At least 3 women were there: Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalen, and Salome. Possibly others unnamed as well. I didnt think it was really that hard to figure out, but I hope that answers ONE of your questions.
In case you still dont get it: just because I say "Joe was at the store" doesnt mean that Bob wasnt there as well.
Really? Hilarious. Perhaps you should look up the fallacy and return with something remotely resembling logic instead of a blatant non sequitur.
....
I've already given you a source, there are plenty of biblical scholars who do have integrity.
>implying the scholars I would chose would not fit "with integrity" Yea, see, this is why this discussion is going nowhere. There is no reason to add a subjective qualifier (like "with integrity") to the description "conservative biblical scholars" unless you mean to disqualify any counter examples I would bring to the table. Doing so (saying "any scholar WITH INTEGRITY wouldnt say that") is a classic example of a No True Scotsman.
Your inability to grasp fallacies, and parent's post remarking on Argumentation Ad Naseum, makes me realize just how bad discussion on the internet can be. You make ridiculous claims (like implying that a scholar who denies biblical inerrancy could be called conservative, when that is basically the definition of liberal christianity), and link to fallacious videos, and then on top of it all accuse me of ridicule for pointing it out.
This is one of the reasons I can only take religious arguments on the internet in small doses-- hard hitting arguments would be fine and welcome, but inevitably these discussions bring out the worst examples of fallacy and irrationality. Call it a victory if you like, I dont really see a point to continuing to go back and forth like this.
To try and make still as simple for you as possible, take any major event in the gospels. Say the anointing of the body after the crucifixion. What happened at that event? They can't all be right so which one is?
Ill make this really simple; dont bother responding, because neither I nor the scriptures can make it any clearer than it already is (that is, lucid): Jesus was anointed prior to burial, according to John 19:40. Mark 15:46 confirms that Joseph wrapped Jesus in a burial cloth and buried him, as does Matthew 29:59-60. Luke 24:1 adds that on the first day of the week, some women went down with spices to preserve the body.
If you see a conflict in there, youd have to make it plainer, but I dont think I could answer your question, as it already seems pretty clear. I would recommend you look your question up in a commentary or a study bible if you are truly curious, rather than arguing for the sake of arguing as I suspect.
Of course you may have chosen a field that is in screaming demand or have a family business you can slide into once you get out of school, I don't know you and can can't speak for you. Most people however will have a very hard time finding work after school even with degrees in the right field
Apparently not, with an unemployment rate of about 5% for folks with at least a bachelor's degree. I dont know what school of math you went to, but 1 in 20 doesnt qualify as "most" in my book.
I feel for LimeCat, I'm certain you'll do fine, I just wish that you didn't have to swim the English channel with an anchor on your back. When my Dad got his degree he did it on a VA Loan while taking care of a wife and two children and working two jobs.
I already have a full time job. I got my first job with a crappy AAS in IT and no experience 6 years ago and paid it off (it was a rather expensive, crappy school) a year later, having waited tables to pay the first half off. I will not deny that I was privileged, but for some perverse reason I insisted on paying for both school and car despite my mom's offer to cover both, and did so a year into my first job.
I will not deny that you can be in less than stellar situations and have trouble getting that education-- like perhaps your father. But your father does NOT represent the vast majority of students, nor even the vast majority who end up with gigantic loans. Those are the folks who, perhaps, chose Georgetown with its $40k tuition despite no real plan for a job nor plan to pay it off. Want to gamble? Go to Las Vegas. Want to gamble big? Take out $300k in student loans on the off chance that you will get a high paying lawyer job at the end.
We need to get very clear what our priorities as a society are. If we are interested in serving our future we should perhaps look at taking the necessary actions for creating that. Instead of finding new and more interesting ways to abuse our elderly and children.
We also need to get very clear on what a government is, and is not, supposed to do. Governments can do many things, but most it will do badly.
Clearly you've never read the bible and in particular the gospels.
Thats quite an assumption, and you know what they say about those. One might have read about 3 lines down in my post where I reference specific parts of scripture, but then I suppose if the point is to argue more than it is to learn, reading isnt really relevant. I had understood you had asked for an explanation of the trinity, here I come to discover that you really just wanted to debate indefinitely.
Even the most conservative of biblical scholars with integrity have to admit they agree on very little of the detail.
Um, what? Every study bible and commentary I have ever read, when they address that particular point, make it clear that there are maybe 100 or so individual phrases (dare I even say, "individual words") which are unclear in some way. The gospels support each other to a phenomenal degree, especially when you consider that they were written by different people across a large time span. I would be interested to hear who this large body of conservative biblical scholars is who disagree.
...with integrity....
...Unless you are intending to do a No True Scotsman argument? I would sincerely hope not, I grow weary of fallacies.
Im not clear what you mean by plagarizing, either-- you seem to be implying that if Matthew tells of a scenario in John, it is plagarizing, and if it does not, then it is in conflict, and in no case can they be in agreement. Am I hearing that correctly?
Um yes. You have not established what fallacy he employs.
Association fallacy and appeal to ridicule were the two I saw immediately given the short portion of the video I watched. Can you really be so ignorant of fallacies not to recognize appeals to ridicule in someone's comparison between God and Kim Jong Il?
Wow, now I'm prepared for revelation. I'm read the bible multiple times and found no mention of the trinity anywhere, ever. Not even the slightest allusion to it.
It doesnt use that word. The word trinity, as with other words and phrases such as easter, communion (and as the catholic church might assert, transubstantiation) dont actually appear in the bible; they are shorthand for longer concepts that we DO see clearly.
The clearest explaination I can give of what it all means is simply that there is a single divine eternal being called God (whose name is Yahweh, by some translations) who has three "persons", or roles, in himself.
As for several versions, there are many translations, if thats what you mean, each with their own minor flaws; no translation of Greek / Hebrew to english will ever be 100% perfect, though the most common ones are 99% in agreement.
So exposing the parallels between actions isn't a valid premise for logic and reason?
No more than Godwinning a conversation does. Its like saying "Hitler brushed his teeth, so if you brush your teeth, you must want to murder Jews." That is what is known as a fallacy (several of them in fact). Parallels are useful in analogies, but as arguments in and of themselves, they are bad arguments. What Kim Jong Il and his father do / did are of no relevance whatsoever to the existence of a deity or his power, station, or knowledge.
. I suspect you'd more the like the debate between him and Dinesh D'Souza, a full blown apologist and a bit more adept at the logical gymnastics which come with it.
Let me get this straight. Youre defending Hitchens' use of fallacy, and then accusing me of logical gymnastics? Just to be clear, you can agree with Hitchens' premise without having to defend his poor argumentation.
They dont even have "the same genetic race in common". China is an enormous country that spans a large number of diverse ethnic groups. In many ways, southern Chinese ethnicities are as "genetically chinese" as people from Korea or Vietnam. You might say its a "melting pot", like the US has been called, except that the diversity is indigenous rather than immigrant.
All that said, there ARE certain generalizations you can make about Chinese which even the Chinese make about themselves-- such as identifying themselves with their country (as one told me, when people in the US criticize the Chinese government, its people are liable to take it personally, whereas in the US that is a lot less likely). National identity can play a big role in people's attitudes and thoughts.
In any case you have eventually moved all your correspondence onto GMail. If they started charging for it or shut it down today, or in 5 years time, there would be pain.
Google has never shut down a service with no warning, and it would take a day to pull everything off of Gmail, since they use open standards and provide open access to basically everything.
That right there is basically what matters. If google consistently gives about 6 months (usually more like a year) before killing a service, then all that matters is, "is the money saved by using Google's THE CLOUD more than it would cost to scramble a 6 month migration". For smaller businesses (even up to a few hundred employees), I imagine the answer is "yes"-- migrating your files takes an afternoon and some DNS hijacking as an emergency hack to get things to continue to "just work", and email would maybe take 1-2 weeks to have all mail pulled from google and served up from a local exchange (or your groupware suite of choice) server(s), and maybe another 10 minutes after that to finalize the DNS changes.
Lets consider the actual cost-- If it were all done on consulting work, I imagine the cost for the entire switch (files, mail, users, hardware, licensing, consulting fees) would not exceed $40k (which is being generous, and is assuming 100-200 users). Consider that a good chunk of that cost ($15k or so) would go into hardware that you would need to have anyways, as well as licensing, and then consider that you would also have had to have at least 1 or two employees looking after all of that gear, which adds another $50k per year to the mix, and this whole "cloud" thing starts to make a little more sense.
For the record, Ive done similar migrations for under $20k, hardware included, and it took a few days, and this was on a rather "messy" network.
As for "every right", the world (and its corporations) dont owe you a thing. If google wants to come up with a piece of software that solves world hunger, and then decides to delete the entire git repository, thats their right, and they dont owe it to you to release it.
The sense of entitlement to something you contributed nothing to is staggering.
It was slow because they decided to implement it in javascript and didnt want to release a native client.
Its sad to say, but if Microsoft had released the exact same thing, people would have been all over it because support would have been baked into Outlook 2012, it would have integrated with AD, and it would have been ready to install in Windows server 2008 in about 2 hours.
Google (as is their wont) linked to a page on how to download and install the prereqs, how to compile wave, and how to get it going on apache-- thats wonderful for those who do tech as a hobby, but good luck selling that to your company-- especially when you tell them it will be slow as hell on IE8, theres no native support, and it wont sync over active-sync.
Wave had the potential to be a game changer. Imagine if, instead of having to visit slashdot.org to continue that discussion you were having, you could go to your inbox and see all of your subscribed conversations (subscribed because you posted to the Slashdot comment wave), including ones that you broke off into private 1-on-1 conversations.
Or if instead of having to visit your blog to view people's comments on your latest post, you could open your wave inbox and see all of the comments under a single wave (and they likewise could have it appear in theirs if they desired).
This wasnt a theoretical possibility; I created a test blog with an embedded wave, and you could go to the blog, log in with your google account, and post-- and as you typed it would appear in my inbox.
Everything about it-- except for how it was explained, how it was marketted, and its proliferation-- were better than email. Better security (which should have severely curtailed spam), richer features, and whats more everything it could do was a super-set of SMTP; so corporate servers could be set to just function as "SMTP over Wave" servers.
Imagine if you no longer needed MSN messenger or Yahoo or BBIM to talk with your work contacts (as many people do these days), but could instead just chat over your corporate messaging service, even between organizations....
Im going to be charitable and assume you are not a troll.
Netflix should be taxed like tobacco and liquor: it's a destructive, disease causing force causing people to fall to pieces.
Part of freedom means the freedom to make your own mistakes and run your own life. I could probably look at your life, were it all visible to me, and see several areas where you could do much much better, but that is in no way a good reason for me to have executive control of your life-- that would in fact be one of the worse crimes, slavery.
So go ahead and encourage people to live better, to exercise more. Tell them the dangers of a sedentary life. But encouraging the government to step in and start regulating how people live is always dangerous business, and makes me deeply uneasy. Its really not their place to determine what lifestyles are "better" and "worse", but to determine what laws need to be in place in order to hold society together. And as long as people need to hold a job to support their lifestyle, I do not see "being sedentary" as a big risk to society.
You know what makes you seem really clever? When you make broad (implied all christians), vague (unclear who you mean by christian-- several groups use that name), sweeping generalizations with nothing to ground them in.
He might be the worlds biggest humanitarian and still be a personally unpleasant person to talk to. The segment you linked was essentially 5 minutes of fallacious ridicule with no rational basis, just that he found various religious ideas silly.
You want to know my problem with his video? He objects to an omnipotent omniscient judge because it reminds him of North Korea, never mind that, rationally speaking, omniscience and omnipotence are requirements for perfect justice; he objects to the trinity basically because he doesnt understand it and he finds it to be a hilarious parallel to Kim Jong Il's dead father being the head of the government. Thats about as far as I got before I realized that life is too short to spend watching athiests make accusations that are neither civil nor grounded in reason, which have all been addressed by apologists over the last 2000 years. The video (at least what I saw) was more reminiscent of a comedy club (always bastions of powerfully logical argument, right?) than of a carefully thought out speech. It reminds me more of the type of reasoning one would find on 4chan than what one would expect from an intellectual.
I really dont get this. I dont think atheists are stupid, but when the brightest of them get into a discussion on religion they seem unable to refrain from sinking into the worst of fallacies, and others seem to applaud them as brilliant for doing so (see the article from several weeks back where Jerry Coyne makes a gigantic ass of himself attacking professor John Haught with several fallacies in what was supposed to be a simple talk on "heres what I believe"). You all realize that this doesnt convince anyone, right? It just makes you look militant and irrational.
Im kind of suprised you are proud of that segment, its about the worst argument or complaint against God Ive ever heard. He follows it up with ridicule and strawmen-- what a thoughtful and pleasant man.
Once again, the biggest argument that springs up in my mind whenever I ask myself "Why NOT raise taxes" is "has the government been responsible with what theyve been given?"
Since the answer is no, I cant think of a good reason for entrusting more to them.
You have to put this into context... Students around the country are being priced out of an education, while banks are getting filthy rich enslaving entire generations of young people with crushing debt attempting to chase the American Dream.
Soooooo, the banks are in league with the schools?
Forget that, how about this. Im going to solve all the school finance problems of all students everywhere, since they appear unable to make a reasonable choice of where to go to college and how to finance it.
1) Find a state with a good school that offers good Community College choices and in state tuition. Virginia is a really good choice here, it has excellent schools (GMU, JMU, UVA, VA Tech), and excellent freshman and sophmore options.
2) Begin attending the community college while establishing residency. Your second year of community college should be in-state tuition, and all of those credits are probably a ton cheaper than the 4 year college anyways.
3) Transfer into your chosen college (Virginia offers guarenteed admission for at least some schools for community college students in good academic standing who complete 2 years) as a junior.
4) Enjoy graduating with a 4 year degree for under $40,000, maybe $60-70k if you include rent (I think all told I will have spent $40,000 between school and housing). Thats about $10k per year, which is doable with 3-4 days a week waiting tables.
And honestly, looking at UC Davis' fees / tuition, its really not that high for in-state-- its about $400 / credit, which is not that bad at all.
At the end of the day, if the school you want to go to is too expensive, you can always find another school. There are thousands across the country, I promise. Going to a school you cant afford isnt noble, its irresponsible, and people need to start acting a lot more responsible these days.
Re:Has anyone actually made any worthwhile with th
on
Doom 3 Source Released
·
· Score: 1
I feel like the level design is more due to the way the teams work-- a wide open space a-la wake island would result in the aliens getting torn to pieces. The game lends itself far more to closed in maps.
Re:Has anyone actually made any worthwhile with th
on
Doom 3 Source Released
·
· Score: 2
Its not based around vehicles, and its not a straight up FPS. It is similar in some ways to TF2, but probably the closest thing to it is Command and Conquer: Renegade (a FPS / RTS hybrid).
One of its charming unique aspects is the versatility of the aliens-- being able to play a wall-crawling headcrab or a gigantic trampling monstrosity is always a lot of fun, and it feels really balanced-- a good character can use the weakest weapons and still dominate.
There are reasons to play Battlefield, or TF2, but theyre different sorts of games-- Battlefield (at least BF2) emphasizes the team aspect to an unusual degree with coordination, while TF2 seems to focus on pairs of people on a smaller scale. Tremulous focuses instead on fast-paced action like unreal with a fortress-building aspect.
Re:Has anyone actually made any worthwhile with th
on
Doom 3 Source Released
·
· Score: 1
I came here to post because of tremulous.
Be nice if this could turn into something similar.
Slashdot Mirror
Employers also get a huge number of applicants. Quickly reducing that number by simple filtering-- degree, certs, etc-- narrows the list quite a bit.
By the way, its thanksgiving, Im not going to continue this discussion. Im sorry if I was short, arguing on the internet is rarely a good idea.
Hope you have a pleasant thanksgiving.
At least 3 women were there: Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalen, and Salome. Possibly others unnamed as well. I didnt think it was really that hard to figure out, but I hope that answers ONE of your questions.
In case you still dont get it: just because I say "Joe was at the store" doesnt mean that Bob wasnt there as well.
No True Scotsman
Really? Hilarious. Perhaps you should look up the fallacy and return with something remotely resembling logic instead of a blatant non sequitur.
....
I've already given you a source, there are plenty of biblical scholars who do have integrity.
>implying the scholars I would chose would not fit "with integrity"
Yea, see, this is why this discussion is going nowhere. There is no reason to add a subjective qualifier (like "with integrity") to the description "conservative biblical scholars" unless you mean to disqualify any counter examples I would bring to the table. Doing so (saying "any scholar WITH INTEGRITY wouldnt say that") is a classic example of a No True Scotsman.
Your inability to grasp fallacies, and parent's post remarking on Argumentation Ad Naseum, makes me realize just how bad discussion on the internet can be. You make ridiculous claims (like implying that a scholar who denies biblical inerrancy could be called conservative, when that is basically the definition of liberal christianity), and link to fallacious videos, and then on top of it all accuse me of ridicule for pointing it out.
This is one of the reasons I can only take religious arguments on the internet in small doses-- hard hitting arguments would be fine and welcome, but inevitably these discussions bring out the worst examples of fallacy and irrationality. Call it a victory if you like, I dont really see a point to continuing to go back and forth like this.
To try and make still as simple for you as possible, take any major event in the gospels. Say the anointing of the body after the crucifixion. What happened at that event? They can't all be right so which one is?
Ill make this really simple; dont bother responding, because neither I nor the scriptures can make it any clearer than it already is (that is, lucid):
Jesus was anointed prior to burial, according to John 19:40. Mark 15:46 confirms that Joseph wrapped Jesus in a burial cloth and buried him, as does Matthew 29:59-60. Luke 24:1 adds that on the first day of the week, some women went down with spices to preserve the body.
If you see a conflict in there, youd have to make it plainer, but I dont think I could answer your question, as it already seems pretty clear. I would recommend you look your question up in a commentary or a study bible if you are truly curious, rather than arguing for the sake of arguing as I suspect.
Of course you may have chosen a field that is in screaming demand or have a family business you can slide into once you get out of school, I don't know you and can can't speak for you. Most people however will have a very hard time finding work after school even with degrees in the right field
Apparently not, with an unemployment rate of about 5% for folks with at least a bachelor's degree. I dont know what school of math you went to, but 1 in 20 doesnt qualify as "most" in my book.
I feel for LimeCat, I'm certain you'll do fine, I just wish that you didn't have to swim the English channel with an anchor on your back. When my Dad got his degree he did it on a VA Loan while taking care of a wife and two children and working two jobs.
I already have a full time job. I got my first job with a crappy AAS in IT and no experience 6 years ago and paid it off (it was a rather expensive, crappy school) a year later, having waited tables to pay the first half off. I will not deny that I was privileged, but for some perverse reason I insisted on paying for both school and car despite my mom's offer to cover both, and did so a year into my first job.
I will not deny that you can be in less than stellar situations and have trouble getting that education-- like perhaps your father. But your father does NOT represent the vast majority of students, nor even the vast majority who end up with gigantic loans. Those are the folks who, perhaps, chose Georgetown with its $40k tuition despite no real plan for a job nor plan to pay it off. Want to gamble? Go to Las Vegas. Want to gamble big? Take out $300k in student loans on the off chance that you will get a high paying lawyer job at the end.
We need to get very clear what our priorities as a society are. If we are interested in serving our future we should perhaps look at taking the necessary actions for creating that. Instead of finding new and more interesting ways to abuse our elderly and children.
We also need to get very clear on what a government is, and is not, supposed to do. Governments can do many things, but most it will do badly.
Clearly you've never read the bible and in particular the gospels.
Thats quite an assumption, and you know what they say about those. One might have read about 3 lines down in my post where I reference specific parts of scripture, but then I suppose if the point is to argue more than it is to learn, reading isnt really relevant. I had understood you had asked for an explanation of the trinity, here I come to discover that you really just wanted to debate indefinitely.
Even the most conservative of biblical scholars with integrity have to admit they agree on very little of the detail.
Um, what? Every study bible and commentary I have ever read, when they address that particular point, make it clear that there are maybe 100 or so individual phrases (dare I even say, "individual words") which are unclear in some way. The gospels support each other to a phenomenal degree, especially when you consider that they were written by different people across a large time span. I would be interested to hear who this large body of conservative biblical scholars is who disagree.
...with integrity....
...Unless you are intending to do a No True Scotsman argument? I would sincerely hope not, I grow weary of fallacies.
Im not clear what you mean by plagarizing, either-- you seem to be implying that if Matthew tells of a scenario in John, it is plagarizing, and if it does not, then it is in conflict, and in no case can they be in agreement. Am I hearing that correctly?
Um yes. You have not established what fallacy he employs.
Association fallacy and appeal to ridicule were the two I saw immediately given the short portion of the video I watched. Can you really be so ignorant of fallacies not to recognize appeals to ridicule in someone's comparison between God and Kim Jong Il?
Wow, now I'm prepared for revelation. I'm read the bible multiple times and found no mention of the trinity anywhere, ever. Not even the slightest allusion to it.
It doesnt use that word. The word trinity, as with other words and phrases such as easter, communion (and as the catholic church might assert, transubstantiation) dont actually appear in the bible; they are shorthand for longer concepts that we DO see clearly.
If you look through the new testament, you see very clearly that there are references to roles of a "father", of a "son" in a relationship to the "father", and a "spirit" in a relationship with the other two. All three are considered to be divine, and to be God, and monotheism is affirmed many many times (even by Jesus himself, who calls himself both "the son" whose role is to do the will of "the father", and also identifies himself as one in being with "the father"-- Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father').
The clearest explaination I can give of what it all means is simply that there is a single divine eternal being called God (whose name is Yahweh, by some translations) who has three "persons", or roles, in himself.
As for several versions, there are many translations, if thats what you mean, each with their own minor flaws; no translation of Greek / Hebrew to english will ever be 100% perfect, though the most common ones are 99% in agreement.
So exposing the parallels between actions isn't a valid premise for logic and reason?
No more than Godwinning a conversation does. Its like saying "Hitler brushed his teeth, so if you brush your teeth, you must want to murder Jews." That is what is known as a fallacy (several of them in fact). Parallels are useful in analogies, but as arguments in and of themselves, they are bad arguments. What Kim Jong Il and his father do / did are of no relevance whatsoever to the existence of a deity or his power, station, or knowledge.
. I suspect you'd more the like the debate between him and Dinesh D'Souza, a full blown apologist and a bit more adept at the logical gymnastics which come with it.
Let me get this straight. Youre defending Hitchens' use of fallacy, and then accusing me of logical gymnastics? Just to be clear, you can agree with Hitchens' premise without having to defend his poor argumentation.
They dont even have "the same genetic race in common". China is an enormous country that spans a large number of diverse ethnic groups. In many ways, southern Chinese ethnicities are as "genetically chinese" as people from Korea or Vietnam. You might say its a "melting pot", like the US has been called, except that the diversity is indigenous rather than immigrant.
All that said, there ARE certain generalizations you can make about Chinese which even the Chinese make about themselves-- such as identifying themselves with their country (as one told me, when people in the US criticize the Chinese government, its people are liable to take it personally, whereas in the US that is a lot less likely). National identity can play a big role in people's attitudes and thoughts.
In any case you have eventually moved all your correspondence onto GMail. If they started charging for it or shut it down today, or in 5 years time, there would be pain.
Google has never shut down a service with no warning, and it would take a day to pull everything off of Gmail, since they use open standards and provide open access to basically everything.
Yes it is more work and more money.
That right there is basically what matters. If google consistently gives about 6 months (usually more like a year) before killing a service, then all that matters is, "is the money saved by using Google's THE CLOUD more than it would cost to scramble a 6 month migration". For smaller businesses (even up to a few hundred employees), I imagine the answer is "yes"-- migrating your files takes an afternoon and some DNS hijacking as an emergency hack to get things to continue to "just work", and email would maybe take 1-2 weeks to have all mail pulled from google and served up from a local exchange (or your groupware suite of choice) server(s), and maybe another 10 minutes after that to finalize the DNS changes.
Lets consider the actual cost-- If it were all done on consulting work, I imagine the cost for the entire switch (files, mail, users, hardware, licensing, consulting fees) would not exceed $40k (which is being generous, and is assuming 100-200 users). Consider that a good chunk of that cost ($15k or so) would go into hardware that you would need to have anyways, as well as licensing, and then consider that you would also have had to have at least 1 or two employees looking after all of that gear, which adds another $50k per year to the mix, and this whole "cloud" thing starts to make a little more sense.
For the record, Ive done similar migrations for under $20k, hardware included, and it took a few days, and this was on a rather "messy" network.
The source code for wave at least IS out there.
As for "every right", the world (and its corporations) dont owe you a thing. If google wants to come up with a piece of software that solves world hunger, and then decides to delete the entire git repository, thats their right, and they dont owe it to you to release it.
The sense of entitlement to something you contributed nothing to is staggering.
It was slow because they decided to implement it in javascript and didnt want to release a native client.
Its sad to say, but if Microsoft had released the exact same thing, people would have been all over it because support would have been baked into Outlook 2012, it would have integrated with AD, and it would have been ready to install in Windows server 2008 in about 2 hours.
Google (as is their wont) linked to a page on how to download and install the prereqs, how to compile wave, and how to get it going on apache-- thats wonderful for those who do tech as a hobby, but good luck selling that to your company-- especially when you tell them it will be slow as hell on IE8, theres no native support, and it wont sync over active-sync.
Wave had the potential to be a game changer. Imagine if, instead of having to visit slashdot.org to continue that discussion you were having, you could go to your inbox and see all of your subscribed conversations (subscribed because you posted to the Slashdot comment wave), including ones that you broke off into private 1-on-1 conversations.
Or if instead of having to visit your blog to view people's comments on your latest post, you could open your wave inbox and see all of the comments under a single wave (and they likewise could have it appear in theirs if they desired).
This wasnt a theoretical possibility; I created a test blog with an embedded wave, and you could go to the blog, log in with your google account, and post-- and as you typed it would appear in my inbox.
Everything about it-- except for how it was explained, how it was marketted, and its proliferation-- were better than email. Better security (which should have severely curtailed spam), richer features, and whats more everything it could do was a super-set of SMTP; so corporate servers could be set to just function as "SMTP over Wave" servers.
Imagine if you no longer needed MSN messenger or Yahoo or BBIM to talk with your work contacts (as many people do these days), but could instead just chat over your corporate messaging service, even between organizations....
I hope that clears up some of what the point was.
Im going to be charitable and assume you are not a troll.
Netflix should be taxed like tobacco and liquor: it's a destructive, disease causing force causing people to fall to pieces.
Part of freedom means the freedom to make your own mistakes and run your own life. I could probably look at your life, were it all visible to me, and see several areas where you could do much much better, but that is in no way a good reason for me to have executive control of your life-- that would in fact be one of the worse crimes, slavery.
So go ahead and encourage people to live better, to exercise more. Tell them the dangers of a sedentary life. But encouraging the government to step in and start regulating how people live is always dangerous business, and makes me deeply uneasy. Its really not their place to determine what lifestyles are "better" and "worse", but to determine what laws need to be in place in order to hold society together. And as long as people need to hold a job to support their lifestyle, I do not see "being sedentary" as a big risk to society.
You know what makes you seem really clever? When you make broad (implied all christians), vague (unclear who you mean by christian-- several groups use that name), sweeping generalizations with nothing to ground them in.
He might be the worlds biggest humanitarian and still be a personally unpleasant person to talk to. The segment you linked was essentially 5 minutes of fallacious ridicule with no rational basis, just that he found various religious ideas silly.
You want to know my problem with his video? He objects to an omnipotent omniscient judge because it reminds him of North Korea, never mind that, rationally speaking, omniscience and omnipotence are requirements for perfect justice; he objects to the trinity basically because he doesnt understand it and he finds it to be a hilarious parallel to Kim Jong Il's dead father being the head of the government. Thats about as far as I got before I realized that life is too short to spend watching athiests make accusations that are neither civil nor grounded in reason, which have all been addressed by apologists over the last 2000 years. The video (at least what I saw) was more reminiscent of a comedy club (always bastions of powerfully logical argument, right?) than of a carefully thought out speech. It reminds me more of the type of reasoning one would find on 4chan than what one would expect from an intellectual.
I really dont get this. I dont think atheists are stupid, but when the brightest of them get into a discussion on religion they seem unable to refrain from sinking into the worst of fallacies, and others seem to applaud them as brilliant for doing so (see the article from several weeks back where Jerry Coyne makes a gigantic ass of himself attacking professor John Haught with several fallacies in what was supposed to be a simple talk on "heres what I believe"). You all realize that this doesnt convince anyone, right? It just makes you look militant and irrational.
I spent about 10 minutes looking for "US Mass murder Iraq" and digging on wikipedia around the same subject with no luck.
But you know what they say about assumptions. Maybe we've all learned something here today.
Im kind of suprised you are proud of that segment, its about the worst argument or complaint against God Ive ever heard. He follows it up with ridicule and strawmen-- what a thoughtful and pleasant man.
Once again, the biggest argument that springs up in my mind whenever I ask myself "Why NOT raise taxes" is "has the government been responsible with what theyve been given?"
Since the answer is no, I cant think of a good reason for entrusting more to them.
You have to put this into context... Students around the country are being priced out of an education, while banks are getting filthy rich enslaving entire generations of young people with crushing debt attempting to chase the American Dream.
Soooooo, the banks are in league with the schools?
Forget that, how about this. Im going to solve all the school finance problems of all students everywhere, since they appear unable to make a reasonable choice of where to go to college and how to finance it.
1) Find a state with a good school that offers good Community College choices and in state tuition. Virginia is a really good choice here, it has excellent schools (GMU, JMU, UVA, VA Tech), and excellent freshman and sophmore options.
2) Begin attending the community college while establishing residency. Your second year of community college should be in-state tuition, and all of those credits are probably a ton cheaper than the 4 year college anyways.
3) Transfer into your chosen college (Virginia offers guarenteed admission for at least some schools for community college students in good academic standing who complete 2 years) as a junior.
4) Enjoy graduating with a 4 year degree for under $40,000, maybe $60-70k if you include rent (I think all told I will have spent $40,000 between school and housing). Thats about $10k per year, which is doable with 3-4 days a week waiting tables.
And honestly, looking at UC Davis' fees / tuition, its really not that high for in-state-- its about $400 / credit, which is not that bad at all.
At the end of the day, if the school you want to go to is too expensive, you can always find another school. There are thousands across the country, I promise. Going to a school you cant afford isnt noble, its irresponsible, and people need to start acting a lot more responsible these days.
I feel like the level design is more due to the way the teams work-- a wide open space a-la wake island would result in the aliens getting torn to pieces. The game lends itself far more to closed in maps.
Its not based around vehicles, and its not a straight up FPS. It is similar in some ways to TF2, but probably the closest thing to it is Command and Conquer: Renegade (a FPS / RTS hybrid).
One of its charming unique aspects is the versatility of the aliens-- being able to play a wall-crawling headcrab or a gigantic trampling monstrosity is always a lot of fun, and it feels really balanced-- a good character can use the weakest weapons and still dominate.
There are reasons to play Battlefield, or TF2, but theyre different sorts of games-- Battlefield (at least BF2) emphasizes the team aspect to an unusual degree with coordination, while TF2 seems to focus on pairs of people on a smaller scale. Tremulous focuses instead on fast-paced action like unreal with a fortress-building aspect.
I came here to post because of tremulous.
Be nice if this could turn into something similar.
Knowing the protocol isnt enough; one does not simply text into Mordor.
His high UID combined with a clearly trollish statement means he might not be the idiot here. Yall are postin in a troll thread.