everyone brings to their reading of a text a raft of presuppositions about fairness, justice, and what God is/may/might/was like or should be like. But the reason you think the passage is biased is that it represents a worldview different from your own
That's nice. Usually, I express genocide as "mass murder" not a "different worldview." I think it's wrong in _any_ case. Again, infants and children were killed because they were Amorites. Why?
The reliability of the text depends on the reliability of the source.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I know you've heard it, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid point. If I outline the workings of gravity, and then say, "By the by, I can levitate things with my mind," I may have a very reliable source with an untrue statement. Adding someone's God to the mix suspends that disbelief for some reason.
Can a man live inside of a huge fish? Can the earth freeze in space so the sun doesn't set? These are easy questions to answer by themselves. So why is the answer different when you *believe* that God was involved? These were facts for your church in the 1500s, because everyone was ignorant. It seems the more that our societies learns about the universe, the less likely God is to exist. Where is hell? It used to be "down." Where is heaven? It used to be "up." These are at best simple ideas from a simple culture.
You see the Bible as infallible, because you believe that God willed men to write it, and that it holds the key to eternal, supernatural existence. I see the Old Testament as one tribe's wish for a general that would allow them to defeat the other more advanced civilizations that were constanstly beating them at war. And the new Testament is the tale of one Messiah who finally did what he said he was going to do, that all other messiahs had done before him: he died. Meanwhile on that day millions of people hunted, fished, had sex, made war, forged tools, discovered, gave birth and died... all seemingly unaware that a man was crucified in a town on the outskirts of the vast Roman Empire.
And the only reason you believe he is different is because lot of other people do too, otherwise you'd just believe in your personal cult. And there's must be something to it. Right? It seems no matter how hard you pray, or how much fealty your churches show, they still need someones $20. They still need someone to work to provide for the hierarchy. Because they know, as sure as the sun won't stop the next day, money isn't just going to fall out of the sky. Churches aren't going to appear out of thin air. The soup kitchens won't magically have food in the fridge, and the church media conglomerates won't find AV equipment surrounding their alters.
If God truly provided, church would be seven days a week. But history has shown that to be unreliable, so you, and I, and the rest of the world, do something besides praying to sustain ourselves.
One person is not an entire culture. Did the children of Amorites deserve to die? Why?
You have chosen to reject this passage on moral grounds rather than factual. This seems, to me, quite odd and blatently unscientific.
Sure! Just tell me the last time the sun stopped, or as we say in the 21st Century, the earth stopped revolving around the sun and rotating around it's own axis. I know it's terribly unscientific and everything.
"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel."
First of all, LORD has replaced Jehovah, Yahweh, or YHVH. This was done by the English church to give more respect to British Lords, in honor of a child molester known as King James. Why was it changed? Why did God allow this? Who knows. But I digress...
The bias in this passage is apparent. An enemy of Isreal is the enemy of God. The Amorites deserved their slaughter. God even stops the sun so Joshua can complete it.
Does this look like the work of a being who loves everyone? Why does he hate Amorites? Is a person evil because they are Irish, Hindu, or if they have a tendency to have blonde hair? The God of this passage seems to believe this, but I do not.
Now, is the passage reliable? I can find no motive, no moral other than, "You'll be massacred if you're not Jewish." I have never witnessed the sun stop, and as I understand it, that would require freezing the earth in place in it's motion around the sun, and in it's rotation around it's own axis. Who knows what consequences that would have on the weather, the tides, and the animals? Perhaps there were accounts across the globe about this miraculous event, and they just didn't survive.
So no, I don't believe the passage is reliable, based on my own experience and knowledge.
The question is, why do you want to believe the passage is true? If I traded "God" for "Allah," "Joshua" for "Mohommad," "Amorites" for "Americans," and "Israel" for "Islam," would it be extremist propoganda or the word of God?
There were a lot of prophets when Jesus was around. Most of them claimed they could deliver the Jews from the Romans, but when they failed, they were run off or killed. I believe Jesus existed, and professed to be the son of God. But instead of declaring that he would win a military victory against the Romans while he was alive, he broke ranks and smartly declared that he would be victorious AFTER they killed him.
It's an old game. If I say, "You'll find out I'm right after you've died" then I can say anything I bloody well please, can't I? So the promise of religion, in our modern world of technology that would provide the ability to reliably record a miracle, must always be after death.
You might say because God doesn't need to prove himself, but I'll say it's because the miracles never happened in the first place.
The Gospel of Mark, however, is understood by all Christians to be a historical narrative.
Christians differ over what parts they think refer to historical narrative.
Therein lies the problem. If the Bible was so clear, there wouldn't be 1600 sects of Christianity. Face it. The first liberalization of the bible was the New Testament, and it'll keep going until (I hope I see the day) the United States is just like Europe - where people believe some parts and ignore others, and combine other religious principles as well.
And, since every line of the bible is open to interpretation, the places where the Bible coincides with other history (which it should, since it was written during or after), do not mean that the rest of the bible is true. Okay, Egypt had slaves! That doesn't man a stave can turn into a snake.
Meanwhile, half of the Christian organizations in the world lie daily to con middle-class, the poor, and vulnerable seniors out of their hard earned money. Over at World Changers, the two head pastors have matching Bentleys and matching private jets. I have a feeling if Christian "non-profits" were forced to have transparent accounting, the people who make $400 a week would keep a little more in their own pocket.
Remember, Christ walked the world with no posessions. He never asked for money. He preached love and tolerance. He spent time comforting the addicts, prostitutes, and the unloved and unaccepted. But today nearly every organization (ahem, 700 Club) calls these people sick and evil.
http://www.cbn.com/communitypublic/ -- Check it out! Pat's Age Defying Shake! Word of god, my ass.
Question: How can I get a stable, easy to use, and supported Desktop OS that doesn't require me to invest a huge amount of money into new hardware or software licenses?
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with... [taking] the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations...who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Well, besides ignoring the Cheney lie, have a look at Bush the First's authorization:
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Pursuant to section 2(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (H.J. Res. 77, Public Law 102 - 1), I have concluded that:
1. the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, and 678; and
2. that those efforts have not been and would not be successful in obtaining such compliance.
Enclosed is a report that supports my decision.
Sincerely,
George Bush
It's easy to see that one doesn't *have* to fully reference all clauses. Why did the second Bush Administration choose to include that unnecessary clause?
Because it further propogated the lie that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th.
12) Bush lied by saying Iraq was involved in 9-11.
This is simply not true. No where did he or any senior officials claim this.
Yet, to initiate the war in Iraq...
March 18, 2003 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH
Why would he mention September 11th? I think he believed they would find documents to prop up what the entire administration believed and implied every day before the invasion: Saddam Hussein tactically or monetarily supported the terrorists of September 11th.
In fact, they focused so much on the thin ties between Al Queda and Hussein, Cheney waffled and lied about it.
Dec. 9, 2001. Cheney on NBC Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."
June 17, 2004 - Cheney on CNBC Borger: "Well, let's go to Mohamed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.' Cheney: "No, I never said that." Borger: "Okay." Cheney: "Never said that." Borger: "I think that is . . . " Cheney: "Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down."
The problem is that there is no open source equivilent to QuickBooks. There's nothing close, except for Fishbowl (closed source add-on, $5000 for a 10 user license) which runs on java and only provides order procurement/fulfillment cycles.
If there were anything like Openoffice/Firefox/Thunderbird (seamless translation, easy to install, easy interface to adapt to, completely compatible file format) both Intuit and Microsoft would be hurting. Even the $5000 10 user QuickBooks uses a flat database! ANYTHING on postgresql or mysql would be faster and more stable.
It's just so frustrating to see millions of small business customers with money in their pockets ready to dish it out to Intuit and/or MicroSoft for their next "upgrade," and the perfect solution on the OSS side of the fence just waiting to be created.
If I knew how to do anything besides basic scripting, I'd be all over it. By the time my chops are good enough, I'm afraid the window will have passed.
This is sad... people can play Doom 3 on their linux partition, but they can't run QuickBooks?! It makes me wonder of the linux community *really* wants the desktop business market.
I have my boss and all employees on Firefox/Thunderbird. I've removed the little E icon but pinned it to the start menu for dumb sites like Ingram Micro and - unbelievably - slashdot. If there were a bit of software similar to a multi-user GnuCash that could import quickbooks files, I cannot tell you how many businesses I could have switched by the Q4.
We have a small window of time before MS breaks all the wine/crossover compatibility with Longhorn. Don't miss it.
Alright, alright. I agree with you, but you should look at what's happening.
Linux people are getting it. More projects are doing more beta testing than mindless feature addition (see Firefox). The great part about the open source movement is that the geeks start the project, and a lot of them are very pedantic about stability and security. So, you get a text based library and program interface that never, never fails to work. But you have to remember
$ program -xvjpf
or some other non-intuitive command set. Then someone builds a KDE or Gnome GUI front end for it. The GUI might crash, but the libraries and commands are still rock solid. After a while someone might come along and take a look at both projects, re-use the library, create a better GUI integration that (hopefully) doesn't make the program unstable.
Notice the workflow? Stability and security are FIRST. GUI implementation is SECOND, and most likely won't break the stability and security.
At Apple and Microsoft, they try to do everything at once, so the library built to work with the gui built to integrate with programs XYZ and it looks so pretty! but what are these kernel 32 errors? If Apple didn't have the NeXTSTEP and BSD bail them out, you'd be hearing, "Cupertino, we have a problem." OS 9 was dead a long time ago, and they smartly got out from under it.
So anyway, I say, "Give me stability or give me death." But don't try to sell Linux to newbies quite yet. The first bad impression is hard to get rid of.
Everyone knows that...
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
...the only way to speed up an underpowered compact car is to add a six foot spoiler.
"Some embedded Linux providers even outsource their development to China and Russia."
If he's dumb enough to think the biggest threat is China or Russia, why is anyone listening to any part of his argument?
The really dumb assumption is that enemies will be able to anticipate what will be written on the embedded systems, and write bugs to exploit software that they have no source code to. Any sensitive programs will be developed in-house. My guess is they are going to maintain a seperate fork of a stripped kernel that will be easier to look through.
The greater risk is likely going to be on-site network security, not the software. Some clueless government employee will hook up a wireless router for his new dell, and someone nearby will find it.
When the votes are all in one place, and someone has enough money, your votes are available for purchase because someone, somewhere, is a superuser who can't be trusted.
As the data we keep on our computers becomes more and more valuable, people are less likely to be happy with accessing their information across the internet.
Within the next 10 years, portable computers will be separate from cell phones, but they will start to approach the size of an old tape walkman or iPod. They will completely replace PDAs. They'll have a small touchscreen, builtin WiFi connection, DVI out, as well as Bluetooth or equivilent and probably one USB and one Firewire port.
You'll be crazy to bring a laptop because on all of the planes and in all of the hotels, they'll have a screen you can jack into, as well as a mouse/keyboard. Your data stays with you, but you don't have to have another carry-on to use it. Simple, secure, and well within current technology limitations.
definition of farce (thanks webster!): "A low style of comedy; a dramatic composition marked by low humor, generally written with little regard to regularity or method, and abounding with ludicrous incidents and expressions."
Christ almighty. If you want me to put this in language you can understand, it's:
Humans are, grunt grunt, more important than, grunt grunt, money. And me think, grunt grunt, that people today, grunt grunt, forget that. Grunt.
I have an m6805 laptop. The wireless card is unusable, as is the ACPI, in Gentoo, SUSE, Mandrake, Fedora, Debian, Slackware, and Knoppix. My laptop is six months old.
I have a desktop AMD64 machine with a netgear wireless card in it. Gentoo doesn't work. The SUSE LiveCD works, but I'd rather not fork out $30 for the personal edition, and the network install is a hassle. Mandrake 10 for the X86-64 isn't available unless I'm in the club, which is only $100 a year. Debian doesn't work. Nor does Knoppix.
So, the reason I don't use Linux is because it doesn't work. At least, for the machines I own. Is that a good enough reason?
Actually, if I get the "cheap" version of SUSE, it's $30. If I get Windows XP Home Edition with a piece of hardware, it's $90.
Isn't that $60?
If the main advantage of Linux is based on price, it's starting to become less and less of an advantage. Perhaps you guys should start working on usability and driver coverage. But don't take my word for it, I'm just 90% of the market.
You know, when I think about our troops fighting for oil, our cops ignoring violent crime to generate income via traffic tickets, and our Congress basing all of their decisions on how good the lobbyists and their gifts are, it makes me proud.
(Cue the patriotic humming in the background)
I can't wait until rape only gets you five years in jail, and making a corporation lose a profit gets you ten. After all, most Americans would agree that losing money is the most damaging event in our lives. That guy who raped your sister would've gotten off easy if he hadn't snagged her piggy bank on the way out.
(Jets soar overhead. Eagles cry. George W. Bush smiles that big, dumb smile.)
Thank you RIAA! Thank you MPAA! Thank you to all the corporations that never pay taxes! We're here for you!
(Crescendo to the end of America the Beautiful)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to bend over and take it in the ass for everyone making 20 million a year. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
I'd like to outline my simple argument against Bush. I haven't heard any strong counter-argument.
1. Establish that Saddam Hussein never directly threatened the US. 2. Establish that Saddam Hussain has never killed an American on US soil. 3. Ask if they know that bin Laden organized and carried out the murder of 3,000 people on US soil. 4. Ask why 20,000 US troops and 6,000 NATO troops are looking for bin Laden, and 120,000 are in Iraq. 5. Ask how many terrorist attacks are still being carried out by Al Queda.
If we follow the Bush doctrine to the letter, every one of us will come to know war first-hand.
Just like I don't want Ferarri's and beach houses?
Sweet. An argument where Ferrari's = $15! Let me clarify. If something is well within your means, and you don't purchase it, then you don't want it. Let me know if you need further clarification.
Borrowing an album isn't possible with most DRM.
Using Windows forces you to buy your music online? I need to check the EULA again. I wonder if they can sue me for using Winamp, iTunes, CDex, or any other program that I use to archive my CDs to mp3 without DRM.
Yeah, and let it automatically create a nice subnet for you. Not what you wanted? Broke your existing LAN? Oops, no Internet Connection Sharing.
Every home user has more than one subnet. Honest.
Oh, that's right, five year old computers are disposable garbage that should be replaced with a shiny new Dell every two or three years.
They are. You can't even donate them. If you want to waste your time and money trying to save the $150 it costs to buy a used PIII-866, with a 2000 or 98 license on the box, then that's up to you. Don't act like your hobby is a good idea because you like it.
Better than having to buy a new card for no good reason.
I've got this toaster that's worth $2. Should I spend four or five hours trying to fix it, or buy the same model brand new for $20, or go to a thrift store and buy a working used toaster for $5?
Okay, I want to write a letter, but all I have is this buggy, insecure email client! I'll buy office... Oh, another buggy, insecure email client! For $300! I want to open a document my friend sent me, but I have an older version of Office!
If you're trying to imply that Linux software is less buggy that Microsoft Office, you need to check your head. I use Office Every Goddamn Day. It has never not worked. There are display issues with Microsoft Word, but if that becomes a problem, I could always use OpenOffice.org. On Windows. Without recompiling.
Are you really advocating that it's better for the only software people are able to use to be buggy, insecure, restrictive, and expensive? How about we educate people on how to do things, not make them dumber and more dangerous.
I understand how you think, but you have to remember, you live in a world of computers. To you, having something not work exactly the right way is a disaster. To 99% of the rest of the world, we plainly don't care. If our computers catch fire and melt, we can still go home and garden, or ride our bike, or, god forbid, even watch TV. (I love the Daily Show). We want to get the maximum amount of work done with the minimum amount of time wasted to get our computers to work.
Don't fight this. Embrace it. It doesn't make sense to have everyone learn about computers, because too many other areas suffer as a result. Do you know exactly how your car works? How about your air conditioner? How about your plumbing?
Windows is $90, or roughly two dinners for two people. It's affordable. It's not restrictive. It works.
"I bet with Windows, I can add my friend's music collection to my playlist! Oh... DRM." If you can't afford the songs, then you don't really want them, do you? Borrow an album, sure, but do you think fair use should really include "permanently borrowing" thousands of songs?
"I bet I can create a wireless network without an access point! Oh... Need Linux for that." Linux and roughly twenty pages of howtos. Which wireless cards work with which distros? Oops, I meant which revisions of which wireless cards works with which distros?
I really wish I could use some sort of "wizard" in XP to "share" my connection. Oh wait, I can.
"I can't even change the MAC address on my ethernet cards." Gosh, I wish there was an item for around $100 or so that allowed me to "route" all of this "internet" traffic. Guess I'll just have to read the howtos and learn how to use all the unix commands.
"And my sound card skips and crackles, because it's older and not well supported. Same with my old video card, damn. No solution except to downgrade to Windows 98, huh?" I would have tried downloading drivers, but you sound like you've got better ideas.
"To install a sound card: plug it in, hope it works, swear if it doesn't." It sure is easier to look for modules, compile them, and then add them to the kernel, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
everyone brings to their reading of a text a raft of presuppositions about fairness, justice, and what God is/may/might/was like or should be like. But the reason you think the passage is biased is that it represents a worldview different from your own
That's nice. Usually, I express genocide as "mass murder" not a "different worldview." I think it's wrong in _any_ case. Again, infants and children were killed because they were Amorites. Why?
The reliability of the text depends on the reliability of the source.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I know you've heard it, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid point. If I outline the workings of gravity, and then say, "By the by, I can levitate things with my mind," I may have a very reliable source with an untrue statement. Adding someone's God to the mix suspends that disbelief for some reason.
Can a man live inside of a huge fish? Can the earth freeze in space so the sun doesn't set? These are easy questions to answer by themselves. So why is the answer different when you *believe* that God was involved? These were facts for your church in the 1500s, because everyone was ignorant. It seems the more that our societies learns about the universe, the less likely God is to exist. Where is hell? It used to be "down." Where is heaven? It used to be "up." These are at best simple ideas from a simple culture.
You see the Bible as infallible, because you believe that God willed men to write it, and that it holds the key to eternal, supernatural existence. I see the Old Testament as one tribe's wish for a general that would allow them to defeat the other more advanced civilizations that were constanstly beating them at war. And the new Testament is the tale of one Messiah who finally did what he said he was going to do, that all other messiahs had done before him: he died. Meanwhile on that day millions of people hunted, fished, had sex, made war, forged tools, discovered, gave birth and died... all seemingly unaware that a man was crucified in a town on the outskirts of the vast Roman Empire.
And the only reason you believe he is different is because lot of other people do too, otherwise you'd just believe in your personal cult. And there's must be something to it. Right? It seems no matter how hard you pray, or how much fealty your churches show, they still need someones $20. They still need someone to work to provide for the hierarchy. Because they know, as sure as the sun won't stop the next day, money isn't just going to fall out of the sky. Churches aren't going to appear out of thin air. The soup kitchens won't magically have food in the fridge, and the church media conglomerates won't find AV equipment surrounding their alters.
If God truly provided, church would be seven days a week. But history has shown that to be unreliable, so you, and I, and the rest of the world, do something besides praying to sustain ourselves.
One person is not an entire culture. Did the children of Amorites deserve to die? Why?
You have chosen to reject this passage on moral grounds rather than factual. This seems, to me, quite odd and blatently unscientific.
Sure! Just tell me the last time the sun stopped, or as we say in the 21st Century, the earth stopped revolving around the sun and rotating around it's own axis. I know it's terribly unscientific and everything.
"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel."
First of all, LORD has replaced Jehovah, Yahweh, or YHVH. This was done by the English church to give more respect to British Lords, in honor of a child molester known as King James. Why was it changed? Why did God allow this? Who knows. But I digress...
The bias in this passage is apparent. An enemy of Isreal is the enemy of God. The Amorites deserved their slaughter. God even stops the sun so Joshua can complete it.
Does this look like the work of a being who loves everyone? Why does he hate Amorites? Is a person evil because they are Irish, Hindu, or if they have a tendency to have blonde hair? The God of this passage seems to believe this, but I do not.
Now, is the passage reliable? I can find no motive, no moral other than, "You'll be massacred if you're not Jewish." I have never witnessed the sun stop, and as I understand it, that would require freezing the earth in place in it's motion around the sun, and in it's rotation around it's own axis. Who knows what consequences that would have on the weather, the tides, and the animals? Perhaps there were accounts across the globe about this miraculous event, and they just didn't survive.
So no, I don't believe the passage is reliable, based on my own experience and knowledge.
The question is, why do you want to believe the passage is true? If I traded "God" for "Allah," "Joshua" for "Mohommad," "Amorites" for "Americans," and "Israel" for "Islam," would it be extremist propoganda or the word of God?
There were a lot of prophets when Jesus was around. Most of them claimed they could deliver the Jews from the Romans, but when they failed, they were run off or killed. I believe Jesus existed, and professed to be the son of God. But instead of declaring that he would win a military victory against the Romans while he was alive, he broke ranks and smartly declared that he would be victorious AFTER they killed him.
It's an old game. If I say, "You'll find out I'm right after you've died" then I can say anything I bloody well please, can't I? So the promise of religion, in our modern world of technology that would provide the ability to reliably record a miracle, must always be after death.
You might say because God doesn't need to prove himself, but I'll say it's because the miracles never happened in the first place.
Who's right? We'll find out after we die.
The Gospel of Mark, however, is understood by all Christians to be a historical narrative.
Christians differ over what parts they think refer to historical narrative.
Therein lies the problem. If the Bible was so clear, there wouldn't be 1600 sects of Christianity. Face it. The first liberalization of the bible was the New Testament, and it'll keep going until (I hope I see the day) the United States is just like Europe - where people believe some parts and ignore others, and combine other religious principles as well.
And, since every line of the bible is open to interpretation, the places where the Bible coincides with other history (which it should, since it was written during or after), do not mean that the rest of the bible is true. Okay, Egypt had slaves! That doesn't man a stave can turn into a snake.
Meanwhile, half of the Christian organizations in the world lie daily to con middle-class, the poor, and vulnerable seniors out of their hard earned money. Over at World Changers, the two head pastors have matching Bentleys and matching private jets. I have a feeling if Christian "non-profits" were forced to have transparent accounting, the people who make $400 a week would keep a little more in their own pocket.
Remember, Christ walked the world with no posessions. He never asked for money. He preached love and tolerance. He spent time comforting the addicts, prostitutes, and the unloved and unaccepted. But today nearly every organization (ahem, 700 Club) calls these people sick and evil.
http://www.cbn.com/communitypublic/ -- Check it out! Pat's Age Defying Shake! Word of god, my ass.
I think you might be the one who's out of touch
Question: How can I get a stable, easy to use, and supported Desktop OS that doesn't require me to invest a huge amount of money into new hardware or software licenses?
Answer: UserLinux.
So explain to me what I'm missing?
It's easy to see that one doesn't *have* to fully reference all clauses. Why did the second Bush Administration choose to include that unnecessary clause?
Because it further propogated the lie that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th.
Yet, to initiate the war in Iraq...
Why would he mention September 11th? I think he believed they would find documents to prop up what the entire administration believed and implied every day before the invasion: Saddam Hussein tactically or monetarily supported the terrorists of September 11th.
In fact, they focused so much on the thin ties between Al Queda and Hussein, Cheney waffled and lied about it.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The problem is that there is no open source equivilent to QuickBooks. There's nothing close, except for Fishbowl (closed source add-on, $5000 for a 10 user license) which runs on java and only provides order procurement/fulfillment cycles.
If there were anything like Openoffice/Firefox/Thunderbird (seamless translation, easy to install, easy interface to adapt to, completely compatible file format) both Intuit and Microsoft would be hurting. Even the $5000 10 user QuickBooks uses a flat database! ANYTHING on postgresql or mysql would be faster and more stable.
It's just so frustrating to see millions of small business customers with money in their pockets ready to dish it out to Intuit and/or MicroSoft for their next "upgrade," and the perfect solution on the OSS side of the fence just waiting to be created.
If I knew how to do anything besides basic scripting, I'd be all over it. By the time my chops are good enough, I'm afraid the window will have passed.
This is sad... people can play Doom 3 on their linux partition, but they can't run QuickBooks?! It makes me wonder of the linux community *really* wants the desktop business market.
I have my boss and all employees on Firefox/Thunderbird. I've removed the little E icon but pinned it to the start menu for dumb sites like Ingram Micro and - unbelievably - slashdot. If there were a bit of software similar to a multi-user GnuCash that could import quickbooks files, I cannot tell you how many businesses I could have switched by the Q4.
We have a small window of time before MS breaks all the wine/crossover compatibility with Longhorn. Don't miss it.
Alright, alright. I agree with you, but you should look at what's happening.
Linux people are getting it. More projects are doing more beta testing than mindless feature addition (see Firefox). The great part about the open source movement is that the geeks start the project, and a lot of them are very pedantic about stability and security. So, you get a text based library and program interface that never, never fails to work. But you have to remember
$ program -xvjpf
or some other non-intuitive command set. Then someone builds a KDE or Gnome GUI front end for it. The GUI might crash, but the libraries and commands are still rock solid. After a while someone might come along and take a look at both projects, re-use the library, create a better GUI integration that (hopefully) doesn't make the program unstable.
Notice the workflow? Stability and security are FIRST. GUI implementation is SECOND, and most likely won't break the stability and security.
At Apple and Microsoft, they try to do everything at once, so the library built to work with the gui built to integrate with programs XYZ and it looks so pretty! but what are these kernel 32 errors? If Apple didn't have the NeXTSTEP and BSD bail them out, you'd be hearing, "Cupertino, we have a problem." OS 9 was dead a long time ago, and they smartly got out from under it.
So anyway, I say, "Give me stability or give me death." But don't try to sell Linux to newbies quite yet. The first bad impression is hard to get rid of.
...the only way to speed up an underpowered compact car is to add a six foot spoiler.
The article is crap. Among their blunders are:
- Referring to Taiwan as a country
- Not showing disputed parts of India in India
- Japanese employees mistakenly use Koran chants in a video game
Most of the people who were offended are governments who "demand" respect. And those kind of governments are the least likely to deserve it.
10 out of 10 Terrorists agree - Anybody but Bush in 2004
I bet they don't. Someone else might punish their home country of Saudi Arabia.
"Some embedded Linux providers even outsource their development to China and Russia."
If he's dumb enough to think the biggest threat is China or Russia, why is anyone listening to any part of his argument?
The really dumb assumption is that enemies will be able to anticipate what will be written on the embedded systems, and write bugs to exploit software that they have no source code to. Any sensitive programs will be developed in-house. My guess is they are going to maintain a seperate fork of a stripped kernel that will be easier to look through.
The greater risk is likely going to be on-site network security, not the software. Some clueless government employee will hook up a wireless router for his new dell, and someone nearby will find it.
When the votes are all in one place, and someone has enough money, your votes are available for purchase because someone, somewhere, is a superuser who can't be trusted.
As the data we keep on our computers becomes more and more valuable, people are less likely to be happy with accessing their information across the internet.
Within the next 10 years, portable computers will be separate from cell phones, but they will start to approach the size of an old tape walkman or iPod. They will completely replace PDAs. They'll have a small touchscreen, builtin WiFi connection, DVI out, as well as Bluetooth or equivilent and probably one USB and one Firewire port.
You'll be crazy to bring a laptop because on all of the planes and in all of the hotels, they'll have a screen you can jack into, as well as a mouse/keyboard. Your data stays with you, but you don't have to have another carry-on to use it. Simple, secure, and well within current technology limitations.
definition of farce (thanks webster!): "A low style of comedy; a dramatic composition marked by low humor, generally written with little regard to regularity or method, and abounding with ludicrous incidents and expressions."
Christ almighty. If you want me to put this in language you can understand, it's:
Humans are, grunt grunt, more important than, grunt grunt, money. And me think, grunt grunt, that people today, grunt grunt, forget that. Grunt.
I have an m6805 laptop. The wireless card is unusable, as is the ACPI, in Gentoo, SUSE, Mandrake, Fedora, Debian, Slackware, and Knoppix. My laptop is six months old.
I have a desktop AMD64 machine with a netgear wireless card in it. Gentoo doesn't work. The SUSE LiveCD works, but I'd rather not fork out $30 for the personal edition, and the network install is a hassle. Mandrake 10 for the X86-64 isn't available unless I'm in the club, which is only $100 a year. Debian doesn't work. Nor does Knoppix.
So, the reason I don't use Linux is because it doesn't work. At least, for the machines I own. Is that a good enough reason?
Actually, if I get the "cheap" version of SUSE, it's $30. If I get Windows XP Home Edition with a piece of hardware, it's $90.
Isn't that $60?
If the main advantage of Linux is based on price, it's starting to become less and less of an advantage. Perhaps you guys should start working on usability and driver coverage. But don't take my word for it, I'm just 90% of the market.
You know, when I think about our troops fighting for oil, our cops ignoring violent crime to generate income via traffic tickets, and our Congress basing all of their decisions on how good the lobbyists and their gifts are, it makes me proud.
(Cue the patriotic humming in the background)
I can't wait until rape only gets you five years in jail, and making a corporation lose a profit gets you ten. After all, most Americans would agree that losing money is the most damaging event in our lives. That guy who raped your sister would've gotten off easy if he hadn't snagged her piggy bank on the way out.
(Jets soar overhead. Eagles cry. George W. Bush smiles that big, dumb smile.)
Thank you RIAA! Thank you MPAA! Thank you to all the corporations that never pay taxes! We're here for you!
(Crescendo to the end of America the Beautiful)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to bend over and take it in the ass for everyone making 20 million a year. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
I'd like to outline my simple argument against Bush. I haven't heard any strong counter-argument.
1. Establish that Saddam Hussein never directly threatened the US.
2. Establish that Saddam Hussain has never killed an American on US soil.
3. Ask if they know that bin Laden organized and carried out the murder of 3,000 people on US soil.
4. Ask why 20,000 US troops and 6,000 NATO troops are looking for bin Laden, and 120,000 are in Iraq.
5. Ask how many terrorist attacks are still being carried out by Al Queda.
If we follow the Bush doctrine to the letter, every one of us will come to know war first-hand.
Just like I don't want Ferarri's and beach houses?
Sweet. An argument where Ferrari's = $15! Let me clarify. If something is well within your means, and you don't purchase it, then you don't want it. Let me know if you need further clarification.
Borrowing an album isn't possible with most DRM.
Using Windows forces you to buy your music online? I need to check the EULA again. I wonder if they can sue me for using Winamp, iTunes, CDex, or any other program that I use to archive my CDs to mp3 without DRM.
Yeah, and let it automatically create a nice subnet for you. Not what you wanted? Broke your existing LAN? Oops, no Internet Connection Sharing.
Every home user has more than one subnet. Honest.
Oh, that's right, five year old computers are disposable garbage that should be replaced with a shiny new Dell every two or three years.
They are. You can't even donate them. If you want to waste your time and money trying to save the $150 it costs to buy a used PIII-866, with a 2000 or 98 license on the box, then that's up to you. Don't act like your hobby is a good idea because you like it.
Better than having to buy a new card for no good reason.
I've got this toaster that's worth $2. Should I spend four or five hours trying to fix it, or buy the same model brand new for $20, or go to a thrift store and buy a working used toaster for $5?
Okay, I want to write a letter, but all I have is this buggy, insecure email client! I'll buy office... Oh, another buggy, insecure email client! For $300! I want to open a document my friend sent me, but I have an older version of Office!
If you're trying to imply that Linux software is less buggy that Microsoft Office, you need to check your head. I use Office Every Goddamn Day. It has never not worked. There are display issues with Microsoft Word, but if that becomes a problem, I could always use OpenOffice.org. On Windows. Without recompiling.
Are you really advocating that it's better for the only software people are able to use to be buggy, insecure, restrictive, and expensive? How about we educate people on how to do things, not make them dumber and more dangerous.
I understand how you think, but you have to remember, you live in a world of computers. To you, having something not work exactly the right way is a disaster. To 99% of the rest of the world, we plainly don't care. If our computers catch fire and melt, we can still go home and garden, or ride our bike, or, god forbid, even watch TV. (I love the Daily Show). We want to get the maximum amount of work done with the minimum amount of time wasted to get our computers to work.
Don't fight this. Embrace it. It doesn't make sense to have everyone learn about computers, because too many other areas suffer as a result. Do you know exactly how your car works? How about your air conditioner? How about your plumbing?
Windows is $90, or roughly two dinners for two people. It's affordable. It's not restrictive. It works.
"I bet with Windows, I can add my friend's music collection to my playlist! Oh... DRM."
If you can't afford the songs, then you don't really want them, do you? Borrow an album, sure, but do you think fair use should really include "permanently borrowing" thousands of songs?
"I bet I can create a wireless network without an access point! Oh... Need Linux for that."
Linux and roughly twenty pages of howtos. Which wireless cards work with which distros? Oops, I meant which revisions of which wireless cards works with which distros?
I really wish I could use some sort of "wizard" in XP to "share" my connection. Oh wait, I can.
"I can't even change the MAC address on my ethernet cards."
Gosh, I wish there was an item for around $100 or so that allowed me to "route" all of this "internet" traffic. Guess I'll just have to read the howtos and learn how to use all the unix commands.
"And my sound card skips and crackles, because it's older and not well supported. Same with my old video card, damn. No solution except to downgrade to Windows 98, huh?"
I would have tried downloading drivers, but you sound like you've got better ideas.
"To install a sound card: plug it in, hope it works, swear if it doesn't."
It sure is easier to look for modules, compile them, and then add them to the kernel, isn't it?
"Then buy a new card, but be sure to buy a brand name card, or the drivers will suck."
Gosh, you're right. I've never heard of anyone trying to make sure pieces of hardware worked with linux.
"I think I'll write some software!"
I do it every day, honest. Oh wait, I'm 95% of computer users. I don't think I write software, do I?