Not sure how they came up with 10GB unless they were using the Enterprise or Datacenter Editions.
I just set up a Win2K8 Std in a VPC and it required 6.2GB all installed with all the features I was using (which was most except for Active Directory, Remote Connection/VPN stuff, and some of the Desktop Deployment stuff which might account for most of the discrepancy).
I was able to pair that down to about 4GB by tossing out most of the driver INFs (not needed in a VPC) and the actual driver file backups and a few other 'cache' type folders. I'm sure I could've gotten it down more.
The same techniques in Win2K3 Std takes it from like 3GB-ish to 1.5GBish, by way of comparison.
Admittedly though, there *is* a LOT more stuff in Win2K8, not just Aero and Balmer videos.
It boils down to this: AT THIS POINT IN TIME, it's not quite so bad. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.
However, there WILL COME A TIME when the definition of 'WRONG' changes and suddenly you're rounded up for being in the 'WRONG' category due to all the evidence they have against you in the myriad of databases they have on you.
Cases in point: - Supporters of the Tzar during the Octoberist revolution, dissenters and non-party members in Soviet Russia - Jews, Catholics, Gays, and others in Nazi Germany when they decided these many in these groups were enemies of the state
Company fires IT director, hires new IT director who fires all the worthless IT staff who were responsible for 50-60 (insert OS here) servers that were poorly managed -- hires new IT people (fewer of them) that are competent and set up 15 servers running (insert OS here).
I've see that story dozens of times with the (insert OS here) being Linux or Windows.
Pickup-trucks (bonus: They can't park either, and even when they can, they still prevent others from parking near them due to the width and length)
Prious/Hybrids and Old-beat up mini-cars/economy-cars that spew noxious fumes into the air (bonus: usually driven by a pretentious liberal claiming holier-than-thou because they drive economy, even though their spewing out the pollution of 3 suburbans combined)
SUVs
Dump-trucks (usually older ones, bonus: they also fling out deadly stones and boulders that terrorize the highways and have a sign that says 'stay back 200 ft.' that can only be read from 50ft away or less
1. It runs on any OS
I don't care, nor do most of the people out there running servers. We run Windows, so that's not really an argument.
2. Apache Modules here.
There is quite a list.
So what? I wouldn't use 99% of 'em, and the ones I would use would be to achieve current-feature-set in IIS7. And even then, I'd have less features than IIS7.
3. Easy to mass-install, easy to backup configuration, easy to clone configuration, etc.
True, but the first install is a major B*TCH. Yes, I'm proficient with Apache, I've set up dozens (yeah, I know I'm still a n00b by 'dot standards). But, c'mon, Apache is a b*tch to install by any standards.
4. Just as easy to upgrade as IIS.
Oh really? Ok, here's a common scenario I have to deal with: Setup an Apache server with Python and SVN extensions with SSL to run on Windows. Turns out that you have to compile Apache because it doesn't come binary form from Apache with SSL support (for various stupid reasons which I don't care about).
It is *NOT* easy to compile, install, and upgrade? It doesn't exist. Upgrade = new compile and install and copy over whatever settings are compatible and deal with the incompatible
settings. Hours and hours of research, trial and error, etc.
So, c'mon, you guys need to stop being so disingenuous. Apache is a really great web server, no arguments, but it's hard to justify it over IIS all things being equal. Unfortunately, I still have to use it because I'm forced to use it due to the narrow-minded technology decisions of the some of the tool-makers I use.
Ok, admittedly this is a slippery-slope argument, but Science is all about slipper-slope (sometimes good, sometimes bad) and we see it all the time from cloning research to end-of-life medicine care where the 'terminal, no more care' line keeps trending younger and younger and more and more people being condemned as not-worth-treating-anymore (look at the Netherlands).
So let's say we life the federal ban on embryonic stem-cell research funding and scientist's have a hayday creating embryos in dishes and killing them with reckless abandon and harvesting whatever they harvest.
I guarantee you that in a few years they'll realize that actually zygotes are better... "it's just a lump of cells... well more cells" everyone will say.
Pretty soon you'll have several-weeks-olds being raised in order to harvest early heart cells for cardio treatment in adults, etc. The 'lump of cells' argument won't work here, then we'll here more of the 'it's for the greater good' arguments that the unborn's rights are somehow less important than that of a 40 year old lifetime smoker who ate bacon 3 times a day, etc, etc, etc.
Where's the line? Who determines it? The Government? The Scientists? The voters? Ultimately it's the voters, I guess. But it seems that if we want any hope of having true respect for human life, we better protect it at both ends because we're giving up our rights left and *ahem* right. Pretty soon only life from 5 to 55 will be considered 'valuable' and everyone will go 'WTF OMG!!!111 PWNED!!'
Be careful what you wish for. By the time this all comes down, most of you will be in your elder years and could be headed for the chopping block.
Can someone please explain to me not only how Google makes money, but makes THAT much money that they can spend 4.6bn on various things like this?
(I'm serious, this isn't rhetorical or sarcastic -- either something doesn't add up, or my perception of how much money can be made from tiny little advertisements on web pages is WAYYYY out of whack)
First, let's establish that 'Creationists' don't necessarily deny Evolution.
What you're mostly referring to are Evangelical Protestant Bible-only Christians.
'Christian', for 1,500 years meant 'Roman Catholic' (or, after 1,200 years Catholic or Orthodox, very very similar).
After the Reformation, many Christians threw authority out the window and started wondering around in Theology making stuff up as they went along and now we have Bible-only Christians that think every word is LITERALLY (as opposed to LITERALISTICALLY which is what most rational, thinking people read the Bible as) the absolute direct translation of God's will (despite their lose, error-prone translations into English, etc). These people think the Universe was created in precisely 6 24-hour periods and think (I'm not kidding, I heard one say this) that Christ himself use the King James Version to quote scripture. Using LITERAL interpretation, they would also think that 'Raining Cats and Dogs' literally means that canines and felines were falling from the sky.
(again, bear with me, I'm going to bring this back on topic, I swear)
Proper Christianity, that is Christianity that stuck with what Christ intended and with the proper Apostolic Authority and proper scriptural interpretation based on ACCURATE translations of the Bible (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek/Russian/Etc Orthodox Church), do NOT interpret the Bible this way, and instead interpret LITERALISTICALY which is to say that 'Raining cats and dogs' has a specific literalistic meaning and is not intended to be interpreted literally.
Now, here we go: True Christians know that God created the Universe according to his own design in a specific fashion in a specific order and that the FULL details are NOT included in Genesis.
It's ENTIRELY possible that when Genesis talks about the 6th day God made animals, it means 'after 400 million years, vertebrate lifeforms evolved from invertebrates'.
The Catholic Church does not specifically deny nor promote Evolution (it's possible there's an even more complete and compelling theory that fleshes out some of the problems with Evolution).
So, please don't lump 'Creationists' (true Authority Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) in with off-in-the-wilderness Evangelical Christians who are making things up and interpreting the Bible in a theological vacuum.
I couldn't locate concrete numbers, but I'm willing to bet we spend a LOT more money funding Global Warming fear mongerin-- I mean research than we do Fusion power generation research.
It seems like we're just wasting good research dollars at explaining just how evil humans are rather than solving whatever problems we created (real or imagined).
Why are people still generating SQL? Don't all the major DB engines favor prepared statements anyhow? Note: prepared statements =/= Stored Procedures, though in some engines, stored procedures are just another FORM of prepared statements. Using prepared statements (or parameterized queries, etc, etc) pretty much eliminates all SQL injection problems.
Parsing is messy business and there's usually ways to thwart it by a determined h4x0r.
Greedy Media Companies bilk consumers, consumers get angry and frustrated, turn to piracy to get the products they want, GMC's continue bilking, but now lobby Gov't for extra fees and taxes to recoup cost of piracy thus bilking consumers EVEN MORE and driving them to pirate more, etc, etc, etc...
The GMC's have created an artificial problem because they have essentially monopolized content distribution and colluded to create a huge barrier to entry where a consumer's only choice becomes to buy, not to buy, or to pirate.
Fortunately the Internet has helped with the Barrier to Entry problem, but, unfortunately, dramatically increased piracy.
The GMC's could solve the problem of piracy very easily, while simultaneously increasing good will of consumers (and therefore number of purchases and therefore profits) but they simply choose not to -- instead content to bilk the consumer and punish them for considering any alternative.
You're absolutely right about this. I do have one comment/corollary to this though:
It's extremely difficult to be a 'good parent' and reasonable monitor your child's behavior on the Internet these days.
The technology to allow parents to do a 'reasonable' job without being 'Big Brother' (as another poster put it) is simply not there.
It's going to take some kind of watershed case for OS manufacturers, application makers, web site builders, etc to finally get the picture that they need to open up portholes into their software to allow parents to gather information about their children in order to make informed decisions.
For the most part today, the choice is either all or nothing. Content filters and firewalls go a long way, but they're still not 'intelligent' enough and don't grant parents enough insight and meaningful information to make the decisions necessary to allow their children access to the Internet without throwing them to the wolves.
It's getting better (with MacOS X and Vista parental controls and better filters, etc) but it's still a LONG way off from what needs to be done.
What needs to be done, in the end? Hrm... now there's an idea for a great start-up company!
Crap... I, uh... gotta go. You guys keep debating about MySpace, I have a VC pitch to write:)
It seems silly to me that we're still looking for memory leak bugs, buffer overrun/strcpy-type stuff, and pointer dereferencing bugs. These problems have been fundamentally solved (or at least all but abstracted from the programmer) by managed code environments like Java,.NET, and others.
Why are we in the IT world still causing ourselves problems by using C/C++ in any situation except those which call for the strengths of C/C++ -- strengths which are quickly being matched by their managed counterparts.
Realtime? Embedded? Video game? Ok, use C/C++ (though even video games you could make an argument...). For everything else, there's managed code. No more memory pointer leaks (well, the hard-to-find kind caused by poor pointer management in C/C++), no more buffer overruns that aren't immediately fixable in one place, etc, etc.
C'mon, we, as the IT profession, have evolved past that. Why are we still trying to work around these already-solved problems?
Thank you for being respectful and not being immature and insulting. I find that when you bring up the subject of religion, many non-believers or skeptics will immediately resort to childish behavior. It's very discouraging. You are very respectful and I appreciate that.
As far as proof, the list is far too long to reference here. There are many books on the subject, my personal favorite, and one that really convinced me (I was a skeptic and mostly atheist before this. I was raised Lutheran, but rejected faith in my teens. It took me 15 years to be convinced again) is Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ".
He's a former investigative journalist who was atheist and was married to a Christian. She challenged him to prove her wrong and in the process ended up proving her right. It's a very thorough, exhaustive study of all the possible questions and doubts raised by various stories in the Gospels and other similar texts. It establishes the voracity of the Gospel books, the identies, intentions, and motives of the writers, accounts for subjectivity and bias and establishes the actual facts.
Just so you don't think I'm pimping his book, you can get a used paperback version on amazon for like $3 plus $2-3 s/h (that's how I got mine).
If you want, I can start posting excepts from that book and others, or I can try to summarize, but I'd hate to do that since I'll probably screw it up and leave you with half the information and probably confuse you in the process.
I'm not trying to dodge the question, I will happily try to answer, but I'm just afraid you won't get the correct, full answers from me. The pursuit of truth is not something to take likely.
Perhaps a better way would be for you to ask questions and I will try to answer them.
There is lots of circumstantial evidence to account for the resurrection (i.e. things that would not likely have happened, or could not have happened unless the fact we're trying to prove actually happened). For example, if the Gospel writers were trying to deceive people (as the most common criticisms of the Gospels usually state), they would most certainly not have had a woman or women finding the empty tomb.
Women at that time were not even able to stand trial on behalf of themselves, a responsible male must stand trial to defend the woman. They could not testify in the courts (Jews had an advanced legal system for their day, despite it being anti-female), they couldn't own land, own anything, for that matter, etc.
The thought of a woman being the sole discoverer of a momentus occasion is inconceivable for that time. It's so laughable, that most Jewish scholars and priests laughed at it and discarded it on it's face and wouldn't hear any more of the silly notion.
That's but one argument. There's also another good one... if there wasn't a perponderance of evidence linking Jesus to all the prophecies (there are over 300 prophecies predicting every aspect of Jesus' life, about 190 of which are unique or don't match nearly exactly with another prophecy and he matched every single one), the Jewish priests wouldn't have posted guard near the tomb.
Granted, they thought the apostles would try to somehow steal the body (even though the boulder was moveable only by special engineers). Yet, in the morning, the guards were gone completely (depending on which account you read). Such a hugely important task would not have been taken lightly by official guards of the Jewish Temple. Why did they just leave their post?
Another point, later in the Gospels and other accounts of the days and weeks following the ressurection, the Jewish priests were not arguing the fact that the tomb was empty, or that it was emptied under suspicious circumstances. For example, if it was simply the wrong tomb, we would have prolific writings by the priests at the time (they wrote prolifically on everything else) talking about how the Christians were fake because it was the WRONG TOMB! If it were that the tomb was obviously
I'd like to make a point that's slightly related to this topic.
First let me say that I don't preclude the possibility of macro evolution. It certainly could've happened and would not be incompatible with the Torah. It seems that Kool-Aid Evolution Scientists have gotten themselves into a logical pickle with the Big Bang. Precluding God precludes Big Bang because if there is a singular event to start the universe, there must've been a cause. The logical trail always ends up with an uncaused cause, an uncreated creator, etc.
What I'm frustrated about, is that modern scientists (most of them, not all), rule out religion at the outset. Don't even give it the slightest possibility. They then next move on to other things. This seems silly. Granted, scientists are frustrated by things they can't explain, or that aren't adequately defined/explained, so I can understand their natural tendency away from religion, but to absolutely rule it out is folly. It's akin to those scientists around the time of Newton who simply ruled out his theories because... well... no one knows why, because that's just what they've always thought.
As a scientific theory, Evolution is pretty poor. It inadequately defines the problem and presents no real solution. There is no evidence yet to suggest macro evolution actually occurs.
There seems to be a core of anti-religion scientists who accept Evolution as The One True Answer despite tons of evidence to the contrary. In fact, the blind acceptance of Evolution is a religion in and of itself. It takes far more faith to believe in Evolution then in Judaism or Christianity. Seriously! There's a lot more physical, scientific, logical, and forensic evidence to support that Jesus rose from the dead then there is to support that macro evolution has occured even once.
Certainly there must be other explanations (even non-religious ones) that scientists can explore. It seems they are so committed now to evolution, that they will not abandon it no matter how bad it becomes.
This is sad because science cannot progress under these thick-headed circumstances. Trying to prove another group wrong is a bad way to conduct scientific research. There should be a focus and goal on persuing the Truth, whereever it may be found. I think that some scientists are unwilling to consider the possibility that there is a God and he did create the universe.
Skepticism is one thing, and it's very healthy and productive, but outright sticking your head in the sand accomplishes nothing for anyone.
If you're a scientist or academic researcher, I implore you, please look honestly and objectively at the junk science that so far surrounds Evolution and try to come up with another theory that is more plausible and is verifiable with evidence and research. You may actually find out Evolution is the right answer, or you may not. Just please stop blindly accepting Evolution simply because you don't want to give some type of sophmoric victory to the Jews/Christians.
Come on, you are playing the same naming games that Microsoft and Sun both are playing. As I was saying, ECMA C# looks nice and non-proprietary. However, ECMA C# is not.NET and it won't run most.NET applications..NET and Java are both proprietary, non-standardized platforms.
Actually, the.NET CLI is an ECMA spec as well. MS has released two specs to the ECMA: C# and the CLI.
Using the CLI spec you can create a full.NET CLR (like what is being done in Mono and DotGNU). The API for the core libraries is published (but they are not open source) so you can create a set of libraries that mimmic that functionality. Mono has done a good job of this and is mostly through all the core-core libraries. Some of the extra stuff like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows Forms still have yet to be done, but they have started working on them.
The reason it's better built in is because it's consistent. Before it was built in (in the 1.2 and 1.3 days) you had a bunch of different parsers and a bunch of different versions of each.
We had a project where we had Jetty, Apache Jakarta Struts, JDOM for our own stuff, and several other 3rd party libraries which I can't recall. All required a different version of Xerces and/or JAXP and they all seemed incompatibile. I remember spending 3 days trying to get our classpath just right so that everything was happy, and I don't recall ever succeeding. We had to pull all sorts of hoops and tricks to get it to work and I can't even remember how.
You don't have those problems in.NET. a.) because XML is built in and b.) because of strong names and version-specific dependencies.
Not that you deserve any reply because of your idiocy (".Not", "M$", etc)
SOAP4J is crap. Which is why they're rewriting it and starting from scratch with AXIS..NET is free. You don't need Visual Studio.NET to code in.NET just like you don't need Visual Crashe to code in Java.
Java XML is:
- Late - Slow - immature - Doesn't support all specs (namely web services, XML data definitions, XML Schema XSD, etc)
IBM was a major contributor to XML Schema, but not Sun.
Sun hasn't contributed much of anything. In fact, they're so far behind, they just announced a new Web-services-like definition called "WCIS" or something like that. It's sad. I wish IBM would just buy Sun and put them out of their misery.
SOAP4J was a bloated mess (still is), which is why they're rewriting it and writing AXIS.
I'm very familiar with Jakarta and AlphaWorks. I worked as a Java programmer for 2 years. I was very shocked to see how far behind in the XML arena the Java world was. After having worked with VB for a few years before and using the MSXML parser which supported existing XML standard proposals (it wasn't standardized at the time) more than any existing parser did.
Xerces was a pile of junk without wrappers like JDOM. JDOM was cool, but it was sad that you ended up having to have 5 or 6 3rd party libraries before you could do anything serious with XML.
This is mostly fixed now with 1.4, but my point was that Java DID NOT have it right before MS or.NET.
I knew that this would get mod'd down since the mods aren't interested in facts, especially ones that pertain to MS. The original text of the Slashdot article was incorrect. Java did not get it right first, I was merely illustrating that.
First,.NET was designed to be platform independent. Win32 specific stuff is contained in specific assemblies prefixed with "Microsoft.", such as "Microsoft.Win32" which contains a whole slew of Windows-specific stuff like the Registry.
The.NET CLI and C# language spec are open standards, which is more than anyone can say for Java. Sun has twice attempted to standardize Java, but pulled out. They want to keep a tight noose on Java because, presumably, they wish to charge licensing for it in the future.
Go-Mono is an open-source, GPL implementation of the.NET CLI and C# for Linux (on several hardware platforms).
Microsoft had Corel and some of their researchers in Cambridge, UK, develop a clean-room implementation of the.NET CLI and C# for FreeBSD and Windows called "Rotor". They have released it as Shared-Source (meaning you can view the source, but not use it) to demonstrate that it is possible to make.NET cross-platform.
MS has said that it will discuss commericial licenses of Rotor.
If there is sufficient demand,.NET will be ported to other platforms by MS or 3rd parties (since it's a standard).
I don't think.NET will kill Java, that would be absurd. In fact, I hope it DOESN'T kill Java.
A software world where your main choices are.NET or Java is a very good world indeed!
But, it's equally absurd to think that Java will kill.NET and.NET will fade away..NET is poised to sweep through the MS development community, after which it will have as much or more deployment than Java. It's a force to rekon with, whether you like it or not.
Well, in an attempt to cut through all the anti-.NET FUD, let's throw out a few facts:
- MS was first company who had a very, very good XML parser (MSXML 2 and 3) back in the IE4 and 5 days. MS is one of the major contributors to the advancement of XML and XML-related standards such as XML Schema (which is SOOOO much better than DTD, let me tell you )
- Java's support for XML was pitiful, broken, and horrible until just recently. There wasn't even a complete XML DOM solution in Java until JDK 1.4 which was only recently released!
- There still is no good Web Services implementation in Java other than costly commercial implementations from BEA and IBM.
In short: Java + XML is a joke..NET has much better and pervasive XML support. Download the.NET Framework SDK (or view the docs online) and see the System.Xml namespace. Then, look at the javax.xml package in the JDK1.4 and then laugh at Java.
Needless to say, saying that "java got it right first" is a complete lie.
Too bad Blizzard can't come up with a killer Battle.Net =(
Still can't connect half the time, and when I am connected, all the servers seemed to be desynced and I can't ever see my friends. We can't get a game going. When bnetd was around at least we could play on our private server. And LAN games don't seem to work well when you're 1500 miles apart.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure how they came up with 10GB unless they were using the Enterprise or Datacenter Editions.
I just set up a Win2K8 Std in a VPC and it required 6.2GB all installed with all the features I was using (which was most except for Active Directory, Remote Connection/VPN stuff, and some of the Desktop Deployment stuff which might account for most of the discrepancy).
I was able to pair that down to about 4GB by tossing out most of the driver INFs (not needed in a VPC) and the actual driver file backups and a few other 'cache' type folders. I'm sure I could've gotten it down more.
The same techniques in Win2K3 Std takes it from like 3GB-ish to 1.5GBish, by way of comparison.
Admittedly though, there *is* a LOT more stuff in Win2K8, not just Aero and Balmer videos.
It boils down to this: AT THIS POINT IN TIME, it's not quite so bad. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.
However, there WILL COME A TIME when the definition of 'WRONG' changes and suddenly you're rounded up for being in the 'WRONG' category due to all the evidence they have against you in the myriad of databases they have on you.
Cases in point:
- Supporters of the Tzar during the Octoberist revolution, dissenters and non-party members in Soviet Russia
- Jews, Catholics, Gays, and others in Nazi Germany when they decided these many in these groups were enemies of the state
Company fires IT director, hires new IT director who fires all the worthless IT staff who were responsible for 50-60 (insert OS here) servers that were poorly managed -- hires new IT people (fewer of them) that are competent and set up 15 servers running (insert OS here).
I've see that story dozens of times with the (insert OS here) being Linux or Windows.
Hrm, in my experience, it's usually:
1. It runs on any OS
I don't care, nor do most of the people out there running servers. We run Windows, so that's not really an argument.
2. Apache Modules here. There is quite a list.
So what? I wouldn't use 99% of 'em, and the ones I would use would be to achieve current-feature-set in IIS7. And even then, I'd have less features than IIS7.
3. Easy to mass-install, easy to backup configuration, easy to clone configuration, etc.
True, but the first install is a major B*TCH. Yes, I'm proficient with Apache, I've set up dozens (yeah, I know I'm still a n00b by 'dot standards). But, c'mon, Apache is a b*tch to install by any standards.
4. Just as easy to upgrade as IIS.
Oh really? Ok, here's a common scenario I have to deal with: Setup an Apache server with Python and SVN extensions with SSL to run on Windows. Turns out that you have to compile Apache because it doesn't come binary form from Apache with SSL support (for various stupid reasons which I don't care about).
It is *NOT* easy to compile, install, and upgrade? It doesn't exist. Upgrade = new compile and install and copy over whatever settings are compatible and deal with the incompatible settings. Hours and hours of research, trial and error, etc.
So, c'mon, you guys need to stop being so disingenuous. Apache is a really great web server, no arguments, but it's hard to justify it over IIS all things being equal. Unfortunately, I still have to use it because I'm forced to use it due to the narrow-minded technology decisions of the some of the tool-makers I use.
Ok, admittedly this is a slippery-slope argument, but Science is all about slipper-slope (sometimes good, sometimes bad) and we see it all the time from cloning research to end-of-life medicine care where the 'terminal, no more care' line keeps trending younger and younger and more and more people being condemned as not-worth-treating-anymore (look at the Netherlands).
So let's say we life the federal ban on embryonic stem-cell research funding and scientist's have a hayday creating embryos in dishes and killing them with reckless abandon and harvesting whatever they harvest.
I guarantee you that in a few years they'll realize that actually zygotes are better... "it's just a lump of cells... well more cells" everyone will say.
Pretty soon you'll have several-weeks-olds being raised in order to harvest early heart cells for cardio treatment in adults, etc. The 'lump of cells' argument won't work here, then we'll here more of the 'it's for the greater good' arguments that the unborn's rights are somehow less important than that of a 40 year old lifetime smoker who ate bacon 3 times a day, etc, etc, etc.
Where's the line? Who determines it? The Government? The Scientists? The voters? Ultimately it's the voters, I guess. But it seems that if we want any hope of having true respect for human life, we better protect it at both ends because we're giving up our rights left and *ahem* right. Pretty soon only life from 5 to 55 will be considered 'valuable' and everyone will go 'WTF OMG!!!111 PWNED!!'
Be careful what you wish for. By the time this all comes down, most of you will be in your elder years and could be headed for the chopping block.
Can someone please explain to me not only how Google makes money, but makes THAT much money that they can spend 4.6bn on various things like this? (I'm serious, this isn't rhetorical or sarcastic -- either something doesn't add up, or my perception of how much money can be made from tiny little advertisements on web pages is WAYYYY out of whack)
This is somewhat on-topic, please bear with me...
First, let's establish that 'Creationists' don't necessarily deny Evolution.
What you're mostly referring to are Evangelical Protestant Bible-only Christians.
'Christian', for 1,500 years meant 'Roman Catholic' (or, after 1,200 years Catholic or Orthodox, very very similar).
After the Reformation, many Christians threw authority out the window and started wondering around in Theology making stuff up as they went along and now we have Bible-only Christians that think every word is LITERALLY (as opposed to LITERALISTICALLY which is what most rational, thinking people read the Bible as) the absolute direct translation of God's will (despite their lose, error-prone translations into English, etc). These people think the Universe was created in precisely 6 24-hour periods and think (I'm not kidding, I heard one say this) that Christ himself use the King James Version to quote scripture. Using LITERAL interpretation, they would also think that 'Raining Cats and Dogs' literally means that canines and felines were falling from the sky.
(again, bear with me, I'm going to bring this back on topic, I swear)
Proper Christianity, that is Christianity that stuck with what Christ intended and with the proper Apostolic Authority and proper scriptural interpretation based on ACCURATE translations of the Bible (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek/Russian/Etc Orthodox Church), do NOT interpret the Bible this way, and instead interpret LITERALISTICALY which is to say that 'Raining cats and dogs' has a specific literalistic meaning and is not intended to be interpreted literally.
Now, here we go: True Christians know that God created the Universe according to his own design in a specific fashion in a specific order and that the FULL details are NOT included in Genesis.
It's ENTIRELY possible that when Genesis talks about the 6th day God made animals, it means 'after 400 million years, vertebrate lifeforms evolved from invertebrates'.
The Catholic Church does not specifically deny nor promote Evolution (it's possible there's an even more complete and compelling theory that fleshes out some of the problems with Evolution).
So, please don't lump 'Creationists' (true Authority Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) in with off-in-the-wilderness Evangelical Christians who are making things up and interpreting the Bible in a theological vacuum.
I couldn't locate concrete numbers, but I'm willing to bet we spend a LOT more money funding Global Warming fear mongerin-- I mean research than we do Fusion power generation research.
It seems like we're just wasting good research dollars at explaining just how evil humans are rather than solving whatever problems we created (real or imagined).
Why are people still generating SQL? Don't all the major DB engines favor prepared statements anyhow? Note: prepared statements =/= Stored Procedures, though in some engines, stored procedures are just another FORM of prepared statements. Using prepared statements (or parameterized queries, etc, etc) pretty much eliminates all SQL injection problems.
Parsing is messy business and there's usually ways to thwart it by a determined h4x0r.
But the reality is more like this:
Greedy Media Companies bilk consumers, consumers get angry and frustrated, turn to piracy to get the products they want, GMC's continue bilking, but now lobby Gov't for extra fees and taxes to recoup cost of piracy thus bilking consumers EVEN MORE and driving them to pirate more, etc, etc, etc...
The GMC's have created an artificial problem because they have essentially monopolized content distribution and colluded to create a huge barrier to entry where a consumer's only choice becomes to buy, not to buy, or to pirate.
Fortunately the Internet has helped with the Barrier to Entry problem, but, unfortunately, dramatically increased piracy.
The GMC's could solve the problem of piracy very easily, while simultaneously increasing good will of consumers (and therefore number of purchases and therefore profits) but they simply choose not to -- instead content to bilk the consumer and punish them for considering any alternative.
You're absolutely right about this. I do have one comment/corollary to this though:
:)
It's extremely difficult to be a 'good parent' and reasonable monitor your child's behavior on the Internet these days.
The technology to allow parents to do a 'reasonable' job without being 'Big Brother' (as another poster put it) is simply not there.
It's going to take some kind of watershed case for OS manufacturers, application makers, web site builders, etc to finally get the picture that they need to open up portholes into their software to allow parents to gather information about their children in order to make informed decisions.
For the most part today, the choice is either all or nothing. Content filters and firewalls go a long way, but they're still not 'intelligent' enough and don't grant parents enough insight and meaningful information to make the decisions necessary to allow their children access to the Internet without throwing them to the wolves.
It's getting better (with MacOS X and Vista parental controls and better filters, etc) but it's still a LONG way off from what needs to be done.
What needs to be done, in the end? Hrm... now there's an idea for a great start-up company!
Crap... I, uh... gotta go. You guys keep debating about MySpace, I have a VC pitch to write
It seems silly to me that we're still looking for memory leak bugs, buffer overrun/strcpy-type stuff, and pointer dereferencing bugs. These problems have been fundamentally solved (or at least all but abstracted from the programmer) by managed code environments like Java, .NET, and others.
Why are we in the IT world still causing ourselves problems by using C/C++ in any situation except those which call for the strengths of C/C++ -- strengths which are quickly being matched by their managed counterparts.
Realtime? Embedded? Video game? Ok, use C/C++ (though even video games you could make an argument...). For everything else, there's managed code. No more memory pointer leaks (well, the hard-to-find kind caused by poor pointer management in C/C++), no more buffer overruns that aren't immediately fixable in one place, etc, etc.
C'mon, we, as the IT profession, have evolved past that. Why are we still trying to work around these already-solved problems?
gilliboo:
Thank you for being respectful and not being immature and insulting. I find that when you bring up the subject of religion, many non-believers or skeptics will immediately resort to childish behavior. It's very discouraging. You are very respectful and I appreciate that.
As far as proof, the list is far too long to reference here. There are many books on the subject, my personal favorite, and one that really convinced me (I was a skeptic and mostly atheist before this. I was raised Lutheran, but rejected faith in my teens. It took me 15 years to be convinced again) is Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ".
He's a former investigative journalist who was atheist and was married to a Christian. She challenged him to prove her wrong and in the process ended up proving her right. It's a very thorough, exhaustive study of all the possible questions and doubts raised by various stories in the Gospels and other similar texts. It establishes the voracity of the Gospel books, the identies, intentions, and motives of the writers, accounts for subjectivity and bias and establishes the actual facts.
Just so you don't think I'm pimping his book, you can get a used paperback version on amazon for like $3 plus $2-3 s/h (that's how I got mine).
If you want, I can start posting excepts from that book and others, or I can try to summarize, but I'd hate to do that since I'll probably screw it up and leave you with half the information and probably confuse you in the process.
I'm not trying to dodge the question, I will happily try to answer, but I'm just afraid you won't get the correct, full answers from me. The pursuit of truth is not something to take likely.
Perhaps a better way would be for you to ask questions and I will try to answer them.
There is lots of circumstantial evidence to account for the resurrection (i.e. things that would not likely have happened, or could not have happened unless the fact we're trying to prove actually happened). For example, if the Gospel writers were trying to deceive people (as the most common criticisms of the Gospels usually state), they would most certainly not have had a woman or women finding the empty tomb.
Women at that time were not even able to stand trial on behalf of themselves, a responsible male must stand trial to defend the woman. They could not testify in the courts (Jews had an advanced legal system for their day, despite it being anti-female), they couldn't own land, own anything, for that matter, etc.
The thought of a woman being the sole discoverer of a momentus occasion is inconceivable for that time. It's so laughable, that most Jewish scholars and priests laughed at it and discarded it on it's face and wouldn't hear any more of the silly notion.
That's but one argument. There's also another good one... if there wasn't a perponderance of evidence linking Jesus to all the prophecies (there are over 300 prophecies predicting every aspect of Jesus' life, about 190 of which are unique or don't match nearly exactly with another prophecy and he matched every single one), the Jewish priests wouldn't have posted guard near the tomb.
Granted, they thought the apostles would try to somehow steal the body (even though the boulder was moveable only by special engineers). Yet, in the morning, the guards were gone completely (depending on which account you read). Such a hugely important task would not have been taken lightly by official guards of the Jewish Temple. Why did they just leave their post?
Another point, later in the Gospels and other accounts of the days and weeks following the ressurection, the Jewish priests were not arguing the fact that the tomb was empty, or that it was emptied under suspicious circumstances. For example, if it was simply the wrong tomb, we would have prolific writings by the priests at the time (they wrote prolifically on everything else) talking about how the Christians were fake because it was the WRONG TOMB! If it were that the tomb was obviously
I'd like to make a point that's slightly related to this topic.
First let me say that I don't preclude the possibility of macro evolution. It certainly could've happened and would not be incompatible with the Torah. It seems that Kool-Aid Evolution Scientists have gotten themselves into a logical pickle with the Big Bang. Precluding God precludes Big Bang because if there is a singular event to start the universe, there must've been a cause. The logical trail always ends up with an uncaused cause, an uncreated creator, etc.
What I'm frustrated about, is that modern scientists (most of them, not all), rule out religion at the outset. Don't even give it the slightest possibility. They then next move on to other things. This seems silly. Granted, scientists are frustrated by things they can't explain, or that aren't adequately defined/explained, so I can understand their natural tendency away from religion, but to absolutely rule it out is folly. It's akin to those scientists around the time of Newton who simply ruled out his theories because... well... no one knows why, because that's just what they've always thought.
As a scientific theory, Evolution is pretty poor. It inadequately defines the problem and presents no real solution. There is no evidence yet to suggest macro evolution actually occurs.
There seems to be a core of anti-religion scientists who accept Evolution as The One True Answer despite tons of evidence to the contrary. In fact, the blind acceptance of Evolution is a religion in and of itself. It takes far more faith to believe in Evolution then in Judaism or Christianity. Seriously! There's a lot more physical, scientific, logical, and forensic evidence to support that Jesus rose from the dead then there is to support that macro evolution has occured even once.
Certainly there must be other explanations (even non-religious ones) that scientists can explore. It seems they are so committed now to evolution, that they will not abandon it no matter how bad it becomes.
This is sad because science cannot progress under these thick-headed circumstances. Trying to prove another group wrong is a bad way to conduct scientific research. There should be a focus and goal on persuing the Truth, whereever it may be found. I think that some scientists are unwilling to consider the possibility that there is a God and he did create the universe.
Skepticism is one thing, and it's very healthy and productive, but outright sticking your head in the sand accomplishes nothing for anyone.
If you're a scientist or academic researcher, I implore you, please look honestly and objectively at the junk science that so far surrounds Evolution and try to come up with another theory that is more plausible and is verifiable with evidence and research. You may actually find out Evolution is the right answer, or you may not. Just please stop blindly accepting Evolution simply because you don't want to give some type of sophmoric victory to the Jews/Christians.
The great thing about Mars is, there's no environmentalists. So Mars won't have an energy crisis like we do here :)
:)
:)
BANANA Environmentalists...
Build Absolutely Nothing Around Nobody, Any time.
(if you're liberal, c'mon laugh, it's funny. You guys can dish out the Bush jokes, at least let us have a few pokes
Come on, you are playing the same naming games that Microsoft and Sun both are playing. As I was saying, ECMA C# looks nice and non-proprietary. However, ECMA C# is not .NET and it won't run most .NET applications. .NET and Java are both proprietary, non-standardized platforms.
.NET CLI is an ECMA spec as well. MS has released two specs to the ECMA: C# and the CLI.
.NET CLR (like what is being done in Mono and DotGNU). The API for the core libraries is published (but they are not open source) so you can create a set of libraries that mimmic that functionality. Mono has done a good job of this and is mostly through all the core-core libraries. Some of the extra stuff like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows Forms still have yet to be done, but they have started working on them.
Actually, the
Using the CLI spec you can create a full
The reason it's better built in is because it's consistent. Before it was built in (in the 1.2 and 1.3 days) you had a bunch of different parsers and a bunch of different versions of each.
.NET. a.) because XML is built in and b.) because of strong names and version-specific dependencies.
We had a project where we had Jetty, Apache Jakarta Struts, JDOM for our own stuff, and several other 3rd party libraries which I can't recall. All required a different version of Xerces and/or JAXP and they all seemed incompatibile. I remember spending 3 days trying to get our classpath just right so that everything was happy, and I don't recall ever succeeding. We had to pull all sorts of hoops and tricks to get it to work and I can't even remember how.
You don't have those problems in
Not that you deserve any reply because of your idiocy (".Not", "M$", etc)
.NET is free. You don't need Visual Studio.NET to code in .NET just like you don't need Visual Crashe to code in Java.
SOAP4J is crap. Which is why they're rewriting it and starting from scratch with AXIS.
Java XML is:
- Late
- Slow
- immature
- Doesn't support all specs (namely web services, XML data definitions, XML Schema XSD, etc)
IBM was a major contributor to XML Schema, but not Sun.
Sun hasn't contributed much of anything. In fact, they're so far behind, they just announced a new Web-services-like definition called "WCIS" or something like that. It's sad. I wish IBM would just buy Sun and put them out of their misery.
SOAP4J was a bloated mess (still is), which is why they're rewriting it and writing AXIS.
.NET.
I'm very familiar with Jakarta and AlphaWorks. I worked as a Java programmer for 2 years. I was very shocked to see how far behind in the XML arena the Java world was. After having worked with VB for a few years before and using the MSXML parser which supported existing XML standard proposals (it wasn't standardized at the time) more than any existing parser did.
Xerces was a pile of junk without wrappers like JDOM. JDOM was cool, but it was sad that you ended up having to have 5 or 6 3rd party libraries before you could do anything serious with XML.
This is mostly fixed now with 1.4, but my point was that Java DID NOT have it right before MS or
I knew that this would get mod'd down since the mods aren't interested in facts, especially ones that pertain to MS. The original text of the Slashdot article was incorrect. Java did not get it right first, I was merely illustrating that.
JDK 1.4 seems like a catch-up. They finally included XML support in the core JDK and they finally have DOM support (instead of just SAX).
.NET's framework class library.
At least now Java doesn't look quite as embarassing against
First, .NET was designed to be platform independent. Win32 specific stuff is contained in specific assemblies prefixed with "Microsoft.", such as "Microsoft.Win32" which contains a whole slew of Windows-specific stuff like the Registry.
.NET CLI and C# language spec are open standards, which is more than anyone can say for Java. Sun has twice attempted to standardize Java, but pulled out. They want to keep a tight noose on Java because, presumably, they wish to charge licensing for it in the future.
.NET CLI and C# for Linux (on several hardware platforms).
.NET CLI and C# for FreeBSD and Windows called "Rotor". They have released it as Shared-Source (meaning you can view the source, but not use it) to demonstrate that it is possible to make .NET cross-platform.
.NET will be ported to other platforms by MS or 3rd parties (since it's a standard).
.NET will kill Java, that would be absurd. In fact, I hope it DOESN'T kill Java.
.NET or Java is a very good world indeed!
.NET and .NET will fade away. .NET is poised to sweep through the MS development community, after which it will have as much or more deployment than Java. It's a force to rekon with, whether you like it or not.
The
Go-Mono is an open-source, GPL implementation of the
Microsoft had Corel and some of their researchers in Cambridge, UK, develop a clean-room implementation of the
MS has said that it will discuss commericial licenses of Rotor.
If there is sufficient demand,
I don't think
A software world where your main choices are
But, it's equally absurd to think that Java will kill
Well, in an attempt to cut through all the anti-.NET FUD, let's throw out a few facts: - MS was first company who had a very, very good XML parser (MSXML 2 and 3) back in the IE4 and 5 days. MS is one of the major contributors to the advancement of XML and XML-related standards such as XML Schema (which is SOOOO much better than DTD, let me tell you ) - Java's support for XML was pitiful, broken, and horrible until just recently. There wasn't even a complete XML DOM solution in Java until JDK 1.4 which was only recently released! - There still is no good Web Services implementation in Java other than costly commercial implementations from BEA and IBM. In short: Java + XML is a joke. .NET has much better and pervasive XML support. Download the .NET Framework SDK (or view the docs online) and see the System.Xml namespace. Then, look at the javax.xml package in the JDK1.4 and then laugh at Java.
Needless to say, saying that "java got it right first" is a complete lie.
Too bad Blizzard can't come up with a killer Battle.Net =(
Still can't connect half the time, and when I am connected, all the servers seemed to be desynced and I can't ever see my friends. We can't get a game going. When bnetd was around at least we could play on our private server. And LAN games don't seem to work well when you're 1500 miles apart.