The only other holiday where such assumption is made (which I can think of, right now) is New Year's Day, but you're hard-pressed to find people who do not use the "common" (aka Judeo-Christian) calendar primarily.
Um, there's nothing "Judeo" about the solar calendar. The Jewish New Year is sometime in mid November, usually.
As for Valentine's Day, it is for couples in love, and we as a society value and celebrate love (at least as an ideal, given the current divorce rates something is missing from the actual practice). Yeah, it's commercialized today, but so is everything else. If you really feel left out of the Valentine's celebration, why don't you try starting your own holiday, celebrating loneliness. Though I don't think you'll find many people who really want to join you in that (outside of Slashdot, at any rate).
So, let me get this straight: your ex-girlfriend was more than happy to celebrate Beer and Blowjob Day with you, and was happy that you bought her a sexy outfit for Valentine's Day (a gift more for you than her). And your current girlfriend likes none of that stuff. Is that pretty much right?
As Gob Bluthe would say, you've made a huuuge mistake.
The current one that I've heard is that, while the civilian population is in something like computer development year 40, while the military is in development year 95.
Riiiight. And that's why most DoD machines (and MoD machines, according to my friends in England) run Windows 2000? And most of the rest run either Solaris, HP-UX, or Linux? Sounds pretty much like corporate America to me.
Couldn't agree with you guys more. Selective breeding to get rid of undesirable traits is fine for dogs and farm animals, but not humans. Anytime someone says someone with a genetic disease should not have been born, I have a two word response: Stephen Hawking.
What was it that you didn't like about our UK steaks, eh?
Yeah, what's wrong with involuntary shaking and early death?;)
And before you remind me that mad cow is in the Colonies now, remember it showed up in cattle that had been shipped in from Canada. So, yes, blame Canada.
"We think they'll turn out to be black or clear, and either extremely hard like diamond, or flammable, like coal!"
I know you were trying to be funny, but you do realize that you are, in fact, flammable, right? If you don't believe me, go into your kitchen, turn on one of the burners on your range (assuming you have a gas stove), and hold you hand in the flame. That burning smell is coming from your skin as it chars off the bone.
The reason we don't see as much of this happening on linux isn't solely due to the fact linux is more secure, but because what disruption would be caused by it? Making a linux virus isn't such an accolade as a Windows one, as you can bet it's not going to be on the news when released.
Actually, a virus that targets Linux (or any other UNIX look alike, eg Solaris) would make huge headlines. At least in the trade rags. Why? Because it's never happened before. The uniqueness of it alone would be cause to put it on the front page of every IT and Security publication in the world.
Yes, yes it does. In fact, I suggest you try this at your first opportunity. Just remember, the webbing you shoot from you wrists may be very fine. So you may not see it, or even feel it. But trust me, it is there, so go ahead and jump off the ledge and start swinging.
*sigh* There are so many things wrong in your statements, I don't even know where to start. You ignore the work of dozens of philosophers, from diverse cultures, who all contend that the simplest truths are the best. You confuse Spain with Portugal. You also assume you know best about how I came to my beliefs, and also assume I'm not already praying for the innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan (and other places you've never heard of). You can't reason your way out of a paperbag, my friend.
Like I said, examine your life. Examine others' lives. See if you're truly happy (which it is plainly evident you are not), and then figure out what you need to do to make yourself happy. This angry, nihilistic, track you're on now won't serve you well in the years to come.
No, I over exagerated in my origonal post... "Use the damned software!" im not meaning as a direct quote.
Well, in that case, you're mostly right. And I think that's what these firms are doing. They're just making the switch more comfortable for employees, to help avoid the problems you experienced with the switch to Maximo, for example.
How about this approach... "Use the damned software!". Really, I dont know why people seem to think they should have complete freedom on a computer at work. The company owns the machine, and the company chooses the software... so long as the company involved the proper employees in evaluating which is the best software(s) to use... thats it, end of story. Employees really shouldnt have a choice one way or another.
Ever heard the phrase "you attract more flies with honey than vinegar?" Honestly, I'd rather work for someone who is respectful of my concerns and seeks to answer them (even in a devious way), than someone who just scoffs at them and says "Shut up and get back to work." Even the military, the only employer who can throw you in jail or have you shot for not doing what you're told, tends to be relatively light handed in how it encourages its members to use new systems.
Gee, are you suggesting that certain human behavior is hardwired into our psyche? Just like every single other mammal on the planet? And you're just now realizing this??
You can either accept that you're an animal with instincts, and learn how to control them/live with them, or you can deny your basic nature and keep banging your head against the wall. The choice is yours. The upshot on the former is, everyone else is governed by those same instincts, so you can use them to help get people to do what you want them to.
First of all you should look up the meaning of Jihad, it does not mean what you think it does.
Jihad has two meanings. The first, and most commonly thought of (in the West) is "holy war". Strictly speaking, this concept doesn't exist in Christianity, though we do have a concept of "just war" which is similar in many respects. The primary difference is that Christians aren't promised heaven for killing others in war. The other, more subtle, meaning is that of an internal struggle to become right with God. Again, this concept doesn't quite exist in Christianity, though, again, there are similar ones. The difference here is who is the primary actor, the penitent or the Redeemer. In Islam, salvation is something each person must strive for; in Christianity, it is a gift from God (though different branches may or may not emphasize a certain amount of action on the part of the penitent).
Only true if your flavor of superstition is christianity.
I beg to differ. Christ is God in flesh, whether you believe it or not.
(I'm skipping the next two points since they were moot to start with, though your answers do show a certain arrogance which I find amusing.)
You can't discover a place if people have been living there for thousands of years. So it's actually false.
I discovered a great Chinese restaurant with my girlfriend last night. Or maybe I didn't, since other people already knew about it. Maybe you should rethink what "discovery" means.
Then we get to your answers about *real* moral questions. Simple, off the cuff, questions. Because it is in simplicity that we are most likely to find the divine. Your answers make clear that you are an evil, selfish, man, and it would not surprise me to learn you have few close friends, and not by choice. You should take a good, close look at your life, and ask yourself if you are really and truly fulfilled. I strongly suspect you are not; if you think are, I'm inclined to believe you are fooling only yourself.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Either way, that was the point that was raised, and it was not the point you kept hammering away on (see how I tied the discussion back to sledgehammers? aren't I clever?)
Wow, you've really got your religions mixed up, huh? Here's a hint: "jihad" is a term from Islam, a religion based on books written 1400 years ago by some people in what is now known as Saudi Arabia. Neither Christianity nor Judaism has a concept quite like jihad, though of course all three have some very similar concepts otherwise.
You want some food for thought answer the following questions true or false.
OK, I'll bite.
1) jesus christ is the son of god. Technically not a moral question, but true.
2) Paralell lines never meet. Definitely not a moral question, so it's moot, though it is true.
3) A gallon of gasoline cost $1.65. Again, not a moral question, so again moot. But it's false, since the Exxon down the street is selling it for $1.73 today.
4) Christopher columbus discovered america. The least moral question of them all. Though it is true. Whether he was the first, or most important, to do so is a seperate issue, but the fact that he did indeed arrive in the Americas, albeit accidentally, is beyond dispute.
Think hard now. What does your moral absolutism say about the truth of each question?
Well, since none of them are really moral questions, it doesn't really have anything to say about them. Here are some *real* moral questions for you, let's see if you've got the guts to answer them:
1) Is there ever a time when it is OK for someone to rape and murder your sister? 2) Would you throw a baby into a lit furnace to save yourself? What about 100 babies? 1000? If so, why? If not, why not? 3) If you found a bag full of money on the sidewalk, with no identifying marks, what would you do with it, and why? 4) Let's assume you're married. Now let's assume you're at a conference far away from your home town. One of the other attendees, to whom you are attracted, approaches you and offers sex. You know your spouse will never know. Do you accept? If so, why? If not, why not?
Think hard now. What does your moral relativism say about the relevance of each question?
Today, right now, democrats are generally opposed to using war and violence as a means to solve their problems while republicans are of the opposite opinion.
Yes, you've come so far from the ancient days of 1998, when President Clinton thought it was a good idea to bomb the hell out of Bosnia.
Whether it's war, death penalty, harsh prison terms, public flogging or what have you. Even their terminology is all about violence.
And yeah, you're right, no Democrat would start something like the War on Poverty, would they? Oops, guess they would.
Because the the person I was responding to specifically stated that republicans might smash the head of liberal professors with a sledgehammer.
What he seemed to be saying was stifling dissent can lead to violent repercussions. I think that's a no brainer, don't you?
No member of the KKK today is a democrat, no member of the aryan nations is a democrat.
And you know this how? You might be surprised how many Yellow Dog Democrats in the Deep South keep an extra set of sheets in the linen closet. Don't forget, a lot of them good ol' boys want nothing to do with the party of Lincoln.
Really, if you don't want the stink don't roll in shit. If you go around saying that liberals should be hit in the head with sledgehammers or that hippies should be buried in mass graves what else do you expect people to think of you?
*sniff* Smells fine to me. If you're smelling shit, you might check yourself. Oh, and I'd appreciate a pointer to where I said it's OK to hurt or kill people with whom you disagree.
One part of life is learning to get along when your boss is an asshole or belongs to a different political party. If you can't cope with a professor and feel compelled to argue with him constantly chances are you will fail at your job too.
It just occurred to me: this whole "argumentative student" tack is a complete strawman. Noone ever said anything about students being asses and arguing with their professors all the time; instead, the point which was raised was that liberal professors fail their students merely because their politics are different, not because the student in question was being disrespectful.
Again I ask, why do liberals always resort to childish attacks against conservatives? Is it because they know, deep down, we're right, and they can't admit it to themselves for some reason? Or maybe they just can't get past the adolescent desire to rebel against Mommy and Daddy, trying desperately to prove them wrong in a childish effort to define themselves as individuals for a change? In this case, "Mommy and Daddy" would be anyone expressing a sense of moral absolutism, e.g. conservatives. I don't know for sure, but this sure is some interesting food for thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, you shoulda told her you knocked over a flower shop on the way home. Girls always love the bad boy.
The only other holiday where such assumption is made (which I can think of, right now) is New Year's Day, but you're hard-pressed to find people who do not use the "common" (aka Judeo-Christian) calendar primarily.
Um, there's nothing "Judeo" about the solar calendar. The Jewish New Year is sometime in mid November, usually.
As for Valentine's Day, it is for couples in love, and we as a society value and celebrate love (at least as an ideal, given the current divorce rates something is missing from the actual practice). Yeah, it's commercialized today, but so is everything else. If you really feel left out of the Valentine's celebration, why don't you try starting your own holiday, celebrating loneliness. Though I don't think you'll find many people who really want to join you in that (outside of Slashdot, at any rate).
So, let me get this straight: your ex-girlfriend was more than happy to celebrate Beer and Blowjob Day with you, and was happy that you bought her a sexy outfit for Valentine's Day (a gift more for you than her). And your current girlfriend likes none of that stuff. Is that pretty much right?
As Gob Bluthe would say, you've made a huuuge mistake.
The current one that I've heard is that, while the civilian population is in something like computer development year 40, while the military is in development year 95.
Riiiight. And that's why most DoD machines (and MoD machines, according to my friends in England) run Windows 2000? And most of the rest run either Solaris, HP-UX, or Linux? Sounds pretty much like corporate America to me.
Couldn't agree with you guys more. Selective breeding to get rid of undesirable traits is fine for dogs and farm animals, but not humans. Anytime someone says someone with a genetic disease should not have been born, I have a two word response: Stephen Hawking.
What was it that you didn't like about our UK steaks, eh?
;)
Yeah, what's wrong with involuntary shaking and early death?
And before you remind me that mad cow is in the Colonies now, remember it showed up in cattle that had been shipped in from Canada. So, yes, blame Canada.
And I don't know about you, but looking at current epidemic of obesity, I would say that we get enough meat already.
Judging by the success of the Atkins and South Beach diets, I'd say we're getting enough plant starch already, but could probably use more meat.
Oh joy, free karma for me because someone else doesn't know how to use anchor tags.
I thought the most famous cliche was the lone troll in a 10x10 room guarding a chest.
That's a Slashdot cliche. And that's not a chest he's guarding.
"We think they'll turn out to be black or clear, and either extremely hard like diamond, or flammable, like coal!"
I know you were trying to be funny, but you do realize that you are, in fact, flammable, right? If you don't believe me, go into your kitchen, turn on one of the burners on your range (assuming you have a gas stove), and hold you hand in the flame. That burning smell is coming from your skin as it chars off the bone.
By any chance, did the program come up with the entire works of Shakespear?
The reason we don't see as much of this happening on linux isn't solely due to the fact linux is more secure, but because what disruption would be caused by it? Making a linux virus isn't such an accolade as a Windows one, as you can bet it's not going to be on the news when released.
Actually, a virus that targets Linux (or any other UNIX look alike, eg Solaris) would make huge headlines. At least in the trade rags. Why? Because it's never happened before. The uniqueness of it alone would be cause to put it on the front page of every IT and Security publication in the world.
Clickety click.
Yes, yes it does. In fact, I suggest you try this at your first opportunity. Just remember, the webbing you shoot from you wrists may be very fine. So you may not see it, or even feel it. But trust me, it is there, so go ahead and jump off the ledge and start swinging.
Love my baby
What the hell?!? That's my wife!
j/k, I'm not married.
*sigh* There are so many things wrong in your statements, I don't even know where to start. You ignore the work of dozens of philosophers, from diverse cultures, who all contend that the simplest truths are the best. You confuse Spain with Portugal. You also assume you know best about how I came to my beliefs, and also assume I'm not already praying for the innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan (and other places you've never heard of). You can't reason your way out of a paperbag, my friend.
Like I said, examine your life. Examine others' lives. See if you're truly happy (which it is plainly evident you are not), and then figure out what you need to do to make yourself happy. This angry, nihilistic, track you're on now won't serve you well in the years to come.
No, I over exagerated in my origonal post... "Use the damned software!" im not meaning as a direct quote.
Well, in that case, you're mostly right. And I think that's what these firms are doing. They're just making the switch more comfortable for employees, to help avoid the problems you experienced with the switch to Maximo, for example.
For me my life is more sacred then the lives of a thousand babies.
And yet you attack others for supposedly condoning violence? Interesting....
How about this approach... "Use the damned software!". Really, I dont know why people seem to think they should have complete freedom on a computer at work. The company owns the machine, and the company chooses the software... so long as the company involved the proper employees in evaluating which is the best software(s) to use... thats it, end of story. Employees really shouldnt have a choice one way or another.
Ever heard the phrase "you attract more flies with honey than vinegar?" Honestly, I'd rather work for someone who is respectful of my concerns and seeks to answer them (even in a devious way), than someone who just scoffs at them and says "Shut up and get back to work." Even the military, the only employer who can throw you in jail or have you shot for not doing what you're told, tends to be relatively light handed in how it encourages its members to use new systems.
Gee, are you suggesting that certain human behavior is hardwired into our psyche? Just like every single other mammal on the planet? And you're just now realizing this??
You can either accept that you're an animal with instincts, and learn how to control them/live with them, or you can deny your basic nature and keep banging your head against the wall. The choice is yours. The upshot on the former is, everyone else is governed by those same instincts, so you can use them to help get people to do what you want them to.
Which package does *she* come in???
rpm -ivh hotbabe.rpm
"Maybe it is, maybe it isn't."
you mean it's relative?
The word you're scrambling for is "irrelevant".
First of all you should look up the meaning of Jihad, it does not mean what you think it does.
Jihad has two meanings. The first, and most commonly thought of (in the West) is "holy war". Strictly speaking, this concept doesn't exist in Christianity, though we do have a concept of "just war" which is similar in many respects. The primary difference is that Christians aren't promised heaven for killing others in war. The other, more subtle, meaning is that of an internal struggle to become right with God. Again, this concept doesn't quite exist in Christianity, though, again, there are similar ones. The difference here is who is the primary actor, the penitent or the Redeemer. In Islam, salvation is something each person must strive for; in Christianity, it is a gift from God (though different branches may or may not emphasize a certain amount of action on the part of the penitent).
Only true if your flavor of superstition is christianity.
I beg to differ. Christ is God in flesh, whether you believe it or not.
(I'm skipping the next two points since they were moot to start with, though your answers do show a certain arrogance which I find amusing.)
You can't discover a place if people have been living there for thousands of years. So it's actually false.
I discovered a great Chinese restaurant with my girlfriend last night. Or maybe I didn't, since other people already knew about it. Maybe you should rethink what "discovery" means.
Then we get to your answers about *real* moral questions. Simple, off the cuff, questions. Because it is in simplicity that we are most likely to find the divine. Your answers make clear that you are an evil, selfish, man, and it would not surprise me to learn you have few close friends, and not by choice. You should take a good, close look at your life, and ask yourself if you are really and truly fulfilled. I strongly suspect you are not; if you think are, I'm inclined to believe you are fooling only yourself.
I'll pray for you.
This is nonsense. It's a flat out lie.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Either way, that was the point that was raised, and it was not the point you kept hammering away on (see how I tied the discussion back to sledgehammers? aren't I clever?)
Wow, you've really got your religions mixed up, huh? Here's a hint: "jihad" is a term from Islam, a religion based on books written 1400 years ago by some people in what is now known as Saudi Arabia. Neither Christianity nor Judaism has a concept quite like jihad, though of course all three have some very similar concepts otherwise.
You want some food for thought answer the following questions true or false.
OK, I'll bite.
1) jesus christ is the son of god.
Technically not a moral question, but true.
2) Paralell lines never meet.
Definitely not a moral question, so it's moot, though it is true.
3) A gallon of gasoline cost $1.65.
Again, not a moral question, so again moot. But it's false, since the Exxon down the street is selling it for $1.73 today.
4) Christopher columbus discovered america.
The least moral question of them all. Though it is true. Whether he was the first, or most important, to do so is a seperate issue, but the fact that he did indeed arrive in the Americas, albeit accidentally, is beyond dispute.
Think hard now. What does your moral absolutism say about the truth of each question?
Well, since none of them are really moral questions, it doesn't really have anything to say about them. Here are some *real* moral questions for you, let's see if you've got the guts to answer them:
1) Is there ever a time when it is OK for someone to rape and murder your sister?
2) Would you throw a baby into a lit furnace to save yourself? What about 100 babies? 1000? If so, why? If not, why not?
3) If you found a bag full of money on the sidewalk, with no identifying marks, what would you do with it, and why?
4) Let's assume you're married. Now let's assume you're at a conference far away from your home town. One of the other attendees, to whom you are attracted, approaches you and offers sex. You know your spouse will never know. Do you accept? If so, why? If not, why not?
Think hard now. What does your moral relativism say about the relevance of each question?
Today, right now, democrats are generally opposed to using war and violence as a means to solve their problems while republicans are of the opposite opinion.
Yes, you've come so far from the ancient days of 1998, when President Clinton thought it was a good idea to bomb the hell out of Bosnia.
Whether it's war, death penalty, harsh prison terms, public flogging or what have you. Even their terminology is all about violence.
And yeah, you're right, no Democrat would start something like the War on Poverty, would they? Oops, guess they would.
Because the the person I was responding to specifically stated that republicans might smash the head of liberal professors with a sledgehammer.
What he seemed to be saying was stifling dissent can lead to violent repercussions. I think that's a no brainer, don't you?
No member of the KKK today is a democrat, no member of the aryan nations is a democrat.
And you know this how? You might be surprised how many Yellow Dog Democrats in the Deep South keep an extra set of sheets in the linen closet. Don't forget, a lot of them good ol' boys want nothing to do with the party of Lincoln.
Really, if you don't want the stink don't roll in shit. If you go around saying that liberals should be hit in the head with sledgehammers or that hippies should be buried in mass graves what else do you expect people to think of you?
*sniff* Smells fine to me. If you're smelling shit, you might check yourself. Oh, and I'd appreciate a pointer to where I said it's OK to hurt or kill people with whom you disagree.
One part of life is learning to get along when your boss is an asshole or belongs to a different political party. If you can't cope with a professor and feel compelled to argue with him constantly chances are you will fail at your job too.
It just occurred to me: this whole "argumentative student" tack is a complete strawman. Noone ever said anything about students being asses and arguing with their professors all the time; instead, the point which was raised was that liberal professors fail their students merely because their politics are different, not because the student in question was being disrespectful.
Again I ask, why do liberals always resort to childish attacks against conservatives? Is it because they know, deep down, we're right, and they can't admit it to themselves for some reason? Or maybe they just can't get past the adolescent desire to rebel against Mommy and Daddy, trying desperately to prove them wrong in a childish effort to define themselves as individuals for a change? In this case, "Mommy and Daddy" would be anyone expressing a sense of moral absolutism, e.g. conservatives. I don't know for sure, but this sure is some interesting food for thought.