I'd consider using a fanless VIA Epia board... cheaper and quieter than an A64 solution. If you're just using it as a fileserver, the VIA should be enough.
And yes, because he's a geek, his opinion doesn't matter.
I took quite a few HCI and related classes. A properly designed interface will be more useful to experts as well as novice users. Something that is only useful to novices will never allow them to grow, and is likely fundamentally flawed.
A classic example of a specialty design that's also useful to non-crippled users is the OXO Good Grips line of kitchen utensils. They were initially designed for persons with arthritis and similar debilitations, but many of thier tools (such as thier can opener), are designed so well, that they are preferable to persons without and such disease.
Neither KDE nor GNOME fits this bill, but due to KDE's architecture and attitude, it's possible to build a KDE desktop that's usable to experts and newbies alike. It's a function mostly of good defaults, which IMHO KDE doesn't have.
I'll have to second this suggestion. I use KDE as my primary desktop, and generally use KDM just because it's easy to integrate and configure. But GDM, though not perfect, is a FAR better desktop manager -- much more control over look/feel, cleaner, faster, etc. The thing I like better about KDM is that the username/password are on the same screen. I haven't used GDM in a while, but I hated that at least in the past, you couldn't have a list of users to click on.
IMHO, GDM should be taken and overhauled, and made a standard part of X.org, with a clean, easy config interface that could be edited by either KDE or GNOME. XDM blows chunks, and there's no reason that a quality display manager couldn't come standard with X. I think it would add a lot.
In fact, it would be smart of the porn producers to do so first WITHOUT any laws requiring. That way:
1) People that want to filter (like myself) can quite easilly filter 2) People that want porn can more easilly find it 3) It's a pre-emptive strike that may thwart the formation of over-reaching laws
Another solution that would be better than restricted to a specific port, or a.xxx domain, or a pr0n:// protocol identifier would be to place a standard rating.xml file in some sort of meta tag in the pages header. This would list levels of nudity, sex, violence, language, etc, and individuals could easilly filter based on a multitude of things. Think about it -- you set up a proxy server that loads the HTML header, parses for the XML file, downloads it, and then makes a decision whether to let it through or not.
Reminds me of the days with the C-64... the copy-protected discs eventually destroyed your floppy drive, by causing it to thrash uncontrollably, trying to read bad sectors. Many people, like myself, perfered to get cracked copies of games because they had this problem removed, and thus didn't make my expensive SCSI floppy drive die...
Because she did it to Jesus himself in person during the short time He was with us on this earth. I definitely do not see this verse as being a blank check for the church to spend money for all eternity on arguably useless decoration instead of the poor and needy.
Well, we believe that the Eucharist IS Christ's physical presence here on earth. No different. His *appearance* is that of bread and wine, but we believe the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.
What in the New Testament gives you any indication that God is particularly interested in material goods or that anything that we are capable of producing with our hands could actually increase God's glory!?
Um... we aren't increasing God's glory, we're giving witness to it. Our beautiful churches, art, and artefacts -- anything that contains beauty -- can be an icon to the greater glory of God. Sorry... I guess I wasn't particularly clear before.
A "trend" 1800 years ago doesn't make it Biblical or correct. As already mentioned, the Catholic Church has done a LOT of things that were not Biblical or correct.
I don't remember in which epistle, but Paul does make reference to respecting sacred Tradition as well as sacred scripture. (I can't quote chapter or verse as most protestants, but I do know the New Testament fairly well. Old Testament is a bit harder to remember everything...)
"To give" to the material church or "to give" our material possessions to the poor and give our spirital wealth to God? I'd say the latter. As Jesus said, if we would be perfect, go, sell our things, and give to the poor, and follow Him. He didn't say "Give me your possessions and follow me."
Yet God gave some pretty specific instructions to build a lavish temple to Him to the Hebrews. Christ never deprecated this! Why can we not do both -- give to the poor and build beautiful altars for His most holy sacrifice? What about what is said in Revelations about the adornments of the altar? The Tridentine mass (the traditional latin mass that was mostly unchanged from the 5th century until 1970) has its theology largely based its account of the lamb's sacrifice.
Also, what about what he told the apostles just before he ascended into heaven (I think the account was in Acts)? He said that though he told them originally to go from place to place without money, arms, etc. that the time was changing, and they'd have to do otherwise. He clearly made different pastoral decisions pre and post resurrection.
Finally, what about the writings of the patriarchs who immediately succeeded the apostles? The epistles of Clement, Linus, Ignatius of Antioch, and other early church fathers detail the roles of bishops and deacons, the celebration of the mass, etc. We have the Didache, which historians believed functioned as a proto-catechism and book of rites and prayers used by the early church -- dated somewhere around 80-100AD. In fact, the Didache contains the first known transcription of the modern form of the Lord's Prayer (which is a combination of the Matthean and Lucan account). This supports our Traditions as well.
Then why was it OK for Mary of Bethany to do what she did? We believe that the whole of the mass -- not just the tabernacle and the ciborium and the chalice (the said vessels you claimed) -- should be elaborate and beautiful as we can reasonably expect to manage. So the vessels, the altar, the vestments, the thurible, the pews, the windows, etc. should be a testament to God's greater glory. In addition, they help as worship aids for the congregation; to overwhelm and lift the self into a sense of other-worldliness. The mass should be more lavish and beautiful than the stuff we experience elsewhere, so we might know that God's heavenly kingdom in all its majesty is far greater still.
Also, in terms of tradition, this was the trend as soon as our Christian ancestors could worship in the open. Certainly, adornments were less lavish while we were relegated to worship in the catecombs. God doesn't expect us to give him perfection in this respect; that would be impossible. We believe he does want us to give what we reasonably can in our station of life.
As a general rule, the Catholic churches still spend way too much money on ornaments and decorations and material objects in the church. This money could be much better used for helping the poor and taking the faith to the unbelievers.
Umm... Jesus disagrees with you a tad... John 12:4-8 states:
Judas the Iscariot, one of his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, "Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages 3 and given to the poor?" He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."
We believe that Christ's true physical presence exists in the Eucharist. Why should we treat him any differently than Mary of Bethany? Giving money, service, and faith to the poor is very good, but so is treating Christ with the majesty He deserves. A priest friend of mine often says that the holy sacrifice of the mass has an audience of one: God. Though we can never be truly perfect, or worship God to the degree he deserves, we should make a best effort.
Though you're welcome to a different interpretation in application of your own faith, I hold that the Catholic church behaves rather biblically in this respect.
Poor comparison -- a concert is a liver performance, and in a given area, the performance is generally available once a night for three nights tops.
Print a movie to a roll of film and play it 6 times a day for 6 weeks. It's a simple economic problem.
A concert costs far more to put on and will reach far fewer people. Though a film may cost more to make than a tour of an A-list rock artist, but because of economies of scale, the movie viewing is cheaper.
Live theater is more in line with concert prices...
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Anti-gay stance? What anti-gay stance? I said nothing of homosexuality. I mentioned the following issues:
From prior post: I'm pro-life, but anti-death-penalty. I despise huge government programs, but also despise the war in Iraq (and America's general feeling that it should be the world's police force). I find pornography to be disgusting, but see no justification in censorship (with exception of kiddie porn and snuff films and the like).
If you're confusing me with someone else, I'm sorry. I think government should have NOTHING to do with marriage, etc. I mentioned nothing about homosexuality.
Additionally I demonstrated by a simple application of the definitions of the freaking philosophies that one is inherently morally superior as a philosophy regardless of what happens in practice.
No, you listed some things wrong with some people who subscribe to one of the philosophies. Many would have no problems living in a nation that implements such rules you have problems with.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
I believe the purpose of the state is to promote personal liberty. That is consistent with American values.
Then define liberty. Different men define it differently. For example, John Adams defined freedom as not wanton right to do what brings one the most pleasure, but the right to do what one ought to. Others, like Ayn Rand, define it as a call to anarchy. There are numberous other definitions which reasonable men disagree.
You on the other hand flat out admitted that you believe in big oppressive government to be used to prevent personal liberty.
Really? I said nothing of the sort. The only thing I can assume you are referring to is my statement that I'm pro-life -- which is thouroughly consistent with my other beliefs. I don't think the children murdered in abortion clinics would consider this stance oppressive...
Now you, on the other hand, are an admitted extremist. So much so that you are entirely unable to defend any of your positions which I destroyed with a small application of logic and knowledge.
I believe that the government has one objective, and one objective alone: to protect its citizens from force and fraud. Anything beyond is frivilous. This is a simple and self-consistent philosophy -- far easier to discern from yours, of which I have to pick between your rantings.
Also, I wasn't trying to defend any of my positions. My positions are irrelevent, and given only as an example for the argument against your assertion that opinions of right-wing thought should not be present in this forum.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Funny... I never brought up issues of party... niether did the poster of the article.
The left claims to be the ones that are open minded and don't make snap judgements. As the actions and words of the extreme right, the extreme left shows its true colors in ways like you demonstrate.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Now explain to me rationally how using the power of the state to take away rights from the masses to enrich the rich is good?
I don't know a single self-described conservative who believed this is a useful goal. They're against high taxation in general. Most feel, as do I, that private charity is more efficient than most government programs.
The right in this country has gone to great lengths to demonize the very idea of "Liberal" to destroy rational debate.
The left does the same. As you are doing now.
The fact is that I agree with both sides on different issues. I'm pro-life, but anti-death-penalty. I despise huge government programs, but also despise the war in Iraq (and America's general feeling that it should be the world's police force). I find pornography to be disgusting, but see no justification in censorship (with exception of kiddie porn and snuff films and the like).
Just assuming across the board that about half of the people in this country are totally irrational is a bit closed-minded and foolish. Their oppinions hold value, as do yours.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
I, being niether a member of the left nor the right, find your attitude a bit distasteful, unintellectual, and bigoted. Since when is discussion of topics that rational people disagree on bad? If you're consistently encountered only with opinions that match your own, how will you learn?
But wait -- this is Slashdot. I guess this isn't really a place for intellectual discourse...
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Keep the right-wing ideals out of site and off of Slashdot.
Ah, but you're left-wing ideals are perfectly ok? I guess some peoples opinions are ok and other's aren't?
The real reason is that we can't keep making CPU's faster without going this route. Intel is currently incapable of making a P4 hit 4ghz, which they originally planned for over a year ago. IBM was unable to deliver Apple a 3 ghz G5 like they promised. We're reaching physical limitations of the silicon here. Because of this, the future is multicore.
Also, a 5ghz out-of-order PowerPC 970 (or similar) would draw tons more power than the three simplified in-order PPC cores running at 3.5ghz in the Xbox 360. Performance per watt is becoming increasingly important in both PC's and consoles. Do you really want a console that sounds like a jet engine and heats up your room? How about one that draws so much power, it trips your breaker if it's on the same circuit as your fridge? Didn't think so.
Sony and Microsoft honestly took the more sensible and future-proof route. Sure, the first-gen games for the systems would have been a bit better and loads easier to write if they just put in the fastest PPC970 or Athlon64 available in the damn thing, but these systems have to have a shelf life of around 4-5 years. By then, ALL PC's will be multi-core -- period. Look at Intel, AMD, and IBM's road-map. They can't just turn up the clockspeed forever. Sure, there will be process improvements, and marginal gains, but not like in the past. Intel's "next-gen" architecture is largely based on multi-core Pentium-M's. Why? The growing power requirements of the P4's is ridiculous, and limits the applications of the CPU's. Plus, the P4 can't keep scaling up, despite the Prescott core's absurd 31-stage pipeline!
The average console user is a LOT less tech savvy than the average PC gamer. These things are hidden for lots of reasons:
1) lack of time for QA -- some stuff is buggy, and doesn't make the final cut. If it can cause the game to crash, it shouldn't be accessible to end users. Period.
2) Breaking game balance -- if some characters in a fighting game, for example, are simply too good, and make the game not fun to play, they shouldn't be allowed.
3) Flavor -- sometimes some stuff used in early stages is really dumb, or the vision on the project changes. If something doesn't fit, it shouldn't be in.
Tactile feel is everything. That's why I insist on spending extra on old-fashioned clicky keyboards. A laptop keyboard alone is enough to have my fingers hurting after just a couple hours of typing. I can do 12 hours straight on my Unicomp Customizer 101 -- the buckling-spring recoil is much better for your fingers, and actually increases the speed you type. Type on a completely flat surface for a couple hours a day, and you'll develop RSI faster than you can say "shiny".
There are supposed to be only two Sith -- with the understanding that the apprentice will eventually try to overthrow the master. The master wishes to train the apprentice well so he can take all the dangerous shit, where the apprentice wishes to grow in power. If there are multiple apprentices, they could gang up on the master.
I have no problem with that. In fact, I found the best and most objective class I'd taken on world religions was by a very orthodox Catholic priest who is pursuing a PhD in History. In the class, there were Catholics, other Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Buddists, and agnostics/athiests. All appeared to agree that he was fair and even-handed, and he did not preach in the classroom.
Since when is teaching logically flawed propaganda to schoolkiddies a rational intellectual discussion?
Such was probably about 40% of the stuff I was taught in public high-school, as well as in my liberal arts classes. Subjective relativist crap.
So, it's OK if atheists complain that thier kids have to hear someone mention God but it's not OK for Catholics to complain when the teachers tell them premarital sex and contraception are good things that they should be partaking in?
To believe that there is no supernatural still takes belief. It still takes faith in one's beliefs.
I'd imagine this is more due to pressure from theists than atheists. The theists want to repaint history with a brush that makes them look good.
The crusades were just an example. This book went to much further lengths, such as not mentioning that the original pilgrims that settled in New England were largely Puritans seeking freedom from religious persecution, or the mention that Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk. Or the role of Confucious in Chinese culture. There were plenty of good things done by religious organizations throughout the centuries, as well as bad.
And no, the pressure was from atheists who were offended by thier children learning about religion.
This isn't teaching religion... it's teaching a theory. Some people made a point that maybe it should be taught in another class, like sociology or philosophy. I have no problem with this. I do, however, have a problem with teaching an un-proven theory as fact. And frankly, the only reason to do this would be to promote atheism (which is a faith).
Do you also think that religion shouldn't be mentioned in history class as well? A local school just approved a history textbook that goes so far out of its way to paint history devoid of religion, that it doesn't mention the fact that the crusades were (at least in name) religious wars. That is, quite frankly, dishonest.
The schools are going too far... in a local high-school, a kid can get suspended for having a bible in his back-pack, or wearing a cross or crucifix. This only applies to these items... students are fully allowed to wear icons or carry holy texts from other faiths -- just Christians are persecuted here. I could site dozens of other examples, just in my county of NJ, but you get the point.
Do I believe there should be religion classes in public high-school? Nope. Do I believe various religions merit mention in certain topics of study (mostly history)? Absolutely.
Just because the term "macro evolution" is not typified in most textbooks, does not mean it is not a valid concept. It means, simply, evolution on a large scale. I would not consider that which we observe in flora and fauna to be macro-evolution; I think we mostly disagree with terminology. There is no concrete proof that all multi-celled life descended originally from simple single-celled organisms. This is a theory -- a highly credible and rational one -- but should be taught as such.
Another term I used is "micro evolution", which would obviously mean evolution on a small scale (such as breeding cattle to maximize milk production, or the small differences between animals that are of the same species that have adapted to the specific needs of thier envrionment). I'm not talking about new theories, rather I am differentiating based on the scale and scope of evolution -- which is disputed.
Yes, it's possible that life was formed in multiple places and there are no common ancestors to all current forms of life on earth. I'm not a biologist, and I don't know enough to present evidence for or against this.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd consider using a fanless VIA Epia board... cheaper and quieter than an A64 solution. If you're just using it as a fileserver, the VIA should be enough.
And yes, because he's a geek, his opinion doesn't matter.
I took quite a few HCI and related classes. A properly designed interface will be more useful to experts as well as novice users. Something that is only useful to novices will never allow them to grow, and is likely fundamentally flawed.
A classic example of a specialty design that's also useful to non-crippled users is the OXO Good Grips line of kitchen utensils. They were initially designed for persons with arthritis and similar debilitations, but many of thier tools (such as thier can opener), are designed so well, that they are preferable to persons without and such disease.
Neither KDE nor GNOME fits this bill, but due to KDE's architecture and attitude, it's possible to build a KDE desktop that's usable to experts and newbies alike. It's a function mostly of good defaults, which IMHO KDE doesn't have.
I'll have to second this suggestion. I use KDE as my primary desktop, and generally use KDM just because it's easy to integrate and configure. But GDM, though not perfect, is a FAR better desktop manager -- much more control over look/feel, cleaner, faster, etc. The thing I like better about KDM is that the username/password are on the same screen. I haven't used GDM in a while, but I hated that at least in the past, you couldn't have a list of users to click on.
IMHO, GDM should be taken and overhauled, and made a standard part of X.org, with a clean, easy config interface that could be edited by either KDE or GNOME. XDM blows chunks, and there's no reason that a quality display manager couldn't come standard with X. I think it would add a lot.
In fact, it would be smart of the porn producers to do so first WITHOUT any laws requiring. That way:
.xxx domain, or a pr0n:// protocol identifier would be to place a standard rating.xml file in some sort of meta tag in the pages header. This would list levels of nudity, sex, violence, language, etc, and individuals could easilly filter based on a multitude of things. Think about it -- you set up a proxy server that loads the HTML header, parses for the XML file, downloads it, and then makes a decision whether to let it through or not.
1) People that want to filter (like myself) can quite easilly filter
2) People that want porn can more easilly find it
3) It's a pre-emptive strike that may thwart the formation of over-reaching laws
Another solution that would be better than restricted to a specific port, or a
Reminds me of the days with the C-64... the copy-protected discs eventually destroyed your floppy drive, by causing it to thrash uncontrollably, trying to read bad sectors. Many people, like myself, perfered to get cracked copies of games because they had this problem removed, and thus didn't make my expensive SCSI floppy drive die...
Fair enough -- reasonable people can disagree on how much is too much.
Because she did it to Jesus himself in person during the short time He was with us on this earth. I definitely do not see this verse as being a blank check for the church to spend money for all eternity on arguably useless decoration instead of the poor and needy.
Well, we believe that the Eucharist IS Christ's physical presence here on earth. No different. His *appearance* is that of bread and wine, but we believe the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.
What in the New Testament gives you any indication that God is particularly interested in material goods or that anything that we are capable of producing with our hands could actually increase God's glory!?
Um... we aren't increasing God's glory, we're giving witness to it. Our beautiful churches, art, and artefacts -- anything that contains beauty -- can be an icon to the greater glory of God. Sorry... I guess I wasn't particularly clear before.
A "trend" 1800 years ago doesn't make it Biblical or correct. As already mentioned, the Catholic Church has done a LOT of things that were not Biblical or correct.
I don't remember in which epistle, but Paul does make reference to respecting sacred Tradition as well as sacred scripture. (I can't quote chapter or verse as most protestants, but I do know the New Testament fairly well. Old Testament is a bit harder to remember everything...)
"To give" to the material church or "to give" our material possessions to the poor and give our spirital wealth to God? I'd say the latter. As Jesus said, if we would be perfect, go, sell our things, and give to the poor, and follow Him. He didn't say "Give me your possessions and follow me."
Yet God gave some pretty specific instructions to build a lavish temple to Him to the Hebrews. Christ never deprecated this! Why can we not do both -- give to the poor and build beautiful altars for His most holy sacrifice? What about what is said in Revelations about the adornments of the altar? The Tridentine mass (the traditional latin mass that was mostly unchanged from the 5th century until 1970) has its theology largely based its account of the lamb's sacrifice.
Also, what about what he told the apostles just before he ascended into heaven (I think the account was in Acts)? He said that though he told them originally to go from place to place without money, arms, etc. that the time was changing, and they'd have to do otherwise. He clearly made different pastoral decisions pre and post resurrection.
Finally, what about the writings of the patriarchs who immediately succeeded the apostles? The epistles of Clement, Linus, Ignatius of Antioch, and other early church fathers detail the roles of bishops and deacons, the celebration of the mass, etc. We have the Didache, which historians believed functioned as a proto-catechism and book of rites and prayers used by the early church -- dated somewhere around 80-100AD. In fact, the Didache contains the first known transcription of the modern form of the Lord's Prayer (which is a combination of the Matthean and Lucan account). This supports our Traditions as well.
Then why was it OK for Mary of Bethany to do what she did? We believe that the whole of the mass -- not just the tabernacle and the ciborium and the chalice (the said vessels you claimed) -- should be elaborate and beautiful as we can reasonably expect to manage. So the vessels, the altar, the vestments, the thurible, the pews, the windows, etc. should be a testament to God's greater glory. In addition, they help as worship aids for the congregation; to overwhelm and lift the self into a sense of other-worldliness. The mass should be more lavish and beautiful than the stuff we experience elsewhere, so we might know that God's heavenly kingdom in all its majesty is far greater still.
Also, in terms of tradition, this was the trend as soon as our Christian ancestors could worship in the open. Certainly, adornments were less lavish while we were relegated to worship in the catecombs. God doesn't expect us to give him perfection in this respect; that would be impossible. We believe he does want us to give what we reasonably can in our station of life.
Pax vobiscum,
Aaron
As a general rule, the Catholic churches still spend way too much money on ornaments and decorations and material objects in the church. This money could be much better used for helping the poor and taking the faith to the unbelievers.
Umm... Jesus disagrees with you a tad... John 12:4-8 states:
Judas the Iscariot, one of his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, "Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages 3 and given to the poor?" He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."
We believe that Christ's true physical presence exists in the Eucharist. Why should we treat him any differently than Mary of Bethany? Giving money, service, and faith to the poor is very good, but so is treating Christ with the majesty He deserves. A priest friend of mine often says that the holy sacrifice of the mass has an audience of one: God. Though we can never be truly perfect, or worship God to the degree he deserves, we should make a best effort.
Though you're welcome to a different interpretation in application of your own faith, I hold that the Catholic church behaves rather biblically in this respect.
Poor comparison -- a concert is a liver performance, and in a given area, the performance is generally available once a night for three nights tops.
Print a movie to a roll of film and play it 6 times a day for 6 weeks. It's a simple economic problem.
A concert costs far more to put on and will reach far fewer people. Though a film may cost more to make than a tour of an A-list rock artist, but because of economies of scale, the movie viewing is cheaper.
Live theater is more in line with concert prices...
Anti-gay stance? What anti-gay stance? I said nothing of homosexuality. I mentioned the following issues:
From prior post:
I'm pro-life, but anti-death-penalty. I despise huge government programs, but also despise the war in Iraq (and America's general feeling that it should be the world's police force). I find pornography to be disgusting, but see no justification in censorship (with exception of kiddie porn and snuff films and the like).
If you're confusing me with someone else, I'm sorry. I think government should have NOTHING to do with marriage, etc. I mentioned nothing about homosexuality.
Additionally I demonstrated by a simple application of the definitions of the freaking philosophies that one is inherently morally superior as a philosophy regardless of what happens in practice.
No, you listed some things wrong with some people who subscribe to one of the philosophies. Many would have no problems living in a nation that implements such rules you have problems with.
I believe the purpose of the state is to promote personal liberty. That is consistent with American values.
Then define liberty. Different men define it differently. For example, John Adams defined freedom as not wanton right to do what brings one the most pleasure, but the right to do what one ought to. Others, like Ayn Rand, define it as a call to anarchy. There are numberous other definitions which reasonable men disagree.
You on the other hand flat out admitted that you believe in big oppressive government to be used to prevent personal liberty.
Really? I said nothing of the sort. The only thing I can assume you are referring to is my statement that I'm pro-life -- which is thouroughly consistent with my other beliefs. I don't think the children murdered in abortion clinics would consider this stance oppressive...
Now you, on the other hand, are an admitted extremist. So much so that you are entirely unable to defend any of your positions which I destroyed with a small application of logic and knowledge.
I believe that the government has one objective, and one objective alone: to protect its citizens from force and fraud. Anything beyond is frivilous. This is a simple and self-consistent philosophy -- far easier to discern from yours, of which I have to pick between your rantings.
Also, I wasn't trying to defend any of my positions. My positions are irrelevent, and given only as an example for the argument against your assertion that opinions of right-wing thought should not be present in this forum.
Funny... I never brought up issues of party... niether did the poster of the article.
The left claims to be the ones that are open minded and don't make snap judgements. As the actions and words of the extreme right, the extreme left shows its true colors in ways like you demonstrate.
Now explain to me rationally how using the power of the state to take away rights from the masses to enrich the rich is good?
I don't know a single self-described conservative who believed this is a useful goal. They're against high taxation in general. Most feel, as do I, that private charity is more efficient than most government programs.
The right in this country has gone to great lengths to demonize the very idea of "Liberal" to destroy rational debate.
The left does the same. As you are doing now.
The fact is that I agree with both sides on different issues. I'm pro-life, but anti-death-penalty. I despise huge government programs, but also despise the war in Iraq (and America's general feeling that it should be the world's police force). I find pornography to be disgusting, but see no justification in censorship (with exception of kiddie porn and snuff films and the like).
Just assuming across the board that about half of the people in this country are totally irrational is a bit closed-minded and foolish. Their oppinions hold value, as do yours.
I, being niether a member of the left nor the right, find your attitude a bit distasteful, unintellectual, and bigoted. Since when is discussion of topics that rational people disagree on bad? If you're consistently encountered only with opinions that match your own, how will you learn?
But wait -- this is Slashdot. I guess this isn't really a place for intellectual discourse...
Keep the right-wing ideals out of site and off of Slashdot.
Ah, but you're left-wing ideals are perfectly ok? I guess some peoples opinions are ok and other's aren't?
The real reason is that we can't keep making CPU's faster without going this route. Intel is currently incapable of making a P4 hit 4ghz, which they originally planned for over a year ago. IBM was unable to deliver Apple a 3 ghz G5 like they promised. We're reaching physical limitations of the silicon here. Because of this, the future is multicore.
Also, a 5ghz out-of-order PowerPC 970 (or similar) would draw tons more power than the three simplified in-order PPC cores running at 3.5ghz in the Xbox 360. Performance per watt is becoming increasingly important in both PC's and consoles. Do you really want a console that sounds like a jet engine and heats up your room? How about one that draws so much power, it trips your breaker if it's on the same circuit as your fridge? Didn't think so.
Sony and Microsoft honestly took the more sensible and future-proof route. Sure, the first-gen games for the systems would have been a bit better and loads easier to write if they just put in the fastest PPC970 or Athlon64 available in the damn thing, but these systems have to have a shelf life of around 4-5 years. By then, ALL PC's will be multi-core -- period. Look at Intel, AMD, and IBM's road-map. They can't just turn up the clockspeed forever. Sure, there will be process improvements, and marginal gains, but not like in the past. Intel's "next-gen" architecture is largely based on multi-core Pentium-M's. Why? The growing power requirements of the P4's is ridiculous, and limits the applications of the CPU's. Plus, the P4 can't keep scaling up, despite the Prescott core's absurd 31-stage pipeline!
The average console user is a LOT less tech savvy than the average PC gamer. These things are hidden for lots of reasons:
1) lack of time for QA -- some stuff is buggy, and doesn't make the final cut. If it can cause the game to crash, it shouldn't be accessible to end users. Period.
2) Breaking game balance -- if some characters in a fighting game, for example, are simply too good, and make the game not fun to play, they shouldn't be allowed.
3) Flavor -- sometimes some stuff used in early stages is really dumb, or the vision on the project changes. If something doesn't fit, it shouldn't be in.
Spoken like a person who doesn't type much.
Tactile feel is everything. That's why I insist on spending extra on old-fashioned clicky keyboards. A laptop keyboard alone is enough to have my fingers hurting after just a couple hours of typing. I can do 12 hours straight on my Unicomp Customizer 101 -- the buckling-spring recoil is much better for your fingers, and actually increases the speed you type. Type on a completely flat surface for a couple hours a day, and you'll develop RSI faster than you can say "shiny".
There are supposed to be only two Sith -- with the understanding that the apprentice will eventually try to overthrow the master. The master wishes to train the apprentice well so he can take all the dangerous shit, where the apprentice wishes to grow in power. If there are multiple apprentices, they could gang up on the master.
I have no problem with that. In fact, I found the best and most objective class I'd taken on world religions was by a very orthodox Catholic priest who is pursuing a PhD in History. In the class, there were Catholics, other Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Buddists, and agnostics/athiests. All appeared to agree that he was fair and even-handed, and he did not preach in the classroom.
Since when is teaching logically flawed propaganda to schoolkiddies a rational intellectual discussion?
Such was probably about 40% of the stuff I was taught in public high-school, as well as in my liberal arts classes. Subjective relativist crap.
So, it's OK if atheists complain that thier kids have to hear someone mention God but it's not OK for Catholics to complain when the teachers tell them premarital sex and contraception are good things that they should be partaking in?
It isn't a scientific theory. It's a SWAG.
I didn't say scientific theory. I said theory.
Atheism is not a faith.
To believe that there is no supernatural still takes belief. It still takes faith in one's beliefs.
I'd imagine this is more due to pressure from theists than atheists. The theists want to repaint history with a brush that makes them look good.
The crusades were just an example. This book went to much further lengths, such as not mentioning that the original pilgrims that settled in New England were largely Puritans seeking freedom from religious persecution, or the mention that Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk. Or the role of Confucious in Chinese culture. There were plenty of good things done by religious organizations throughout the centuries, as well as bad.
And no, the pressure was from atheists who were offended by thier children learning about religion.
This isn't teaching religion... it's teaching a theory. Some people made a point that maybe it should be taught in another class, like sociology or philosophy. I have no problem with this. I do, however, have a problem with teaching an un-proven theory as fact. And frankly, the only reason to do this would be to promote atheism (which is a faith).
Do you also think that religion shouldn't be mentioned in history class as well? A local school just approved a history textbook that goes so far out of its way to paint history devoid of religion, that it doesn't mention the fact that the crusades were (at least in name) religious wars. That is, quite frankly, dishonest.
The schools are going too far... in a local high-school, a kid can get suspended for having a bible in his back-pack, or wearing a cross or crucifix. This only applies to these items... students are fully allowed to wear icons or carry holy texts from other faiths -- just Christians are persecuted here. I could site dozens of other examples, just in my county of NJ, but you get the point.
Do I believe there should be religion classes in public high-school? Nope. Do I believe various religions merit mention in certain topics of study (mostly history)? Absolutely.
Just because the term "macro evolution" is not typified in most textbooks, does not mean it is not a valid concept. It means, simply, evolution on a large scale. I would not consider that which we observe in flora and fauna to be macro-evolution; I think we mostly disagree with terminology. There is no concrete proof that all multi-celled life descended originally from simple single-celled organisms. This is a theory -- a highly credible and rational one -- but should be taught as such.
Another term I used is "micro evolution", which would obviously mean evolution on a small scale (such as breeding cattle to maximize milk production, or the small differences between animals that are of the same species that have adapted to the specific needs of thier envrionment). I'm not talking about new theories, rather I am differentiating based on the scale and scope of evolution -- which is disputed.
Yes, it's possible that life was formed in multiple places and there are no common ancestors to all current forms of life on earth. I'm not a biologist, and I don't know enough to present evidence for or against this.