Sounds like someone who's jaded that they never got through school.
Just because someone has a masters doesn't mean that they got it from a good school. I know a number of schools that suck ass when it comes to computer science. Yes, I admit this. Was I referring to this when I made my statement? No.
Instead of applying what you know of one grad to the entire computer science degreed community, perhaps you should consider the source. If someone managed to get a CS degree without knowing what ports were, one must wonder two things: 1. Does this person actually have the credentials that they say they do, and 2. Where the hell did this person go to college?
I went to a school that wouldn't pass you if you didn't know anything or work hard. I apply this expectation to all CS grads. What I said was not bs... you just happened to be confronted with someone who has a BS in bs, and not a BS in CS.
Even in those simple rudimentary application jobs, it's a good idea to have at least one resident CS degreed individual. There is always going to be that one time where something very strange has happened, or is happening, and none of those certified people are going to know how to diagnose or approach the problem. Instead of being down for a day, that downtime might be minimized to a matter of minutes.
Then again, you should also look at computer science majors like you would that rabbit's foot on your keychain. You may never know if having it is really effective, but it sure doesn't hurt to have one. You never know... maybe luck is a serious matter.
Jon is the legendary programmer of such classic PC games as Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke nukem 3d, Quake 1, 2, and 3, unreal, and the upcoming doom3
He didn't do Unreal. That engine was done by Epic, and written by Tim Sweeney, I believe. Look here for his rap sheet. Jon is probably the one responsible for the FPS genre, but don't go assigning credit for non-Jon excellent engines to Jon. AFAIK, Unreal used DirectX too.
I never really expect any sort of interesting game to come out of ID, I do expect an interesting engine + modding oppurtunities. Look at ID's history, and you'll realize that this "contrived" spookiness is actually a whole lot better than what they used to do.
Lessee.
Command Keen Series: good game, funny... toy.
Wolfenstein 3D: Bust out of jail, grab guns, kill nazis and get treasure. Fairly simple. Great graphics for the time, simple story.
Doom & Doom 2: Try to escape mars (or save the Earth) by grabbing guns and armor and killing demons. Even includes hell. Great graphics for the time, yawn of a story.
Quake: 3-D accelerated, Run around and grab guns and armor, kill monsters. Differences between this and Doom are - engine, types of weapons, lack of "hell" plot.
Quake 2: Even better version of Quake, with a little bit more story. Mostly, though, it is trying to escape a level. Nothing new.
Quake 3: Drop the pretense of a single-player game completely. Showcase a fantastic new engine, and allow us to use various combinations of armor and guns to kill eachother.
Doom 3:... you get the picture.
Never, ever expect ID to come out with a game that has a remotely interesting storyline. You don't get drawn into their games, you get wowed by the technical prowess of the engine... then you wait around for the modding community to grow. That's how Quake is, that's how the old doom is, and it's how Doom 3 is going to be. ID's livelihood is the engines they make. Other great games get built on those (RTCW, Alice, HL).
I purchase the game because I have $50, because I want to play around with the level tools, and because I want to show support for ID. ID is one of the tops in companies that have an impact on innovation. Sales of Doom 3 drive sales of high-end graphics cards, the programming of Doom 3 probably resulted in well rounded stable drivers, yada.
It was the first game that I've played, at least, that let you have more control of who your character is, and what you could do. I'm one for sneaking around and using a sniper rifle, which you can do in Deus Ex. Others may be more inclined to be heavy weapons experts, explosives experts, etc.
The other thing is that you get a whole lot more of the storyline if you choose to excel in hacking. That's one of the first instances where the areas that you choose to excel in really affect the overall game experience. Heck, all of the different combinations of the body-mods affected the game a whole lot too.
The kernel source code may contain - what you unjustifiably call bloat - but that "bloat" isn't being used by your system at runtime if you don't have a need for that particular part of the kernel.
Hell, to take it one step further, if you compile your own kernel, those "bloat" features don't even get included in the kernel. That's why you see little things in the configuration "notes" that say things like "results in a smaller kernel..." and "choosing this will have no effect if you don't use it, but your kernel will be bigger."
It's not bloat if you have control over what gets included and what does not. I have gnome installed, sure. That doesn't mean that I have to have the gnome-games installed, or run it with Metacity, etc. I run gnome with enlightenment as the wm, sans nautilus, because I dislike using nautilus. An install progam for an 800 mb application package that has 4 installation options (full, not full, and minimal) is indicative of bloatware. I.e. I install Windows and automatically get a pinball game, notepad, IE, OE, 10,000 services, and a sleiu of other applications. And there aren't really any install options. (The argument against is the bits & peices windows installation that you can create through MSDN, but that's mostly for OEM's and huge companies).
This type of program doesn't apply at all to the Linux kernel. The GPL is strange, in that instead of signing control of a copyright to a singular entity, you keep it... but what you wrote is "free." Free as in, you can't dictate to other people what to do with your copyrighted code, with exception of enforcement of the GPL. You've agreed to allow everyone to modify it, copy it, sell it, barf on it, etc.
The Kernel does have a group of controlling entities, most obviously Linus. Then comes all of the branch maintainers. Other than that, the "official" linux branches don't get modified without their approval.
The appearance of SCO would have affected Linux regardless of what license they are using. If IBM signed over the copyright to Linus, then SCO would still sue them. If someone decided to sign over copyrighted code written by me to someone else, I'd probably be upset too. Then again, SCO doesn't own any of the code that was placed into Linux, so the point is moot.
I dunno... I just looked up "ATI 9800XT," and the first result was product info from ati.com, the second-fifth were product reviews from various sites. The first "shopping" site, which wasn't an actual store, was at the very bottom of the first page.
Patents cost a bit of money, but nothing that is prohibitive enough to prevent an entity from submitting several thousand patent applications. Here is my idea:
Keep the initial cost the same, be it $100 or $1000 an application (I have no idea how much). If the idea is found to be original and non-obvious, then the patent is awarded, yada yada yada.
If the idea is found to have prior art, is obvious, or could be created by a natural process, then a fine should be levied. We'll say $5,000 a failed application, for the "waste of time" of the workers of the patent office. An additional $5,000 can be levied for every application that is illegible, or written in such a way that it could cover a broad range of things (ie, this process covers all entities, movements, and processes which don't not fall into the realm of physical and mental states.). Malicious pantents could be considered a capital crime, calling for the heads of the submitters (yes, extreme is nice sometimes).
This will end up benefitting the private enterprises and small people, since they're the types that will spend a couple thousand, and put time into research that the idea is original... non-obviousness should be obvious (unfortunately, everything is non-obvious to USPTO employees). This will be prohibitive to those huge conglomerations that try to mass-patent everything in existance with tens of thousands of patent applications. If 1,000 of them are rejected, then the fine is around $5 mil.
Lastly, if a patent is revoked, then the entity that filed the patent should be held accountable for the blockage of progress by society in general, and be legally and financially liable.
Probably not. The advantage that sound cards have over integrated stuff is that the integrated stuff uses CPU power. The PCI cards have full fledged DSP's on them, and the drivers usually offload a lot of work to the card (hardware acceleration). This advantage is slowly going away, since CPU's are so massively powerful nowadays, and noticeable sound quality only gets so good.
I can write a new notation on a napkin or a webpage, that doesn't make it correct. Only widespread acceptance can do that. And outside of a few engaging in debates regarding the subject on slashdot, nobody has accepted it.
Look here for info...
To tell the truth, I think that in order for it to be "accepted," it has to be inducted into some French museum, and correlated in some way to a KG sized bar of silver, or something.
Being widespread doesn't make right. There is a widespread use of "your" in place of "you're" and "axe" in place of "ask." Neither of these usages is correct, but they have widespread acceptance.
It's fleecing because it's (the music's) only purpose is to sell records. It used to be that songs would be written to express some sort of feeling, or message... and that's where the value came in. Now, it's just the name selling the record, which is full of fluff.
You'd figure that it's all in the title of the Pumpkin's last album. The truth is that, though Billy Corgan loved the idea of free music, the band was only allowed to release it on-line after Virgin decided that they wouldn't make any money on it.
As it is, though the album has some great music on it, it is rough... very rough. Given the sales of Machina, which didn't exactly reach the figures that they wanted, F&E was released for free as high quality mp3's.
So, is U2 the friend, or the enemy of modern music? Is "modern" music that which is envisioned by the likes of Corgan, where expression is free in it's entirety, or is it that which rakes in the cash? I'd say that it's the former, since that's where the real expression comes out. U2's last album was somewhat of a whore for sales... it sounded nice and poppy, none of it was objectionable or edgy... and it sold a lot of copies. U2 is showing their true colors, now, by fleecing us with their name. Their music isn't special anymore, it doesn't have the content anymore, it's just meaningless pandering to the "modern music" crowds.
I have a GeForce 5900FX card, with a large-ish heat sink, and heat sinks on the RAM chips too. I have a zahlman butterfly heatsink on my CPU, with one of them big 80mm fans blowing on it.
My rig is pretty quiet. The refridgerator in my room is louder than all of my components in my computer.
Bitch, bitch, bitch. If you have such problems with the way that Linux maintains the kernel, I suggest that you fork it and do your own development of it using your own numbering.
Besides, you use 2.2.x & 2.4.x Why does it matter to you what happens in the 2.6.x branch?
I wouldn't say that it's just one game. Doom 3 is the first child in the new generation of OpenGL games (I think that UT2004 may compete on the DirectX front). A lot of future games are going to use the Doom 3 engine, just like a lot of current games use the Quake 3 engine (think RTCW, Medal Of Honor, etc).
You're upgrading for the new generation of games. I'm pretty sure that the minimum requirements for UT2004 are fairly steep (maybe not as steep), and if you want a new fancy game in two years, you'll need that hardware. If you don't think you will, then don't upgrade.
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone?
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
That really wouldn't work with Christanity, I guess. Here's one of the most confusing passages by Paul, but it clearly explains this "As long as I do good things, I'll be ok" attitude:
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. (KJV - Romans 7:14-21)
Basically, what you do doesn't matter, if you are without Christ. You are born into sin, and every action that you do, whether you think it good or not, is a slight against God because of your sinful nature. There's no path into heaven that can be walked by virtue of works alone.
The other thing is that Christianity is an exclusive religion. It matters what you believe in. If you are not a Christian, then you will not be saved. It's tough for many Christians to even accept that. So, taking the "Christian" car up the road doesn't really get you anywhere. The only way that you can is if God pulls the car up for you. According to Christian belief, he has already done so.
Sorry. It irks me when people say "If I do good things, then good things happen," or whatever. What if what I see as bad is good in your eyes? Things that we see as evil, such as incest and conjuring things, were not evil among other cultures and other religions.
I don't think the quote refers to a belief in God. It refers to belief in me, and what I can do. Therefore, if you think that I'm a dreamer about what I want to do, I say that you're a non-believer.
...Never thought that I'd ever have to explain a sig. Perhaps it's time for a change.
The interesting thing about Christianity is that you are expected to fail at acting like a Christian. In fact, it's impossible to completely live your life following the path Christ laid out for you. Everything we do is tainted by who we are, and since we are not God, everything we willingly do is wrong.
The point of Christianity is love and forgiveness, not actions of piety. Of course, being pious is great thing, probably in any religion, but that isn't the point of Christianity. So, are sinful Christians superficial? The only thing that is required for a Christian is the belief that Jesus Christ is the living son of God, and that he was sacrificed in our place for our sins.
And even that belief is something that a human cannot choose to believe, rather, it is also a gift that God has given to us.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
How about communism? Even though that's a political philosophy, it essentially is a religion as well. There have been far more deaths attributed to that, or whatever twisted version it is that Mao and Stalin followed.
The theology there is flawed, on your end. The original story should read as other posters have put, "God forbid Adam from eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Then again, the first "sin" itself is debatable:
God told Adam not to eat the fruit. Adam told Eve not to eat or touch the fruit.
Eve's sin was the decision to eat the fruit, not the actual eating of the fruit.
You might also want to put in the verse before that: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
The sin was desiring to be like God. Not only was it "knowledge," but it was also power. The original sin, the one that causes us to be born into death, is the innate human desire to be in total control of one's universe.
Now, the "knowledge" portrayed here is definitely scientific knowledge. Science has no concept of good or evil, because both of those are subjective values. They cannot be measured, and need to be defined by a religion or philosophy. Thinking that this knowledge is the same as science is complete foolishness, with regards to science. The only judgement within science is empiracle judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like someone who's jaded that they never got through school.
Just because someone has a masters doesn't mean that they got it from a good school. I know a number of schools that suck ass when it comes to computer science. Yes, I admit this. Was I referring to this when I made my statement? No.
Instead of applying what you know of one grad to the entire computer science degreed community, perhaps you should consider the source. If someone managed to get a CS degree without knowing what ports were, one must wonder two things: 1. Does this person actually have the credentials that they say they do, and 2. Where the hell did this person go to college?
I went to a school that wouldn't pass you if you didn't know anything or work hard. I apply this expectation to all CS grads. What I said was not bs... you just happened to be confronted with someone who has a BS in bs, and not a BS in CS.
Even in those simple rudimentary application jobs, it's a good idea to have at least one resident CS degreed individual. There is always going to be that one time where something very strange has happened, or is happening, and none of those certified people are going to know how to diagnose or approach the problem. Instead of being down for a day, that downtime might be minimized to a matter of minutes.
Then again, you should also look at computer science majors like you would that rabbit's foot on your keychain. You may never know if having it is really effective, but it sure doesn't hurt to have one. You never know... maybe luck is a serious matter.
Jon is the legendary programmer of such classic PC games as Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke nukem 3d, Quake 1, 2, and 3, unreal, and the upcoming doom3
He didn't do Unreal. That engine was done by Epic, and written by Tim Sweeney, I believe. Look here for his rap sheet. Jon is probably the one responsible for the FPS genre, but don't go assigning credit for non-Jon excellent engines to Jon. AFAIK, Unreal used DirectX too.
IDSPISPOPD. That's what I used, in addition to IDKFA
I never really expect any sort of interesting game to come out of ID, I do expect an interesting engine + modding oppurtunities. Look at ID's history, and you'll realize that this "contrived" spookiness is actually a whole lot better than what they used to do.
Lessee.
Never, ever expect ID to come out with a game that has a remotely interesting storyline. You don't get drawn into their games, you get wowed by the technical prowess of the engine... then you wait around for the modding community to grow. That's how Quake is, that's how the old doom is, and it's how Doom 3 is going to be. ID's livelihood is the engines they make. Other great games get built on those (RTCW, Alice, HL).
I purchase the game because I have $50, because I want to play around with the level tools, and because I want to show support for ID. ID is one of the tops in companies that have an impact on innovation. Sales of Doom 3 drive sales of high-end graphics cards, the programming of Doom 3 probably resulted in well rounded stable drivers, yada.
Deus Ex 1. That was a special game.
It was the first game that I've played, at least, that let you have more control of who your character is, and what you could do. I'm one for sneaking around and using a sniper rifle, which you can do in Deus Ex. Others may be more inclined to be heavy weapons experts, explosives experts, etc.
The other thing is that you get a whole lot more of the storyline if you choose to excel in hacking. That's one of the first instances where the areas that you choose to excel in really affect the overall game experience. Heck, all of the different combinations of the body-mods affected the game a whole lot too.
The kernel source code may contain - what you unjustifiably call bloat - but that "bloat" isn't being used by your system at runtime if you don't have a need for that particular part of the kernel.
Hell, to take it one step further, if you compile your own kernel, those "bloat" features don't even get included in the kernel. That's why you see little things in the configuration "notes" that say things like "results in a smaller kernel..." and "choosing this will have no effect if you don't use it, but your kernel will be bigger."
It's not bloat if you have control over what gets included and what does not. I have gnome installed, sure. That doesn't mean that I have to have the gnome-games installed, or run it with Metacity, etc. I run gnome with enlightenment as the wm, sans nautilus, because I dislike using nautilus. An install progam for an 800 mb application package that has 4 installation options (full, not full, and minimal) is indicative of bloatware. I.e. I install Windows and automatically get a pinball game, notepad, IE, OE, 10,000 services, and a sleiu of other applications. And there aren't really any install options. (The argument against is the bits & peices windows installation that you can create through MSDN, but that's mostly for OEM's and huge companies).
This type of program doesn't apply at all to the Linux kernel. The GPL is strange, in that instead of signing control of a copyright to a singular entity, you keep it... but what you wrote is "free." Free as in, you can't dictate to other people what to do with your copyrighted code, with exception of enforcement of the GPL. You've agreed to allow everyone to modify it, copy it, sell it, barf on it, etc.
The Kernel does have a group of controlling entities, most obviously Linus. Then comes all of the branch maintainers. Other than that, the "official" linux branches don't get modified without their approval.
The appearance of SCO would have affected Linux regardless of what license they are using. If IBM signed over the copyright to Linus, then SCO would still sue them. If someone decided to sign over copyrighted code written by me to someone else, I'd probably be upset too. Then again, SCO doesn't own any of the code that was placed into Linux, so the point is moot.
I dunno... I just looked up "ATI 9800XT," and the first result was product info from ati.com, the second-fifth were product reviews from various sites. The first "shopping" site, which wasn't an actual store, was at the very bottom of the first page.
I'd say that this is rather relevant.
Patents cost a bit of money, but nothing that is prohibitive enough to prevent an entity from submitting several thousand patent applications. Here is my idea:
Keep the initial cost the same, be it $100 or $1000 an application (I have no idea how much). If the idea is found to be original and non-obvious, then the patent is awarded, yada yada yada.
If the idea is found to have prior art, is obvious, or could be created by a natural process, then a fine should be levied. We'll say $5,000 a failed application, for the "waste of time" of the workers of the patent office. An additional $5,000 can be levied for every application that is illegible, or written in such a way that it could cover a broad range of things (ie, this process covers all entities, movements, and processes which don't not fall into the realm of physical and mental states.). Malicious pantents could be considered a capital crime, calling for the heads of the submitters (yes, extreme is nice sometimes).
This will end up benefitting the private enterprises and small people, since they're the types that will spend a couple thousand, and put time into research that the idea is original... non-obviousness should be obvious (unfortunately, everything is non-obvious to USPTO employees). This will be prohibitive to those huge conglomerations that try to mass-patent everything in existance with tens of thousands of patent applications. If 1,000 of them are rejected, then the fine is around $5 mil.
Lastly, if a patent is revoked, then the entity that filed the patent should be held accountable for the blockage of progress by society in general, and be legally and financially liable.
Probably not. The advantage that sound cards have over integrated stuff is that the integrated stuff uses CPU power. The PCI cards have full fledged DSP's on them, and the drivers usually offload a lot of work to the card (hardware acceleration). This advantage is slowly going away, since CPU's are so massively powerful nowadays, and noticeable sound quality only gets so good.
I can write a new notation on a napkin or a webpage, that doesn't make it correct. Only widespread acceptance can do that. And outside of a few engaging in debates regarding the subject on slashdot, nobody has accepted it.
Look here for info...
To tell the truth, I think that in order for it to be "accepted," it has to be inducted into some French museum, and correlated in some way to a KG sized bar of silver, or something.
Being widespread doesn't make right. There is a widespread use of "your" in place of "you're" and "axe" in place of "ask." Neither of these usages is correct, but they have widespread acceptance.
1000 * 1024 Bytes isn't KKiB... It should be 1.44 KiKB (Kibikilobytes). 1024 Bytes is a KB, and there's a 1000 of 'em.
It's fleecing because it's (the music's) only purpose is to sell records. It used to be that songs would be written to express some sort of feeling, or message... and that's where the value came in. Now, it's just the name selling the record, which is full of fluff.
You'd figure that it's all in the title of the Pumpkin's last album. The truth is that, though Billy Corgan loved the idea of free music, the band was only allowed to release it on-line after Virgin decided that they wouldn't make any money on it.
As it is, though the album has some great music on it, it is rough... very rough. Given the sales of Machina, which didn't exactly reach the figures that they wanted, F&E was released for free as high quality mp3's.
So, is U2 the friend, or the enemy of modern music? Is "modern" music that which is envisioned by the likes of Corgan, where expression is free in it's entirety, or is it that which rakes in the cash? I'd say that it's the former, since that's where the real expression comes out. U2's last album was somewhat of a whore for sales... it sounded nice and poppy, none of it was objectionable or edgy... and it sold a lot of copies. U2 is showing their true colors, now, by fleecing us with their name. Their music isn't special anymore, it doesn't have the content anymore, it's just meaningless pandering to the "modern music" crowds.
I'll stick with my Pumpkins for now.
I have a GeForce 5900FX card, with a large-ish heat sink, and heat sinks on the RAM chips too. I have a zahlman butterfly heatsink on my CPU, with one of them big 80mm fans blowing on it.
My rig is pretty quiet. The refridgerator in my room is louder than all of my components in my computer.
Bitch, bitch, bitch. If you have such problems with the way that Linux maintains the kernel, I suggest that you fork it and do your own development of it using your own numbering.
Besides, you use 2.2.x & 2.4.x Why does it matter to you what happens in the 2.6.x branch?
That's unlikely. Pantents expire after a finite period of time. I think the maximum number of years is 17, but there are some for spans like 7 or 4.
By the time someone has an invisibility cloak, the patent will be way past expired, and probably forgotten.
I wouldn't say that it's just one game. Doom 3 is the first child in the new generation of OpenGL games (I think that UT2004 may compete on the DirectX front). A lot of future games are going to use the Doom 3 engine, just like a lot of current games use the Quake 3 engine (think RTCW, Medal Of Honor, etc).
You're upgrading for the new generation of games. I'm pretty sure that the minimum requirements for UT2004 are fairly steep (maybe not as steep), and if you want a new fancy game in two years, you'll need that hardware. If you don't think you will, then don't upgrade.
That really wouldn't work with Christanity, I guess. Here's one of the most confusing passages by Paul, but it clearly explains this "As long as I do good things, I'll be ok" attitude:
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. (KJV - Romans 7:14-21)
Basically, what you do doesn't matter, if you are without Christ. You are born into sin, and every action that you do, whether you think it good or not, is a slight against God because of your sinful nature. There's no path into heaven that can be walked by virtue of works alone.
The other thing is that Christianity is an exclusive religion. It matters what you believe in. If you are not a Christian, then you will not be saved. It's tough for many Christians to even accept that. So, taking the "Christian" car up the road doesn't really get you anywhere. The only way that you can is if God pulls the car up for you. According to Christian belief, he has already done so.
Sorry. It irks me when people say "If I do good things, then good things happen," or whatever. What if what I see as bad is good in your eyes? Things that we see as evil, such as incest and conjuring things, were not evil among other cultures and other religions.
I don't think the quote refers to a belief in God. It refers to belief in me, and what I can do. Therefore, if you think that I'm a dreamer about what I want to do, I say that you're a non-believer.
...Never thought that I'd ever have to explain a sig. Perhaps it's time for a change.
Not really. God created the possibility of us sinning, which isn't evil. We just happened to do it, and from then on, we've always wanted to do it.
It's kind of silly for a mere mortal to say that God did something wrong.
The interesting thing about Christianity is that you are expected to fail at acting like a Christian. In fact, it's impossible to completely live your life following the path Christ laid out for you. Everything we do is tainted by who we are, and since we are not God, everything we willingly do is wrong.
The point of Christianity is love and forgiveness, not actions of piety. Of course, being pious is great thing, probably in any religion, but that isn't the point of Christianity. So, are sinful Christians superficial? The only thing that is required for a Christian is the belief that Jesus Christ is the living son of God, and that he was sacrificed in our place for our sins.
And even that belief is something that a human cannot choose to believe, rather, it is also a gift that God has given to us.
How about communism? Even though that's a political philosophy, it essentially is a religion as well. There have been far more deaths attributed to that, or whatever twisted version it is that Mao and Stalin followed.
The theology there is flawed, on your end. The original story should read as other posters have put, "God forbid Adam from eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Then again, the first "sin" itself is debatable:
You might also want to put in the verse before that: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
The sin was desiring to be like God. Not only was it "knowledge," but it was also power. The original sin, the one that causes us to be born into death, is the innate human desire to be in total control of one's universe.
Now, the "knowledge" portrayed here is definitely scientific knowledge. Science has no concept of good or evil, because both of those are subjective values. They cannot be measured, and need to be defined by a religion or philosophy. Thinking that this knowledge is the same as science is complete foolishness, with regards to science. The only judgement within science is empiracle judgement.