I agree. Even if multiple versions had been a success with Vista, one might expect that they could see what happens to companies who release a lot of different products during a depression.
There is always someone who takes the analogy too far. Yes, I do understand, but there are limits to the complexity of a usable analogy, even in slashdot. Still the "get inside once/come in as often that you like" kind of situation isn't secure, either
So, basically, what they did was build a big sturdy door (UAC) and put the treasure (system settings) behind it. Normally you need magic keys (certificates) to enter the door. Then, they built a button that unlocks the door from the outside. Wow!
Do my jedi powers sense overconfidence?
No, you do not recall correctly. The have had HUGE fsck-ups like this which they have acknowledged themselves If you bought vista early with the hope that the eventual service pack would fix things, then it would be possible that you might be screwed even worse and be stuck in a cycle of endless reboots.
Actually, grandparetn's right. Extend is when you offer proprietary extenstions that are not part of the competing product / standard which create interoperability problems for those who do not use the "free" version. This will come later on.
oh crap, you beat me to the punch and I don't even have a mod point to award you sir! Which kinda sucks, because I would have also increased your Karma. But I guess you can save Megaton and reach Excellent karma pretty fast
This must be the fastest logic class ever. I took it, and guess what, I came to the same conclusions as before!
Argumentum ad antiquitam: "Communism has failed in the past, therefore it's wrong" Note: I'm not saying communism is right, I'm just saying that your argument doesn't prove anyting.
False dilemma: "Either the two extremes or a compromise between the two"
I think your second post stems from the fact that I wasn't clear on what I was attacking. Of course, in a capitalist system, not aiming for maximum profit is folly. It's like trying to score a touchdown while you're playing basketball. To further my analogy, I'm not only against the objective of the game, but against the fact that we should be playing the game (capitalism) itself.
Many people have died to get out of countries with a free market. In many cases, certain rich countries with free markets have invaded or staged coups in countries with controlled markets. (the US invading Vietnam, and staging the coup in Chile that killed Aliente and put Pinochet in his place, now a convicted war criminal, Japan invading China and Korea and so on) In other cases, countries with free markets have been consolidated to empires with controlled markets. (the USSR incorporating eastern block countries after WW2 and waging expansive wars in Asia) So basically you're telling me that you like free markets because countries wage war against each other.
What kind of argument is that?!
And that's why capitalism sucks. Business model is based on maximizing profits instead of the good of the public. I'd much rather have an economic model that depends on the good will of the public than the good will of private corporations.
well, either you will defend the position that the bible is a work made by humans and that it can be interpreted by humans using human criteria, such as point of view and cultural and scientific differences of the day, or that it is the eternal truth, which (if existed) would be invincible to any kind of critique. Still, in a time when human science had already theorized that the earth is round and calculated its circumference with impressive precision, why did the divinely inspired new testament circulate beliefs such as the flatness of the earth?
Setting aside the scientific, logical and factual errors, how do you justify the ideological inconsistencies? My main point is that, although there are a ton of bible excerpts of debatable accuracy, even one gray area (and I'm being very lenient here) would suffice for it to be unable to be considered as divinely inspired. I mean, with the power of ultimate knowledge and wisdom behind me, why would I write even a single word that is debatable at best and plainly wrong in terms of historical accuracy. Take into account how modern history rejects the bible as a credible source of historical fact.
Lastly, I've been trying to ignore your insinuations that I don't know what I'm talking about, since it is borderline argumentum ad hominem and frankly, I don't discuss fallacies. I've read the whole thing, not only once, but many times over. It sucks. It's inaccurate. It even takes a dangerous and socially disrpuptive ethical stand. And I'm not referring to the beliefs that mainstream religion now considers primitive. (how queer, that the eternal truth is subject to the inevitable changes of time and social context) I'm also talking about the beliefs which are at the core of the christian idea system. Please refrain from trying to save me by politely suggesting to me that I read the bible again.
Well, yeah, there is some historical fact in the bible, since in some books it describes fictional (or based-on-a-true-story) events that happened in the real world. It's not the accuracies that surprise me, though, it's the scientifical, geographical, historical inaccuriacies and the internal inconsistencies that bother me. I mean, if a book cannot accurately describe common geographical knowledge how can it be attributed to divine revelation? (read Mark 10:46 and have a map ready. The jesus-and-friends itinerary is quite impossible) I mean, why would a book written with the help of god tell me that pi = 3, or that insects have four legs?
Well, I believe that there is a teeeeny tine teacup somewhere in the asteroid field, orbiting around the sun. Can you disprove me? Then I must be right, right? That doesn't ask a lot from the imagination, but my guess is that you don't believe me. Also, if god could create anything, why didn't he create beings that could understand his awesome intelligence? Why did he make imperfect beings? Why didn't he create an entities equal to himself, who could understand him, right then and there and not have to go through all that shit ti become in his image? Couldn't he? Or did he want to tease the lesser minds of people with unfathomable mysteries, all in the name of supreme goodness and freedom?
Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Maybe the reason you're being taught the history of your religion by an average atheist is because you haven't studied it as much as an average atheist.
"Credo" (latin for creed) is a prayer composed somewhere around the 4th century CE by various of what was then called "church councils". It was composed to affirm and solidify the christian dogma so as to combat the various spin-offs from mainstream church (these spin-offs were and are still called heresies and were violently persecuted and mostly killed off). The purpose of Credo was to describe concisely and firmly the details of the christian dogma, so that the common believer knew what was heretic and what was canonical. Its importance as an affirmation of canon was so great that the addition of a single word (filioque, latin: of the son) was enough to constitute the pretext that caused the political differences between eastern and western christians to erupt and caused the first schism of the churches. This single word was one of the theological reasons (read: pretexts) why there the once unified christian faith was divided into two (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy).
Credo is currently used in Sunday mass by catholic, orthodox, lutheran, presbyteran, baptist, methodist and anglican christians, as well as many many others. A good rule of thumb is that only "free christians" don't have a credo
It clearly states that the dead will be resurrected, just as you said in your reply. What I don't get is why belief in ressurection is less absurd and completely arbitrary than belief in reincarnation. In fact, if you believe that you do get a second (or third, forth, n-th) chance after death, then ressurection is even more unlikely than reincarnation because it needs the restoration (and according to christians the perfecting) of your identical physical body. Reincarnation just needs the body of a suitable (higher or lower) life-form, which is still absurd, but demands a lower degree of speculation and fairy-tales to believe in.
I do understand the difference. What I don't understand is how is reincarnation more irrational than ressurection? Are there any data or facts that support one theory over the other? The point is, both religions offer promise of transcedance and a better life after death if you play ball and an eternity of divine punishment if you're up for detention.
Not really. Christians believe that when the world is over, after the second coming, you will be reincarnated. It made clear in Credo, which is a summary of their dogma.
ConfÃteor unum baptÃsma in remissiÏOEnem peccatorum; et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't kid yourself. The women who know where their men are are called widows.
I agree. Even if multiple versions had been a success with Vista, one might expect that they could see what happens to companies who release a lot of different products during a depression.
Yes, but if Windows were SUCH a good operating system, what would the slashdot crowds and open-source fans (myself included) have to complain about?
There is always someone who takes the analogy too far. Yes, I do understand, but there are limits to the complexity of a usable analogy, even in slashdot. Still the "get inside once/come in as often that you like" kind of situation isn't secure, either
It's so bad a car analogy, that it doesn't even have cars.
So, basically, what they did was build a big sturdy door (UAC) and put the treasure (system settings) behind it. Normally you need magic keys (certificates) to enter the door. Then, they built a button that unlocks the door from the outside. Wow!
Do my jedi powers sense overconfidence?
No, you do not recall correctly. The have had HUGE fsck-ups like this which they have acknowledged themselves If you bought vista early with the hope that the eventual service pack would fix things, then it would be possible that you might be screwed even worse and be stuck in a cycle of endless reboots.
The Nation were there is Comcast, AT&T and RIAA
-Greek Citizen
Also, if the professor is interested in having sexual relations with you, bend over and let them fsck you. Your life will be made even easier.
hey i have a zune, and i enjoy it.
you insensitive clod!
There, fixed that for ya
Actually, grandparetn's right. Extend is when you offer proprietary extenstions that are not part of the competing product / standard which create interoperability problems for those who do not use the "free" version. This will come later on.
oh crap, you beat me to the punch and I don't even have a mod point to award you sir! Which kinda sucks, because I would have also increased your Karma. But I guess you can save Megaton and reach Excellent karma pretty fast
This must be the fastest logic class ever. I took it, and guess what, I came to the same conclusions as before!
Argumentum ad antiquitam: "Communism has failed in the past, therefore it's wrong" Note: I'm not saying communism is right, I'm just saying that your argument doesn't prove anyting.
False dilemma: "Either the two extremes or a compromise between the two"
I think your second post stems from the fact that I wasn't clear on what I was attacking. Of course, in a capitalist system, not aiming for maximum profit is folly. It's like trying to score a touchdown while you're playing basketball. To further my analogy, I'm not only against the objective of the game, but against the fact that we should be playing the game (capitalism) itself.
Oops, replied to the wrong parent. Stupid me!
Many people have died to get out of countries with a free market. In many cases, certain rich countries with free markets have invaded or staged coups in countries with controlled markets. (the US invading Vietnam, and staging the coup in Chile that killed Aliente and put Pinochet in his place, now a convicted war criminal, Japan invading China and Korea and so on) In other cases, countries with free markets have been consolidated to empires with controlled markets. (the USSR incorporating eastern block countries after WW2 and waging expansive wars in Asia) So basically you're telling me that you like free markets because countries wage war against each other.
What kind of argument is that?!
My kindom for a mod point to the parent!
My jedi powers sense a false dilemma and an argumentum ad antiquitam. Wow, two fallacies in two sentences, score!
And that's why capitalism sucks. Business model is based on maximizing profits instead of the good of the public. I'd much rather have an economic model that depends on the good will of the public than the good will of private corporations.
well, either you will defend the position that the bible is a work made by humans and that it can be interpreted by humans using human criteria, such as point of view and cultural and scientific differences of the day, or that it is the eternal truth, which (if existed) would be invincible to any kind of critique. Still, in a time when human science had already theorized that the earth is round and calculated its circumference with impressive precision, why did the divinely inspired new testament circulate beliefs such as the flatness of the earth?
Setting aside the scientific, logical and factual errors, how do you justify the ideological inconsistencies? My main point is that, although there are a ton of bible excerpts of debatable accuracy, even one gray area (and I'm being very lenient here) would suffice for it to be unable to be considered as divinely inspired. I mean, with the power of ultimate knowledge and wisdom behind me, why would I write even a single word that is debatable at best and plainly wrong in terms of historical accuracy. Take into account how modern history rejects the bible as a credible source of historical fact.
Lastly, I've been trying to ignore your insinuations that I don't know what I'm talking about, since it is borderline argumentum ad hominem and frankly, I don't discuss fallacies. I've read the whole thing, not only once, but many times over. It sucks. It's inaccurate. It even takes a dangerous and socially disrpuptive ethical stand. And I'm not referring to the beliefs that mainstream religion now considers primitive. (how queer, that the eternal truth is subject to the inevitable changes of time and social context) I'm also talking about the beliefs which are at the core of the christian idea system. Please refrain from trying to save me by politely suggesting to me that I read the bible again.
Well, yeah, there is some historical fact in the bible, since in some books it describes fictional (or based-on-a-true-story) events that happened in the real world. It's not the accuracies that surprise me, though, it's the scientifical, geographical, historical inaccuriacies and the internal inconsistencies that bother me. I mean, if a book cannot accurately describe common geographical knowledge how can it be attributed to divine revelation? (read Mark 10:46 and have a map ready. The jesus-and-friends itinerary is quite impossible) I mean, why would a book written with the help of god tell me that pi = 3, or that insects have four legs?
Well, I believe that there is a teeeeny tine teacup somewhere in the asteroid field, orbiting around the sun. Can you disprove me? Then I must be right, right? That doesn't ask a lot from the imagination, but my guess is that you don't believe me. Also, if god could create anything, why didn't he create beings that could understand his awesome intelligence? Why did he make imperfect beings? Why didn't he create an entities equal to himself, who could understand him, right then and there and not have to go through all that shit ti become in his image? Couldn't he? Or did he want to tease the lesser minds of people with unfathomable mysteries, all in the name of supreme goodness and freedom?
I've already replied to that
Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Maybe the reason you're being taught the history of your religion by an average atheist is because you haven't studied it as much as an average atheist.
"Credo" (latin for creed) is a prayer composed somewhere around the 4th century CE by various of what was then called "church councils". It was composed to affirm and solidify the christian dogma so as to combat the various spin-offs from mainstream church (these spin-offs were and are still called heresies and were violently persecuted and mostly killed off). The purpose of Credo was to describe concisely and firmly the details of the christian dogma, so that the common believer knew what was heretic and what was canonical. Its importance as an affirmation of canon was so great that the addition of a single word (filioque, latin: of the son) was enough to constitute the pretext that caused the political differences between eastern and western christians to erupt and caused the first schism of the churches. This single word was one of the theological reasons (read: pretexts) why there the once unified christian faith was divided into two (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy).
Credo is currently used in Sunday mass by catholic, orthodox, lutheran, presbyteran, baptist, methodist and anglican christians, as well as many many others. A good rule of thumb is that only "free christians" don't have a credo
It clearly states that the dead will be resurrected, just as you said in your reply. What I don't get is why belief in ressurection is less absurd and completely arbitrary than belief in reincarnation. In fact, if you believe that you do get a second (or third, forth, n-th) chance after death, then ressurection is even more unlikely than reincarnation because it needs the restoration (and according to christians the perfecting) of your identical physical body. Reincarnation just needs the body of a suitable (higher or lower) life-form, which is still absurd, but demands a lower degree of speculation and fairy-tales to believe in.
I do understand the difference. What I don't understand is how is reincarnation more irrational than ressurection? Are there any data or facts that support one theory over the other? The point is, both religions offer promise of transcedance and a better life after death if you play ball and an eternity of divine punishment if you're up for detention.
ConfÃteor unum baptÃsma in remissiÏOEnem peccatorum; et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.