We know about evolution, dinosaurs, the big-bang et al.
And how do we "know" indeed? Yes, that's right, because you've been told so! And who by? The liberals in charge of "educating" our young, that have made it impossible to have decent Christian teachings taught in schools because it would let people see the lies they have wrought throughout our society!
Creationism is a myth! There is not one scientific fact in creationism. Not one.
See how you've been indoctrinated into hate? That is the legacy of the liberal - hatred of their fellow man and a love of the State. See here for why Creationism is scientifically proven, and that currently cosmology is nothing more than a tool of the Godless in their purge of Christianity.
One of the greatest lies that historians have ever told is that the continent that we now refer to as North America was inhabited by "native peoples" at the time of its discovery by Columbus. This, as true history has shown, is sheer poppycock; it is a nefarious fantasy concocted in the minds of those who wish to control our collective destinies. Not only are there no contemporary documents that support the existence of these fantasy "natives", the people who are responsible for inventing them have never been particularly secretive about their true motives.
It is interesting to note that in the late 1950s, no American (indeed, no person) had ever even heard of these so-called "native Americans." But then, in the 1960s, stories of them suddenly started appearing seemingly from nowhere. Your next-door neighbor started relating stories from his great-grandmother about "Injun attacks." Schoolchildren started to get educated about the different "tribes" and "nations" of these people, and yet not one parent demanded to see evidence of their existence. Our children were taught stories about how the great white pioneers of this nation supposedly plundered these peoples and took their land from them, and our children felt ashamed.
Of course they felt ashamed! That's the whole reason these fantasy "native Americans" exist! They were invented by radical leftist agitators at Berkeley in the early 1960s. The primary purpose that these mythical "Indians" serve is to instill false guilt in white people. They exist to make the Chosen People of this land feel badly about their own history and heritage, and that is a thought crime. Liberalism is about (first and foremost) the hatred of self and love of collective. To that end, this nation's leftists felt it necessary to invent an entire imaginary race of people that were "pillaged" by this continent's Anglo-Saxon discoverers. The goal: to make this nation's guardians hate themselves and their heritage, and be sympathetic to that which is alien and unacceptable.
The truth, of course, is that none of these stories has the least bit of credibility; despite repeated requests from the conservative community, liberals have been unable to produce a single "native American." And so we must file this lie in the same trash dumpster as the (extremely overexaggerated) stories of so-called "slavery" of the 1800s. Patriots must constantly guard their country from its enemies, and we must realize that more today than ever before, its enemies are more likely to attack from within.
It is the scientific theory that prehistoric people moving for the first time into new geographical areas during their spread around the world invariably hunted large animals into extinction.
The scientific theory? Already we can see the hubris of the professional scientist at work here, portraying one of several such "theories" as the only game in town. Well, I'm sorry to say it here on such a liberal hive of scientism, but there's another game in town, and one which has more proof behind it than a few elephant tusks dug out of the ground.
There were no mammoths! Nor dinosaurs, nor any of these so-called "extinct species" that have been placed in the ground by God Almighty. It's all a myth concoted by the liberal agitators intent on supressing the humanist notions that the Bible teaches us, that people can better themselves without prostrating themselves before the holy god of the State.
Don't belive me? Well, there's evidence! Yes, despite what the liberals would tell you, there is plenty of evidence that the Lord created the world not that long ago. For instance, radio halos in grantie can only be explained by instantaneous creation. And the thousands of skeletons and chariots found at the bottom of the Gulf of Aquaba - with no boats! - perfectly matches the Bible's story, as do a thousand other pieces of historical information that archaeologists have uncovered over the years.
No, we owe nothing to these pseudo-scintific theories that exist only to allow the liberals to continue their pogrom against those that see beyond their hateful lies. Do yourself a favor, and get down to a church on Sunday to find out what real truth is.
Wow. There really are people out there from the days when the net was run by interested, concerned people who aimed to do a good job rather than bend over for the corporate bum's rush.
And suprise, suprise, the Austrailian government can't stand that. Now who'd have thought that of the government eh?:)
Typically, when they find out they can't steal his authroity legally, the government goes to ICANN, another globalist coterie dedicated to one-world politics rather than the genuine welfare of those it is supposed to represent.
Hmmm, I wonder what ICANN will decide? Let me think...
Basically, the government want their slice of the cash cow that USian corporate greed has started, and they are being frustrated by a man who is a true hero of the people. If only more people had stood up to the government, maybe we wouldn't have such a shitty situation today, with unaccountable bodies like ICANN finding for their corporate pals each and every time.
And if the liberals in the Supreme Court and government hadn't fought so hard against it, you'd have been taught these facts in school.
Quite simply put, menstruation is God's curse to womenkind because of Eve's actions in the Garden of Eden. If she hadn't have corrupted Adam, then we would still be living in Paradise.
Since that fateful day, women have been cursed to shed their life's blood each month, and no amount of liberal persuasion will be enough to "educate" true belivers otherwise.
When my wife sheds blood, she knows that it is her punishment as a women, and is properly ashamed of the flaws of her kind. Displaying it on TV as if it were something to be proud of is nothing more than a sign of Satan's ever present lies.
Christ, I can't wait until the day when I get to see adverts that at least apply to me rather than "generic consumer X" who is the compound of a thousand flawed consumer surveys.
I don't want to see adverts for tampons or other such things which a) mean nothing to me, and b) shouldn't be aired publicly anyway.
Adverts are evil, but at least this way they'll be an evil I can perhaps use. Whereas with websites targetted advertising is already realistic (just look at the adverts at the top of this page for instance) currently TV adverts must cater to the lowest common denominator, and this means we all have to sit through endless adverts for pet food, pop crap and "feminine hygene" products rather than adverts for products we might actually want.
I'll gladly accept giving companies some info to avoid this kind of rubbish. And I believe I won't be alone in this view.
What is the main advantage of the web over other networked forms of information? That's right, it's the fact that it is hyperlinked, allowing people to veer off from what they're reading to related sites, and then return when they're done.
People here often complain about how hyperlinks aren't used properly, and yet when Microsoft implement an automatic hyperlink generator, they complain!
Since people writing websites are often engaging in practices such as closed sites (where there aren't any external links, keeping novice users within their system of sites - i.e. AOL or Freeserve) then we should applaud this feature, as it will allow millions to finally venture out into the web as a whole, and increase connectivity massively. No longer will you have to waste valuable time searching for the meaning of an unexplained term on a page - there'll be a Smart Tag leading directly to useful information!
As for copyright issues, well you could say the same thing about proxy services like Junkbuster, which strip certain elements out of webpages before the user sees them. At the end of the day it's less offensive to copyright holders, because it adds value to their pages at no cost or effort to them, whereas Junkbuster removes any chance of them being able to fund their efforts, leading to the closure of many people's pages.
No I think this will work out well for everyone, and I hope that minority browsers like Mozilla and Opera follow suit. No longer will we need to be constrained by the linking laziness of web authors:)
In the race to computerize everything, we forget that the best solution is not always the most technologically advanced. I mean, we've got e-commerce, e-money and even e-toilets in Singapore! Dear Lord, what will they stick a computer in next?!
A book is close to the ideal form for people to digest information from. It's portable, durable, and doesn't rely on the vast amount of necessary infrastructure that the net, or even just a single computer, does. Hell, in California at the moment, you'll be lucky to be able to read a book without some kind of powercut!:)
And more to the point, people feel comfortable with books. They know where they stand. In America, where there is a very healthy streak of techno-skepticism amongst the general public, the book is what they want, not the latest fancy gadget from MIT that promises to "revolutinize" the way you read. And publishers and authors know where they stand when they produce a book - who gets paid and so on.
No, the book is here to stay for a long time. As of yet, I have seen nothing that has any compelling reasons to change. Don't let a techno-fetish blind you to the obvious solution to such a non-problem.
As a professional IT consultant who has actually worked with Fortune 500 companies in the past, I can say from experiance that your presentation will invariably go down like the sack of shit it is.
Why so harsh? Because your average Fortune 500 company (if there is such a thing) is not anywhere near the same level as a small business for whom open source can be a God-send, allowing them to decrease their costs and boost profitability.
No, your average Fortune 500 company has a large, dedicated technical team and most likely, an insanely complex IT system which has evolved over the last couple of decades. Changes to this are made rarely, and with great caution, because if things go wrong, then they're talking about millions of dollars of loss every hour.
Open source is simply wrong for these companies. For the mission critical stuff it's far too insecure and lacking in enterprise-level features. And since Linus's stated aims with the whole Free Software movement are to provide software for people like him, the necessary features aren't there, and aren't going to be there any time soon. Who wants Linux, when Solaris, AIX or HP-UX will do the job better, faster and with decent backup from a company that isn't going to fold within the year.
And then there's the desktop workstations. Never mind the TCO of implementing open source solutions here (a far greater factor than any one off costs like license fees), then there's the costs of re-educating staff and rolling out the solution. For a company with thousands of workstations, that is prohibitive!
And that doesn't even take into account the fact that said company is going to end up having to write half of the software they need, because open source coders are far more interested in writing new filesystems and graphics programs than genuinely useful software.
Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I advise smaller businesses to go the open source root, but until Linus et al pull their pants up and turn Linux into a world-class enterprise platform, open source is not for the Fortune 500.
Come on folks, as if Microsoft would ever GPL any of their stuff! I mean, if they're anything, they're always looking out for their bottom line, and they're not going to do something so obviously dangerous to their profitability...
Still, this is another example of shoddy, biased reporting in the Linux media. After all, why use the whole truth when half of it will do just as well! Now that's efficiency!
I know that these sites are strictly amateur, but amongst professionals like myself it just tarnishes the reputation of free software as a whole when such blatent propaganda pieces come to light.
Whilst I admit most of my industry experiance is in the software field as a dedicated IT professional I've been following the processor market for a while now, and I've got to wonder why on Earth AMD would pull this move.
Because despite the glowing hype to typical of public stories in the field, Transmeta are hardly in a strong market position. The huge hype that got them rolling turned out to be mostly marketing wind. Sure they had a great product, but it wasn't the industry-changing breakthrough they'd been attempting to make it look like, and so they've done no better than any other start up producing components for low-power devices.
Okay, not strictly true. They've done somewhat worse actually.
On the other hand AMD is going from strength to strength in a way that would have amazed insiders a few years ago. They've got a lot of well-deserved respect now, and people are really starting to take them seriously on their own rights, rather than as Intel's annoying little competitor.
But making a fuss over "strategic deals" with underperforming overhyped companies is not the way to go. They should concentrate more on their core strengths and carry on producing excellent processors.
Virtual addiction? Try getting a life instead!
on
Virtual Addiction
·
· Score: 3
Oh come on Jon, pull the other one. Virtual addiction indeed. You're trying to make it sound like some kind of genuine psychological problem when it's nothing more than a complete lack of any kind of social contact or anything else to do.
People don't get "addicted" to being online, they find they have nothing else to do. Most internet "addicts" have no real friends, suffer from image and self-confidence problems (which if they ever left the house, they might be able to do something about!) and are general afraid of what's outside their front door. That's not addiction, that's just sad.
There are too many people out there today willing to put a label on any kind of behaviour and label it an addiction, a disorder or a syndrome. In 99% of these cases, it's nothing more than a load of crap designed to inflate therapist's bills, who then proceed to talk it up, turning nothing into a real issue.
When are we just going to realise that the only way to do anything is to take responsibility for our own actions and future? By putting labels on things, you make it easier to avoid and easier to blame external causes, rather than dealing with your own problems.
Okay, this rocks. Assuming Sony will get this out in multilingual formats, this will *really* help speed acceptance and build an incredible amature developer base for new games and apps.
What crack are you smoking? Do you honestly think Sony really needs the "kudos" generated by a few long-haired open source zealots to ensure acceptance of the PS2? Nonsense. And the thought that any of them will actually fork out money for this is rediculous, after all if it's not free it's not worth having.
I thought you didn't watch porn (you said in your earlier response) - or are you going to use the old "it was part of the movie" line?
I don't, but I have seen films that came close to the line. Needless to say, at that point I switched them off.
Throughout history pornography was more of an art form to celebrate the beauty of god's creation ; it's merely with advanced technology that it's become what it is today, which is different.
No. Michaelangelo's David is art celebrating the beauty of God's creation, Debbie Does Dallas is just immoral smut designed to appeal to the pruriant tastes of sad lonely men. There can be no artistic merit in films made with exploitation and abuse.
Now this is a very bad comment to make. It's arguable whether you know what Christianity actually is, after reading this statement. Are you saying Catholics, as opposed to Protestants, worship multiple gods? Elaborate......
Catholics venerate the saints, and the Virgin Mary. Indeed, in the confessional they place Mary on the same level as the Lord, obviously in direct contradiction with the Ten Commandments. Hence, they are really no more than a cult with Christian pretensions.
Above all, remember that you should never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right.
Sorry, but your morals dictate what is right. That should be obvious, even to an unbeliever!!!
Well, first off, I'd recommend calling brutal sodomy "morally reprehensible", as it is arguably a perfectly natural act (though, again, generally held as morally reprehensible.)
How is sodomy a natural act? Given that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation (in both a Biblical and biological sense no less), how is sodomy a "natural act"? It cannot cause conception, is extremely dangerous for the person on the receiving end and causes pain. This is not a "natural act" now is it?
There are people out there firmly entrenched in the belief that conservative attitudes about sex are both healthier and morally higher, and that pornography is somehow "deviant" and "unnatural". These same people generally feel perfectly justified in pointing towards the most deviant, reprehensible acts of violent, aberrant behavior as prime examples of what pornography is. This is unfair.
While the extremes perpetuated by the pornography industry do serve as prime examples of its undue corrupting influence upon modern society, what I am saying it that pornography as a whole is immoral, even the softcore sex scenes used in some of Hollywood's more blatent exploitation films.
Sex is there for the purposes of procreation and between two people married with God's blessing. Pornography is quite simply the antithesis of this idea, in that it encourages promiscuity without responsibility, a dangerous idea for any society that wishes to hold itself to any kind of moral values.
It'd be somewhat akin to me calling Christianity a horrible, disgusting cult which has mercilessly slaughtered countless women and children over centuries in the name of appeasing an unseen deity.
Strawman. But aside from that, it is arguable as to whether Catholicism is even really a Christian denomination, given the fact that Catholics do not solely worship God.
I'd be ignoring the fact that some of the world's greatest and most generous groups and individuals have acted out of their love of the Christian god.
True. But where are these vast good works done by the porn merchants?
While you are quick to point out that having people abused into pornography and tortured in front of a camera is (surprise) bad, the same moral compass cannot be used to denounce, say, a video made willingly (and happily) by a married couple for distribution in adult video stores. What is so unnatural (or rather, morally reprehensible) about that?
Because sex is not something to be used to satiate the urges of weaker people. That is pure and simply immoral.
Regarding the post, I think it's clearly a troll becasuse he states pornography is used for "the gratification of men unable to find themselves a loving wife." implies that anyone "using" porn is unable to find a "loving wife".
I don't think I implied any such thing, I'm pretty sure that I stated it. Given that pornography is designed to help men spill their seed, and that any man with a wife won't have any need to debase themselves in such a way, it therefore follows that pornography is for people who are unable to find themselves a wife.
Also "pornography is nothing more than a perversion of His [gods] vision for us".
Exactly. Holy matrimony is blessed by God himself, whereas Onanism is quite obviously a tool designed by the Devil to turn one's thoughts away from salvation towards more earthly pleasures.
Stating such contentious beliefs (porn not used by men with a loving partner, the existance of god) as facts can only be a troll; anyone else would have put "I beleive", "IMHO", or somthing else along those lines in there.
I believe these are facts IMHO. Happy now?
Some women are exploited in the porn industry. It's not porn that's wrong, it's the people who exploit women.
Bzzt! Wrong! The porn industry by definition exploits women, that is its raison d'etre. The only distinctions to be made are different levels of exploitation, from exploiting women's naivety and greed all the way up to the use of force and drugs to ensure cooperation.
Go and have a look on the net. There's plenty of information on this out there.
Oh it's easy for you to assume that just because it doesn't fit in with your wonderful, liberal view of life that it's got to be a troll. Far easier than actually trying to come up with some facts to support your position, right?
No one is forcing any of these women to be involved in pornography. They do it of their own free will.
Of course. And none of them are forced into this kind of degrading behaviour by abusive boyfriends or drug habits at all are they? I think you're being far too naive about the depths to which the porn business will sink to obtain its multi-billion dollar revenues.
No one forces you to look at pornography either.
And I don't. But there are people out there firmly conviced that liberal attitudes about sex are perfectly healthy, and that pornography is in some way "expressive" and "naturual". Please tell me, what is natural about some woman being brutally sodomized by several men on camera?
Interesting article, and I can only hope that this research pays dividends when it comes to medical research into curing such modern diseases as cancer and Alzheimer's which cause so much misery and grief.
But the idea of living forever... who would really want to live forever?
It's the sort of idea that sounds like a utopian fantasy when you first hear it. After all, nobody but Hamas suicide bombers wants to die - the fear of death is an inherent part of what makes us human. In olden days berserkers were feared for this reason - they would attack and attack without regard for their own safety, and would invariably take many down with them.
But living forever would pervert this part of what makes us human. At first it would seem like a wonderful freedom - all that time to do new things, to experiance more without worrying about not having enough time. But soon the wonder would fade and the fear would set in. Fear of death, fear of any risk which could injure yourself and fear of not being able to afford to live in a reasonable manner.
This fear would overcome any benefit eternal life could bring. People would stay in their houses, attempting to stay safe. They'd stick with their confortable jobs, never taking any risks, never letting their ambition thrive. And when you live forever, enemies are easy to make and friends easy to lose. When there's a lot more to risk, people won't want to risk it.
So I think that living forever is something that we shouldn't want, and shouldn't work towards. Humans just aren't ready to accept eternal life in this world, and we won't be unless we overcome our petty greed and our fears. And Star Trek aside, I just don't see that happening any time soon. There are too many people with too much to lose from disturbing the status quo.
I am an Overclocker, you fool. I don't consider myself a moral degenerate. Please read my comment properly, and take your flamebait back to sid=trolltalk, where it belongs.
You even admit you don't understand my comment - why you feel able to criticise it I don't know.
I like overclocking, and all my home computers are overclocked to hell. I even have an Athlon O/C/ed to 1600MHz using a tower refrigeration system, which greatly outpreforms the P4 at 1500MHz. The coolant system cost 400 pounds sterling, but the cost of the 1.2GHz Athlon + Coolant system was significantly less than the cost of a P4. So I like OC'ing.
However, one thing that has struck me is that overclocking increases the prices of chips, on the whole. When someone buys a cheap chip, and then OC's it, they are not paying the huge surcharge on the latest technology that everyone else has to, and so they are prolonging those inflated prices. Basic supply and demand, as outlined by Adam Smith, shows that this is irrefutably the case.
The question is one of morals. Myself, I have no particular problem with it. But many people may rightly regard overclocking as cheating, with some good reason. I am happy to admit that I am a cheater - I don't give a shit.
Still, I can hardly blame the hardware companies for multiplier locking chips - if the problem didn't exist, they wouldn't have to.
Well, I was headhunted by NPO technologies, who did most of the hard work for me. My original visa was for one year, but after a while I was granted an extension. They tend to be fairly easy going on technical workers - there is talk here of importing many thousands of skilled technology workers from India.
I would recommend it as a move. London is probably the single most cosmopolitan city in the world - some 15% of its population is foreign born - and the market here is very good. Wages are sky high.
I have been toying with marrying one citizen, or 'subject', in particular, but so far I have managed to resist:)
This is my view. Back in the 70's and early 80's, computers had very simple operating systems, utterly primitive compared to today. Still, the expert user could do much the same with them as what we do with computers today. Sure, today we have various bells and whistles, but the central uses are the same.
The development of computing over the last 20 years has been all about widening the franchise of users. Now the most computer illiterate of people can do much the same as what an expert could some 20 years ago, and with considerably more ease.
But what will happen now? The franchise is as big as is needed, and we can already do all the major tasks we could want to - word processing, spread sheets, etc. These are the meat and drink of computing, and they aren't going to get any better or any easier to use now.
So what will be the driving force of computer development over the next 20 years? I think that computers will cease to increase in power in about 5 years time. Instead terminals will become common, and everyone will have an internet connected terminal in the home. We are approaching the end game of software development in almost all arenas except AI and games. The software of the future will do the same things that it does today, in the same way. It will just be bug free, faster and a tiny little bit easier to use.
People here are always smashing ICANN, and often with good reason. Is this fair though? Here is my take.
Someone has to run the Domain name system. It is not a system of anarchy, it is a strict hierarchal system that requires a strong hand at the top.
ICANN have provided this over the years. For all their faults, they were the only real solution. A governmental, elected body would be unacceptible - ICANN is a global body, it shoulod not be run by the American government and people.
True, if someone could come up with a method for making ICANN democratically and internationally representative and elected, this would have beena good idea. But at the present stage of our global development, this has just not been possible.
Verisign is a private commercial company. As such, it can be regarded as more accountable than ICANN, because it has to answer to its shareholders and its consumers, which is a lot more than can be said for ICANN.
My take is that this development is far from ideal, but is better than the current situation. Until such time as the Internet is not such a hierarchal system, or such time as a globally accountable body under the UN can be created, this is a better and more accountable solution, even if it is far from perfect.
I would lobby for a body under the UN, perhaps a special branch of the UN to deal with the Internet, as the fairest and most accountable solution, but I realise that this is a pipe dream at the moment. I therefore, with extreme reservations, welcome this move, for the meantime.
Slashdot Mirror
We know about evolution, dinosaurs, the big-bang et al.
And how do we "know" indeed? Yes, that's right, because you've been told so! And who by? The liberals in charge of "educating" our young, that have made it impossible to have decent Christian teachings taught in schools because it would let people see the lies they have wrought throughout our society!
Creationism is a myth! There is not one scientific fact in creationism. Not one.
See how you've been indoctrinated into hate? That is the legacy of the liberal - hatred of their fellow man and a love of the State. See here for why Creationism is scientifically proven, and that currently cosmology is nothing more than a tool of the Godless in their purge of Christianity.
One of the greatest lies that historians have ever told is that the continent that we now refer to as North America was inhabited by "native peoples" at the time of its discovery by Columbus. This, as true history has shown, is sheer poppycock; it is a nefarious fantasy concocted in the minds of those who wish to control our collective destinies. Not only are there no contemporary documents that support the existence of these fantasy "natives", the people who are responsible for inventing them have never been particularly secretive about their true motives.
It is interesting to note that in the late 1950s, no American (indeed, no person) had ever even heard of these so-called "native Americans." But then, in the 1960s, stories of them suddenly started appearing seemingly from nowhere. Your next-door neighbor started relating stories from his great-grandmother about "Injun attacks." Schoolchildren started to get educated about the different "tribes" and "nations" of these people, and yet not one parent demanded to see evidence of their existence. Our children were taught stories about how the great white pioneers of this nation supposedly plundered these peoples and took their land from them, and our children felt ashamed.
Of course they felt ashamed! That's the whole reason these fantasy "native Americans" exist! They were invented by radical leftist agitators at Berkeley in the early 1960s. The primary purpose that these mythical "Indians" serve is to instill false guilt in white people. They exist to make the Chosen People of this land feel badly about their own history and heritage, and that is a thought crime. Liberalism is about (first and foremost) the hatred of self and love of collective. To that end, this nation's leftists felt it necessary to invent an entire imaginary race of people that were "pillaged" by this continent's Anglo-Saxon discoverers. The goal: to make this nation's guardians hate themselves and their heritage, and be sympathetic to that which is alien and unacceptable.
The truth, of course, is that none of these stories has the least bit of credibility; despite repeated requests from the conservative community, liberals have been unable to produce a single "native American." And so we must file this lie in the same trash dumpster as the (extremely overexaggerated) stories of so-called "slavery" of the 1800s. Patriots must constantly guard their country from its enemies, and we must realize that more today than ever before, its enemies are more likely to attack from within.
It is the scientific theory that prehistoric people moving for the first time into new geographical areas during their spread around the world invariably hunted large animals into extinction.
The scientific theory? Already we can see the hubris of the professional scientist at work here, portraying one of several such "theories" as the only game in town. Well, I'm sorry to say it here on such a liberal hive of scientism, but there's another game in town, and one which has more proof behind it than a few elephant tusks dug out of the ground.
There were no mammoths! Nor dinosaurs, nor any of these so-called "extinct species" that have been placed in the ground by God Almighty. It's all a myth concoted by the liberal agitators intent on supressing the humanist notions that the Bible teaches us, that people can better themselves without prostrating themselves before the holy god of the State.
Don't belive me? Well, there's evidence! Yes, despite what the liberals would tell you, there is plenty of evidence that the Lord created the world not that long ago. For instance, radio halos in grantie can only be explained by instantaneous creation. And the thousands of skeletons and chariots found at the bottom of the Gulf of Aquaba - with no boats! - perfectly matches the Bible's story, as do a thousand other pieces of historical information that archaeologists have uncovered over the years.
No, we owe nothing to these pseudo-scintific theories that exist only to allow the liberals to continue their pogrom against those that see beyond their hateful lies. Do yourself a favor, and get down to a church on Sunday to find out what real truth is.
Wow. There really are people out there from the days when the net was run by interested, concerned people who aimed to do a good job rather than bend over for the corporate bum's rush.
And suprise, suprise, the Austrailian government can't stand that. Now who'd have thought that of the government eh? :)
Typically, when they find out they can't steal his authroity legally, the government goes to ICANN, another globalist coterie dedicated to one-world politics rather than the genuine welfare of those it is supposed to represent.
Hmmm, I wonder what ICANN will decide? Let me think...
Basically, the government want their slice of the cash cow that USian corporate greed has started, and they are being frustrated by a man who is a true hero of the people. If only more people had stood up to the government, maybe we wouldn't have such a shitty situation today, with unaccountable bodies like ICANN finding for their corporate pals each and every time.
And if the liberals in the Supreme Court and government hadn't fought so hard against it, you'd have been taught these facts in school.
Quite simply put, menstruation is God's curse to womenkind because of Eve's actions in the Garden of Eden. If she hadn't have corrupted Adam, then we would still be living in Paradise.
Since that fateful day, women have been cursed to shed their life's blood each month, and no amount of liberal persuasion will be enough to "educate" true belivers otherwise.
When my wife sheds blood, she knows that it is her punishment as a women, and is properly ashamed of the flaws of her kind. Displaying it on TV as if it were something to be proud of is nothing more than a sign of Satan's ever present lies.
Christ, I can't wait until the day when I get to see adverts that at least apply to me rather than "generic consumer X" who is the compound of a thousand flawed consumer surveys.
I don't want to see adverts for tampons or other such things which a) mean nothing to me, and b) shouldn't be aired publicly anyway.
Adverts are evil, but at least this way they'll be an evil I can perhaps use. Whereas with websites targetted advertising is already realistic (just look at the adverts at the top of this page for instance) currently TV adverts must cater to the lowest common denominator, and this means we all have to sit through endless adverts for pet food, pop crap and "feminine hygene" products rather than adverts for products we might actually want.
I'll gladly accept giving companies some info to avoid this kind of rubbish. And I believe I won't be alone in this view.
What is the main advantage of the web over other networked forms of information? That's right, it's the fact that it is hyperlinked, allowing people to veer off from what they're reading to related sites, and then return when they're done.
People here often complain about how hyperlinks aren't used properly, and yet when Microsoft implement an automatic hyperlink generator, they complain!
Since people writing websites are often engaging in practices such as closed sites (where there aren't any external links, keeping novice users within their system of sites - i.e. AOL or Freeserve) then we should applaud this feature, as it will allow millions to finally venture out into the web as a whole, and increase connectivity massively. No longer will you have to waste valuable time searching for the meaning of an unexplained term on a page - there'll be a Smart Tag leading directly to useful information!
As for copyright issues, well you could say the same thing about proxy services like Junkbuster, which strip certain elements out of webpages before the user sees them. At the end of the day it's less offensive to copyright holders, because it adds value to their pages at no cost or effort to them, whereas Junkbuster removes any chance of them being able to fund their efforts, leading to the closure of many people's pages.
No I think this will work out well for everyone, and I hope that minority browsers like Mozilla and Opera follow suit. No longer will we need to be constrained by the linking laziness of web authors :)
In the race to computerize everything, we forget that the best solution is not always the most technologically advanced. I mean, we've got e-commerce, e-money and even e-toilets in Singapore! Dear Lord, what will they stick a computer in next?!
A book is close to the ideal form for people to digest information from. It's portable, durable, and doesn't rely on the vast amount of necessary infrastructure that the net, or even just a single computer, does. Hell, in California at the moment, you'll be lucky to be able to read a book without some kind of powercut! :)
And more to the point, people feel comfortable with books. They know where they stand. In America, where there is a very healthy streak of techno-skepticism amongst the general public, the book is what they want, not the latest fancy gadget from MIT that promises to "revolutinize" the way you read. And publishers and authors know where they stand when they produce a book - who gets paid and so on.
No, the book is here to stay for a long time. As of yet, I have seen nothing that has any compelling reasons to change. Don't let a techno-fetish blind you to the obvious solution to such a non-problem.
As a professional IT consultant who has actually worked with Fortune 500 companies in the past, I can say from experiance that your presentation will invariably go down like the sack of shit it is.
Why so harsh? Because your average Fortune 500 company (if there is such a thing) is not anywhere near the same level as a small business for whom open source can be a God-send, allowing them to decrease their costs and boost profitability.
No, your average Fortune 500 company has a large, dedicated technical team and most likely, an insanely complex IT system which has evolved over the last couple of decades. Changes to this are made rarely, and with great caution, because if things go wrong, then they're talking about millions of dollars of loss every hour.
Open source is simply wrong for these companies. For the mission critical stuff it's far too insecure and lacking in enterprise-level features. And since Linus's stated aims with the whole Free Software movement are to provide software for people like him, the necessary features aren't there, and aren't going to be there any time soon. Who wants Linux, when Solaris, AIX or HP-UX will do the job better, faster and with decent backup from a company that isn't going to fold within the year.
And then there's the desktop workstations. Never mind the TCO of implementing open source solutions here (a far greater factor than any one off costs like license fees), then there's the costs of re-educating staff and rolling out the solution. For a company with thousands of workstations, that is prohibitive!
And that doesn't even take into account the fact that said company is going to end up having to write half of the software they need, because open source coders are far more interested in writing new filesystems and graphics programs than genuinely useful software.
Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I advise smaller businesses to go the open source root, but until Linus et al pull their pants up and turn Linux into a world-class enterprise platform, open source is not for the Fortune 500.
Come on folks, as if Microsoft would ever GPL any of their stuff! I mean, if they're anything, they're always looking out for their bottom line, and they're not going to do something so obviously dangerous to their profitability...
Still, this is another example of shoddy, biased reporting in the Linux media. After all, why use the whole truth when half of it will do just as well! Now that's efficiency!
I know that these sites are strictly amateur, but amongst professionals like myself it just tarnishes the reputation of free software as a whole when such blatent propaganda pieces come to light.
Maybe it's time to hire some real journalists?
Whilst I admit most of my industry experiance is in the software field as a dedicated IT professional I've been following the processor market for a while now, and I've got to wonder why on Earth AMD would pull this move.
Because despite the glowing hype to typical of public stories in the field, Transmeta are hardly in a strong market position. The huge hype that got them rolling turned out to be mostly marketing wind. Sure they had a great product, but it wasn't the industry-changing breakthrough they'd been attempting to make it look like, and so they've done no better than any other start up producing components for low-power devices.
Okay, not strictly true. They've done somewhat worse actually.
On the other hand AMD is going from strength to strength in a way that would have amazed insiders a few years ago. They've got a lot of well-deserved respect now, and people are really starting to take them seriously on their own rights, rather than as Intel's annoying little competitor.
But making a fuss over "strategic deals" with underperforming overhyped companies is not the way to go. They should concentrate more on their core strengths and carry on producing excellent processors.
Oh come on Jon, pull the other one. Virtual addiction indeed. You're trying to make it sound like some kind of genuine psychological problem when it's nothing more than a complete lack of any kind of social contact or anything else to do.
People don't get "addicted" to being online, they find they have nothing else to do. Most internet "addicts" have no real friends, suffer from image and self-confidence problems (which if they ever left the house, they might be able to do something about!) and are general afraid of what's outside their front door. That's not addiction, that's just sad.
There are too many people out there today willing to put a label on any kind of behaviour and label it an addiction, a disorder or a syndrome. In 99% of these cases, it's nothing more than a load of crap designed to inflate therapist's bills, who then proceed to talk it up, turning nothing into a real issue.
When are we just going to realise that the only way to do anything is to take responsibility for our own actions and future? By putting labels on things, you make it easier to avoid and easier to blame external causes, rather than dealing with your own problems.
Okay, this rocks. Assuming Sony will get this out in multilingual formats, this will *really* help speed acceptance and build an incredible amature developer base for new games and apps.
What crack are you smoking? Do you honestly think Sony really needs the "kudos" generated by a few long-haired open source zealots to ensure acceptance of the PS2? Nonsense. And the thought that any of them will actually fork out money for this is rediculous, after all if it's not free it's not worth having.
I thought you didn't watch porn (you said in your earlier response) - or are you going to use the old "it was part of the movie" line?
I don't, but I have seen films that came close to the line. Needless to say, at that point I switched them off.
Throughout history pornography was more of an art form to celebrate the beauty of god's creation ; it's merely with advanced technology that it's become what it is today, which is different.
No. Michaelangelo's David is art celebrating the beauty of God's creation, Debbie Does Dallas is just immoral smut designed to appeal to the pruriant tastes of sad lonely men. There can be no artistic merit in films made with exploitation and abuse.
Now this is a very bad comment to make. It's arguable whether you know what Christianity actually is, after reading this statement. Are you saying Catholics, as opposed to Protestants, worship multiple gods? Elaborate......
Catholics venerate the saints, and the Virgin Mary. Indeed, in the confessional they place Mary on the same level as the Lord, obviously in direct contradiction with the Ten Commandments. Hence, they are really no more than a cult with Christian pretensions.
Above all, remember that you should never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right.
Sorry, but your morals dictate what is right. That should be obvious, even to an unbeliever!!!
Well, first off, I'd recommend calling brutal sodomy "morally reprehensible", as it is arguably a perfectly natural act (though, again, generally held as morally reprehensible.)
How is sodomy a natural act? Given that the sole purpose of sex is for procreation (in both a Biblical and biological sense no less), how is sodomy a "natural act"? It cannot cause conception, is extremely dangerous for the person on the receiving end and causes pain. This is not a "natural act" now is it?
There are people out there firmly entrenched in the belief that conservative attitudes about sex are both healthier and morally higher, and that pornography is somehow "deviant" and "unnatural". These same people generally feel perfectly justified in pointing towards the most deviant, reprehensible acts of violent, aberrant behavior as prime examples of what pornography is. This is unfair.
While the extremes perpetuated by the pornography industry do serve as prime examples of its undue corrupting influence upon modern society, what I am saying it that pornography as a whole is immoral, even the softcore sex scenes used in some of Hollywood's more blatent exploitation films.
Sex is there for the purposes of procreation and between two people married with God's blessing. Pornography is quite simply the antithesis of this idea, in that it encourages promiscuity without responsibility, a dangerous idea for any society that wishes to hold itself to any kind of moral values.
It'd be somewhat akin to me calling Christianity a horrible, disgusting cult which has mercilessly slaughtered countless women and children over centuries in the name of appeasing an unseen deity.
Strawman. But aside from that, it is arguable as to whether Catholicism is even really a Christian denomination, given the fact that Catholics do not solely worship God.
I'd be ignoring the fact that some of the world's greatest and most generous groups and individuals have acted out of their love of the Christian god.
True. But where are these vast good works done by the porn merchants?
While you are quick to point out that having people abused into pornography and tortured in front of a camera is (surprise) bad, the same moral compass cannot be used to denounce, say, a video made willingly (and happily) by a married couple for distribution in adult video stores. What is so unnatural (or rather, morally reprehensible) about that?
Because sex is not something to be used to satiate the urges of weaker people. That is pure and simply immoral.
Regarding the post, I think it's clearly a troll becasuse he states pornography is used for "the gratification of men unable to find themselves a loving wife." implies that anyone "using" porn is unable to find a "loving wife".
I don't think I implied any such thing, I'm pretty sure that I stated it. Given that pornography is designed to help men spill their seed, and that any man with a wife won't have any need to debase themselves in such a way, it therefore follows that pornography is for people who are unable to find themselves a wife.
Also "pornography is nothing more than a perversion of His [gods] vision for us".
Exactly. Holy matrimony is blessed by God himself, whereas Onanism is quite obviously a tool designed by the Devil to turn one's thoughts away from salvation towards more earthly pleasures.
Stating such contentious beliefs (porn not used by men with a loving partner, the existance of god) as facts can only be a troll; anyone else would have put "I beleive", "IMHO", or somthing else along those lines in there.
I believe these are facts IMHO. Happy now?
Some women are exploited in the porn industry. It's not porn that's wrong, it's the people who exploit women.
Bzzt! Wrong! The porn industry by definition exploits women, that is its raison d'etre. The only distinctions to be made are different levels of exploitation, from exploiting women's naivety and greed all the way up to the use of force and drugs to ensure cooperation.
Go and have a look on the net. There's plenty of information on this out there.
Oh it's easy for you to assume that just because it doesn't fit in with your wonderful, liberal view of life that it's got to be a troll. Far easier than actually trying to come up with some facts to support your position, right?
No one is forcing any of these women to be involved in pornography. They do it of their own free will.
Of course. And none of them are forced into this kind of degrading behaviour by abusive boyfriends or drug habits at all are they? I think you're being far too naive about the depths to which the porn business will sink to obtain its multi-billion dollar revenues.
No one forces you to look at pornography either.
And I don't. But there are people out there firmly conviced that liberal attitudes about sex are perfectly healthy, and that pornography is in some way "expressive" and "naturual". Please tell me, what is natural about some woman being brutally sodomized by several men on camera?
It doesnt prevent car crashes, cancer, toxic poisoning, etc ... all it does is halt 'aging' effects.
Hence my post talking about an increased fear of risky activities and so on... that was the whole point of it really.
Interesting article, and I can only hope that this research pays dividends when it comes to medical research into curing such modern diseases as cancer and Alzheimer's which cause so much misery and grief.
But the idea of living forever... who would really want to live forever?
It's the sort of idea that sounds like a utopian fantasy when you first hear it. After all, nobody but Hamas suicide bombers wants to die - the fear of death is an inherent part of what makes us human. In olden days berserkers were feared for this reason - they would attack and attack without regard for their own safety, and would invariably take many down with them.
But living forever would pervert this part of what makes us human. At first it would seem like a wonderful freedom - all that time to do new things, to experiance more without worrying about not having enough time. But soon the wonder would fade and the fear would set in. Fear of death, fear of any risk which could injure yourself and fear of not being able to afford to live in a reasonable manner.
This fear would overcome any benefit eternal life could bring. People would stay in their houses, attempting to stay safe. They'd stick with their confortable jobs, never taking any risks, never letting their ambition thrive. And when you live forever, enemies are easy to make and friends easy to lose. When there's a lot more to risk, people won't want to risk it.
So I think that living forever is something that we shouldn't want, and shouldn't work towards. Humans just aren't ready to accept eternal life in this world, and we won't be unless we overcome our petty greed and our fears. And Star Trek aside, I just don't see that happening any time soon. There are too many people with too much to lose from disturbing the status quo.
You even admit you don't understand my comment - why you feel able to criticise it I don't know.
Go away, little troll.
However, one thing that has struck me is that overclocking increases the prices of chips, on the whole. When someone buys a cheap chip, and then OC's it, they are not paying the huge surcharge on the latest technology that everyone else has to, and so they are prolonging those inflated prices. Basic supply and demand, as outlined by Adam Smith, shows that this is irrefutably the case.
The question is one of morals. Myself, I have no particular problem with it. But many people may rightly regard overclocking as cheating, with some good reason. I am happy to admit that I am a cheater - I don't give a shit.
Still, I can hardly blame the hardware companies for multiplier locking chips - if the problem didn't exist, they wouldn't have to.
But so what. In the end, I'm an OC'er, and proud.
I would recommend it as a move. London is probably the single most cosmopolitan city in the world - some 15% of its population is foreign born - and the market here is very good. Wages are sky high.
I have been toying with marrying one citizen, or 'subject', in particular, but so far I have managed to resist :)
The development of computing over the last 20 years has been all about widening the franchise of users. Now the most computer illiterate of people can do much the same as what an expert could some 20 years ago, and with considerably more ease.
But what will happen now? The franchise is as big as is needed, and we can already do all the major tasks we could want to - word processing, spread sheets, etc. These are the meat and drink of computing, and they aren't going to get any better or any easier to use now.
So what will be the driving force of computer development over the next 20 years? I think that computers will cease to increase in power in about 5 years time. Instead terminals will become common, and everyone will have an internet connected terminal in the home. We are approaching the end game of software development in almost all arenas except AI and games. The software of the future will do the same things that it does today, in the same way. It will just be bug free, faster and a tiny little bit easier to use.
- Someone has to run the Domain name system. It is not a system of anarchy, it is a strict hierarchal system that requires a strong hand at the top.
- ICANN have provided this over the years. For all their faults, they were the only real solution. A governmental, elected body would be unacceptible - ICANN is a global body, it shoulod not be run by the American government and people.
- True, if someone could come up with a method for making ICANN democratically and internationally representative and elected, this would have beena good idea. But at the present stage of our global development, this has just not been possible.
- Verisign is a private commercial company. As such, it can be regarded as more accountable than ICANN, because it has to answer to its shareholders and its consumers, which is a lot more than can be said for ICANN.
My take is that this development is far from ideal, but is better than the current situation. Until such time as the Internet is not such a hierarchal system, or such time as a globally accountable body under the UN can be created, this is a better and more accountable solution, even if it is far from perfect.I would lobby for a body under the UN, perhaps a special branch of the UN to deal with the Internet, as the fairest and most accountable solution, but I realise that this is a pipe dream at the moment. I therefore, with extreme reservations, welcome this move, for the meantime.