or the client is willing to pay, there is no incentive to go that route. I could do it as a hobby, but researching re-implementing DC functionality on Linux doesnt strike me as a super-exciting weekend activity unless there was some specific goal I was shooting for.
Further, Im not super comfortable suggesting an alternative that tries to emulate a domain controller and probably has several caveats, when I can just use a windows domain controller and not have to take any flak when something like shared printer drivers dont work properly. Others have expressed exactly that, when it was suggested for volunteer projects. $500 is a small price to pay for knowing that others can easily pick up my work later on and continue where I left off, even if I get hit by a bus and cant explain how I connected a Samba server with the workstations.
The trust relationship Im referrring to is "I can grant X computer rights to this resource, based on who the computer itself is; and can grant Users on computer X rights to resources". Your ability to do either of those is very limited in a workgroup, because Windows can make some odd assumptions about what context the username should be interpreted in depending on how the two computers are configured. Further, in a workgroup, you do not have ANY ability AFAIK to grant a specific COMPUTER rights to a resource-- you can only do specific locally-defined users, or else grant anonymous access.
Putting them in a domain establishes a central authority and provides a common context for those usernames, and allows computers to trust each other based not only on the user's identity, but also the computer's identity (AKA something running as SYSTEM which requests a network resource). The computers thus have a "trust relationship" with each other (though perhaps more accurately they both have a trust with the domain / domain controllers, not directly with each other-- friend of a friend, so to speak).
At what point does censorship become wrong?
At the point that owning an iPhone-like device and sideloading it becomes a fundamental right. Until then, kindly refrain from hyperbole that compares one vendor's distribution model to the authoritarian nightmare portrayed in 1984. Theyre not even remotely similar.
Consider that a few years ago the idea of "installing things" on your phone was restricted to a few niche devices. How did we go from "its amazing, I can install things on my iPhone" to "Apple is big brother for only letting me install certain things on my iPhone"?
so don't give me the "Windows uses RAM to store things it will need in the future" because my Linux does as well.
Apples to oranges. The two systems use different memory management schemes. Case in point: 8 GB laptop, with some explorer addons and several background services (including Forefront antivirus), and I use ~900MB of RAM. I understand that under memory pressure, Win7 can work quite well with as little as 512MB, which is about the minimum I have seen your average modern Linux desktop work well with.
Of course, if you want to compare a stock Win7 desktop with something like XFCE with no addons or icons or anything, you can do so, but its even more apples to oranges. What sound manager are you using? Is compositing on, or off? Do you have any indexing enabled? Are any background services running in the Windows box, or is it a fresh install? How did you measure the RAM usage? All of those uncertainties make the comparison you gave worthless.
And at the end of the day, it really doesnt matter what "free RAM numbers" are reported-- it is irrelevant if Windows 7 fills every spare bit of RAM with images of unicorns and always reports "100% RAM usage", so long as it releases that memory when needed. A more meaningful comparison would be to see what happens under memory pressure: Which box can open more tabs in Firefox without paging? THAT is a relevant question, since its the only one that has any meaningful impact on the computer's performance.
For the record, the recent Linux distros Ive tried (maybe a year or two ago?) performed rather poorly under 256MB RAM. I havent tried Win7 on anything less than 1GB, so cant comment on that.
Anyone who *actually* games wants to know who the fuck cares about underpowered Intel video card drivers
Starcraft 2 is 5 years old? Torchlight 1 / 2 are 5 years old? League of Legends is 5 years old? I suppose you could label TF2 and WoW as 5 years old, but that kind of ignores the whole "still actively developed" thing.
All of those work just fine on an underpowered Core i3 2310m, using HD3000. Current gen Ivy Bridge processors are expected to deliver ~10-15% better performance, and IIRC the HD4000 line is ~50% more performance over the 3000.
Modern Intel GPUs are quite good, relatively speaking. A core i3 sandy bridge (HD2000) will play most recent games decently.
Its no discrete solution, but theyre everywhere and they perform well enough under Linux.
Gauntlet DOES have progression. IIRC there were several items that permenantly boosted your stats (speed, armor etc potions), and your HP increased after the accumulation of sufficient gold. I do not recall if there were specific stats that also leveled up with you, but there may have been.
Nothing is quite the same as Gauntlet. That game was brutal in a way that games simply dont have the heart to be these days.
I recall slogging through the first two realms years ago, then watching as my brother zipped through to realm 5, only to get stuck in some awful kind of loop around room 80. As the legend goes (never having made it to the final room), if you havent completed all of those awful "optional" questionmark rooms by the end, you simply die when you enter it.
Anyone who thinks theyre a guru gamer should go thru some of the old school NES and genesis games for a laugh. After picking up Donkey Kong Jr for a kick of nostalgia and promptly dying 3 times in a row, I realized just how easy modern games are compared to the stuff we used to play. I can remember playing GoldenEye and Perfect Dark, not ever realizing just how herculean it is to play an FPS on a joystick (bonus points if you have free-aim on always, and move with the directional C buttons in PD-- its the Halo experience several years before Halo).
What the heck is a malthist?
The problem here is the locked down devices
The problem is buyers remorse. Has anyone ever been misled into thinking that the AppStore was a free-for-all, un-curated software repository? If so, you probably should have returned the device once you discovered your error.
Its like people are buying a SmartCar, and then getting upset that it doesnt have a truck bed in the back. Seems like the solution is to buy the product that has the features you want, rather than purchasing the wrong thing and then getting mad at everyone because its the wrong thing.
One of the worst thing to happen to political speech is people who think they see 1984 everywhere.
This is a corporate product by a private entity, part of whose attraction is the walled garden aspect. Dont like it? Get one of the other major smartphones out there.
The fact that you think this is remotely similar to 1984 is an indicator that you either havent read the book, or simply didnt understand it.