If I thought that farming would give me
more of my time to write good GPL'ed
software, I would go out right now and
start my garden, and buy some cows,
sheep, pigs, goats, etc. However, I have
farmed in the past (on a quasi-working
farm) and farmers don't have time to work
on software after they farm. They spend
their nights doing a lot of other things
besides having fun. We won't go into all
of those events, as they aren't important
to the development of software. But isn't
Bill a really, really good farmer (he must
have one large heard of bovine). After
all, I haven't seen that much manure since
I left the farm!!!
Unfortunately, with what third world
countries are seeing of our legal system
in the Microsoft Anti-trust suite, they
probably bought this hook, line, and
sinker (oops thats fishermen not farmers).
When a company with an obvious and
djudicated monopoly, can get away with the
stuff that they get away with here, then
there must be something to what the silk
tongued leader of Microsoft says.
But I predict that we will get the last
laugh. After all, I bet that he wouldn't
have the first hint of an idea on how to
feed himself when all the farmers start
working for Microsoft (name your country).
At least those of us in the open source
community will have email addresses (in
the source) of friends to exchange farming
ideas with. And I bet, that we can (between
us) figure out the best practice for
farming in short order. After all Linus
and his band of hay slinging hackers
figured out how to build an OS that is at
least on the level with most commercial
software. And there are many other projects
out there, that are even better!!!
And Radio shack had an all-in-one computer
way back then also. I know that the Model
4 could have floppy, HD, Monitor, CPU, etc
all in one box, and I believe that the
Model 3 could also, but only supported the
HD with a Model 4 upgrade maybe?
And all the drives back in the early days
had black bezels on them. Have you tried
to find CDs, CD-RWs, or DVDs with a black
bezel (without paying a small fortune)?
You have to remember that these folks live in an ivory tower. Many university types have little or no idea what the "real world" is like. They don't realize that this is the way that the rest of us live every day of our lives.
I will not state whether it is right or wrong (IANAL and hopefully never will be), as it is simply a question for the courts and ethics. We know where the courts have stood on it in the past, and we know that many don't care about ethics, so why argue about it.
As for the privacy point on this, there are certain places where a person legally has no expectation for privacy. If there is a policy that your employer can confiscate and inspect your laptop at anytime (and my employer has such a policy), then you should not expect it to be a private place. On the other hand, there are places that carry with them an assumed amount of privacy (such as public restrooms), you can feel that you aren't being photographed, but is your conversation private? Not likely. Everyone in that restroom, can hear what you are talking about. And as I understand it, you reasonable expectation of privacy is part of what matters in a case along those lines.
No, she likes to watch the screen savers on Linux better. It might not be a reason that you or I would argue for an OS, but it is a valid reason for her. After all there is only so much that a 3 year old can do on any computer.
This is not current, if you look closely, the time expired one year ago. It is dated 2001, not 2002!
However, if it were current I believe that we should have nominated CmdrTaco for this position. He would likely be hard on software patents and besides he will soon have a bride to support.
Oh, but my machines play games, surf the net,
stream and play mp3's (I have icecast streaming
to every computer in the house on demand from one
machine and the others use XMMS to play the
mp3's on demand). One runs our in-house web
based (Java servlets and JSP with Apache and
Tomcat) home management (addressbooks, menu planning, etc.) system. I have Star Office 5.2
installed with the calendar server (yes I really bought SO 5.2 to get the calendar server) and have scheduling to keep up with everything for a busy family of four.
My wife uses the system for quite a bit of our
sons schooling (home schooling). I dare say that
we stress most of these machines as much as we would stress a MS machine.
Yes occassionally, but very rarely anymore, X just goes away, but that doesn't cause the machine to have to reboot and recover filesystems. That is one of the things
that needs to be fixed. I have never lost a file,
nor a part of a file. I have never gotten a
system into a state where the only option was to
do a rebuild from scratch.
On the other hand, the 98 machine I have is only
used to view web pages (to verify that they work
in the MS "standard" browser) and to play a few
games that aren't available on Linux. And I usually have to rebuild that machine every couple of months because it becomes unstable. And then I have to apply all of the security patches to it from updates.microsoft.com, and some of them can only be installed one at a time with a reboot required after the install. That usually turns into about two evenings work to get the machine rebuilt. If I do install a linux machine from scratch, I stick in the CD, do a little configuration stuff, wait for it ask for the second CD, do a little configuration stuff, reboot to the HD, install all the patches (except new kernels) with one simple command : rpm -Fvh *.rpm : off my own local mirror of redhats updates directory. Install the latest kernel and recompile it (might do this over night on a slower machine), install the kernel and modules, and reboot the system. I then do system configuration depending upon whether it is a server or a desktop machine, but the whole install and patching only took the machine down twice (once to boot on the install and once to upgrade the kernel). I don't usually upgrade to the latest kernel every time one comes out, so I don't spend a lot of time doing kernel compiles and reboots, my systems just run (assuming that the electric company doesn't drop power for too long (yes I have UPSs but they only last a few minutes, this is home remember).
I would defintely disagree with you here.
I have 5 Redhat 7.1/7.2 systems at home and
one Windows 98 system. I spend more time
working on the one 98 box than on the 5
Redhat systems combined. I will admit that
I made my living for several years as a Linux
admin and have considerable knowledge of
those systems. But I also work regularly
with MS systems and have a great deal of
knowledge on them also. The W2K admins at
work ask me (a lowly programmer now) for
assistance quite frequently.
As for the learning curve, I again would have
to argue with you (and the parent to your post).
My wife and children used to use the 98 box,
I recently converted them to Linux (RH7.2) and
within a couple of days they were as productive
with LInux (KDE 2.2.2 on RH7.2) as they were
with 98. As a matter of fact within a week
my 9 year old son was doing much more. It
took my wife a little longer as she doesn't
have the time to spend on the computer as
the 9 year old. But the real catch is my
3 year old daughter, she is the one that
really argues against having 98 on their
machine again.
While I will agree that there are a few things
that "need" to be done to Linux, they are
not show stoppers from it being usable.
Now for the on-topic portion, Microsoft
would be wise not to alienate the
Open-Source community, however, I believe that
they are a little late. If they had started
a few years ago, there very well might not
be such a large Open-Source community that
is oposition to them today. The Open-Source
community very well might have been on their
playing field instead. They got greedy and
charged too much for development tools, and
"upgrades" (that were really bug fixes).
That is one of the reasons that I ran to
the Open-Source community, I needed stable
development tools that were affordable and
with Linux (or *BSD), I got a free C/C++
compiler, Perl, and others that allowed me
to continue teaching myself more on my
own time. If I could have bought a copy of
Visual Basic and Visual C++ for less than
a few hundred dollars, I very well might
have stayed in the Microsoft world.
It was great hearing them talk about a blind skier that was a programmer. I pointed him out to my 9 year old son, but I had no idea that he was a Linux programmer.
What a real example!!! If you read this Bart, keep up both good works!
Apparently the teenager isn't a total lose. After look at the De?? ads. "Dood, you're gettin' a De??". I agree that if you want to sell to a business you need good ads, and I have seen some very tasteful ones recently. IBM has been doing a good job recently with TV ads. There is the one with all of the stolen servers, or the basketball game where 'Linux' does the slam-dunk.
Yes, it is a part of the culture change that has occurred on the internet since the general public started getting on-line. The internet is just like the rest of the world (take, take, take). Everyone wants to get everything for free but not contribute. Well, except for spammers, and they want to give for free so that they can take from the idiots that respond.
When I first got on the internet, everyone contributed and shared (at least information). Usenet was a great resource for information and WWW didn't even exist. There were a handful of good FTP server where you could get software and data, etc. But now, you can't find anything because everyone wants to be on the top of every search engine search. Some sites spend more time trying to get to the top of search lists that don't even pertain to what the site is about than they do providing good information, services, or products.
And unfortunately we can't blame this on Bill Gates. The internet was getting bad before he even got interested in it in a serious manner. Maybe we should blame Al Gore.
I have knology and they are OK. I have had problems
at times, but they usually get to them quickly. And
they have given me free access when it took more
than a few hours to fix problems or if problems
continued over a period of time.
They are associated with ITC DeltaCom and have
relatively quick connections, depending upon your
neighborhood.
They don't seem to care about what you do, they
support NetGear and LinkSys routers without question.
They don't block ports, or watch what you do with
few exceptions. I do have a friend that got a call
from them for doing a port scan against his work network
from home, but I know of no other problems.
On the negative side, I was getting probed heavily
on PC Anywhere ports and they provided no help in
getting it stopped. They didn't even issue warnings
during Code-Red or Nimda, that I know of.
Would I recommend them? I have to several friends
in the Huntsville, AL area.
DeskMate came on all Tandy 1000s after the very first (original T1000). This included 8088, 8086, and 80286 based systems. It was also available for the higher end 80386 systems. But that isn't the only place you could get it. I still have my copy of DeskMate for the Tandy Color Computer running the 6809 (Motorola) chip.
There were actually 2 versions of DeskMate. The first was the blue and yellow version. The next one was truely graphical. The graphical version first came out with the T1000EX. The CoCo version was this one and it was the second machine to have it available. Shortly followed by the 1000SX. Later the 1000HX and 1000TX, 1000TL/2 etc. came with this version.
While I wouldn't say that I liked it that well, it was a tool to get a lot of people started in computing. Windows 3.1 was the first MS Windows to really blow it away completely. And even it didn't have the apps at first that the average user wanted on their desktop.
Re:I resent the underlying sexism of your comment.
on
The Ultimate S.U.V.
·
· Score: 1
1) WRONG! You can see through my SUV, because I don't have tinted windows. If you are so low down to the ground that you can't see then take off the low-rider kit and put real tires on your car. And if you can't see around it, then chances are you don't need to maneuver anyway. There is nothing worse than someone riding your bumper in a little car trying to pass where they shouldn't, especially when they get so close that you can't see them very well in the rearview mirror or the side mirrors. I agree that dark tinted windows are a safety issue with SUVs and minivans especially, but I can't stop people from having them without changing the laws.
2) If gas consumption were the only issue, then we should all start riding bicycles. There would be a lot less petroleum consumption and the general health of the population would increase. My fuel consumption isn't that great. I burn maybe 10 gallons each week, most with multiple people in the vehicle. The gas mileage on my SUV is as good as that on my car, and I am sorry but I couldn't save enough money trading them in to pay for the new cars in their lifetime as mine are paid off! Even if I could get gas for free in a new car, I could only afford about $100 per month on two new cars for the gas savings. Sorry there aren't any $50/week cars out there that I would drive.
3) that is such a waist. How do you know? But I will agree that my waist is becoming a problem. However that has nothing to do with my SUV. It has to do with the fact that I am spending my lunch break posting to/. rather than outside walking like I should be doing. But then the bicycle might take care of that. However I would take about 3 hours round trip on a bike getting back and forth to work rather than 20 minutes. And then my kids wouldn't have as much training time and would be under less control (now they are at least enclosed in my SUV). Also, I might have to use my cell phone more on the bike to get things done, and that would probably cause problems. And last but not least, you would complain that I had 18 speeds and that you only had 10 speeds or that I drank too much water at the water station or that I breathed too much air.
Agreed that Antwerp is a large target to aim at, and even just dropping them into the harbor area caused problems. But if Germany had gotten to the point of using the V2 as the second stage of a two stage missle and could have loaded an atomic warhead on it, New York and Washington could very well have been in trouble.
Certainly the Soviet Union would have been within range of a weapon like that. However the Germans might not have used it there as they were interested in having use of that part of the world.
I sometimes have a hard time believing that the scientists that stayed in Germany just did their work for the science, but then I look out the window of my office at a full size Saturn V rocket (I work in Huntsville, AL) and can maybe understand a little about them (Von Braun, etc).
But if they were doing the research for purely scientific purposes, then they would not have held anything back (again think of Von Braun as an example). I therefore have trouble believing the H could have held back the A bomb and do believe that he was sincerely surprised.
German spys (being converted to English double agents) were feeding the Germans wrong information on where the V1s were landing. The spys told the Germans that the V1s were landing short and thus the Germans increased their shutdown range until they over flew London.
This was on of the great spy stories of WWII. Another is that a top German spy actually told the Germans about the D-Day invasion before it happened, but also told them that it was just a diversion and that the real landing would be later.
The whole cloak and dagger war was very interesting, especially now that so many of the participants are dead the more stories are being declassified.
I believe this to be incorrect. I seem to remember (from watching the History Channel, definitely not from personal memory) that some V2s were launched at Antwerp after the Normandy invasion. This was in hopes of cutting off the supply line for the allies.
A quick Google search revealed this
link that mentions both V1 and V2 rockets being launched against Antwerp Harbor.
I will buy adaptive evolution. That can be duplicated. My grandfather's family breed Tennessee Walking Horses for their gate. And he used only the best that he could find, and came up with horses with a very nice ride (please no remarks from the Quarter Horse crowd on this, it is just an example). But I have never seen a horse become a different species, just because its environment changed. I have seen rather large horses placed in small areas, but they didn't produce dogs or cats as offspring to use the space more effectively.
That isn't species to species! That is a simple migration of a species. There are no significant differences between Americans of European descent and Europeans other than language.
I am talking one celled organisms becoming multicelled organisms becoming eventually complex creatures like man.
unless God himself steps in, smites me, and tells me I'm wrong, and even then I'll immediately start testing the hypothesis that I'm hallucinating
Someday he will tell you that you are wrong, and you won't have to work hard to test the hypothesis of hallucination. It will be obvious that you (and I) will either be in eternal bliss or eternal damnation.
And remember on that day, you were told that God is real and that God exists. God didn't have to appear to me personally and tell me that he loves me. He left plenty of evidence in both the scriptures written by inspired men, and in the world around me. I don't have to see a miracle to believe that they happened, just as I don't have to put my hand on the burner of the stove to believe that it is hot.
If you believe in evolution as the origin of species, how do you explain that we still have "lower species"? Why haven't they all evolved into "higher species"? If these "lower species" are species that haven't yet evolved, why do we not see this inter-species evolution happening now?
No matter which of these you believe, you have to accept that it all started somewhere. I have to accept that God always was and always will be, while you have to accept that something always was because the pond of slime had to come from somewhere.
By truth, I mean whatever truth is discovered. For a person who uses science as their religion, they can not accept that a truth is the ultimate truth, because then their religion has ceased to need to exist. And whether you will admit that science is your religion or not, it takes the place of a god and therefore has become a god.
Actually, if I didn't believe in eternal life, I would have absolutely no fear of death. There would be no need to fear death, because I would simply cease to exist. I would be like any other animal, like a dog that will give its life to protect its master and never has a thought of the fact that it will cease to exist.
As to the part about robbing children and elderly, I simply use that as an extreme. My point was that goodness only hurts YOU and in no way helps YOU personally, if you do not believe in eternity. All you have is here. As to finding this earthly existence lacking, I do find it lacking. I have to deal with sickness, death, and evil. The promise I have for eternity, is for no pain or sorrow and no evil. I have stated that there are other sources of goodness, and I make use of them from time to time, but I get my assurance for eternal bliss from only one source, the Holy Bible as inspired by God. There is goodness in the teachings of Mohammad, Budda, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, and many others, but these are uninspired and can not directly lead to knowledge of the will of God. Just as the study of science can not directly lead to that knowledge.
Science can lead to knowledge, and that knowledge is not bad in and of itself. However, using that knowledge to teach falsehoods is a sin that will lead to eternal damnation. There are scriptures throughout the Bible that warn us of false teachers and false ministers. Several of these scriptures warn us that people will not believe the truth, such as 2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Maybe I think fun is "doing unto others as they would..." One doesn't need to believe in god to love goodness. I am glad that you feel this way. However, it is still illogical to me. I have never seen a species that didn't have a soul that would live eternally have goodness like humans. Some animals will care for their young, as long as it doesn't "cost" too much. Rarely will an adult animal care for its young to the point of its own death. Animals never care for the old like humans. And in most cases animals don't care for their own kind outside of their family or community. Therefore it would seem to me, that you would have no problems with doing whatever was necessary for the survival of you and your offspring. If that meant stealing from others or whatever.
You are quite right about it being tough. I did it. I already had a degree in Music Education and was changing fields. I got a CS degree while I worked about 32 hrs/wk (not teaching), had a wife and a child. I had little time to do anything other than work, sutdy, and spend a little time with the family. It took me almost 3 years to complete the program due to pre-requisites, etc.
However, it has paid off quite well, I now make much more money, have much more time off, and enjoy what I do.
My opinion to the original poster of this message, is that if you could find someone who would give you a BS degree in 1 year, it wouldn't even be worth the paper it was written on. You would be just as well off, getting one of the degrees that cost you $$$$ and "your real world experiences" from a "major non-accredited college or university". If you are really wanting to go somewhere, do it right. Go to a real school, get a real degree, don't worry about the time, it will be worth it in the long run.
And what you call science, I call the inability to accept things that you can't understand in human terms. I strongly believe in science and can agree to some extent that we need to learn about our beginnings. However, I don't think that people like you would ever believe it if the truth were found, no matter what the truth is.
I have no fear of death, I know that when it is time for my existence on this earth to end, I will spend eternity with my God. I feel very sorry for you that you believe that this earthly existence is all that you have. And like I asked someone else earlier, why are you here posting to Slashdot, when you could do better for yourself out robbing from children and the elderly. If there is no eternal life or damnation, it doesn't matter what you do here on earth, so just go have fun.
I disagree with that. Please read my entire post. It involves FAITH. Believing in things that you can't understand or see. I have faith that God exists and that a part of me will live forever with him or in eternal damnation based upon my physical existence. God's power is limitless and physical. The power of God healed the sick and raised the dead. The power of God has caused the unexplained (the plagues in Egypt as described in Exodus). You can call it imagination if you wish, I call it hope.
Again to quote Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
By this FAITH, I can believe that God created man by giving him the breath of life (which implies that I can't duplicate the act) and that I have the hope of living eternally with him.
I believe that a great portion of what we call science is imagination. It is people trying to persuade themselves that God doesn't matter or exist, simply because they won't allow themselves to believe that anything is greater than themselves. I believe that science in and of itself is not a bad thing, as I have stated I have participated in the space program as have many members of my family. I simply believe that many have let science become their religion rather than the worship of the one true God.
OK, I understand what you meant by confusion now. I must also say that I didn't write exactly what I meant when I stated that knowledge wasn't necessary for faith. You are correct that knowledge of the scriptures is necessary. In an earlier post I quoted 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to show thou self approved...". Obviously this will lead to knowledge because of the rest of that verse "... a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
I will agree that God most likely did not take away the architectural ability of the people of Babel, but he made it impossible for them to work together to reach their goal. They wanted to reach unto heaven. My feeling is that the people of Babel were more interested in materialism and the worship of man than in the worship of God. This was the ultimate cause of their confusion and distribution.
To move this into todays world, if the product of science is knowledge, then let's get the knowledge correct. We must be able to reproduce the things that we discover and they must be consistant before we declare them as a truth. Often times in the scientific world things are declared to be true before they have been fully tested. For example in times of old it was believed that the world was flat and that you could fall off the edge of the world. This was thought by many to be a truth for centuries, but it wasn't fully tested. The same goes for powered flight by man, space travel, etc. These truths are often changed as new knowledge is discovered.
While this article doesn't declare a truth, it contributes to the materialism and worship of mankind. I am only saying that we should be careful how we apply knowledge. Just because these "sugar-like substances" came from space and are similar to sugars required for life as we know it, doesn't mean that life came from space. It could be a parallel occurence. It could be that this is a clue that God wants us to investigate, or it could be that this is our tower of babel, something to confuse us in scientific pursuit.
Slashdot Mirror
If I thought that farming would give me more of my time to write good GPL'ed software, I would go out right now and start my garden, and buy some cows, sheep, pigs, goats, etc. However, I have farmed in the past (on a quasi-working farm) and farmers don't have time to work on software after they farm. They spend their nights doing a lot of other things besides having fun. We won't go into all of those events, as they aren't important to the development of software. But isn't Bill a really, really good farmer (he must have one large heard of bovine). After all, I haven't seen that much manure since I left the farm!!!
Unfortunately, with what third world countries are seeing of our legal system in the Microsoft Anti-trust suite, they probably bought this hook, line, and sinker (oops thats fishermen not farmers). When a company with an obvious and djudicated monopoly, can get away with the stuff that they get away with here, then there must be something to what the silk tongued leader of Microsoft says.
But I predict that we will get the last laugh. After all, I bet that he wouldn't have the first hint of an idea on how to feed himself when all the farmers start working for Microsoft (name your country). At least those of us in the open source community will have email addresses (in the source) of friends to exchange farming ideas with. And I bet, that we can (between us) figure out the best practice for farming in short order. After all Linus and his band of hay slinging hackers figured out how to build an OS that is at least on the level with most commercial software. And there are many other projects out there, that are even better!!!
And Radio shack had an all-in-one computer way back then also. I know that the Model 4 could have floppy, HD, Monitor, CPU, etc all in one box, and I believe that the Model 3 could also, but only supported the HD with a Model 4 upgrade maybe?
And all the drives back in the early days had black bezels on them. Have you tried to find CDs, CD-RWs, or DVDs with a black bezel (without paying a small fortune)?
You have to remember that these folks live in an ivory tower. Many university types have little or no idea what the "real world" is like. They don't realize that this is the way that the rest of us live every day of our lives.
I will not state whether it is right or wrong (IANAL and hopefully never will be), as it is simply a question for the courts and ethics. We know where the courts have stood on it in the past, and we know that many don't care about ethics, so why argue about it.
As for the privacy point on this, there are certain places where a person legally has no expectation for privacy. If there is a policy that your employer can confiscate and inspect your laptop at anytime (and my employer has such a policy), then you should not expect it to be a private place. On the other hand, there are places that carry with them an assumed amount of privacy (such as public restrooms), you can feel that you aren't being photographed, but is your conversation private? Not likely. Everyone in that restroom, can hear what you are talking about. And as I understand it, you reasonable expectation of privacy is part of what matters in a case along those lines.
No, she likes to watch the screen savers on Linux better. It might not be a reason that you or I would argue for an OS, but it is a valid reason for her. After all there is only so much that a 3 year old can do on any computer.
This is not current, if you look closely, the time expired one year ago. It is dated 2001, not 2002! However, if it were current I believe that we should have nominated CmdrTaco for this position. He would likely be hard on software patents and besides he will soon have a bride to support.
Oh, but my machines play games, surf the net, stream and play mp3's (I have icecast streaming to every computer in the house on demand from one machine and the others use XMMS to play the mp3's on demand). One runs our in-house web based (Java servlets and JSP with Apache and Tomcat) home management (addressbooks, menu planning, etc.) system. I have Star Office 5.2 installed with the calendar server (yes I really bought SO 5.2 to get the calendar server) and have scheduling to keep up with everything for a busy family of four.
My wife uses the system for quite a bit of our sons schooling (home schooling). I dare say that we stress most of these machines as much as we would stress a MS machine.
Yes occassionally, but very rarely anymore, X just goes away, but that doesn't cause the machine to have to reboot and recover filesystems. That is one of the things that needs to be fixed. I have never lost a file, nor a part of a file. I have never gotten a system into a state where the only option was to do a rebuild from scratch.
On the other hand, the 98 machine I have is only used to view web pages (to verify that they work in the MS "standard" browser) and to play a few games that aren't available on Linux. And I usually have to rebuild that machine every couple of months because it becomes unstable. And then I have to apply all of the security patches to it from updates.microsoft.com, and some of them can only be installed one at a time with a reboot required after the install. That usually turns into about two evenings work to get the machine rebuilt. If I do install a linux machine from scratch, I stick in the CD, do a little configuration stuff, wait for it ask for the second CD, do a little configuration stuff, reboot to the HD, install all the patches (except new kernels) with one simple command : rpm -Fvh *.rpm : off my own local mirror of redhats updates directory. Install the latest kernel and recompile it (might do this over night on a slower machine), install the kernel and modules, and reboot the system. I then do system configuration depending upon whether it is a server or a desktop machine, but the whole install and patching only took the machine down twice (once to boot on the install and once to upgrade the kernel). I don't usually upgrade to the latest kernel every time one comes out, so I don't spend a lot of time doing kernel compiles and reboots, my systems just run (assuming that the electric company doesn't drop power for too long (yes I have UPSs but they only last a few minutes, this is home remember).
I would defintely disagree with you here. I have 5 Redhat 7.1/7.2 systems at home and one Windows 98 system. I spend more time working on the one 98 box than on the 5 Redhat systems combined. I will admit that I made my living for several years as a Linux admin and have considerable knowledge of those systems. But I also work regularly with MS systems and have a great deal of knowledge on them also. The W2K admins at work ask me (a lowly programmer now) for assistance quite frequently.
As for the learning curve, I again would have to argue with you (and the parent to your post). My wife and children used to use the 98 box, I recently converted them to Linux (RH7.2) and within a couple of days they were as productive with LInux (KDE 2.2.2 on RH7.2) as they were with 98. As a matter of fact within a week my 9 year old son was doing much more. It took my wife a little longer as she doesn't have the time to spend on the computer as the 9 year old. But the real catch is my 3 year old daughter, she is the one that really argues against having 98 on their machine again.
While I will agree that there are a few things that "need" to be done to Linux, they are not show stoppers from it being usable.
Now for the on-topic portion, Microsoft would be wise not to alienate the Open-Source community, however, I believe that they are a little late. If they had started a few years ago, there very well might not be such a large Open-Source community that is oposition to them today. The Open-Source community very well might have been on their playing field instead. They got greedy and charged too much for development tools, and "upgrades" (that were really bug fixes). That is one of the reasons that I ran to the Open-Source community, I needed stable development tools that were affordable and with Linux (or *BSD), I got a free C/C++ compiler, Perl, and others that allowed me to continue teaching myself more on my own time. If I could have bought a copy of Visual Basic and Visual C++ for less than a few hundred dollars, I very well might have stayed in the Microsoft world.
It was great hearing them talk about a blind skier that was a programmer. I pointed him out to my 9 year old son, but I had no idea that he was a Linux programmer.
What a real example!!! If you read this Bart, keep up both good works!
Apparently the teenager isn't a total lose. After look at the De?? ads. "Dood, you're gettin' a De??". I agree that if you want to sell to a business you need good ads, and I have seen some very tasteful ones recently. IBM has been doing a good job recently with TV ads. There is the one with all of the stolen servers, or the basketball game where 'Linux' does the slam-dunk.
Yes, it is a part of the culture change that has occurred on the internet since the general public started getting on-line. The internet is just like the rest of the world (take, take, take). Everyone wants to get everything for free but not contribute. Well, except for spammers, and they want to give for free so that they can take from the idiots that respond.
When I first got on the internet, everyone contributed and shared (at least information). Usenet was a great resource for information and WWW didn't even exist. There were a handful of good FTP server where you could get software and data, etc. But now, you can't find anything because everyone wants to be on the top of every search engine search. Some sites spend more time trying to get to the top of search lists that don't even pertain to what the site is about than they do providing good information, services, or products.
And unfortunately we can't blame this on Bill Gates. The internet was getting bad before he even got interested in it in a serious manner. Maybe we should blame Al Gore.
I have knology and they are OK. I have had problems at times, but they usually get to them quickly. And they have given me free access when it took more than a few hours to fix problems or if problems continued over a period of time.
They are associated with ITC DeltaCom and have relatively quick connections, depending upon your neighborhood.
They don't seem to care about what you do, they support NetGear and LinkSys routers without question. They don't block ports, or watch what you do with few exceptions. I do have a friend that got a call from them for doing a port scan against his work network from home, but I know of no other problems.
On the negative side, I was getting probed heavily on PC Anywhere ports and they provided no help in getting it stopped. They didn't even issue warnings during Code-Red or Nimda, that I know of.
Would I recommend them? I have to several friends in the Huntsville, AL area.
DeskMate came on all Tandy 1000s after the very first (original T1000). This included 8088, 8086, and 80286 based systems. It was also available for the higher end 80386 systems. But that isn't the only place you could get it. I still have my copy of DeskMate for the Tandy Color Computer running the 6809 (Motorola) chip.
There were actually 2 versions of DeskMate. The first was the blue and yellow version. The next one was truely graphical. The graphical version first came out with the T1000EX. The CoCo version was this one and it was the second machine to have it available. Shortly followed by the 1000SX. Later the 1000HX and 1000TX, 1000TL/2 etc. came with this version.
While I wouldn't say that I liked it that well, it was a tool to get a lot of people started in computing. Windows 3.1 was the first MS Windows to really blow it away completely. And even it didn't have the apps at first that the average user wanted on their desktop.
1) WRONG! You can see through my SUV, because I don't have tinted windows. If you are so low down to the ground that you can't see then take off the low-rider kit and put real tires on your car. And if you can't see around it, then chances are you don't need to maneuver anyway. There is nothing worse than someone riding your bumper in a little car trying to pass where they shouldn't, especially when they get so close that you can't see them very well in the rearview mirror or the side mirrors. I agree that dark tinted windows are a safety issue with SUVs and minivans especially, but I can't stop people from having them without changing the laws.
/. rather than outside walking like I should be doing. But then the bicycle might take care of that. However I would take about 3 hours round trip on a bike getting back and forth to work rather than 20 minutes. And then my kids wouldn't have as much training time and would be under less control (now they are at least enclosed in my SUV). Also, I might have to use my cell phone more on the bike to get things done, and that would probably cause problems. And last but not least, you would complain that I had 18 speeds and that you only had 10 speeds or that I drank too much water at the water station or that I breathed too much air.
2) If gas consumption were the only issue, then we should all start riding bicycles. There would be a lot less petroleum consumption and the general health of the population would increase. My fuel consumption isn't that great. I burn maybe 10 gallons each week, most with multiple people in the vehicle. The gas mileage on my SUV is as good as that on my car, and I am sorry but I couldn't save enough money trading them in to pay for the new cars in their lifetime as mine are paid off! Even if I could get gas for free in a new car, I could only afford about $100 per month on two new cars for the gas savings. Sorry there aren't any $50/week cars out there that I would drive.
3) that is such a waist. How do you know? But I will agree that my waist is becoming a problem. However that has nothing to do with my SUV. It has to do with the fact that I am spending my lunch break posting to
Agreed that Antwerp is a large target to aim at, and even just dropping them into the harbor area caused problems. But if Germany had gotten to the point of using the V2 as the second stage of a two stage missle and could have loaded an atomic warhead on it, New York and Washington could very well have been in trouble.
Certainly the Soviet Union would have been within range of a weapon like that. However the Germans might not have used it there as they were interested in having use of that part of the world.
I sometimes have a hard time believing that the scientists that stayed in Germany just did their work for the science, but then I look out the window of my office at a full size Saturn V rocket (I work in Huntsville, AL) and can maybe understand a little about them (Von Braun, etc).
But if they were doing the research for purely scientific purposes, then they would not have held anything back (again think of Von Braun as an example). I therefore have trouble believing the H could have held back the A bomb and do believe that he was sincerely surprised.
German spys (being converted to English double agents) were feeding the Germans wrong information on where the V1s were landing. The spys told the Germans that the V1s were landing short and thus the Germans increased their shutdown range until they over flew London.
This was on of the great spy stories of WWII. Another is that a top German spy actually told the Germans about the D-Day invasion before it happened, but also told them that it was just a diversion and that the real landing would be later.
The whole cloak and dagger war was very interesting, especially now that so many of the participants are dead the more stories are being declassified.
I believe this to be incorrect. I seem to remember (from watching the History Channel, definitely not from personal memory) that some V2s were launched at Antwerp after the Normandy invasion. This was in hopes of cutting off the supply line for the allies.
A quick Google search revealed this link that mentions both V1 and V2 rockets being launched against Antwerp Harbor.
I will buy adaptive evolution. That can be duplicated. My grandfather's family breed Tennessee Walking Horses for their gate. And he used only the best that he could find, and came up with horses with a very nice ride (please no remarks from the Quarter Horse crowd on this, it is just an example). But I have never seen a horse become a different species, just because its environment changed. I have seen rather large horses placed in small areas, but they didn't produce dogs or cats as offspring to use the space more effectively.
That isn't species to species! That is a simple migration of a species. There are no significant differences between Americans of European descent and Europeans other than language.
I am talking one celled organisms becoming multicelled organisms becoming eventually complex creatures like man.
And remember on that day, you were told that God is real and that God exists. God didn't have to appear to me personally and tell me that he loves me. He left plenty of evidence in both the scriptures written by inspired men, and in the world around me. I don't have to see a miracle to believe that they happened, just as I don't have to put my hand on the burner of the stove to believe that it is hot.
If you believe in evolution as the origin of species, how do you explain that we still have "lower species"? Why haven't they all evolved into "higher species"? If these "lower species" are species that haven't yet evolved, why do we not see this inter-species evolution happening now?
No matter which of these you believe, you have to accept that it all started somewhere. I have to accept that God always was and always will be, while you have to accept that something always was because the pond of slime had to come from somewhere.
Actually, if I didn't believe in eternal life, I would have absolutely no fear of death. There would be no need to fear death, because I would simply cease to exist. I would be like any other animal, like a dog that will give its life to protect its master and never has a thought of the fact that it will cease to exist.
As to the part about robbing children and elderly, I simply use that as an extreme. My point was that goodness only hurts YOU and in no way helps YOU personally, if you do not believe in eternity. All you have is here. As to finding this earthly existence lacking, I do find it lacking. I have to deal with sickness, death, and evil. The promise I have for eternity, is for no pain or sorrow and no evil. I have stated that there are other sources of goodness, and I make use of them from time to time, but I get my assurance for eternal bliss from only one source, the Holy Bible as inspired by God. There is goodness in the teachings of Mohammad, Budda, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, and many others, but these are uninspired and can not directly lead to knowledge of the will of God. Just as the study of science can not directly lead to that knowledge.
Science can lead to knowledge, and that knowledge is not bad in and of itself. However, using that knowledge to teach falsehoods is a sin that will lead to eternal damnation. There are scriptures throughout the Bible that warn us of false teachers and false ministers. Several of these scriptures warn us that people will not believe the truth, such as 2 Timothy 4:3-4 Maybe I think fun is "doing unto others as they would..." One doesn't need to believe in god to love goodness. I am glad that you feel this way. However, it is still illogical to me. I have never seen a species that didn't have a soul that would live eternally have goodness like humans. Some animals will care for their young, as long as it doesn't "cost" too much. Rarely will an adult animal care for its young to the point of its own death. Animals never care for the old like humans. And in most cases animals don't care for their own kind outside of their family or community. Therefore it would seem to me, that you would have no problems with doing whatever was necessary for the survival of you and your offspring. If that meant stealing from others or whatever.
You are quite right about it being tough. I did it. I already had a degree in Music Education and was changing fields. I got a CS degree while I worked about 32 hrs/wk (not teaching), had a wife and a child. I had little time to do anything other than work, sutdy, and spend a little time with the family. It took me almost 3 years to complete the program due to pre-requisites, etc.
However, it has paid off quite well, I now make much more money, have much more time off, and enjoy what I do.
My opinion to the original poster of this message, is that if you could find someone who would give you a BS degree in 1 year, it wouldn't even be worth the paper it was written on. You would be just as well off, getting one of the degrees that cost you $$$$ and "your real world experiences" from a "major non-accredited college or university". If you are really wanting to go somewhere, do it right. Go to a real school, get a real degree, don't worry about the time, it will be worth it in the long run.
And what you call science, I call the inability to accept things that you can't understand in human terms. I strongly believe in science and can agree to some extent that we need to learn about our beginnings. However, I don't think that people like you would ever believe it if the truth were found, no matter what the truth is.
I have no fear of death, I know that when it is time for my existence on this earth to end, I will spend eternity with my God. I feel very sorry for you that you believe that this earthly existence is all that you have. And like I asked someone else earlier, why are you here posting to Slashdot, when you could do better for yourself out robbing from children and the elderly. If there is no eternal life or damnation, it doesn't matter what you do here on earth, so just go have fun.
I believe that a great portion of what we call science is imagination. It is people trying to persuade themselves that God doesn't matter or exist, simply because they won't allow themselves to believe that anything is greater than themselves. I believe that science in and of itself is not a bad thing, as I have stated I have participated in the space program as have many members of my family. I simply believe that many have let science become their religion rather than the worship of the one true God.
OK, I understand what you meant by confusion now. I must also say that I didn't write exactly what I meant when I stated that knowledge wasn't necessary for faith. You are correct that knowledge of the scriptures is necessary. In an earlier post I quoted 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to show thou self approved ...". Obviously this will lead to knowledge because of the rest of that verse "... a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
I will agree that God most likely did not take away the architectural ability of the people of Babel, but he made it impossible for them to work together to reach their goal. They wanted to reach unto heaven. My feeling is that the people of Babel were more interested in materialism and the worship of man than in the worship of God. This was the ultimate cause of their confusion and distribution.
To move this into todays world, if the product of science is knowledge, then let's get the knowledge correct. We must be able to reproduce the things that we discover and they must be consistant before we declare them as a truth. Often times in the scientific world things are declared to be true before they have been fully tested. For example in times of old it was believed that the world was flat and that you could fall off the edge of the world. This was thought by many to be a truth for centuries, but it wasn't fully tested. The same goes for powered flight by man, space travel, etc. These truths are often changed as new knowledge is discovered.
While this article doesn't declare a truth, it contributes to the materialism and worship of mankind. I am only saying that we should be careful how we apply knowledge. Just because these "sugar-like substances" came from space and are similar to sugars required for life as we know it, doesn't mean that life came from space. It could be a parallel occurence. It could be that this is a clue that God wants us to investigate, or it could be that this is our tower of babel, something to confuse us in scientific pursuit.