The post I replied to specifically mentioned developing an app for windows 8. If you're developing apps for windows 8, you should buy it. That's all there is to it.
Even if you didn't use it for development, you'd still need it for testing. So the complaint that microsoft forces you to buy windows 8 in order to develop apps for it is just stupid IMO.
If the developers of those apps are making money then I'm pretty sure other developers will follow. All you need to do is make something of better quality and you too can earn some dough and solve the user's problem at the same time.
I'm pretty sure that if novice developers start earning serious money on windows 8 it will solve the apps problem pretty soon, and all those people who whinged about developing on windows 8 being a pain, will suddenly join in.
Of course, that's a big IF, but it will be interesting to watch what happens anyway.
What? you want to develop for windows phone 8 but you don't want to shell out $39 for windows 8? not even on 1 machine?
I see the problem, and it isn't just microsoft at fault.
And you say that "obviously none of us have windows 8" except that the date is oct 31 and windows 8 was released on oct 26. There is nothing obvious about it at all except that you want to be successful on windows 8 without paying $39 to get started.
I read it as "OMG the world isn't perfect!" and lots of hand-waving.
Who cares if X or Y language isn't as good as you'd like. Just stop whining and write some software, or otherwise pick one of the billion other languages that does stuff better. Surely there's at least one language out there that's good enough for this guy?
Whilst that story may have some historical counterpart, I do not believe it is to be taken literally. It contains enough theological content for it to be useful on its own and it goes without saying that science has proven that the early chapters of Genesis cannot be literal. If one chooses to accept special creation they do so out of blind faith, because the evidence points 100% to an old earth and evolution.
As pointed out by another reply to your post, there was no commandment to stay ignorant. Just to stay away from a certain tree. It had more to do with the test of obedience than what the tree itself represented. What it represented merely became a follow-on consequence for the sin of disobedience.
Also consider that the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" may have just been an ordinary tree, but called so because of the moral implications it had. Eating of the tree brought on the sudden awareness of guilt, having broken the commandment, and the other natural human behaviours followed.
The Bible is extremely vague on that whole story, as to what might have happened if Adam/Eve had not eaten the fruit, and I think this is intentional. It is not given to us as a piece of history, but rather as a theological story which starts off our species' relationship with God.
Regardless of who was alive at the time when Adam and Eve were placed in the garden (science tells us there were thousands of humans already on earth by this time), Adam and Eve appear to be the people God chose to reveal himself to, and to form a spiritual relationship with. Much later God appeared to Abraham and it could well be that this appearing to Adam was a similar thing.
Whether the story is literal history or symbolic is irrelevant in my opinion. There was no command for ignorance, and such a command would go against other verses in the bible anyway.
I'd also like to mention that you wont find the theory of "original sin" anywhere in the Bible. It is just one among a number of ways to interpret what the Bible says. Whilst it is by far the most popular view, it is not the only one, and not the one I subscribe to.
I prefer to think of sin as entering the world through Adam simply because prior to this there had been no law from God that had been broken. Without God's law, there is no sin. So Adam's sin is the first that God is interested in. It spread to humanity as humanity became aware (or under the dominion of) the laws that God communicated. This is one way of looking at it, but there's very little detail, so I'm not going to declare this correct or anything.
Regardless of the merits of any system, if some OS enables a "noob" to do the same things as a "leet" and in less time, then in my opinion it is superior. Of course, horses for courses and all that kind of thing, but if you're using debian to do things that are easier to do in ubuntu, then you're just wasting effort.
Well yeah sure, given physical access. Physical access is a whole other ballgame as opposed to remotely hacking into that abacus and making it your own.
So he can just throw the hatchet from a distance? Sure, it just needs a better aim, and more skill, much like comparing a remote exploit with a local one...what's your point?
Your use of the term 'physical access' destroys the analogy.
If they all broke the law, then they should all be penalised, true - but they should only be penalised for what they actually did. Charging one person for the crime that 90 other people did is not fair - they should all be charged equally since he and all the 90 others effectively committed the same crime.
If I understand correctly, most of the arguments against God seem to be along the lines of "since we can explain what happened in terms of natural laws etc, then there is no need for a God". Whilst the science is fascinating, I don't see it as evidence against God. It just paints it differently.
I think christians are wrong to doubt evolution these days, with so much evidence to look at, but I don't think nature by itself is enough to disprove God. Especially since the concept of God just means that God was responsible for nature in the first place.
At the end of it all, all we can really say is that we have no physical or visible way to tell if God exists, outside of the Bible. The Bible doesn't actually make any claims about God being visible to us in this way, so there aren't any contradictions there either. The Bible mostly talks about theology and where this is concerned, it is pretty much outside the realms of science.
The only bits in the Bible we can "disprove" are ideas which agreed with the generally-held consensus at the time they were written. So even then we need to look at it as an honest attempt to portray ideas as the various authors understood them. Where this ends and divine inspiration begins I'm not sure, and the Bible doesn't tell us either. Whether you believe any or most of it is "inspired" (whatever that means) is basically up to the individual, and how much you have studied and read.
The claims of most christians today can be easily disproven or dismissed, but the book itself cannot. We can criticise the outdated worldviews etc. but it still gets interesting when we get to the gospels and realise that SOMETHING strange must have happened in order to explain all of the details. Many would prefer to write the books off as fiction, but they do not claim to be fiction, and we accept most history accounts as reliable despite them having far less manuscript support than the gospels. Either we need to take the dishonest stance that we cannot know anything at all about history, or we need to accept that the gospels might actually have a lot of truth in them. Working out the details after that is the subject of ongoing study across the world and it is up to each individual to form their own views based on that research.
Huh, so that encourages knowledge of God. Yet you say it values ignorance. Where is the part where it says that?
You could well argue that there is no God, but I think that the more honest position is to state that you have no evidence of God.
Science and the Bible need not be mutually exclusive.
Science teaches mechanics (or, the 'how') whereas the Bible teaches meaning (or, the 'why'). They don't overlap a lot, but they do a bit.
The correct way to understand the Bible is first to understand when it was written, who it was written by (if we know), and who it was written to. It is not a direct revelation to us. We just happen to be reading a book whose primary audience lived at least 1900 years ago.
It all comes down to how one interprets the Bible. One can hardly fault the Bible for giving a worldview that was current at the time it was written. The problems all start when people read it as if it is some direct revelation to us in the 21st century, and ignore all the history from when it was written until now.
Then people also read it as if it is a science textbook, or as if it exists to teach us scientific things. The bible does not claim to be/do any of this.
Whilst you are correct in that the Bible doesn't promote ignorance, when people talk about "religion" they are normally referring to groups of people, or the behaviour of those people.
I think it is safe to say that whilst mainstream christianity has given lip-service to the Bible, its actions throughout history have been quite contrary.
I think it is important that people see the distinction between the book and how people interpret the book. I cannot speak for other religions, as I'm not familiar with them.
If you mean one that replicates to other handsets, then I guess Android hasn't had one either.
All I'm saying is that anyone can download XCode for free and write a malicious app and then install it on their iPhone. I'd be willing to be this has been done more than once, which is all that is required to disprove "never".
You seriously cannot mean that no one ever has written a virus for iOS (you used different wording, but if this is not what you meant then what you meant would probably apply to Android too).
I suspect you would simply keep adding qualifications until iOS meant "as shipped by Apple", and then again I'd argue the same is true for Android.
Well for me it started much earlier than this, when my parents bought an Amstrad CPC6128 and it came with programming manuals. I borrowed some "usborne" books from the library and typed the code into the computer. Then I figured out how to change it and basically learnt through trial and error.
I figured out how to do animation on my own in grade 5 or 6 (probably about age 10) and the rest is history. I taught myself BASIC, pascal, C, C++, perl, python, HTML. Once you know one language, moving to another is a lot easier.
I wrote many games of my own on the Amstrad. There is no better way to learn IMO, but it probably depends on your learning style. I learn best by "doing".
My learning was all self-directed, which probably doesn't fit with your question much. No one really got me started. My older siblings found the usborne books in the library, but weren't interested in them. I pretty much only borrowed programming books, and enjoyed the regular visits to the library.
Say I want a system that works better than all others regardless of whether it's open or closed? The GPL just doesn't help me here.
Can't linux compete on its own merits? Does it have to fall back to the "but it's free (open)" all the time?
Being free and open is important to some, but I couldn't care less. If I have to pay $200 for Windows just to have a working system that can play games and watch movies, then I'll pay it. It gives me more value than a free system that can't do those things.
Why can't the user decide what they want on their system? Linux is turning into the OS that controls what you can do just as much as Windows and OSX these days, and its value is decreasing rapidly.
Slashdot Mirror
playback stops because their friend walked in.
whoa, wait right there - you may be onto something useful here...
How about masking tape over the camera but with a photo of the owner on the inside of the masking tape.
I'm not talking about companies in general.
The post I replied to specifically mentioned developing an app for windows 8. If you're developing apps for windows 8, you should buy it. That's all there is to it.
Even if you didn't use it for development, you'd still need it for testing. So the complaint that microsoft forces you to buy windows 8 in order to develop apps for it is just stupid IMO.
That's from a user's perspective.
If the developers of those apps are making money then I'm pretty sure other developers will follow. All you need to do is make something of better quality and you too can earn some dough and solve the user's problem at the same time.
I'm pretty sure that if novice developers start earning serious money on windows 8 it will solve the apps problem pretty soon, and all those people who whinged about developing on windows 8 being a pain, will suddenly join in.
Of course, that's a big IF, but it will be interesting to watch what happens anyway.
What? you want to develop for windows phone 8 but you don't want to shell out $39 for windows 8? not even on 1 machine?
I see the problem, and it isn't just microsoft at fault.
And you say that "obviously none of us have windows 8" except that the date is oct 31 and windows 8 was released on oct 26. There is nothing obvious about it at all except that you want to be successful on windows 8 without paying $39 to get started.
and the inverse is also true. There's a bit of chicken and egg there. If there are lots of users the developers will come.
Ideally microsoft needs both so that the number of users and developers grow together.
I read it as "OMG the world isn't perfect!" and lots of hand-waving.
Who cares if X or Y language isn't as good as you'd like. Just stop whining and write some software, or otherwise pick one of the billion other languages that does stuff better. Surely there's at least one language out there that's good enough for this guy?
I'll go back to not caring now.
You're missing the point.
The point is that either everyone should be penalized for ONLY what they did, or the crime should be penalized only once, for all.
It is merely an argument against double-dipping, not saying that criminals shouldn't be punished at all.
I'm not sure what your point is (it didn't seem to relate to what I wrote).
In any case, I'll just say this: The beliefs of those who claim to believe the Bible do not have any bearing on what the Bible actually says.
In other words, one should be wary of interpreting the Bible merely through what its followers say.
Whilst that story may have some historical counterpart, I do not believe it is to be taken literally. It contains enough theological content for it to be useful on its own and it goes without saying that science has proven that the early chapters of Genesis cannot be literal. If one chooses to accept special creation they do so out of blind faith, because the evidence points 100% to an old earth and evolution.
As pointed out by another reply to your post, there was no commandment to stay ignorant. Just to stay away from a certain tree. It had more to do with the test of obedience than what the tree itself represented. What it represented merely became a follow-on consequence for the sin of disobedience.
Also consider that the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" may have just been an ordinary tree, but called so because of the moral implications it had. Eating of the tree brought on the sudden awareness of guilt, having broken the commandment, and the other natural human behaviours followed.
The Bible is extremely vague on that whole story, as to what might have happened if Adam/Eve had not eaten the fruit, and I think this is intentional. It is not given to us as a piece of history, but rather as a theological story which starts off our species' relationship with God.
Regardless of who was alive at the time when Adam and Eve were placed in the garden (science tells us there were thousands of humans already on earth by this time), Adam and Eve appear to be the people God chose to reveal himself to, and to form a spiritual relationship with. Much later God appeared to Abraham and it could well be that this appearing to Adam was a similar thing.
Whether the story is literal history or symbolic is irrelevant in my opinion. There was no command for ignorance, and such a command would go against other verses in the bible anyway.
I'd also like to mention that you wont find the theory of "original sin" anywhere in the Bible. It is just one among a number of ways to interpret what the Bible says. Whilst it is by far the most popular view, it is not the only one, and not the one I subscribe to.
I prefer to think of sin as entering the world through Adam simply because prior to this there had been no law from God that had been broken. Without God's law, there is no sin. So Adam's sin is the first that God is interested in. It spread to humanity as humanity became aware (or under the dominion of) the laws that God communicated. This is one way of looking at it, but there's very little detail, so I'm not going to declare this correct or anything.
I see this argument from time to time.
Regardless of the merits of any system, if some OS enables a "noob" to do the same things as a "leet" and in less time, then in my opinion it is superior. Of course, horses for courses and all that kind of thing, but if you're using debian to do things that are easier to do in ubuntu, then you're just wasting effort.
Well yeah sure, given physical access. Physical access is a whole other ballgame as opposed to remotely hacking into that abacus and making it your own.
So he can just throw the hatchet from a distance? Sure, it just needs a better aim, and more skill, much like comparing a remote exploit with a local one...what's your point?
Your use of the term 'physical access' destroys the analogy.
Have another read of the comment you replied to.
If they all broke the law, then they should all be penalised, true - but they should only be penalised for what they actually did. Charging one person for the crime that 90 other people did is not fair - they should all be charged equally since he and all the 90 others effectively committed the same crime.
unless we share a common ancestor, which is what they're trying to find evidence for...
If I understand correctly, most of the arguments against God seem to be along the lines of "since we can explain what happened in terms of natural laws etc, then there is no need for a God". Whilst the science is fascinating, I don't see it as evidence against God. It just paints it differently.
I think christians are wrong to doubt evolution these days, with so much evidence to look at, but I don't think nature by itself is enough to disprove God. Especially since the concept of God just means that God was responsible for nature in the first place.
At the end of it all, all we can really say is that we have no physical or visible way to tell if God exists, outside of the Bible. The Bible doesn't actually make any claims about God being visible to us in this way, so there aren't any contradictions there either. The Bible mostly talks about theology and where this is concerned, it is pretty much outside the realms of science.
The only bits in the Bible we can "disprove" are ideas which agreed with the generally-held consensus at the time they were written. So even then we need to look at it as an honest attempt to portray ideas as the various authors understood them. Where this ends and divine inspiration begins I'm not sure, and the Bible doesn't tell us either. Whether you believe any or most of it is "inspired" (whatever that means) is basically up to the individual, and how much you have studied and read.
The claims of most christians today can be easily disproven or dismissed, but the book itself cannot. We can criticise the outdated worldviews etc. but it still gets interesting when we get to the gospels and realise that SOMETHING strange must have happened in order to explain all of the details. Many would prefer to write the books off as fiction, but they do not claim to be fiction, and we accept most history accounts as reliable despite them having far less manuscript support than the gospels. Either we need to take the dishonest stance that we cannot know anything at all about history, or we need to accept that the gospels might actually have a lot of truth in them. Working out the details after that is the subject of ongoing study across the world and it is up to each individual to form their own views based on that research.
Huh, so that encourages knowledge of God. Yet you say it values ignorance. Where is the part where it says that?
You could well argue that there is no God, but I think that the more honest position is to state that you have no evidence of God.
Science and the Bible need not be mutually exclusive.
Science teaches mechanics (or, the 'how') whereas the Bible teaches meaning (or, the 'why'). They don't overlap a lot, but they do a bit.
The correct way to understand the Bible is first to understand when it was written, who it was written by (if we know), and who it was written to. It is not a direct revelation to us. We just happen to be reading a book whose primary audience lived at least 1900 years ago.
It all comes down to how one interprets the Bible. One can hardly fault the Bible for giving a worldview that was current at the time it was written. The problems all start when people read it as if it is some direct revelation to us in the 21st century, and ignore all the history from when it was written until now.
Then people also read it as if it is a science textbook, or as if it exists to teach us scientific things. The bible does not claim to be/do any of this.
Whilst you are correct in that the Bible doesn't promote ignorance, when people talk about "religion" they are normally referring to groups of people, or the behaviour of those people.
I think it is safe to say that whilst mainstream christianity has given lip-service to the Bible, its actions throughout history have been quite contrary.
I think it is important that people see the distinction between the book and how people interpret the book. I cannot speak for other religions, as I'm not familiar with them.
I wasn't suggesting any particular language as a starting point, but rather the method of learning. Too much hand-holding is not the best way IMO.
probably depends on your definition of "virus".
If you mean one that replicates to other handsets, then I guess Android hasn't had one either.
All I'm saying is that anyone can download XCode for free and write a malicious app and then install it on their iPhone. I'd be willing to be this has been done more than once, which is all that is required to disprove "never".
You seriously cannot mean that no one ever has written a virus for iOS (you used different wording, but if this is not what you meant then what you meant would probably apply to Android too).
I suspect you would simply keep adding qualifications until iOS meant "as shipped by Apple", and then again I'd argue the same is true for Android.
This.
Well for me it started much earlier than this, when my parents bought an Amstrad CPC6128 and it came with programming manuals. I borrowed some "usborne" books from the library and typed the code into the computer. Then I figured out how to change it and basically learnt through trial and error.
I figured out how to do animation on my own in grade 5 or 6 (probably about age 10) and the rest is history. I taught myself BASIC, pascal, C, C++, perl, python, HTML. Once you know one language, moving to another is a lot easier.
I wrote many games of my own on the Amstrad. There is no better way to learn IMO, but it probably depends on your learning style. I learn best by "doing".
My learning was all self-directed, which probably doesn't fit with your question much. No one really got me started. My older siblings found the usborne books in the library, but weren't interested in them. I pretty much only borrowed programming books, and enjoyed the regular visits to the library.
Maybe there's been improvement recently. I admit I haven't tried the open source driver for about 6 months, so maybe it's time for another go.
I guess that means I spoke a bit too harshly. Still, the feeling I get is that nVidia is still the king of graphics on linux.
And don't get me wrong - if this move forces nVidia to open their drivers (or at least contribute to nouveau) then that would be a fantastic outcome.
Reacting to the deluge of malware on Android by coming out with virus checkers is not being proactive. By definition it's being "reactive".
Apple has had virus on those since 2009 I notice.
iOS has never had a virus.
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think you mean "the App store". iOS has certainly had virii. I could write one myself if I wanted to.
What if humans weren't the original goal of the simulation, but just an interesting outcome?
Say I want a system that works better than all others regardless of whether it's open or closed? The GPL just doesn't help me here.
Can't linux compete on its own merits? Does it have to fall back to the "but it's free (open)" all the time?
Being free and open is important to some, but I couldn't care less. If I have to pay $200 for Windows just to have a working system that can play games and watch movies, then I'll pay it. It gives me more value than a free system that can't do those things.
Why can't the user decide what they want on their system? Linux is turning into the OS that controls what you can do just as much as Windows and OSX these days, and its value is decreasing rapidly.