Pirating music deprives the artist of revenue. Just look at all of the Tupac Shakur songs that can be downloaded. How can he get paid if no one buys his albums?
Isn't a gaming console, in essence, a system tweaked for gaming? No. The hardware for a specific model of gaming console is fixed. For the most part, the developer knows the exact hardware that the game will run on, and can program the game accordingly. For PC's, there is a lot of variation between different models, making it a greater challenge to predict how a game in development will perform.
I can give only a short answer now, because of time, but I'd like to continue discussing this.
Yes, I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is true. I was a creationist for a long time (about 10 years). Now, I see creationism as something born from insecuity about the truth of the Bible, not from faith.
The evidence that I've seen presented to support Creationism seems strained and biased to me. I'll explain later.
I don't care whether the people who discovered evolutions were atheist, or in Falun Gong. Its the science that I care about.
Also, I don't think that evolutionism or creationism should be a part of church doctrine.
Just because something is considered to be fact in the scientific community does not guarantee that it is correct.
What else do we have to go on? Sure, scientist make mistakes, and some cheat and lie, but if the scientific community as a whole insists for a hundred years or so that species evolved over long periods of time, why shouldn't their conclusion be accepted? How long will it take for their conclusions to be generally accepted by Christians? 200 years? 1000 years? How many hominid fossils must be dug up. How many dinosaurs must be found? How many different ways of dating fossils must be invented?
Sorry, I'm ranting a bit. I hope you understand, though. Finally, I do want to point out that, of course God can make a world in 6 earth days. The issue is did God make this world in that timeframe a few thousand years ago.
You can be an evolutionist or a creationist. I agree, and I'd like you to know that I do consider myself an evolutionist, and not a creationist.
God says: Earth created in six days (seventh day established for man as day of rest, i.e., the Sabbath = Saturday = 24 hours), birds before reptiles, whales before reptiles, no death until man (sin), no rain until man, man originally plant-eater, etc.
My disagreement with creationism is not about whether the biblical creation account is inspired by God. It is about what it means.
Because of the strong, reasoned evidence we have that life evolved over millions of years, and that the earth, sun, etc. existed far longer than that, I don't believe that the creation account is intended to tell us that everything came into being over a time period of six earth days 6000 years ago. I can't say for sure what the days are intended to mean (except for the part about the week and Sabbath; I understand that). I don't think the days should be thought of in terms of something which overwhelmingly conflicts with present day knowledge. I find it far more likely that the account is meant to be figurative in one way or another than that everything suddenly came into existence a few thousand years ago.
I don't understand your previous message, specifically when you say that "evolution is the historic context of creation." Can you explain this a little further, please? It sounds interesting.
I'll break it down for you, Rev.;-)
-The Bible begins describing creation
-In order to conclude anything about the nature of Bible's creation account, you must interpret it.
-When interpreting the Bible, it is important to consider the historical context in which it is written. (The creation account was written thousand of years ago, way before evolutionary theory existed, so it's reasonable to conclude that it doesn't take evolution into account.)
-If the text in question refers to a historic person or event, it is important to research that person or event. (The biblical creation account involves the origination of life, so it makes sense to research that subject. )
Evolution is now considered the main mechanism in the development of modern life. Since current research points to evolution, it leads to the conclusion that the biblical creation account must be interpreted in the context of evolution.
I hope to see other Christians accept and embrace evolution, rather than reject it.
One thing I try to point out is that the Bible should never be interpreted apart from its historic context, and evolution is the historic context of creation.
Concerning the Bible's creation account, proper hermeneutics is needed here. Since evolution is the scientific understanding of our origin, shouldn't creation be interpreted in that context? Is it ever correct to interpret the Bible apart from its historic context?
Also, concerning eyeballs, I recommend Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species." He explores that subject of eyes and other complex organs.
The presence of ancient bones are the evidence of evolution. They support the idea that creatures' bodies changed over long periods of time, and that we are a result of that process.
Here's another way of viewing the issue:
Scientifically, what other way could we have possibly arrived?
And shared source beats open source, mechanical mice are better than optical, the cathedral rules the bazaar, Quake III is better than Unreal Tournament, DC is better than AC, TTL beats CMOS, the 286 is not braindead, and the GoTo statement really is okay.
The main reason why Linux has not been successful on the desktop is that there is less functionality available through Linux compatible business software than in Windows software.
The simple presence of a GUI is not what makes an OS a desktop OS. MS-DOS was once the main "desktop" OS, even though it didn't have a GUI. The Macintosh OS was on fewer desktops than MS-DOS, even though it had a quality GUI. The difference was the amount of functionality available through MS-DOS business applications. If many highly functional business programs were available for Linux instead of Windows, Linux would lead on the desktop.
Presumably, Carbon6 would take a large chunk of the royalties from the game as compensation; however, what is the real benefit of working with them?
Many teams can create simple games that work on the developers' PCs, but few know how to ship good ones that everyone can play. The people leading Carbon6 have that experience. Getting help from such people can be a factor in making a game that stays on the shelves. Isn't that worth a decent royalty payment?
>I haven't paid a cent for all my windows stuff EVER...and it works out of the box...(or download:)) >BUT i've wasted hundreds of hours TRYING to make linux work...but it sucks...
Just keep in mind that if that windows software you mention isn't worth buying, its probably not worth the time effort in downloading and copying it. That just leads to time and hard drive space wasted in installing stuff you probably don't need.
The effort you put in making Linux work makes you stronger in handling technology, and that leads to higher salaries and/or more interesting work.
I don't mind adding biometric information to my driver's license as long as its registered by my state rather than the Federal government. It should not be thought of as a national id card as long as the biometric information is used for verification rather than identification.
You should tell your congressman that if your local police enforced current copyright laws with individuals, as well as corporations, then there would be no need for additional legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't engineers blow thing up in combat? If an army employs crackers, should they be called engineers?
How many people complaining about Transmeta implementing DRM actually use a Transmeta processor?
I'm a Christian...
I'm confident that the scientific establishment is not trying to decieve the public with evolution. The fossil record strongly back it up.
I'm also confident that the story of Adam and Eve was not written to lead us to believe things that aren't true.
That leads me to conclude that all living creatures did evolve, and that literal creationism is an incorrect interpretation of the Bible.
I know that. I meant to use humor to point out a weakness in an argument against file sharing.
Pirating music deprives the artist of revenue. Just look at all of the Tupac Shakur songs that can be downloaded. How can he get paid if no one buys his albums?
I'm a programmer with an EE degree, and I agree.
Study in math, physics, and digital circuits can help in programming games.
Isn't a gaming console, in essence, a system tweaked for gaming?
No. The hardware for a specific model of gaming console is fixed. For the most part, the developer knows the exact hardware that the game will run on, and can program the game accordingly. For PC's, there is a lot of variation between different models, making it a greater challenge to predict how a game in development will perform.
I can give only a short answer now, because of time, but I'd like to continue discussing this.
Yes, I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is true. I was a creationist for a long time (about 10 years). Now, I see creationism as something born from insecuity about the truth of the Bible, not from faith.
The evidence that I've seen presented to support Creationism seems strained and biased to me. I'll explain later.
I don't care whether the people who discovered evolutions were atheist, or in Falun Gong. Its the science that I care about.
Also, I don't think that evolutionism or creationism should be a part of church doctrine.
Just because something is considered to be fact in the scientific community does not guarantee that it is correct.
What else do we have to go on? Sure, scientist make mistakes, and some cheat and lie, but if the scientific community as a whole insists for a hundred years or so that species evolved over long periods of time, why shouldn't their conclusion be accepted? How long will it take for their conclusions to be generally accepted by Christians? 200 years? 1000 years? How many hominid fossils must be dug up. How many dinosaurs must be found? How many different ways of dating fossils must be invented?
Sorry, I'm ranting a bit. I hope you understand, though. Finally, I do want to point out that, of course God can make a world in 6 earth days. The issue is did God make this world in that timeframe a few thousand years ago.
You can be an evolutionist or a creationist.
I agree, and I'd like you to know that I do consider myself an evolutionist, and not a creationist.
God says: Earth created in six days (seventh day established for man as day of rest, i.e., the Sabbath = Saturday = 24 hours), birds before reptiles, whales before reptiles, no death until man (sin), no rain until man, man originally plant-eater, etc.
My disagreement with creationism is not about whether the biblical creation account is inspired by God. It is about what it means.
Because of the strong, reasoned evidence we have that life evolved over millions of years, and that the earth, sun, etc. existed far longer than that, I don't believe that the creation account is intended to tell us that everything came into being over a time period of six earth days 6000 years ago. I can't say for sure what the days are intended to mean (except for the part about the week and Sabbath; I understand that). I don't think the days should be thought of in terms of something which overwhelmingly conflicts with present day knowledge. I find it far more likely that the account is meant to be figurative in one way or another than that everything suddenly came into existence a few thousand years ago.
I'll break it down for you, Rev. ;-)
-The Bible begins describing creation
-In order to conclude anything about the nature of Bible's creation account, you must interpret it.
-When interpreting the Bible, it is important to consider the historical context in which it is written. (The creation account was written thousand of years ago, way before evolutionary theory existed, so it's reasonable to conclude that it doesn't take evolution into account.)
-If the text in question refers to a historic person or event, it is important to research that person or event. (The biblical creation account involves the origination of life, so it makes sense to research that subject. )
Evolution is now considered the main mechanism in the development of modern life. Since current research points to evolution, it leads to the conclusion that the biblical creation account must be interpreted in the context of evolution.
I hope to see other Christians accept and embrace evolution, rather than reject it.
One thing I try to point out is that the Bible should never be interpreted apart from its historic context, and evolution is the historic context of creation.
Concerning the Bible's creation account, proper hermeneutics is needed here. Since evolution is the scientific understanding of our origin, shouldn't creation be interpreted in that context? Is it ever correct to interpret the Bible apart from its historic context?
Also, concerning eyeballs, I recommend Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species." He explores that subject of eyes and other complex organs.
The presence of ancient bones are the evidence of evolution. They support the idea that creatures' bodies changed over long periods of time, and that we are a result of that process.
Here's another way of viewing the issue:
Scientifically, what other way could we have possibly arrived?
Shouldn't it be called GNU/Minix?
crucial.com
And shared source beats open source, mechanical mice are better than optical, the cathedral rules the bazaar, Quake III is better than Unreal Tournament, DC is better than AC, TTL beats CMOS, the 286 is not braindead, and the GoTo statement really is okay.
My opinion about it is that NWN is all that (the game), and a bag of chips (DM, the editor).
Also, fortunately there is no reason to holdout. According to the site, the Linux client will be available for download.
The main reason why Linux has not been successful on the desktop is that there is less functionality available through Linux compatible business software than in Windows software.
The simple presence of a GUI is not what makes an OS a desktop OS. MS-DOS was once the main "desktop" OS, even though it didn't have a GUI. The Macintosh OS was on fewer desktops than MS-DOS, even though it had a quality GUI. The difference was the amount of functionality available through MS-DOS business applications. If many highly functional business programs were available for Linux instead of Windows, Linux would lead on the desktop.
I never thought the term "Video Toaster" would make sense to me until I heard about this.
Many teams can create simple games that work on the developers' PCs, but few know how to ship good ones that everyone can play. The people leading Carbon6 have that experience. Getting help from such people can be a factor in making a game that stays on the shelves. Isn't that worth a decent royalty payment?
>I haven't paid a cent for all my windows stuff EVER...and it works out of the box...(or download :))
>BUT i've wasted hundreds of hours TRYING to make linux work...but it sucks...
Just keep in mind that if that windows software you mention isn't worth buying, its probably not worth the time effort in downloading and copying it. That just leads to time and hard drive space wasted in installing stuff you probably don't need.
The effort you put in making Linux work makes you stronger in handling technology, and that leads to higher salaries and/or more interesting work.
I first learned SQL from an earlier edition of that book (Probably the third.). A coworker borrowed it and kept it when he left for another job.
If you want to learn SQL, buy that book, and don't loan it to others.
I don't mind adding biometric information to my driver's license as long as its registered by my state rather than the Federal government. It should not be thought of as a national id card as long as the biometric information is used for verification rather than identification.
You should tell your congressman that if your local police enforced current copyright laws with individuals, as well as corporations, then there would be no need for additional legislation.