I think you're missing the point of the social desktop.
Currently, Google is waging war on the current desktop by showing how all you really need is a browser and an internet connection - making the desktop mostly obsolete (I am aware that there are some exceptions to this, as with everything).
These guys are showing how we can make the desktop relevant again. Instead of living through your browser, your Desktop Environment is clued in and is built to work with your social needs. Instead of leaving the desktop as a completely introspective tool, these KDE4 guys are making it more extrospective - more relevant.
I would far rather have a simple widget on my desktop that I can 'tweet' from than having to go to a website, login, and then use their interface to 'tweet'. It eliminates many levels of complexity. It brings something that would otherwise be a big chore for your granny and makes it dead simple (black pun).
By that time, KDE 4.4 will be out and hopefully many more of the applications in KDE's network will have integrated more closely with KDE4's 'pillars'.
Dude, no one is stopping you from installing KDE 3.x. Honestly, that was a really stupid thing to say.
I actually find KDE 4.2.2 to be very stable. I've been using it on my work desktop since January (KDE 4.2.0) and I haven't had any crashes. Plasma hasn't died on me once. KWin hasn't been slow for me at all. KDE is screaming along on my Pentium 2 with 256Mb RAM - no slowness whatsoever - and thats while actually using apps like DigiKam and Kontact.
I honestly don't understand what people are talking about. KDE4 *IS NOT* a resource hog. I've got it installed on my phone and it runs great! I can use all the same plasma widgets that I do on my desktop on my phone.
Really, how many people are giving their opinions on how 'KDE suckzorz' but HONESTLY haven't used it extensively - or are blaming KDE when its another level in the OSS stack that's at fault?
There is no way to dismiss them, so things get irritating when I want to use the search bar in Firefox and there's a notification covering it (these things could well be click transparent but it's still irritating).
If you haven't noticed, when you hover over these notifications, it does go transparent and even allows you to use whatever is under the notification - such as the Google search box in Firefox. I think your point there is moot.
Surely you jest...
Do you jest?
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I had to rub my eyes and check my sarcast-o-metre. You aren't seriously equating eating food to performing the most intimate act of sex are you?
If you are - seriously - then I can only assume that you're a whore or a pimp and you do it around your granny all the time.
although it could disprove certain types of claim made on behalf of a god.
True, but it hasn't yet - and I don't see it on the horizon.
I'd be interested if there were any claims from God in the Bible (best translated to English in KJV) that were disproved.
Having said that, theories do not constitute evidence.
I asked what evidence. What sort of thing would you count as evidence?
Ok, well, definitive evidence that the universe was created from a big bang/chemical reaction (that, ironicaly, had to mean that something existed prior to said 'reaction' to make it happen). That ought to do it. If that was proven to me - then I would drop Christianity. But honestly, you have to keep going back and back and back. Two particles reacted to eachother? Where did the particles come from? Doesn't make sense that something was made from nothing does it? Going to bring in some quantum rule that created the particles? Where did the quantum rules come from? It doesn't make sense that someone didn't start this whole thing.
Lastly, by infallible I mean: Without fault or weakness; incapable of error or fallacy.
I'm aware that is both a strong and bold assertion, but its what I believe. Until proven otherwise - in which case I would drop it all and go out and get drunk.... =P
At one level I don't think the Bible has a "whole point". I think it's a diverse collection of books each of which has its own point or points. At a meta-level, most of those books are about how people believe God has interacted, is interacting and will interact with specific individuals and/or with humanity as a whole.
Odd, but interesting. I would see that as a secular point of view. Arguing about the point of the Bible will always boil down to whether or not you believe it infallible or not. From what I can gather, you're on the latter.
So what sort of (hypothetical) evidence would make you change your mind?
Well, any evidence would make me change my mind. But I think you'd agree that the evidence will perhaps never come. It is notoriously hard to disprove God. Nevertheless, if that evidence were to eventuate, I would be the first to change my mind. Being a Christian isn't easy.
Also, being baffled by something I don't understand does not constitute evidence (should be obvious), but merely ignorance on my part.
I find, for example, evolution to be quite amusing. Many of their theories are just as far fetched (if not more) as the Bible's view. And while science delves deeper into the specifics than the Bible cares to go, I don't find science/evolution theory to have proved anything that can be used as evidence against a God - in the light of the Bible.
It's only a small minority of those who call themselves Christians who have so much arrogance as to believe they cannot be mistaken about the nature of the Bible.
I'm sorry, but I didn't say that people don't mis-interpret the Bible, I said that a Christian believes the Bible to be true and correct, and that a true Christian seeks to base their doctrines an beliefs from the Bible its self - not from what they think is best.
To a Christian, the Bible is the 'revealed Will of God' - believed to be infallible. As such, 'true' Christianity is *based on the Bible*. Not someone elses opinion. While that still means the Bible is open to interpretation, there is something to be said for the verse, "interpret scripture with scripture".
I'm honestly surprised that you claim to have read the Bible 'from cover to cover' but still didn't get that the whole theme is about our sin and Christ's saving us from it.
I think you should perhaps assume that I've got the basics covered.
If perhaps you hadn't of admitted that you missed the whole point of the Bible after purportedly reading it from cover to cover then I may have taken heed to that statement.
'soul' is a term. I wouldn't suggest you just *grep* the bible for the word 'soul'. There are many terms that refer to the same thing: mind, heart, spirit, etc.
Take Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) for example: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
This speaks of what supposedly happens after death to the 'soul'. In *true* Christianity, the body is really just a container for the soul. You part with your body at death, and are reunited with it at the 'resurrection'.
Oh, and on your first point: any 'true' Christian is defined by the Christian Bible. If they don't put their faith in that to be true and correct (infallible) then they are on shaky ground.
According to the Bible, the most important thing is to believe a) you're a sinner and b) only Christ can save you from your sin (the premise being: God made the rules and we keep breaking them). As long as someone truly believes these two things then they could be defined as a 'true' Christian.
But, having said that, many 'nominal' churches/'christians' believe the Bible only to the point that it suites them (non-literal six days, no trinity, etc) - thereby defeating the whole purpose of it - its what suites God that matters.
Anyway, I really can't explain it all - there's a lot of information and 'background' to explain before there is any way I can properly get a point across.
I would really suggest you look at The Westminster Confession of Faith. That book alone is a brilliant guide to the Bible and the core beliefs derived from it. I don't think you'd find a better book to run you through the basics.
Honestly, I don't know why the slashdot crowd even posts these articles.
You guys are arguing from completely the wrong perspective. All your arguments are based on materialism. I guess you cannot be blamed since you define your existence by what your senses tell you and your extrapolation of that data.
A true Christian believes there is another sense, the soul - that is actually the core of a human. Unfortunately for materialists, this is illogical because they can't measure or define it using their material senses - meaning endless looping arguments.
I would wager that many of you here believe that extraterrestrial aliens could exist (an existence that cannot be materially defined), but completely deny the possibility of a God who created this whole universe. I'd also wager that many of you here would believe that an extraterrestrial could exist in a form of being that we have not come across before - yet STILL won't believe in the possibility of a God that created this whole universe.
I guess my point is that we didn't just view life as it came, but filtered it using the tools our parents had taught us.
Fewer families are teaching their children these values and mentally equipping them with these tools. It seems to me that in another 3 generations - unless radical change happens - our society will look pretty morbid.
Wrong. Before that, our parents taught us good values. We've failed to pass that onto our children because of laziness and have opted to just 'restrict' instead of 'educate'.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're missing the point of the social desktop.
Currently, Google is waging war on the current desktop by showing how all you really need is a browser and an internet connection - making the desktop mostly obsolete (I am aware that there are some exceptions to this, as with everything).
These guys are showing how we can make the desktop relevant again. Instead of living through your browser, your Desktop Environment is clued in and is built to work with your social needs. Instead of leaving the desktop as a completely introspective tool, these KDE4 guys are making it more extrospective - more relevant.
I would far rather have a simple widget on my desktop that I can 'tweet' from than having to go to a website, login, and then use their interface to 'tweet'. It eliminates many levels of complexity. It brings something that would otherwise be a big chore for your granny and makes it dead simple (black pun).
Nah, it'll be 2010 dude.
By that time, KDE 4.4 will be out and hopefully many more of the applications in KDE's network will have integrated more closely with KDE4's 'pillars'.
Dude, no one is stopping you from installing KDE 3.x. Honestly, that was a really stupid thing to say.
I actually find KDE 4.2.2 to be very stable. I've been using it on my work desktop since January (KDE 4.2.0) and I haven't had any crashes. Plasma hasn't died on me once. KWin hasn't been slow for me at all. KDE is screaming along on my Pentium 2 with 256Mb RAM - no slowness whatsoever - and thats while actually using apps like DigiKam and Kontact.
I honestly don't understand what people are talking about. KDE4 *IS NOT* a resource hog. I've got it installed on my phone and it runs great! I can use all the same plasma widgets that I do on my desktop on my phone.
Really, how many people are giving their opinions on how 'KDE suckzorz' but HONESTLY haven't used it extensively - or are blaming KDE when its another level in the OSS stack that's at fault?
If you haven't noticed, when you hover over these notifications, it does go transparent and even allows you to use whatever is under the notification - such as the Google search box in Firefox. I think your point there is moot.
Surely you jest... Do you jest? I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I had to rub my eyes and check my sarcast-o-metre. You aren't seriously equating eating food to performing the most intimate act of sex are you? If you are - seriously - then I can only assume that you're a whore or a pimp and you do it around your granny all the time.
I heard that Photoshop comes free with Macs.
Sounds like this has all happened before and will all happen again...
True, but it hasn't yet - and I don't see it on the horizon.
I'd be interested if there were any claims from God in the Bible (best translated to English in KJV) that were disproved.
Having said that, theories do not constitute evidence.
Ok, well, definitive evidence that the universe was created from a big bang/chemical reaction (that, ironicaly, had to mean that something existed prior to said 'reaction' to make it happen). That ought to do it. If that was proven to me - then I would drop Christianity. But honestly, you have to keep going back and back and back. Two particles reacted to eachother? Where did the particles come from? Doesn't make sense that something was made from nothing does it? Going to bring in some quantum rule that created the particles? Where did the quantum rules come from? It doesn't make sense that someone didn't start this whole thing.
Lastly, by infallible I mean: Without fault or weakness; incapable of error or fallacy.
I'm aware that is both a strong and bold assertion, but its what I believe. Until proven otherwise - in which case I would drop it all and go out and get drunk.... =P
Odd, but interesting. I would see that as a secular point of view. Arguing about the point of the Bible will always boil down to whether or not you believe it infallible or not. From what I can gather, you're on the latter.
Well, any evidence would make me change my mind. But I think you'd agree that the evidence will perhaps never come. It is notoriously hard to disprove God. Nevertheless, if that evidence were to eventuate, I would be the first to change my mind. Being a Christian isn't easy.
Also, being baffled by something I don't understand does not constitute evidence (should be obvious), but merely ignorance on my part.
I find, for example, evolution to be quite amusing. Many of their theories are just as far fetched (if not more) as the Bible's view. And while science delves deeper into the specifics than the Bible cares to go, I don't find science/evolution theory to have proved anything that can be used as evidence against a God - in the light of the Bible.
Thats a heck of a pain if all you want to do is make soufflé.
Is it possible? Yes. Do I believe I'm mistaken? No.
No I did not - I said exactly the same thing.
I'd be interested to know what you think the whole point of the Bible is then.
I'm sorry, but I didn't say that people don't mis-interpret the Bible, I said that a Christian believes the Bible to be true and correct, and that a true Christian seeks to base their doctrines an beliefs from the Bible its self - not from what they think is best.
To a Christian, the Bible is the 'revealed Will of God' - believed to be infallible. As such, 'true' Christianity is *based on the Bible*. Not someone elses opinion. While that still means the Bible is open to interpretation, there is something to be said for the verse, "interpret scripture with scripture".
I'm honestly surprised that you claim to have read the Bible 'from cover to cover' but still didn't get that the whole theme is about our sin and Christ's saving us from it.
If perhaps you hadn't of admitted that you missed the whole point of the Bible after purportedly reading it from cover to cover then I may have taken heed to that statement.
'soul' is a term. I wouldn't suggest you just *grep* the bible for the word 'soul'. There are many terms that refer to the same thing: mind, heart, spirit, etc.
Take Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) for example: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
This speaks of what supposedly happens after death to the 'soul'. In *true* Christianity, the body is really just a container for the soul. You part with your body at death, and are reunited with it at the 'resurrection'.
Oh, and on your first point: any 'true' Christian is defined by the Christian Bible. If they don't put their faith in that to be true and correct (infallible) then they are on shaky ground.
According to the Bible, the most important thing is to believe a) you're a sinner and b) only Christ can save you from your sin (the premise being: God made the rules and we keep breaking them). As long as someone truly believes these two things then they could be defined as a 'true' Christian.
But, having said that, many 'nominal' churches/'christians' believe the Bible only to the point that it suites them (non-literal six days, no trinity, etc) - thereby defeating the whole purpose of it - its what suites God that matters.
Anyway, I really can't explain it all - there's a lot of information and 'background' to explain before there is any way I can properly get a point across.
I would really suggest you look at The Westminster Confession of Faith. That book alone is a brilliant guide to the Bible and the core beliefs derived from it. I don't think you'd find a better book to run you through the basics.
hhahahaha, yeah! Or even going to an Evolutionist convention and arguing about how dumb Creationism is.
Honestly, I don't know why the slashdot crowd even posts these articles.
You guys are arguing from completely the wrong perspective. All your arguments are based on materialism. I guess you cannot be blamed since you define your existence by what your senses tell you and your extrapolation of that data.
A true Christian believes there is another sense, the soul - that is actually the core of a human. Unfortunately for materialists, this is illogical because they can't measure or define it using their material senses - meaning endless looping arguments.
I would wager that many of you here believe that extraterrestrial aliens could exist (an existence that cannot be materially defined), but completely deny the possibility of a God who created this whole universe. I'd also wager that many of you here would believe that an extraterrestrial could exist in a form of being that we have not come across before - yet STILL won't believe in the possibility of a God that created this whole universe.
I find it quite frustrating.
I guess my point is that we didn't just view life as it came, but filtered it using the tools our parents had taught us. Fewer families are teaching their children these values and mentally equipping them with these tools. It seems to me that in another 3 generations - unless radical change happens - our society will look pretty morbid.
I stand corrected. You're right. Agh, and I said "please get your facts right".
Anyone got some spare humble pie lying around? I have to eat plenty....
For your information, that 'Family First bastard' you refer to is actually opposing the legislation. Please get your facts right.
Wrong. Before that, our parents taught us good values. We've failed to pass that onto our children because of laziness and have opted to just 'restrict' instead of 'educate'.
Western society is getting dumber - not smarter.