What is X? Depends on what needs to be accomplished. C is not the best tool for every task. Neither is Perl. Neither is FORTRAN or Lisp or Java or... Do you really think "programmers" never have to do text processing? You will never find a C library that does text processing as well as Perl.
"Honest people, if you want something better than perl, build your own camel. Or get in perlguts and start hacking it yourself. That's what open source is about, right? "
Right on, man. I should probably add the following caveat to my above statements: You aren't a good Perl programmer unless you are familiar with the perlguts.
It is because of deals like this (I think Compuserve also has something similar?) that lower income families are able to afford a first time low class computer.
Nice sentiment, but it doesn't quite work. $21.95/month for 3 years is a lot of money for a low income family. In fact, that totals up to almost $800 at the end of the 3 years.
Umm...no offense (I do love your sig), but I think the AC above was joking...at least I hope so. It was actually pretty funny. You know...like the mindset of the people who actually play it.
I'll never forget the math professor (one of my personal heroes...D'Angelo if you happen to go to my school...and you know who you are...) said, "I don't understand what so many people here have against the lottery. I love the lottery -- it's a tax on stupid people! What could be better?"
Why is the above post rated as a troll? It's a rather funny post. Even if it were serious, it wouldn't be a troll. Liking Microsoft does not a troll make.
You're right. I was way too quick to reply. I apologize. The post I replied to, at second reading, makes perfect sense, and I agree with it totally. The trolls here wanted to get people like me pissed off and posting, and I took the bait.
I don't know quite why I'm responding...seeing as how the quality post indicates that your mind is not yet capable of grasping the ideas of the post your are replying to. But eventually, you'll learn that it doesn't all boil down to statements as simple as the one you made, and if I can help you down that road, all the better.
So in other words, a Christian who is considering going on a bloody gunfire rampage eventually decides against it.. not because he knows the pain and suffering that he will cause the victims and their families, not because he knows that he will be punished (right here! on Earth!) by the authorities, not because he knows that he will destroy people's lives.. no, it's because he is scared that an all-powerful god will "get him" in the afterlife.
No. Who said anything about an afterlife? This isn't about why people do right and wrong. This is about the question of whether or not right and wrong even exist. The argument put forth was that, without a higher being, an objective morality cannot exist. If you want to attack the above poster, attack that arguemnt. Good luck.
Sidenote: The fact that many atheists believe in an objective morality says more about the reasoning powers (or lack thereof) of those atheists than about whether or not a higher being must exist for absolute morality to exist.
Yeah...i bet people get really tired of hearing all of the defenses for Christianity. These defenses usually fall into one of the following chatagories:
"I am a modern, enlightened Christian. I don't think gays should be persecuted, I think men and women should be treated equally, etc."
Pointing out historical inaccuracies in a previous post
Pointing out logical fallacies in a previous post
Complaining about the anti-Christian bias on/.
And it's one of those (or a combination) every time. Over and over again. In every thread in which someone accuses Christains of being closed-minded, cruel, hateful, arrogant, ignorant, unenlightened, or anti-scientific. Tiring? Of course! I mean, who are these religious zealots who feel the need to respond to every false accusation with a bit of truth? Who are these narcissists who feel the need to respond to every false generalization about themselves?
Geez....you're sick of seeing posts defending religion? I'm sick of seeing posts bashing it. But most of all, I'm sick of seeing the lies that consistently get thrown around/. regarding Christianity, and I'm glad there are people willing to lose a few karma points to point out the truth.
trying to learn, and unlock the secrets of life is *not* playing God
I forget who said it (I'm thinking St. Augustine), but one of my favourite quotes is "Let know man think he can know too much about the Book of God's Words or the Book of God's Works."
"The Book of God's Words" is, of course, referring to the Bible. "The Book of God's Works" is referring to the natural world.
In other words, this is a theologian saying that science (the study of the natural world) is not only ok, but that it is glorifying to God.
Of course, if you listen to many of the posters here, rather than to history, you would find this hard to believe.
So instead, he gives us free will, but threatens us with eternal hell-fire should we happen to choose not to worship him.
I'm sure you know a metaphor when you see one, so I won't bother to explain it.
Many theologians believe that those who do go to Hell will actually prefer it to the presence of God that is Heaven. I'm not going to go into much depth here, but check out C.S Lewis's book The Problem of Pain for a good analysis of that idea.
What is the connection between "creating life" and "playing god"?
Good question. I think the answer to that question is another question: Why do we want to create life? I think every scientist involved ought to ask him/herself that question.
Of course, I also think that scientists should be required to study philosopy before they can get their PhDs. =)
As I understand them, the commandments need some common sense applied to them in order to mean anything. For instance, 'shalt not kill' must mean 'shalt not kill any humans', as it is clear that killing plants and animals for food is okay.
Certainly. Of course, they also need some context applied to them. To comment on the example you gave: some translations (King James, RSV, a couple others) use the word "kill." Others use the word "murder." If you go back to the original Hebrew, you will find that it was closer to "murder".
"We have discredited your Bible in each and every area of significance to which it lays claim; your God did not do what men claimed he did; all your judgements rely on disproved bunk. However, we would like to humor you and ask your opinion on this Very Important Question."
Those are some pretty hefty claims for science you have there. Care to offer any support for them?
This is actually a real problem in business. I forget what it's called though. Genericization, or something like that It's something you want to try to avoid, although it's an indicator of success.
More examples:
Kool-Aid Band-Aid Styrofoam Kleenex Coke (if you're from the Southern US) Levis
Wow. I had just about given up on Mr. Katz, but this piece was really worth reading! It took a while to get to the real meat of the story...but I guess that's expected.
However, I think he may be a little too quick to scream "hands off!" to the government. (I'm sure he's read Hobbes, but if he has, either he saw serious problems that I totally missed or it just doesn't show).
But today, Internet legislation currently before Congress includes bills concerning digital signatures, cyber-squatting, database protection, Internet filtering, online alcohol and gun sales, Net gambling, online privacy, Net access, encryption and opening broadband cable Internet lines to competitors.
Why are these all bad things? Specifically, why shouldn't there be laws regarding digital signitures. Maybe he's referring to specific (and scary) proposals, but he didn't mention them. Digital signatures should be legally binding. Yes, that means a whole bunch of really complex laws will need to be passed, but without binding digital signatures, the internet will have a hard time evolving beyond it's current role.
I can see why Mr. Katz may think laws against cybersquatting are A Bad Thing, but to assume that most of his readership agrees is foolish.
The Internet, ideally, has no regional boundaries (I realize this is not really the case, but you get the picture). This raises tricky questions about gun and alcohol sales, as well as gambling. Personally, I would rather have laws passed then risk being prosecuted because the laws are fuzzy.
"Ah," but you say. "We're talking about the American goverment here (Yes, I realise that many of Slashdot's readers are not in the US, but Katz's article seemed to be only referring to US examples. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him.) and they're almost guaranteed to mess it up."
While I would certainly agree with that, just because the federal government might screw it up doesn't mean we should flip out if they try to get it right.
Umm, I'm not very well education on the Standard Oil Breakup, but I imagine that those "hidden assets" were physical assets for the most part, esp. property, plant, and equipment.
Microsoft is in an industry where property plant and equipment make a up tiny part of a companies total assets. Most of Microsoft's assets are intangibles (copyrights, goodwill, etc.). I'd be willing to bet that these are all accounted for already.
Just a thought. Interesting observation, though. I imagine that the sum of the worth of the new companies would be more than Microsoft's current worth, but for other reasons than "hidden assets" being discovered.
As those above me have commented, it means "elite". It refers to a style of writing that "elite hacker doods" (31337 h4x0r d00dz ) use, in which they replace letters with numbers and a few other things.
Nearly all of them run Unix. Lotta IRIX (on those Origins). All the Origins at my employer made the list, but the NT cluster didnt'. Heh heh. Don't know if any run Linux, though.
I think college students (me included, at one point) tend to forget that the super-fast network access is a priviledge of being at college and not a friggin' right!
Right on! Likewise, most people who rent apartments tend to forget that access to their kitchen is a priviledge, and not a friggin right as well!
Well, not me. When my landlord came in and closed off our kitchen, I said, "Thank you for the priviledge of using that kitchen for 3 months. I'm sorry to see it go, but I realise that access to that kitchen is a priviledge."
So blind people want to use AOL, and they're frustrated because AOL is not accessible to them.
Understandable. I mean -*sheesh*- I'm left-handed, and I get pissed that most desks in lecture halls are for right-handed people. And that's not a big deal. Being cut off from the Internet is.
"But," you say, "blind people can use the Internet without using AOL."
Right on. Anyway, what kind of market are we talking about here? Sounds like there's a lot of money to be made by an ISP that specializes in serving people with impaired vision.
I may have just found my calling.
It would take some real genius to create a client-side program that can parse HTML (esp. with frames and layers) and make it readable to blind people.
And, dammit people, why the hell don't you use ALT tags?!
The Matrix is a great movie. One of the best of the year. However, the religios references are exactly why I *don't* consider it a deep or intellectual movie.
The movie didn't really explore any of the religions of philosophies it referred to. Just because it refers to a few incompatible philosophies (an "intellectual" movie would have actually tried to work out those incompatibilities) doesn't make it a thinker's movie. The religious references certainly served their purpose -- they made the story much more interesting and the movie much more exciting, but don't kid yourself by thinking this movie has real depth. It doesn't.
If throwing religious references into a movie made it "deep," then the Star Wars trilogy would be one of the "deepest" stories ever told.
If you want sci-fi with religious context that will give your brain something to chew on, read Dune. If you want a couple hours of real fun with very little effort, watch The Matrix.
Whereas if you are a kind and good man but you don't believe in God, you'll be tortured for eternity.
This is a moot point. Why? Because there are no kind and good men. Think about it. Ever hit someone out of anger? Ever talked about someone behind their back? Ever cheated on an exam or homework in a curved class? Ever stolen? What do you think when you come across people of obviously lower intelligence? Ever have racist thoughts?
Your point is a good one. I hear it a lot. People like to dwell on it. In effect, though, you're saying "I am so much a better person than that mass murderer. If he deserves Heaven, then so do I." Sounds reasonable, but Christianity says that that mass murderer doesn't deserve heaven. Neither do you. Neither do I. That's the point of Christianity -- admitting that we are screwed if we are to earn our way into heaven and relying on God's mercy and His grace to provide a way for us.
Side note: It's funny how Christians have a stereotype of being really prideful and arrogant. Yet, I have met very few people who are not Christians who will admit that they are just as deserving of hell as the aforementioned mass murderer.
1) A person who says that he's seen microwaves go faster than the speed of light.
Hey, I remember seeing an advertisement for that:
"Come to Roy's Discount Appliance's liquidation sale! At these prices, our refridgerators and microwaves will be going faster than the speed of light!"
Slashdot Mirror
Good programmers write in X.
... Do you really think "programmers" never have to do text processing? You will never find a C library that does text processing as well as Perl.
What is X? Depends on what needs to be accomplished. C is not the best tool for every task. Neither is Perl. Neither is FORTRAN or Lisp or Java or
"Honest people, if you want something better than perl, build your own camel. Or get in perlguts and start hacking it yourself. That's what open source is about, right? "
Right on, man. I should probably add the following caveat to my above statements: You aren't a good Perl programmer unless you are familiar with the perlguts.
It is because of deals like this (I think Compuserve also has something similar?) that lower income families are able to afford a first time low class computer.
Nice sentiment, but it doesn't quite work. $21.95/month for 3 years is a lot of money for a low income family. In fact, that totals up to almost $800 at the end of the 3 years.
Umm...no offense (I do love your sig), but I think the AC above was joking...at least I hope so. It was actually pretty funny. You know...like the mindset of the people who actually play it.
I'll never forget the math professor (one of my personal heroes...D'Angelo if you happen to go to my school...and you know who you are...) said, "I don't understand what so many people here have against the lottery. I love the lottery -- it's a tax on stupid people! What could be better?"
Let me get this straight:
Your posts were meant to be mindlessly inane all along, just to prove how flawed the moderation is?
In that case, good job, man.
Silly me thought that you were under the impression that your posts really were insightful.
Why is the above post rated as a troll? It's a rather funny post. Even if it were serious, it wouldn't be a troll. Liking Microsoft does not a troll make.
I hope I can meta-moderate that one.
You're right. I was way too quick to reply. I apologize. The post I replied to, at second reading, makes perfect sense, and I agree with it totally. The trolls here wanted to get people like me pissed off and posting, and I took the bait.
I don't know quite why I'm responding...seeing as how the quality post indicates that your mind is not yet capable of grasping the ideas of the post your are replying to. But eventually, you'll learn that it doesn't all boil down to statements as simple as the one you made, and if I can help you down that road, all the better.
.. not because he knows the pain and suffering that he will cause the victims and their families, not because he knows that he will be punished (right here! on Earth!) by the authorities, not because he knows that he will destroy people's lives .. no, it's because he is scared that an all-powerful god will "get him" in the afterlife.
So in other words, a Christian who is considering going on a bloody gunfire rampage eventually decides against it
No. Who said anything about an afterlife? This isn't about why people do right and wrong. This is about the question of whether or not right and wrong even exist. The argument put forth was that, without a higher being, an objective morality cannot exist. If you want to attack the above poster, attack that arguemnt. Good luck.
Sidenote: The fact that many atheists believe in an objective morality says more about the reasoning powers (or lack thereof) of those atheists than about whether or not a higher being must exist for absolute morality to exist.
And it's one of those (or a combination) every time. Over and over again. In every thread in which someone accuses Christains of being closed-minded, cruel, hateful, arrogant, ignorant, unenlightened, or anti-scientific. Tiring? Of course! I mean, who are these religious zealots who feel the need to respond to every false accusation with a bit of truth? Who are these narcissists who feel the need to respond to every false generalization about themselves?
Geez....you're sick of seeing posts defending religion? I'm sick of seeing posts bashing it. But most of all, I'm sick of seeing the lies that consistently get thrown around
trying to learn, and unlock the secrets of life is *not* playing God
I forget who said it (I'm thinking St. Augustine), but one of my favourite quotes is "Let know man think he can know too much about the Book of God's Words or the Book of God's Works."
"The Book of God's Words" is, of course, referring to the Bible.
"The Book of God's Works" is referring to the natural world.
In other words, this is a theologian saying that science (the study of the natural world) is not only ok, but that it is glorifying to God.
Of course, if you listen to many of the posters here, rather than to history, you would find this hard to believe.
So instead, he gives us free will, but threatens us with eternal hell-fire should we happen to choose not to worship him.
I'm sure you know a metaphor when you see one, so I won't bother to explain it.
Many theologians believe that those who do go to Hell will actually prefer it to the presence of God that is Heaven. I'm not going to go into much depth here, but check out C.S Lewis's book The Problem of Pain for a good analysis of that idea.
What is the connection between "creating life" and "playing god"?
Good question. I think the answer to that question is another question: Why do we want to create life? I think every scientist involved ought to ask him/herself that question.
Of course, I also think that scientists should be required to study philosopy before they can get their PhDs. =)
As I understand them, the commandments need some common sense applied to them in order to mean anything. For instance, 'shalt not kill' must mean 'shalt not kill any humans', as it is clear that killing plants and animals for food is okay.
Certainly. Of course, they also need some context applied to them. To comment on the example you gave: some translations (King James, RSV, a couple others) use the word "kill." Others use the word "murder." If you go back to the original Hebrew, you will find that it was closer to "murder".
"We have discredited your Bible in each and every area of significance to which it lays claim; your God did not do what men claimed he did; all your judgements rely on disproved bunk. However, we would like to humor you and ask your opinion on this Very Important Question."
Those are some pretty hefty claims for science you have there. Care to offer any support for them?
This is actually a real problem in business. I forget what it's called though. Genericization, or something like that It's something you want to try to avoid, although it's an indicator of success.
More examples:
Kool-Aid
Band-Aid
Styrofoam
Kleenex
Coke (if you're from the Southern US)
Levis
Wow. I had just about given up on Mr. Katz, but this piece was really worth reading! It took a while to get to the real meat of the story...but I guess that's expected.
However, I think he may be a little too quick to scream "hands off!" to the government. (I'm sure he's read Hobbes, but if he has, either he saw serious problems that I totally missed or it just doesn't show).
But today, Internet legislation currently before Congress includes bills concerning digital signatures, cyber-squatting, database protection, Internet filtering, online alcohol and gun sales, Net gambling, online privacy, Net access, encryption and opening broadband cable Internet lines to competitors.
Why are these all bad things? Specifically, why shouldn't there be laws regarding digital signitures. Maybe he's referring to specific (and scary) proposals, but he didn't mention them. Digital signatures should be legally binding. Yes, that means a whole bunch of really complex laws will need to be passed, but without binding digital signatures, the internet will have a hard time evolving beyond it's current role.
I can see why Mr. Katz may think laws against cybersquatting are A Bad Thing, but to assume that most of his readership agrees is foolish.
The Internet, ideally, has no regional boundaries (I realize this is not really the case, but you get the picture). This raises tricky questions about gun and alcohol sales, as well as gambling. Personally, I would rather have laws passed then risk being prosecuted because the laws are fuzzy.
"Ah," but you say. "We're talking about the American goverment here (Yes, I realise that many of Slashdot's readers are not in the US, but Katz's article seemed to be only referring to US examples. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him.) and they're almost guaranteed to mess it up."
While I would certainly agree with that, just because the federal government might screw it up doesn't mean we should flip out if they try to get it right.
Umm, I'm not very well education on the Standard Oil Breakup, but I imagine that those "hidden assets" were physical assets for the most part, esp. property, plant, and equipment.
Microsoft is in an industry where property plant and equipment make a up tiny part of a companies total assets. Most of Microsoft's assets are intangibles (copyrights, goodwill, etc.). I'd be willing to bet that these are all accounted for already.
Just a thought. Interesting observation, though. I imagine that the sum of the worth of the new companies would be more than Microsoft's current worth, but for other reasons than "hidden assets" being discovered.
As those above me have commented, it means "elite". It refers to a style of writing that "elite hacker doods" (31337 h4x0r d00dz ) use, in which they replace letters with numbers and a few other things.
2048x1532 resolution? You dream too small. Look here.
Nearly all of them run Unix. Lotta IRIX (on those Origins). All the Origins at my employer made the list, but the NT cluster didnt'. Heh heh. Don't know if any run Linux, though.
I think college students (me included, at one point) tend to forget that the super-fast network access is a priviledge of being at college and not a friggin' right!
Right on! Likewise, most people who rent apartments tend to forget that access to their kitchen is a priviledge, and not a friggin right as well!
Well, not me. When my landlord came in and closed off our kitchen, I said, "Thank you for the priviledge of using that kitchen for 3 months. I'm sorry to see it go, but I realise that access to that kitchen is a priviledge."
So blind people want to use AOL, and they're frustrated because AOL is not accessible to them.
Understandable. I mean -*sheesh*- I'm left-handed, and I get pissed that most desks in lecture halls are for right-handed people. And that's not a big deal. Being cut off from the Internet is.
"But," you say, "blind people can use the Internet without using AOL."
Right on. Anyway, what kind of market are we talking about here? Sounds like there's a lot of money to be made by an ISP that specializes in serving people with impaired vision.
I may have just found my calling.
It would take some real genius to create a client-side program that can parse HTML (esp. with frames and layers) and make it readable to blind people.
And, dammit people, why the hell don't you use ALT tags?!
The Matrix is a great movie. One of the best of the year. However, the religios references are exactly why I *don't* consider it a deep or intellectual movie.
The movie didn't really explore any of the religions of philosophies it referred to. Just because it refers to a few incompatible philosophies (an "intellectual" movie would have actually tried to work out those incompatibilities) doesn't make it a thinker's movie. The religious references certainly served their purpose -- they made the story much more interesting and the movie much more exciting, but don't kid yourself by thinking this movie has real depth. It doesn't.
If throwing religious references into a movie made it "deep," then the Star Wars trilogy would be one of the "deepest" stories ever told.
If you want sci-fi with religious context that will give your brain something to chew on, read Dune. If you want a couple hours of real fun with very little effort, watch The Matrix.
I think this was his point:
"I am Jon Katz"
Whereas if you are a kind and good man but you don't believe in God, you'll be tortured for eternity.
This is a moot point. Why? Because there are no kind and good men. Think about it. Ever hit someone out of anger? Ever talked about someone behind their back? Ever cheated on an exam or homework in a curved class? Ever stolen? What do you think when you come across people of obviously lower intelligence? Ever have racist thoughts?
Your point is a good one. I hear it a lot. People like to dwell on it. In effect, though, you're saying "I am so much a better person than that mass murderer. If he deserves Heaven, then so do I." Sounds reasonable, but Christianity says that that mass murderer doesn't deserve heaven. Neither do you. Neither do I. That's the point of Christianity -- admitting that we are screwed if we are to earn our way into heaven and relying on God's mercy and His grace to provide a way for us.
Side note: It's funny how Christians have a stereotype of being really prideful and arrogant. Yet, I have met very few people who are not Christians who will admit that they are just as deserving of hell as the aforementioned mass murderer.
...is in Suck today.
1) A person who says that he's seen microwaves go faster than the speed of light.
Hey, I remember seeing an advertisement for that:
"Come to Roy's Discount Appliance's liquidation sale! At these prices, our refridgerators and microwaves will be going faster than the speed of light!"