I know that this carries the emacs/vi type of flamefest capacity, but here's my take:
Specific skills are only REALLY directly applicable for a very short span of time. By the time you get to the place where you could use the "practical" stuff, it will be deprecated. (e.g. If your school taught you VB programming, by the time you graduate and get a job, people would expect you to know WSH or C#)
In my school I had the benefit of a curriculum which tried to balance practical information (how serial ports worked) with theory (signal propagation delay.) When I graduated I was able to make cables, because I had a bit of experience doing that, but I also understood the requisite theory behind protocols.
When I learned that ARCNet was a token-passing protocol, and ethernet was csma it helped me to make the transition. I knew more than just that the ARCNet adapters needed a unique MAC and that Ethernet adapter MACs were hard-coded. I knew enough to easily make the transition to the "new" technology - the same was true when I began to work with TokenRing.
Additionaly, the object theory I learned has been greatly helpful in my understanding of components, layers, directories, code libraries, etc. If I had merely learned the practical technology application, I would have been poorly prepared for the innovative technologies that were to come.
One thing to keep in mind is that what you learn in school is foundational for what you will learn once employed. You will learn throughout your career. If you do not, you will lose your job (or wish that you'd lose your job.) University is the place to learn more about learning. Those skills will benefit you for a lifetime. You may start out at the same level as the person who went to trade school to learn programming, but your deeper understanding will allow you to move up much more quickly than that person.
Finally, and most importantly, it's people skills and not technical acumen that determine your earning potential. If you define success as title and pay, learn to interact with others and that will help you attain your goals much more rapidly than being able to code more widgets than the next guy. (Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People is an excellent book that those business majors are reading right now. That's why they are the "B" part of PHB.)
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you'd like to know more about this, please email me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
It's easy to say this, but speaking as one who works for an enterprise, it's not easy to do.
We've got tens of thousands of PCs running hundreds of applications - some internally developed, some externally developed.
For MS security patches (or anything else) that we release into "production" we need to engineer the build to make sure it works with our OS build, then test against Tier 1 applications.
Once that is complete, the development groups need to sign off saying that their application runs with that code.
Specifically in terms of IE 5.5 SP2, Quicktime is no longer compatible. Sure, there's an update to Quicktime, but my point is this - how many other things stop working? Which of our internal apps are dependent on IE or subcomponents that no longer work with IE5.5 SP2?
We don't know. Frankly, even if we thought that we knew, we couldn't be sure outside of testing.
IE has seen 7 security patches in the last 8 months. Particularly in this economy, we can't afford the testing staff to nail each of these as they are released.
Of course we're at risk. Now is the time to question our continued use of MS products. I'm doing that.
I've read many comments that claim that there are too many MSWord documents to have anything less than 100% compatibility.
Rubbish.
MS never offered 100% compatibility between SmartSuite, WordPerfect, or anything else. The filters in MS products were about the same quality as the ones in StarOffice.
For that matter, WordPerfect never offered serious quality import capability from WordStar, and certainly little import capability for Wang wordprocessor systems. Import/export is not the issue.
What's missing from the Linux desktop is a clear direction from the community about a common scripting language, and object embedding.
I'm not a zealot, but I've worked almost exclusively with Gnome for quite a while. It's getting there. If it could offer a scripting language similar to VBA, that would be helpful. Bonobo offers the possibility of object linking within applications.
The scripting language wouldn't be that tough - Linux offers a zillion languages and realistically we're talking about GUI wrappers for some of those languages.
SOffice is not as easy for printing, clipart, and labels as MSOffice. It doesn't have a GUI DB component, (Adabas is not included with the distributions that I've grabbed from Sun.)
MS is opening themselves up to a real kick in the pants. They keep raising license fees for their software, and free software keeps getting better.
It's just a matter of time before American businesses catch on. My company spends millions a year for MS products, and it looks like that number is only going to get bigger.
In the mean time, let's figure out how to herd cats so we can get the free software geeks to converge on a standard platform. Let's pick Gnome or KDE and be done with it. American business doesn't want to be bothered with a million choices. That's why MS has done so well. Let's come together so we can offer a limited set of viable choices to the business community. MS will be hoisted on their own petard.
Of course Mexico won't pay retail. That's really not the point. The implementation cost is hardware + software + integration + training + electricity + communications infrastructure costs.
Eliminating the software license costs reduces the total cost by SOME amount. Even if MS practically gives the software away, Mexico would pay something. OK, so it's not 3 billion. Maybe 1 billion? Maybe 500 million or 250 million?
His point is bang on. Mexico could use that number (whatever it is) to do much more than line the pockets of a US company.
This contributed to the death of a market for the promising technology. And assumed that everyone who owns such technology would use it for theft. I have not made any illegal copies of music or software using the CD recorder that I own. This sort of levy assumes that I will, and I don't care for that.
I remember waiting for DAT technology to catch on for music - and waiting, and waiting, and waiting.....
It's one of the classic blunders. Like trying to win a land war in Asia.;)
Good reference. I fear that you're a bit optimistic. MS still controls the desktop in corporate America. Where I spend my days the idea of considering migration of desktops away from MS is not seriously considered.
I'd love to see us dump MS like a bad habit. Let's get an equivalent to VB (with an accurate interpreter), a clear direction and single object model for X, and solve the font translation/printing issues and move forward with kicking their butts out of the workplace!
I'd love to sign up for this, but we're not close enough yet. To succeed, we must do what AMD does - be better and cheaper. We're more reliable, and we're cheaper, but MS has got us at point blank range when it comes to ease-of-use.
Try things like macros, or resolving printing issues, or clip art, or add-on programs like browser plugins, or killing applications through the GUI.
Once we deal with this type of thing, we'll be truly competetive. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.
Let's find more geeks who find it interesting to do the coding necessary to make our GUI environment more AOL-like, or more MS-like - then the masses can easily move to our platform!
RE:Faith is not the antithesis of reason.
Faith is absolutely the antithesis of reason. Faith involves accepting something WITHOUT proof. Reason by definition REQUIRES proof.
I believe that you are asserting that faith is involved only when proof is completely unavailable. I think that your definition is not accurate.
The chances of concrete and steel suddenly giving way are exceedingly low. That may be, but you are placing faith in that concrete and steel. How do you know that the steel foundry was doing it's job properly? How can you be certain that the concrete was not watered down, or made with too much sand? It's a matter of faith that allows you to live in the world without proof of everything.
What evidence can you provide that a) your brain actually exists? (please note that I am not casting aspersions on your intelligence)
b) that your perception of color is the same as anyone else's?
I'm just saying that there are many things for which you do not have objective proof. You take a great many things on "faith." This is not unreasonable. In order to function you must believe that certain things are as they appear to be - without absolute proof.
Not necessarily a faith. A belief, but that can be based on observation. My belief in God
is based on observation, too.
"A good tree cannot bear rotten fruit" - God (according to you) Yes. I agree with that. So, when so-called Christians consistently and perpetually do evil, are they really Christians? I can call myself a basket of turnips, but if I don't exhibit the characteristics of one, I'm unlikely to be one.
What I meant by the issue of abuses is this: Follow a philosophy to it's logical extreme and then judge the outcome.
Christianity, followed to it's logical extreme (and I mean really following the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Bible) does not lead to debauchery and destruction. While people who claim to be Christian my engage in evil, God will hold them accountable for that. If I love my neighbor as myself, I'm not going to kill him, steal his property, say nasty things about him, etc.
There is a VERY detailed description about how the world rests on pillars, and the stars rotate... Right. And the vast majority of biblical scholars agree that a wooden literal interpretation of the Bible is not warranted. The Bible contains dialog, poetry, antropomorphic language, and was written in multiple languages. It's simply ridiculous to assert that the Bible "teaches" that the world is flat.
I understand the reason for the so-called heresy, but don't try to invalidate my argument because of the fear of those who lived in a much less enlightened time. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that the world is flat, and the vast majority of Christians don't either. It's simply unreasonable to attempt to refute a philosophy based on the teachings of extremists. Yes I recognize that this was the "official" teaching of the "Christian" church, but it was and continues to be extremist. The problem was that the church leadership feared that the advancement of understanding and scientific knowledge might totally destroy man's need for God, and of course their power structure. In that fear, they totally underestimated the God they claimed to worship
2+2 = 4 because 2+2=4, as opposed to it being true or not because I'm a materialist, or a Gideon, or a Satanist, or whatever.
I get your point. Thanks for the clarification. You're splitting hairs. By claiming Ad Hominem, you're sidestepping the issue. You didn't address my point about material vs non-material at all. You simply claimed that my point was not valid. It's fair to say that I called you a name - a materialist. Unless I'm mistaken, your claims seem a bit consistent with that philosophy. You, on the other hand, clearly used an ad hominem attack by referring to my posting as a "sermon" and calling me "reverend." I didn't raise that at the time, but since you're beating it to death, it seems pertinent now.
Get it now? Yikes, that's a bit condescending, don't you think?
The discussion, originally, was about how theologians toe the "party line". Luther didn't toe Rome's line, he toed what he considered to be God's. Makes no difference either way.
I disagree. I believe it makes a world of difference. You were asserting that religion forced people to toe the line. I'm saying that the church doesn't compel all people to submit to their authority. Luther's position was that God's will is supreme and exceeds that of the organized church. We all live our lives according to some standard. Luther lived according to his, in rebellion against the teachings of the church.
Can you see that Luther was not a sycophant to his religious order? This is clearly addressing the point and refutes your assertion that clerics are always subject to the church.
And what proof have you that God's will is written in the Bible? What proof would be sufficient for you to accept that it is?
Oh, I see, committing murder is wrong, but killing people when God tells you to is right. Got it. Don't jail me! The voices in my head said it was OK!
Are you willing to be civil? If so, I will be glad to continue this discussion, but if you continue to resort to claims that religious motivations lead to irrational behavior and raw emotionalism as yet another red herring, I will stop.
What you refer to as "the golden rule" - but I didn't get it from the Bible. Where did you get it? Why do you choose to live according to that creed? Why is that creed valid? For that matter, why is killing wrong?
Whether that is "right" or not is conjecture.
For the purposes of this discussion, I will agree with this assertion.
And what he called for was becoming very hard-line about taking the Scripture as much to heart as possible. Hardly a free-thinker.
Well, he was thinking more freely than Rome wanted him to - he was forced out of the church because he wanted to think for himself. That his thinking on his own reflected a choice to be "hard-line" about the Bible is immaterial. He was not constrained by the church, but rather his own conscience.
only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Mt 7:21
And do you know what that is?
Yes. God's will is written in the Bible - that I am to love my neighbor as I love myself. That I am to embody love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control.
The KJV I used to read said "thou shalt not kill".
The English language changes over time, as does every other language in use. Good current translations agree in the rendering "commit murder." Besides, it would be irrational to believe on one hand that all killing is wrong, and on the other that God would tell his people to do what He said was wrong. You wouldn't want me to be irrational, would you?:-)
I want to be fair here. The best way to understand the meaning of a passage is to look at the words in the original language. I'm not a linguist, but I have some reference tools that give me a word-for-word translation, and a dictionary showing the possible meanings of the word. Based on that, I can see what the possible translations could have been and see what fits best. Some translations are word for word, some are thought for thought. As I'm sure you know, language translation is science and art due to nuances of the languages involved. As such, if one wants to really understand the meaning, one must have a thorough understanding of the original language and cultural context.
Since I don't have a full-orbed picture of either, I rely on reading the references I mentioned above and also on different translations to get a better picture of the meaning of a particular passage.
What question did you want answered?
What standard do you use to determine right from wrong?
What does that have to do with what is right for science?
GWB is not all that concerned with the scientific aspects of this. As a politician, his job is to lead by making decisions that most people can live with. This is most likely the determining factor in his decision.
Eh? Having FAITH is by definition suspending one's rationality. If one has rational proof, it is no longer faith. Why is this some kind of attack, according to you?
I think that you're serious, so I'll take the time to respond. Faith is not the antithesis of reason.
Faith is sometimes VERY reasonable. For example, you don't have objective, rational proof that the floor that's holding you up will continue to hold you up. You may have some experience that tells you that the floor held your weight before, and you may have some inkling that the building codes require that someone trained in engineering designed and oversaw the construction, but that is not rational proof. You couldn't have that unless you rigorously tested the environment for consistency with design principles and "proved" that the floor was sound.
This faith is repeated an almost limitless number of times during the day. The chair you sit in, the food you eat, the news you hear, the science tome you read, the computer manuals....it goes on and on.
Is it irrational to believe that the floor will hold you? Of course not!
My faith does not cause me to lose my ability to reason. There are some things that I cannot reason my way through in life, that that does require faith. I cannot objectively prove that my wife loves me, but I have great faith that she does.
No one will even have scientific proof for the reason that the universe exists. Your world view proceeds based on some sort of faith - faith in science, perhaps?
RE: believe that the Bible says the earth is flat. None of those is true of Christianity.
Copernicus would disagree.
It is not reasonable to judge a philosophy by its abuses.
Nevertheless, the Bible does not, and has not ever said that the world is flat. This is a view which is totally inconsistent with that of the Christian church. I cannot defend the foolishness of people who lived centuries ago. I will not try.
Christianity is not the antithesis of science. Being a Christian does not mean that one must be a luddite.
It is in fact true that it is a fallacy to argue that someone's value system has any relevance to what is asserted. I must confess that I don't understand what you mean here. Would you please explain further? I've read that sentence several times, and I'm just not getting it. Thanks!
That's arguing to the masses, another fallacy.
It's a reality of political life. GWB needs to please the most possible people, and he found a way that extremists on both sides will be upset, but moderates on these issues will find this position one that they can live with. As a result, he's more likely to be kept in office.
BTW - you assert that Christians are irrational, believe that Charlton Heston is God, and that we believe that the Bible says the earth is flat. None of those is true of Christianity. You then have the chutzpah to tell me that I'm producing ad hominem attacks by asserting a view consistent with materialist philosophy. Give me a break.
See, Martin Luther is just one of many many examples of people who stood for what was right in spite of the religious authorities. Luther was a free thinker!
Because my definition of Christianity is consistent - internally, and with that of Christ himself, I assert that your accusation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is invalid.
Jesus didn't believe that all people who claimed Christianity were true Christians. I'll stand with Him.
Man, you're full of them today!
BTW - Your assertion that I was making an ad hominem attack was unfounded. Additionally, because I didn't shift my definition of Christianity, your scotsman assertion is invalid. Therefore this assertion that I'm full of them is not valid, either.
Nice try.
I'll give you kudos for creativity, but please punch holes in my argument rather than raise non-fallacies as red herrings.
theologians, who will follow the party line, whether the path is ethical, or not
Have you heard of Martin Luther? (You know, the man who started the whole protestant thing?)
Just because someone is strongly "religious" doesn't mean that they will follow the party line.
many Christians had zero problem with slavery cause it was in the Bible
Many people who claim to be Christians use biblical passages out of context to justify their positions. That is self-serving. They will answer to THE judge for that.
Wasn't right.
According to whom? What standard determines right?
neither is massacring people and raping their children. Which according to the OT is just fine and dandy
Raping children? I'm not familiar with that passage.
God never granted the right to the chosen people to determine who to destroy. He did that, based on His understanding of their "right" to continue to live.
Since you weren't there, isn't it a little presumptuous to assert that God was wrong in determining that those people should not live?
reverend
I prefer "computer geek." That's how I make my living, anyway.
see ad hominem attack ad hominem
I did not attack your person, and you were espousing a position consistent with materialist philosophy.
You're saying there's no such thing as a moral standard?
What I'm saying it I'm saying is that pure science - absent the influence of morality - leads to disastrous consequences. Science is not able to determine right from wrong.
why the difficulty in understanding that the universe just came into existence?
Because according to the laws of science, we are not able to produce matter from non-matter.
God is non-material, and is not subject to the laws of science. Based on our experience, it does not make sense to assert that the universe came from nothing. That is not naturally possible. Therefore, we need to look to supernatural causes.
This is not to argue for a lack of scientific investigation, but rather to augment the understanding gained through the scientific method.
BTW - we do have the opportunity to investigate many of the things asserted in the biblical record. We do not have to rely simply on the Hollywood portrayal of biblical events. I strongly argue for the use of scientific approaches to investigate the claims of the Bible.
Certainly science cannot investigate non-scientific things, and cannot "prove" the Bible correct or incorrect, but it can help provide supporting or contradictory information.
Where we fail to fully understand the way that things work according to the observations we've made into the physical world, we look for other explanations. This is where string theory and the unified field theory come from. Why would superatural causes not also be a potential explanation?
Yeah, but where does THEOLOGY play into this?
Ethics and morality typically have a theological basis. Not only that, but GWB lives in a political world where the majority of his constituency believes in God. They also tend to look toward religious leaders to help with ethical standards. He knows this and includes theologians to appease the mass public.
Just out of curiosity, what do you use as a basis for determining right from wrong?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
"Clerics have no place in science"?
When a materialist asserts this position, (s)he effectively declares that non-material things should have no influence on scientific research.
There's the rub - non-material - ideas, love, ethics - and the like have no measurable basis.
They are scientifically unprovable, and are totally unable to be quantified. We don't live in a culture or world where non-material influences are completely separated from material endeavors.
The basis for the scientific method is predicated on a philosophy - a world view that asserts that there is order to the universe. The idea of an ordered universe fits quite rationally with the idea of a designer who planned for the universe to function according to order.
Many of the scientific giants of history were Christians. Should Blaise Pascal's world view and theological basis have disqualified him from scientific efforts?
What about Donald Knuth? Should he be banned from mathematics research simply because he asserts that Jesus Christ is the creator of and Lord over the universe?
Science doesn't occur separated from ethics and morality - these things have tremendous influence on scientific work. It makes sense to have people educated in the areas of ethics and morality play a part in this discussion.
Religion is frequently portrayed as the mortal enemy of science. I (whom many would describe as a religious person) strongly disagree with that assertion.
Let's not discard the baby with the bathwater. Don't reject Christianity because of the evil done by Christians, and I won't reject science because of the evil done by scientists. (WWII experiments in Germany, etc.)
I will not defend the positions that the 'official' church has taken. Christianity is not about religion but rather about a relationship with God.
That world view should not invalidate the contributions that I (or anyone else) can make in a scientifically enlightened time like this.
Regards,
Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
While there are hypocrites in every endeavor, I'd like to point out that _if_ life begins that conception, then it is non-negotiable whether it is acceptable to experiment on fetuses. If the fetus represents human life then it is just as horrific to experiment on them (or their body parts) as it was for the Germans during WWII to experiment on their captives.
WRT the idea of "back stem cell research or spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair" - There's no assurance that fetal stem cell research will provide ANY results that will help wheelchair-bound people. This is a red herring.
There are other types of stem cells that show great promise as well as fetal stem-cells. We should experiment there - umbilical cells, adult cells, and others.
I am an avid pro-lifer, and I believe that fetal stem-cell research is not ethical. Other stem-cell research makes a lot of sense and we should pursue it.
The issue of the extant stem lines is a difficult one. That does put us on a slippery slope. After all, if it's ok to use tissue from deceased fetuses, then what about harvesting the product of abortions for the purposes of research. It's not far from there to creation of fetuses for abortions and research. It's true that the fetuses in question are already dead, but the basis of the rejection of prior German research after WWII was that gaining benefit from unethical research was unacceptable.
I don't like the existing fetal stem-cell research part of it, but overall I'm pleased with the president's decision.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
I agree that it is a moral imperative to stand up to the Chinese government, and to take a stand against unjust laws. That moral imperative is what motivated our founding fathers to take a stand creating the US. It was the right thing to do.
With all due respect, I simply disagree with you about the primacy of this issue related to first amendment rights. Do you believe that the 1st amendment to the constitution guarantees you the right to run whatever algorithm you want on your PC? If so, I guess you may feel a moral imperative to fight this law.
> If this doesn't scare you, then nothing will
The founding father's belief was that rights are established by God, not by the ruling powers of the day. Try teaching that in school today, and you'll get sued by the ACLU faster than you can ROT13 my email address. THAT scares me! I'm not kidding about that.
Look, if you high-horse first amendment defenders are serious about the moral imperative created by the DMCA, then DO something about it.
VIOLATE IT IN PUBLIC. Get arrested. Hundreds of you....No, Thousands of you across the US, and then use the publicity generated by the spate of arrests to get the 'unjust' law overturned.
Call the FBI and tell them that you are violating it. Violate businesses' encryption, and post it on the internet everywhere. But don't do it anonymously. Do it for all to see. Make a difference instead of making a stink on a geeky forum that no one outside geekdom reads.
(Except some variant of carnivore - for those conspiracy theorists out there.)
> It is not only OK to break laws that are
> blatently unfair, it is your duty to do so.
Two points. One is intellectual, one is not. You decide which is which.
1. Sez who? On what basis is that my duty?
2. So, you're equating discrimination on the basis of skin pigmentation to be morally equivalent to the government telling you what algorithms are acceptable to run on your computer? How do you get there from here? Do you really believe that you have the constitutional right to do whatever you want with your computer?
With all due respect, regardless of your perspective on the morality of this law, in the boundaries of the States, it is the law....right?
Is it ok to break laws you don't personally care for?
Wouldn't the more appropriate route be to move through your elected representatives to have this law repealed, or to work through an organization to challence the constitutionality of this law in court?
If something is perfectly legal where you live, but illegal in another jurisdiction, shouldn't you avoid that jurisdiction?
This is a matter of what is law. You may not like the way that the law is written. You might not like the way that the law is enforced. Neither is particularly relevant here.
Send your comments and constructive criticism to your elected representative, or your local defender of freedom to get this law overturned.
Don't simply break the law. If you do, you are likely to end up in jail. How does that help your cause of freedom?
Anomaly
BTW - God love you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that this carries the emacs/vi type of flamefest capacity, but here's my take:
Specific skills are only REALLY directly applicable for a very short span of time. By the time you get to the place where you could use the "practical" stuff, it will be deprecated. (e.g. If your school taught you VB programming, by the time you graduate and get a job, people would expect you to know WSH or C#)
In my school I had the benefit of a curriculum which tried to balance practical information (how serial ports worked) with theory (signal propagation delay.) When I graduated I was able to make cables, because I had a bit of experience doing that, but I also understood the requisite theory behind protocols.
When I learned that ARCNet was a token-passing protocol, and ethernet was csma it helped me to make the transition. I knew more than just that the ARCNet adapters needed a unique MAC and that Ethernet adapter MACs were hard-coded. I knew enough to easily make the transition to the "new" technology - the same was true when I began to work with TokenRing.
Additionaly, the object theory I learned has been greatly helpful in my understanding of components, layers, directories, code libraries, etc. If I had merely learned the practical technology application, I would have been poorly prepared for the innovative technologies that were to come.
One thing to keep in mind is that what you learn in school is foundational for what you will learn once employed. You will learn throughout your career. If you do not, you will lose your job (or wish that you'd lose your job.) University is the place to learn more about learning. Those skills will benefit you for a lifetime. You may start out at the same level as the person who went to trade school to learn programming, but your deeper understanding will allow you to move up much more quickly than that person.
Finally, and most importantly, it's people skills and not technical acumen that determine your earning potential. If you define success as title and pay, learn to interact with others and that will help you attain your goals much more rapidly than being able to code more widgets than the next guy. (Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People is an excellent book that those business majors are reading right now. That's why they are the "B" part of PHB.)
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you'd like to know more about this, please email me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
It's easy to say this, but speaking as one who works for an enterprise, it's not easy to do.
We've got tens of thousands of PCs running hundreds of applications - some internally developed, some externally developed.
For MS security patches (or anything else) that we release into "production" we need to engineer the build to make sure it works with our OS build, then test against Tier 1 applications.
Once that is complete, the development groups need to sign off saying that their application runs with that code.
Specifically in terms of IE 5.5 SP2, Quicktime is no longer compatible. Sure, there's an update to Quicktime, but my point is this - how many other things stop working? Which of our internal apps are dependent on IE or subcomponents that no longer work with IE5.5 SP2?
We don't know. Frankly, even if we thought that we knew, we couldn't be sure outside of testing.
IE has seen 7 security patches in the last 8 months. Particularly in this economy, we can't afford the testing staff to nail each of these as they are released.
Of course we're at risk. Now is the time to question our continued use of MS products. I'm doing that.
Regards,
Anomaly
I've read many comments that claim that there are too many MSWord documents to have anything less than 100% compatibility.
Rubbish.
MS never offered 100% compatibility between SmartSuite, WordPerfect, or anything else. The filters in MS products were about the same quality as the ones in StarOffice.
For that matter, WordPerfect never offered serious quality import capability from WordStar, and certainly little import capability for Wang wordprocessor systems. Import/export is not the issue.
What's missing from the Linux desktop is a clear direction from the community about a common scripting language, and object embedding.
I'm not a zealot, but I've worked almost exclusively with Gnome for quite a while. It's getting there. If it could offer a scripting language similar to VBA, that would be helpful. Bonobo offers the possibility of object linking within applications.
The scripting language wouldn't be that tough - Linux offers a zillion languages and realistically we're talking about GUI wrappers for some of those languages.
SOffice is not as easy for printing, clipart, and labels as MSOffice. It doesn't have a GUI DB component, (Adabas is not included with the distributions that I've grabbed from Sun.)
MS is opening themselves up to a real kick in the pants. They keep raising license fees for their software, and free software keeps getting better.
It's just a matter of time before American businesses catch on. My company spends millions a year for MS products, and it looks like that number is only going to get bigger.
In the mean time, let's figure out how to herd cats so we can get the free software geeks to converge on a standard platform. Let's pick Gnome or KDE and be done with it. American business doesn't want to be bothered with a million choices. That's why MS has done so well. Let's come together so we can offer a limited set of viable choices to the business community. MS will be hoisted on their own petard.
Of course Mexico won't pay retail. That's really not the point. The implementation cost is hardware + software + integration + training + electricity + communications infrastructure costs.
Eliminating the software license costs reduces the total cost by SOME amount. Even if MS practically gives the software away, Mexico would pay something. OK, so it's not 3 billion. Maybe 1 billion? Maybe 500 million or 250 million?
His point is bang on. Mexico could use that number (whatever it is) to do much more than line the pockets of a US company.
I wonder if they'll eventually push through a Canadian-style tax on anything that can carry data.
Ever heard of the DAT Tax? In 1992, the US Congress passed a law taxing media for use in digital recorders.
The Audio Home Recording act of 1992 mandated that consumers pay a royalty on each tape sold for DAT drives.
This contributed to the death of a market for the promising technology. And assumed that everyone who owns such technology would use it for theft. I have not made any illegal copies of music or software using the CD recorder that I own. This sort of levy assumes that I will, and I don't care for that.
I remember waiting for DAT technology to catch on for music - and waiting, and waiting, and waiting.....
It's one of the classic blunders. Like trying to win a land war in Asia. ;)
Good reference.
I fear that you're a bit optimistic. MS still controls the desktop in corporate America. Where I spend my days the idea of considering migration of desktops away from MS is not seriously considered.
I'd love to see us dump MS like a bad habit.
Let's get an equivalent to VB (with an accurate interpreter), a clear direction and single object model for X, and solve the font translation/printing issues and move forward with kicking their butts out of the workplace!
I'd love to sign up for this, but we're not close enough yet. To succeed, we must do what AMD does - be better and cheaper. We're more reliable, and we're cheaper, but MS has got us at point blank range when it comes to ease-of-use.
Try things like macros, or resolving printing issues, or clip art, or add-on programs like browser plugins, or killing applications through the GUI.
Once we deal with this type of thing, we'll be truly competetive. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.
Let's find more geeks who find it interesting to do the coding necessary to make our GUI environment more AOL-like, or more MS-like - then the masses can easily move to our platform!
Regards,
Anomaly
RE:Faith is not the antithesis of reason.
Faith is absolutely the antithesis of reason.
Faith involves accepting something WITHOUT proof. Reason by definition REQUIRES proof.
I believe that you are asserting that faith is involved only when proof is completely unavailable.
I think that your definition is not accurate.
The chances of concrete and steel suddenly giving way are exceedingly low.
That may be, but you are placing faith in that concrete and steel. How do you know that the steel foundry was doing it's job properly? How can you be certain that the concrete was not watered down, or made with too much sand?
It's a matter of faith that allows you to live in the world without proof of everything.
What evidence can you provide that
a) your brain actually exists? (please note that I am not casting aspersions on your intelligence)
b) that your perception of color is the same as anyone else's?
I'm just saying that there are many things for which you do not have objective proof. You take a great many things on "faith." This is not unreasonable. In order to function you must believe that certain things are as they appear to be - without absolute proof.
Not necessarily a faith. A belief, but that can be based on observation.
My belief in God is based on observation, too.
"A good tree cannot bear rotten fruit" - God (according to you)
Yes. I agree with that. So, when so-called Christians consistently and perpetually do evil, are they really Christians? I can call myself a basket of turnips, but if I don't exhibit the characteristics of one, I'm unlikely to be one.
What I meant by the issue of abuses is this: Follow a philosophy to it's logical extreme and then judge the outcome.
Christianity, followed to it's logical extreme (and I mean really following the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Bible) does not lead to debauchery and destruction. While people who claim to be Christian my engage in evil, God will hold them accountable for that. If I love my neighbor as myself, I'm not going to kill him, steal his property, say nasty things about him, etc.
There is a VERY detailed description about how the world rests on pillars, and the stars rotate...
Right. And the vast majority of biblical scholars agree that a wooden literal interpretation of the Bible is not warranted. The Bible contains dialog, poetry, antropomorphic language, and was written in multiple languages. It's simply ridiculous to assert that the Bible "teaches" that the world is flat.
I understand the reason for the so-called heresy, but don't try to invalidate my argument because of the fear of those who lived in a much less enlightened time. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that the world is flat, and the vast majority of Christians don't either. It's simply unreasonable to attempt to refute a philosophy based on the teachings of extremists. Yes I recognize that this was the "official" teaching of the "Christian" church, but it was and continues to be extremist. The problem was that the church leadership feared that the advancement of understanding and scientific knowledge might totally destroy man's need for God, and of course their power structure. In that fear, they totally underestimated the God they claimed to worship
2+2 = 4 because 2+2=4, as opposed to it being true or not because I'm a materialist, or a Gideon, or a Satanist, or whatever.
I get your point. Thanks for the clarification. You're splitting hairs. By claiming Ad Hominem, you're sidestepping the issue. You didn't address my point about material vs non-material at all. You simply claimed that my point was not valid. It's fair to say that I called you a name - a materialist. Unless I'm mistaken, your claims seem a bit consistent with that philosophy. You, on the other hand, clearly used an ad hominem attack by referring to my posting as a "sermon" and calling me "reverend." I didn't raise that at the time, but since you're beating it to death, it seems pertinent now.
Get it now?
Yikes, that's a bit condescending, don't you think?
Regards,
Anomaly
The discussion, originally, was about how theologians toe the "party line". Luther didn't toe Rome's line, he toed what he considered to be God's. Makes no difference either way.
I disagree. I believe it makes a world of difference. You were asserting that religion forced people to toe the line. I'm saying that the church doesn't compel all people to submit to their authority. Luther's position was that God's will is supreme and exceeds that of the organized church. We all live our lives according to some standard. Luther lived according to his, in rebellion against the teachings of the church.
Can you see that Luther was not a sycophant to his religious order? This is clearly addressing the point and refutes your assertion that clerics are always subject to the church.
And what proof have you that God's will is written in the Bible?
What proof would be sufficient for you to accept that it is?
Oh, I see, committing murder is wrong, but killing people when God tells you to is right. Got it. Don't jail me! The voices in my head said it was OK!
Are you willing to be civil? If so, I will be glad to continue this discussion, but if you continue to resort to claims that religious motivations lead to irrational behavior and raw emotionalism as yet another red herring, I will stop.
What you refer to as "the golden rule" - but I didn't get it from the Bible.
Where did you get it? Why do you choose to live according to that creed? Why is that creed valid? For that matter, why is killing wrong?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Whether that is "right" or not is conjecture.
:-)
For the purposes of this discussion, I will agree with this assertion.
And what he called for was becoming very hard-line about taking the Scripture as much to heart as possible. Hardly a free-thinker.
Well, he was thinking more freely than Rome wanted him to - he was forced out of the church because he wanted to think for himself. That his thinking on his own reflected a choice to be "hard-line" about the Bible is immaterial. He was not constrained by the church, but rather his own conscience.
only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Mt 7:21
And do you know what that is?
Yes. God's will is written in the Bible - that I am to love my neighbor as I love myself. That I am to embody love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control.
The KJV I used to read said "thou shalt not kill".
The English language changes over time, as does every other language in use. Good current translations agree in the rendering "commit murder." Besides, it would be irrational to believe on one hand that all killing is wrong, and on the other that God would tell his people to do what He said was wrong. You wouldn't want me to be irrational, would you?
I want to be fair here. The best way to understand the meaning of a passage is to look at the words in the original language. I'm not a linguist, but I have some reference tools that give me a word-for-word translation, and a dictionary showing the possible meanings of the word. Based on that, I can see what the possible translations could have been and see what fits best. Some translations are word for word, some are thought for thought. As I'm sure you know, language translation is science and art due to nuances of the languages involved. As such, if one wants to really understand the meaning, one must have a thorough understanding of the original language and cultural context.
Since I don't have a full-orbed picture of either, I rely on reading the references I mentioned above and also on different translations to get a better picture of the meaning of a particular passage.
What question did you want answered?
What standard do you use to determine right from wrong?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
RE: It's a reality of political life.
What does that have to do with what is right for science?
GWB is not all that concerned with the scientific aspects of this. As a politician, his job is to lead by making decisions that most people can live with. This is most likely the determining factor in his decision.
Eh? Having FAITH is by definition suspending one's rationality. If one has rational proof, it is no longer faith. Why is this some kind of attack, according to you?
I think that you're serious, so I'll take the time to respond.
Faith is not the antithesis of reason.
Faith is sometimes VERY reasonable. For example, you don't have objective, rational proof that the floor that's holding you up will continue to hold you up. You may have some experience that tells you that the floor held your weight before, and you may have some inkling that the building codes require that someone trained in engineering designed and oversaw the construction, but that is not rational proof. You couldn't have that unless you rigorously tested the environment for consistency with design principles and "proved" that the floor was sound.
This faith is repeated an almost limitless number of times during the day. The chair you sit in, the food you eat, the news you hear, the science tome you read, the computer manuals....it goes on and on.
Is it irrational to believe that the floor will hold you? Of course not!
My faith does not cause me to lose my ability to reason. There are some things that I cannot reason my way through in life, that that does require faith.
I cannot objectively prove that my wife loves me, but I have great faith that she does.
No one will even have scientific proof for the reason that the universe exists. Your world view proceeds based on some sort of faith - faith in science, perhaps?
RE: believe that the Bible says the earth is flat. None of those is true of Christianity.
Copernicus would disagree.
It is not reasonable to judge a philosophy by its abuses.
Nevertheless, the Bible does not, and has not ever said that the world is flat. This is a view which is totally inconsistent with that of the Christian church. I cannot defend the foolishness of people who lived centuries ago. I will not try.
Christianity is not the antithesis of science.
Being a Christian does not mean that one must be a luddite.
It is in fact true that it is a fallacy to argue that someone's value system has any relevance to what is asserted.
I must confess that I don't understand what you mean here. Would you please explain further? I've read that sentence several times, and I'm just not getting it.
Thanks!
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Have you heard of the Marshall plan?
It could be argued that the Marshall plan was selfish, but that argument could be made about any action ever taken by anyone.
Even a seemingly totally selfless act like sacrificing your life or health for others can be for your pride.
WRT - WWII, even though the US public was quite isolationist, we were involved through lend-lease.
Please get your facts straight before spouting off about what big jerks the US gov't is.
Thank you.
Regards,
Anomaly
Dang.
I hate it when I craft a response and _then_ realize that an AC posted the original message!
There's a reason that "coward" is a part of the AC moniker.
That's arguing to the masses, another fallacy.
It's a reality of political life. GWB needs to please the most possible people, and he found a way that extremists on both sides will be upset, but moderates on these issues will find this position one that they can live with. As a result, he's more likely to be kept in office.
BTW - you assert that Christians are irrational, believe that Charlton Heston is God, and that we believe that the Bible says the earth is flat. None of those is true of Christianity. You then have the chutzpah to tell me that I'm producing ad hominem attacks by asserting a view consistent with materialist philosophy. Give me a break.
See, Martin Luther is just one of many many examples of people who stood for what was right in spite of the religious authorities. Luther was a free thinker!
:)
No True Scotsman
I must confess that this is the first time I've heard of this 'fallacy'. Searching for a definition, I found it with reference to "Free Thinkers" on the ffrf site. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah.
This doesn't sound like free thought to me!
Because my definition of Christianity is consistent - internally, and with that of Christ himself, I assert that your accusation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is invalid.
"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Mt 7:21
Jesus didn't believe that all people who claimed Christianity were true Christians. I'll stand with Him.
Man, you're full of them today!
BTW - Your assertion that I was making an ad hominem attack was unfounded. Additionally, because I didn't shift my definition of Christianity, your scotsman assertion is invalid. Therefore this assertion that I'm full of them is not valid, either.
Nice try.
I'll give you kudos for creativity, but please punch holes in my argument rather than raise non-fallacies as red herrings.
the whole "killing people is wrong" thing goes out the window,
You shall not murder. Murder differs from killing.
Looks like you're the one who is full of them.....
What standard determines right?
Now you're learning!
You didn't answer my question.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
The idea that science is the study of truth is in itself a religious statement. After all, truth is not provable via the scientific method.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
theologians, who will follow the party line, whether the path is ethical, or not
Have you heard of Martin Luther? (You know, the man who started the whole protestant thing?)
Just because someone is strongly "religious" doesn't mean that they will follow the party line.
many Christians had zero problem with slavery cause it was in the Bible
Many people who claim to be Christians use biblical passages out of context to justify their positions. That is self-serving. They will answer to THE judge for that.
Wasn't right.
According to whom? What standard determines right?
neither is massacring people and raping their children. Which according to the OT is just fine and dandy
Raping children? I'm not familiar with that passage.
God never granted the right to the chosen people to determine who to destroy. He did that, based on His understanding of their "right" to continue to live.
Since you weren't there, isn't it a little presumptuous to assert that God was wrong in determining that those people should not live?
reverend
I prefer "computer geek." That's how I make my living, anyway.
see ad hominem attack
ad hominem
I did not attack your person, and you were espousing a position consistent with materialist philosophy.
You're saying there's no such thing as a moral standard?
What I'm saying it I'm saying is that pure science - absent the influence of morality - leads to disastrous consequences. Science is not able to determine right from wrong.
why the difficulty in understanding that the universe just came into existence?
Because according to the laws of science, we are not able to produce matter from non-matter.
God is non-material, and is not subject to the laws of science. Based on our experience, it does not make sense to assert that the universe came from nothing. That is not naturally possible. Therefore, we need to look to supernatural causes.
This is not to argue for a lack of scientific investigation, but rather to augment the understanding gained through the scientific method.
BTW - we do have the opportunity to investigate many of the things asserted in the biblical record. We do not have to rely simply on the Hollywood portrayal of biblical events. I strongly argue for the use of scientific approaches to investigate the claims of the Bible.
Certainly science cannot investigate non-scientific things, and cannot "prove" the Bible correct or incorrect, but it can help provide supporting or contradictory information.
Where we fail to fully understand the way that things work according to the observations we've made into the physical world, we look for other explanations. This is where string theory and the unified field theory come from. Why would superatural causes not also be a potential explanation?
Yeah, but where does THEOLOGY play into this?
Ethics and morality typically have a theological basis. Not only that, but GWB lives in a political world where the majority of his constituency believes in God. They also tend to look toward religious leaders to help with ethical standards. He knows this and includes theologians to appease the mass public.
Just out of curiosity, what do you use as a basis for determining right from wrong?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
"Clerics have no place in science"?
When a materialist asserts this position, (s)he effectively declares that non-material things should have no influence on scientific research.
There's the rub - non-material - ideas, love, ethics - and the like have no measurable basis.
They are scientifically unprovable, and are totally unable to be quantified. We don't live in a culture or world where non-material influences are completely separated from material endeavors.
The basis for the scientific method is predicated on a philosophy - a world view that asserts that there is order to the universe. The idea of an ordered universe fits quite rationally with the idea of a designer who planned for the universe to function according to order.
Many of the scientific giants of history were Christians. Should Blaise Pascal's world view and theological basis have disqualified him from scientific efforts?
What about Donald Knuth? Should he be banned from mathematics research simply because he asserts that Jesus Christ is the creator of and Lord over the universe?
Science doesn't occur separated from ethics and morality - these things have tremendous influence on scientific work. It makes sense to have people educated in the areas of ethics and morality play a part in this discussion.
Religion is frequently portrayed as the mortal enemy of science. I (whom many would describe as a religious person) strongly disagree with that assertion.
Let's not discard the baby with the bathwater. Don't reject Christianity because of the evil done by Christians, and I won't reject science because of the evil done by scientists. (WWII experiments in Germany, etc.)
I will not defend the positions that the 'official' church has taken. Christianity is not about religion but rather about a relationship with God.
That world view should not invalidate the contributions that I (or anyone else) can make in a scientifically enlightened time like this.
Regards,
Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
While there are hypocrites in every endeavor, I'd like to point out that _if_ life begins that conception, then it is non-negotiable whether it is acceptable to experiment on fetuses. If the fetus represents human life then it is just as horrific to experiment on them (or their body parts) as it was for the Germans during WWII to experiment on their captives.
WRT the idea of "back stem cell research or spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair" - There's no assurance that fetal stem cell research will provide ANY results that will help wheelchair-bound people. This is a red herring.
There are other types of stem cells that show great promise as well as fetal stem-cells. We should experiment there - umbilical cells, adult cells, and others.
I am an avid pro-lifer, and I believe that fetal stem-cell research is not ethical. Other stem-cell research makes a lot of sense and we should pursue it.
The issue of the extant stem lines is a difficult one. That does put us on a slippery slope. After all, if it's ok to use tissue from deceased fetuses, then what about harvesting the product of abortions for the purposes of research. It's not far from there to creation of fetuses for abortions and research. It's true that the fetuses in question are already dead, but the basis of the rejection of prior German research after WWII was that gaining benefit from unethical research was unacceptable.
I don't like the existing fetal stem-cell research part of it, but overall I'm pleased with the president's decision.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
I would have taken this offline, but your email address is unpublished here.
With all due respect, it seems you have great cause to be upset with the busybodies. People can be jerks. I can't argue with you there.
Why are you angry at God?
I don't understand why you said "God judges...not you"
I agree with that.
"There is one lawgiver and one judge." I'm not him.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
"Let me get this straight -- you think there's an invisible man in the sky who gives a fuck about what you do?! -G"
Invisible man? No.
Transcendant being who created everything, including me? Yes.
In the sky? No.
Non-material yet omnipresent? Yes.
Who [cares] what I do? Yes.
Kyras, why are you so angry at God?
God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about that, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
I agree that it is a moral imperative to stand up to the Chinese government, and to take a stand against unjust laws. That moral imperative is what motivated our founding fathers to take a stand creating the US. It was the right thing to do.
With all due respect, I simply disagree with you about the primacy of this issue related to first amendment rights. Do you believe that the 1st amendment to the constitution guarantees you the right to run whatever algorithm you want on your PC? If so, I guess you may feel a moral imperative to fight this law.
> If this doesn't scare you, then nothing will
The founding father's belief was that rights are established by God, not by the ruling powers of the day. Try teaching that in school today, and you'll get sued by the ACLU faster than you can ROT13 my email address. THAT scares me! I'm not kidding about that.
Look, if you high-horse first amendment defenders are serious about the moral imperative created by the DMCA, then DO something about it.
VIOLATE IT IN PUBLIC. Get arrested. Hundreds of you....No, Thousands of you across the US, and then use the publicity generated by the spate of arrests to get the 'unjust' law overturned.
Call the FBI and tell them that you are violating it. Violate businesses' encryption, and post it on the internet everywhere. But don't do it anonymously. Do it for all to see. Make a difference instead of making a stink on a geeky forum that no one outside geekdom reads.
(Except some variant of carnivore - for those conspiracy theorists out there.)
Anomaly
I personally don't disagree that I have an obligation to work to overturn laws that go against my conscience.
I have real difficulties seeing how this issue is in any way equal to discrimination against a group of people based on their skin pigmentation.
I don't thinks that it's unreasonable for the government to place some limitations on the algorithms that you can run on your computer.
The government places restrictions on the words that you can say - "FIRE! " in a crowded theater, or "HIJACK!" in an airport or airplane.
The DMCA may be an offensive law, in that it seems to be extreme, but morally objectionable? Unconscienable?
I can't go there. It's not the same thing as MLK or Rosa Parks.
He broke the law while on Russian soil, and then came and gave a presentation on US soil. If he has stayed in Russia, we would not have arrested him.
> It is not only OK to break laws that are
> blatently unfair, it is your duty to do so.
Two points. One is intellectual, one is not. You decide which is which.
1. Sez who? On what basis is that my duty?
2. So, you're equating discrimination on the basis of skin pigmentation to be morally equivalent to the government telling you what algorithms are acceptable to run on your computer? How do you get there from here? Do you really believe that you have the constitutional right to do whatever you want with your computer?
With all due respect, regardless of your perspective on the morality of this law, in the boundaries of the States, it is the law....right?
Is it ok to break laws you don't personally care for?
Wouldn't the more appropriate route be to move through your elected representatives to have this law repealed, or to work through an organization to challence the constitutionality of this law in court?
If something is perfectly legal where you live, but illegal in another jurisdiction, shouldn't you avoid that jurisdiction?
This is a matter of what is law. You may not like the way that the law is written. You might not like the way that the law is enforced. Neither is particularly relevant here.
Send your comments and constructive criticism to your elected representative, or your local defender of freedom to get this law overturned.
Don't simply break the law. If you do, you are likely to end up in jail. How does that help your cause of freedom?
Anomaly
BTW - God love you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.