I really had never thought it from that viewpoint, but no doubt all three systems(provided *nix had Xwindows installed otherwise the answer is obvious) would be just as easy to use and it would come down to (even I hate to say this) how the person thinks, I know people who know how to use Xwindows but wish it was lik MAC and vice versa etc etc. It all depend on how youthink at that point. But without tech support for the OS (Which Dell is thinking about providing) if the system blows up then the newbie is screwed _________________________________________ _______________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
3. No one around here can seem to admit that for new computer users, Mac OS and M$ Windows are easier to learn, easier to set up and have support that is more accessible " You know full well this is a p.o.v. issue. This also isn't a constant. Don't say the above as though it's a immutable fact.
Actually it's not a p.o.v. issue, you take thirty people who have never used a computer b4 and divide them into groups of ten for each OS, sit them in front of ten identical machines and have them install the OS, heres what will happen, the Mac group will be done first and running 90% seemlessly, the Winblows group will done second and 50% will be running properly, and when both the other groups are done, the Linux group will be trying to figure out what a mount point is. I never said Linux wasn't better, but it is not easy for beginners ( and for the sake of this demonstration you give enough instruction to the users to boot insto the installation and thats it)
1&2 Were redundant 3. Come on you can't even get properly working drivers fo M$ OS's how do you expect (espcially someone like Dell who is an assembler not a manufacture) the laptop vendors to get these drivers, write them theirselves, it's not cost effective.
points 1 and 2 on the second list were trolling i love that deabte. But there are those out there who are serious about taking down M$ for no other reason than they dislike Bill Gates or his business practices, this is like trying to take down the Catholic church because you didn't like how the Pope runs it. There are good reasons for not using M$ product, and there are good reasons to use it, but a crusade against the company make the rest of us look like fanatics not informed computer users/geeks who choose another OS because it's better
________________________________________________ ________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I might be able to shed some light on this for you. Where I work we can use Linux on the desktop machines if we provide all of the machine support ourselves, we get no help from tech support, but not on servers or laptops. However no "mission critical" servers run M$ Windows NT either. We run HP UX and Solaris on the mission critical stuff as they are proven, have support, and there is no need to "evaluate" 5 different distro's because all five sysadmins like a different distro. It boils down to support for the OS and internal tech support, there are not a lot of weel trained geeks willing to work for the wages a M$ tech gets paid, it would be an insult. I hope this helps ___________________________________________ _____________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
The main question this article does not give a solid answer on is how much are we going to save by purchasing a "blank" laptop. The bigger problems start with: 1. This idea sucks for Liunux newbies as they (the companies) would give no OS support.
2. These companies are simply taking the easy way out
3. You can get laptops with Linux installed from small VAR's that offer support
4. With the current level of driver development for Linux newer machines will still be out of reach for Linux users
Some other things I have noticed
1. Some Linux users would like "world domination" (Wouldn't this put Linux in the same place M$ Windows is now ?) 2. Other Linux users don't want to spread Linux to "newbies" (Yes I rant a lot on the divided camps of Linux) 3. No one around here can seem to admit that for new computer users, Mac OS and M$ Windows are easier to learn, easier to set up and have support that is more accessible (I use Linux at home and at the office so put away your tar and feathers, at least I can admit the truth
________________________________________________ ________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
You know what, I am really sick of all this drivel about Littleton, CO. and sick of kids complaining that their schools or parents are being nosey. Lets get one thing straight, had these kids parents been nosey this wouldn't have happened. Another thing, you children have no "rights", your parents are responsible for your actions, whether you like it or not, so you have to deal with them knowing what you are doing, whether you like it or not. Get off of your high horse and come down to earth Mr. Katz, yes some of these things are a bit extreme, but if it saves lives then it's all for the best.
You want a solution to this problen, lets start with school uniforms and strict curfews. If you can't judge a person by his clothes then it's harder to judge other ways. Lets take it a bit farther, no sports, sports are as much to blame for this incident as any thing else, on second thought lets get rid of schools altogether as they obviously promote this behaviour . Come on folks, parents need a tighter rein on kids these days, quit blaming guns, games, internet, and movies. The fault can be laid directly at the feet of the parents and the school. Hold on before you scream and bitch, the school system is responsible for the children and their actions when they are in school, check your laws on it. The minute school is over the parents become resposible again. So on a serious note kiddies, your parents have a right to anything you "own" or that you put in writing, you have no right to privacy. And again to you Mr. Katz, you are as guilty of sensationalism as the mainstream media.
1) The sound quality is *not* sufficient. Why step-back again? LP's had the widest dynamic range of any mainstream music format, but suffered from limited portability. 8-tracks, cassettes, and yes even CD's have offered less dynamic range for more convenience. It's a shame that most people under 30 are convinced that CD's are the highest quality audio. It was a lame standard to begin with and MP3's really don't even compare to CD's when played on anything more advanced than computer speakers.
I'll adress this FUD first, if you are releasing music as MP3 you are not limited by the 44.1 that you are limited to on CD therefore you can actually make an MP3 that is of higher quality than CD. If you care to argue this point I can you spectral analysis of stuff from CD and stuff done digital direct to MP3. I work in the recording/sound industry as a DJ/sound tech/studio musician/and remixer so I have researched this fairly well.
The artist is *still* losing. Instead of the major record company pimping the artists you now have a bunch of hackers with hard drive space becoming the pimps. Sure MP3.com is a professional organization but we all know where the real traffic for MP3's is: illegal copies of pre-recorded music. For all the terrible things one can say about the record industry, your favorite artist is benefiting much more from you buying the CD than downloading a MP3 copy of it. Before the portable players arrived you could make the argument that illegal MP3's increased CD sales, but now we can bypass the CD completely.
FUD again I say. the prohibitive cost of the portable devices along with the fact they can only carry about the same number of songs as a CD has made them not much more than a cute toy. If an artist releases a song and charges, hmmm lets say $ 0.75 to d/l it, people will pay it, when calcualte that out to full album ( ten songs for the sake of this argument) thats $ 7.50 for the whole album, 90% of which is kept by the artist. That works out to be more than the artists make now per CD/cassette. If you want more info on why MP3 is good for the artist and the industry check out Chuck D's MP3 commentary on Wired.com.
3) The standard is too young and too unstable to support industry acceptance. Granted, this might change soon, but I would hate to reinvest yet again in a new music format that changes as quickly as technology. Music media formats usually last 15-20 years - do you think people will want to listen to crappy sounding MP'3 in 2015? Probably not. But then again would you want to purchase your music collection over again everytime a new version comes out? I realize this is the weakest of my arguments but it still bothers me. Music is timeless, unlike computer programs. The media should be more stable.
MP3 will be the door to digital music for the masses, it might not be on top in the end, but it is the start of a new era in music. I will refer to the afforementioned Wired.com article to dispense with this further.
Flesh 99, flinging MP3 FUD right out the window;P ________________________________________________ ________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
It's nice to see major artists joinging in the MP3 fray. I DJ part time and MP3 has been a HUGE hit in the DJ community, it allows us to compile massive amounts of music on a small number of CDs. With the support that MP3 has now I don't see it disappearing anytime soon, and as long as major artists continue to migrate this direction the music community will benefit more and more, with lower prices on our music, releases of singles will be quicker and the corporate monster of the recording industry will slowly fade from view. This won't happen quickly, but if an artist can release songs as they record them without all of the cost of pressing vinyl, burning CDs, and recording tapes then the record companies are going to lose their hold ____________________________________________ ____________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I will commnt on one piece of architecture, SCSI vs. SBUS SCSI, I can max out a PC SCSI controller with two DLT drives and a single strem to each, SBUS will handle 3 drives with four streams. Get real, SUN beats PC any day _____________________________________________ ___________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I know NT couldn't have done it. I work for a large company and all of our CAD and rendering work is done on Unix/Linux machines because our NT evaluation showed that it crashed to frequently, did not handle multiple processors as well as Unix/Linux based solutions. The software available for NT is by no means comprable to the software available for other OSs. So in answer to at least one of your suggestions, nope NT could not have handled it. _____________________________________________ ___________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Great article, and good pblicity for OpenBSD, however the length of the article was lacking, as was the whole of it. It lacks mention of the software used for the rendering, the technical aspects of the systems udes versus the SGI's. All around it look like a newsbyte not an article. Even though it was on the FreeBSD advocacy site, you'd think they would have hyped the programs used or maybe the technical superiority of FreeBSD. ________________________________________ ________________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Children do not have a "right" to privacy, especially when it comes to computers. With all of the posts that say parents should take responsibility for what their kids do, you can't allow "private" files on a computer, esp. one that has net access. _________________________________________ _______________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Do think anyone who actually has to ask question like this about Linux ahould actually be using and/or installing it?
Now come on, if someone wants to use a better/free OS and get away from M$, there will obviously be a learning curve. That question is ridiculous, unless you are a developer it is almost impossible to get an install right the first time you do it. As for wanting it to look/act like Windoze thats just and ease of transition sort of thing.
To win the battle against M$ the Linux community must embrace the newbies and help them along, this idea may seem foreign to you, but every newbie that is not afraid to ask questions and learn is one less M$ customer in the long run. This post reminded me of the Cluele ss Users Are Bad For Debian article. The Linux community seems to be divided into two camps, the "I Hate Newbies" camp and the "Newbies Are Good" camp. This division and the constant arguments over distros are just a few of the things that will drive a prospective nebie right back to M$.
So keep up the good work, maybe you'll scare off a newbie or two today.
________________________________________________ ________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I have to wholeheartedly agree that C|net does an awesome job of being generally un-biased. I work in a mixed OS shop (Don't ask how many we use) and it's hard to find compatible apps to run cross-platform when everyone is getting M$ paychecks to write their reviews and the VP's and Board of Directors believes ever-damn-thing they read. ___________________________________________ _____________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
It's nice to see someone finally talking about the lack of development for newer hardware under Linux. I have at least one system that I can't run it on due to lack of hardware support. It really suck because even though none of the HW is M$ Windows specfic there is just no support for it. Oh well maybe soon. ___________________________________________ _____________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
The Second Ammendment gaurentees our freedom, even Thomas Jefferson said that a revolution was necessary in the right circumstances. __________________________________ ______________________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
You can put the parts of the second ammendment you want emphasized in bold all you want, you cannot deny the fact it says "the right of the people". Come on man, if you change the definition of the people in one ammendment you have to to change it in all of them. You are not forced to own guns, you have the right to however. ________________________________________ ________________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I was only refering to the specific historical period that was being used as a reference point in the debate, I stated multiple times that Protestants are by no means perfect, but the debate was on judging the entire of Christianity on the actions of the Catholic Church. There was no mention of the persecution of Catholics by Protestants until much later in the thread. _________________________________________ _______________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Ok I do see your point, but the point that the Bible is flawed is point that most Christians would debate with you ad naseum. Besides the lack of proof that any religion(no not just the christian ones) is flawed so your factual basis is indeed theory not fact(we won't know until we die).I am only saying that the basis for Catholisism and Protestantism are inherently different and therefore must be seperated in a discussion of history. ________________________________________ ________________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
"So abortion clinic bombings and the murder of those who perform abortions are in the past? (Not to be Inflammitory:This is a dangerous statement used to prove a point, not to insult) Which denomination(s) perform clinic bombings again? I seem to have forgotten..."
I see your point but in todays society the people who would bomb clinic is a severe minority, and prove your satement no more than judging the black race on the actions of The Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers
""So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians, that akin to saying that the enslavement of African-Americans is the fault of all whites."
Not the fault of all Christians, but the fault of the foundation of Christianity. If the foundation is flawed, then the house will fall, no matter how good the builder or how sturdy the material"
Those who mis-interpret the base should not be used a qualifier for the whole.
"Therefore, I must look back to the actions of the institution and the members of said institution; that is my guide. Understandably, not all Christians are bad. But as a majority, taken from factual, historical information, I must conclude that the institution is bad, if it compells people to do some of the things they do"
I cannot see the Crusades or the Inquisition as actions of the majority, they were mostly political actions carried out by the Catholic in their ever ceasing search for power that has no Biblical basis(once again Protestants aren't perfect either). As a majority...hmmm....OK let me clarify I do not judge a Catholic by the actions of his Church, nor a Protestant by the actions of a fanatic. You are judging a whole group of people by the actions of the few. The Catholic Church was/is/will be a government for some and a Church for many, do you judge the Germans by Hitlers acts. Hitler was elected by a popular vote, yet we don't still hate Germans. It seems that if it is a religion you would rather judge the whole than the idividual(I could be wrong, no insult intended).
As for the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church, the common man was denied access to the Bible and therefore was led to believe only what the "Church" wanted him to hear. The base of the Catholic religion is only very loosely based on the Bible. I still see a very definitive line between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Denomonations. If you want to blame anything blame human nature, the lust for power, etc. There will always be fanatics, and they will always do what they will
I will however refuse comment on situation in Ireland as it hits very close to home and I would be forced even farther off topic to rant about my views. (Funny thing I kinda side with the Catholics in Ireland, but only politically)
________________________________________________ ________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I feel that the book that is the basis of the religion (Catholic or Protestant) is the catylist of the killing.
Vengence is mine saith the Lord (notice it does not vengence is yours) Judge not lest ye be judged Love thy neighbor as thyself(nope no qualifiers on neighbor here)
I feel that one sects purposful mis-interpretation of the Bible for their own political gain should not cast a shadow on the other followers of that religion(not aying that Protestants are perfect in the least, that is another discussion)
So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians, that akin to saying that the enslavement of African-Americans is the fault of all whites. So the division of the two sects in this case is one that is necessary because the Catholic Church was acting as more than a church at the time in question, and using religion and the public lack of access to the Bible to commit these atrocities.
How can you not seperate the two when one persecuted the other, that alone would almost serve as a dividing line.
________________________________________________ ________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Ok maybe I missed your point, but I still think that a distinction between Catholic and Protestant must be made. As for breaking murded down by race in the US (Attn:moderator we are now off topic) that is people killing people if you look at it that way then why even seperate out the Christians, it's all people killing people, and that is what is wrong.
I do, however, hold in contempt an institution (or idea) that has resulted in the slaughter of so many innocent people.
The institution you speak of is the Catholic Church, which is entirely seperate from the protestant church.
The Inquisition: An attempt to finaly quash the last remaining vestages of Goddess-type worship
You will find that they (the Catholic Church) not only went after Goddess worship, but they also attacked any non-Catholic believers they found along their way. The Inquisition was an assault on anything non-Catholic, be it Goddess religion, multi-deity religion, or Christian churches that did not believe that the Catholic Church was right. For those reasons I feel it necessary to distinguish between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.
As a side note I do not believe that any hate crime laws are good, all they do is make one race more important than another, and one of the precepts I believe is that we are all equal.
________________________________________________ ________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I think that if you look you will find that other "Crusade" style wars have happened thoughout history that were not based on Christianity. In fact you might even do well to seperate Catholic and Protestant and not lump them all together under the banner of "Christian", better yet, why not break it down into the factions that it truly is, the denomonations.
I can't understand why/. id a bashing ground for religion, Christian or otherwise, I would think that geeks wouldn't care about each others religion nor lower ourselves to the level of attacking someones beliefs.
I liked Katz's article, I found his parallels amusing at the very least. I in fact did not see it as a slam to any religion since all he did was point out accepted historical facts. I have only one question, why must an "Age Of Enlightenment" have to destroy religions, why can it not expound on them and help us become more accepting of each other ? It would seem the more enlightened you are, the less you would look down on those different than you.
The more you look down on someone the better the chance they aren't looking up to you. ____________________________________________ ____________ Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Slashdot Mirror
I really had never thought it from that viewpoint, but no doubt all three systems(provided *nix had Xwindows installed otherwise the answer is obvious) would be just as easy to use and it would come down to (even I hate to say this) how the person thinks, I know people who know how to use Xwindows but wish it was lik MAC and vice versa etc etc. It all depend on how youthink at that point. But without tech support for the OS (Which Dell is thinking about providing) if the system blows up then the newbie is screwed_ _______________
________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
3. No one around here can seem to admit that for
_ ________
new computer users, Mac OS and M$ Windows are easier to learn, easier to set up and have support that is more accessible "
You know full well this is a p.o.v. issue. This also isn't a constant. Don't say the above as though it's a immutable fact.
Actually it's not a p.o.v. issue, you take thirty people who have never used a computer b4 and divide them into groups of ten for each OS, sit them in front of ten identical machines and have them install the OS, heres what will happen, the Mac group will be done first and running 90% seemlessly, the Winblows group will done second and 50% will be running properly, and when both the other groups are done, the Linux group will be trying to figure out what a mount point is. I never said Linux wasn't better, but it is not easy for beginners ( and for the sake of this demonstration you give enough instruction to the users to boot insto the installation and thats it)
1&2 Were redundant
3. Come on you can't even get properly working drivers fo M$ OS's how do you expect (espcially someone like Dell who is an assembler not a manufacture) the laptop vendors to get these drivers, write them theirselves, it's not cost effective.
points 1 and 2 on the second list were trolling i love that deabte. But there are those out there who are serious about taking down M$ for no other reason than they dislike Bill Gates or his business practices, this is like trying to take down the Catholic church because you didn't like how the Pope runs it. There are good reasons for not using M$ product, and there are good reasons to use it, but a crusade against the company make the rest of us look like fanatics not informed computer users/geeks who choose another OS because it's better
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I might be able to shed some light on this for you. Where I work we can use Linux on the desktop machines if we provide all of the machine support ourselves, we get no help from tech support, but not on servers or laptops. However no "mission critical" servers run M$ Windows NT either. We run HP UX and Solaris on the mission critical stuff as they are proven, have support, and there is no need to "evaluate" 5 different distro's because all five sysadmins like a different distro. It boils down to support for the OS and internal tech support, there are not a lot of weel trained geeks willing to work for the wages a M$ tech gets paid, it would be an insult. I hope this helps_ _____________
__________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
The main question this article does not give a solid answer on is how much are we going to save by purchasing a "blank" laptop. The bigger problems start with:
_ ________
1. This idea sucks for Liunux newbies as they (the companies) would give no OS support.
2. These companies are simply taking the easy way out
3. You can get laptops with Linux installed from small VAR's that offer support
4. With the current level of driver development for Linux newer machines will still be out of reach for Linux users
Some other things I have noticed
1. Some Linux users would like "world domination"
(Wouldn't this put Linux in the same place M$
Windows is now ?)
2. Other Linux users don't want to spread Linux
to "newbies"
(Yes I rant a lot on the divided camps of
Linux)
3. No one around here can seem to admit that for
new computer users, Mac OS and M$ Windows are
easier to learn, easier to set up and have
support that is more accessible
(I use Linux at home and at the office so put
away your tar and feathers, at least I can
admit the truth
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
You know what, I am really sick of all this drivel about Littleton, CO. and sick of kids complaining that their schools or parents are being nosey. Lets get one thing straight, had these kids parents been nosey this wouldn't have happened. Another thing, you children have no "rights", your parents are responsible for your actions, whether you like it or not, so you have to deal with them knowing what you are doing, whether you like it or not. Get off of your high horse and come down to earth Mr. Katz, yes some of these things are a bit extreme, but if it saves lives then it's all for the best.
You want a solution to this problen, lets start with school uniforms and strict curfews. If you can't judge a person by his clothes then it's harder to judge other ways. Lets take it a bit farther, no sports, sports are as much to blame for this incident as any thing else, on second thought lets get rid of schools altogether as they obviously promote this behaviour . Come on folks, parents need a tighter rein on kids these days, quit blaming guns, games, internet, and movies. The fault can be laid directly at the feet of the parents and the school. Hold on before you scream and bitch, the school system is responsible for the children and their actions when they are in school, check your laws on it. The minute school is over the parents become resposible again. So on a serious note kiddies, your parents have a right to anything you "own" or that you put in writing, you have no right to privacy. And again to you Mr. Katz, you are as guilty of sensationalism as the mainstream media.
Not hard at all, just to answer your question._ _________________
______________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
1) The sound quality is *not* sufficient. Why step-back again? LP's had the widest dynamic range of any mainstream music format, but suffered from limited portability. 8-tracks, cassettes, and yes even CD's have offered less dynamic range for more convenience. It's a shame that most people under 30 are convinced that CD's are the highest quality audio. It was a lame standard to begin with and MP3's really don't even compare to CD's when played on anything more advanced than computer speakers.
;P _ ________
I'll adress this FUD first, if you are releasing music as MP3 you are not limited by the 44.1 that you are limited to on CD therefore you can actually make an MP3 that is of higher quality than CD. If you care to argue this point I can you spectral analysis of stuff from CD and stuff done digital direct to MP3. I work in the recording/sound industry as a DJ/sound tech/studio musician/and remixer so I have researched this fairly well.
The artist is *still* losing. Instead of the major record company pimping the artists you now have a bunch of hackers with hard drive space becoming the pimps. Sure MP3.com is a professional organization but we all know where the real traffic for MP3's is: illegal copies of pre-recorded music. For all the terrible things one can say about the record industry, your favorite artist is benefiting much more from you buying the CD than downloading a MP3 copy of it. Before the portable players arrived you could make the argument that illegal MP3's increased CD sales, but now we can bypass the CD completely.
FUD again I say. the prohibitive cost of the portable devices along with the fact they can only carry about the same number of songs as a CD has made them not much more than a cute toy. If an artist releases a song and charges, hmmm lets say $ 0.75 to d/l it, people will pay it, when calcualte that out to full album ( ten songs for the sake of this argument) thats $ 7.50 for the whole album, 90% of which is kept by the artist. That works out to be more than the artists make now per CD/cassette. If you want more info on why MP3 is good for the artist and the industry check out Chuck D's MP3 commentary on Wired.com.
3) The standard is too young and too unstable to support industry acceptance. Granted, this might change soon, but I would hate to reinvest yet again in a new music format that changes as quickly as technology. Music media formats usually last 15-20 years - do you think people will want to listen to crappy sounding MP'3 in 2015? Probably not. But then again would you want to purchase your music collection over again everytime a new version comes out? I realize this is the weakest of my arguments but it still bothers me. Music is timeless, unlike computer programs. The media should be more stable.
MP3 will be the door to digital music for the masses, it might not be on top in the end, but it is the start of a new era in music. I will refer to the afforementioned Wired.com article to dispense with this further.
Flesh 99, flinging MP3 FUD right out the window
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
It's nice to see major artists joinging in the MP3 fray. I DJ part time and MP3 has been a HUGE hit in the DJ community, it allows us to compile massive amounts of music on a small number of CDs. With the support that MP3 has now I don't see it disappearing anytime soon, and as long as major artists continue to migrate this direction the music community will benefit more and more, with lower prices on our music, releases of singles will be quicker and the corporate monster of the recording industry will slowly fade from view. This won't happen quickly, but if an artist can release songs as they record them without all of the cost of pressing vinyl, burning CDs, and recording tapes then the record companies are going to lose their hold_ ____________
___________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I will commnt on one piece of architecture, SCSI vs. SBUS SCSI, I can max out a PC SCSI controller with two DLT drives and a single strem to each, SBUS will handle 3 drives with four streams. Get real, SUN beats PC any day_ ___________
____________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I know NT couldn't have done it. I work for a large company and all of our CAD and rendering work is done on Unix/Linux machines because our NT evaluation showed that it crashed to frequently, did not handle multiple processors as well as Unix/Linux based solutions. The software available for NT is by no means comprable to the software available for other OSs. So in answer to at least one of your suggestions, nope NT could not have handled it._ ___________
____________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Great article, and good pblicity for OpenBSD, however the length of the article was lacking, as was the whole of it. It lacks mention of the software used for the rendering, the technical aspects of the systems udes versus the SGI's. All around it look like a newsbyte not an article. Even though it was on the FreeBSD advocacy site, you'd think they would have hyped the programs used or maybe the technical superiority of FreeBSD._ ________________
_______________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Children do not have a "right" to privacy, especially when it comes to computers. With all of the posts that say parents should take responsibility for what their kids do, you can't allow "private" files on a computer, esp. one that has net access._ _______________
________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Do think anyone who actually has to ask question like this about Linux ahould actually be using and/or installing it?
_ ________
Now come on, if someone wants to use a better/free OS and get away from M$, there will obviously be a learning curve. That question is ridiculous, unless you are a developer it is almost impossible to get an install right the first time you do it. As for wanting it to look/act like Windoze thats just and ease of transition sort of thing.
To win the battle against M$ the Linux community must embrace the newbies and help them along, this idea may seem foreign to you, but every newbie that is not afraid to ask questions and learn is one less M$ customer in the long run. This post reminded me of the Cluele ss Users Are Bad For Debian article. The Linux community seems to be divided into two camps, the "I Hate Newbies" camp and the "Newbies Are Good" camp. This division and the constant arguments over distros are just a few of the things that will drive a prospective nebie right back to M$.
So keep up the good work, maybe you'll scare off a newbie or two today.
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I have to wholeheartedly agree that C|net does an awesome job of being generally un-biased. I work in a mixed OS shop (Don't ask how many we use) and it's hard to find compatible apps to run cross-platform when everyone is getting M$ paychecks to write their reviews and the VP's and Board of Directors believes ever-damn-thing they read._ _____________
__________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
It's nice to see someone finally talking about the lack of development for newer hardware under Linux. I have at least one system that I can't run it on due to lack of hardware support. It really suck because even though none of the HW is M$ Windows specfic there is just no support for it. Oh well maybe soon._ _____________
__________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
The Second Ammendment gaurentees our freedom, even Thomas Jefferson said that a revolution was necessary in the right circumstances._ ______________________
_________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
There were explosives, they just didn't set them all off._ ____________
___________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
You can put the parts of the second ammendment you want emphasized in bold all you want, you cannot deny the fact it says "the right of the people". Come on man, if you change the definition of the people in one ammendment you have to to change it in all of them. You are not forced to own guns, you have the right to however._ ________________
_______________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I was only refering to the specific historical period that was being used as a reference point in the debate, I stated multiple times that Protestants are by no means perfect, but the debate was on judging the entire of Christianity on the actions of the Catholic Church. There was no mention of the persecution of Catholics by Protestants until much later in the thread._ _______________
________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Ok I do see your point, but the point that the Bible is flawed is point that most Christians would debate with you ad naseum. Besides the lack of proof that any religion(no not just the christian ones) is flawed so your factual basis is indeed theory not fact(we won't know until we die).I am only saying that the basis for Catholisism and Protestantism are inherently different and therefore must be seperated in a discussion of history._ ________________
_______________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
"So abortion clinic bombings and the murder of those who perform abortions are in the past?
_ ________
(Not to be Inflammitory:This is a dangerous statement used to prove a point, not to insult)
Which denomination(s) perform clinic bombings again? I seem to have forgotten..."
I see your point but in todays society the people who would bomb clinic is a severe minority, and prove your satement no more than judging the black race on the actions of The Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers
""So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians, that akin to saying that the enslavement of African-Americans is the fault of all whites."
Not the fault of all Christians, but the fault of the foundation of Christianity. If the foundation is flawed, then the house will fall, no matter how good the builder or how sturdy the material"
Those who mis-interpret the base should not be used a qualifier for the whole.
"Therefore, I must look back to the actions of the institution and the members of said institution; that is my guide. Understandably, not all Christians are bad. But as a majority, taken from factual, historical information, I must conclude that the institution is bad, if it compells people to do some of the things they do"
I cannot see the Crusades or the Inquisition as actions of the majority, they were mostly political actions carried out by the Catholic in their ever ceasing search for power that has no Biblical basis(once again Protestants aren't perfect either). As a majority...hmmm....OK let me clarify I do not judge a Catholic by the actions of his Church, nor a Protestant by the actions of a fanatic. You are judging a whole group of people by the actions of the few. The Catholic Church was/is/will be a government for some and a Church for many, do you judge the Germans by Hitlers acts. Hitler was elected by a popular vote, yet we don't still hate Germans. It seems that if it is a religion you would rather judge the whole than the idividual(I could be wrong, no insult intended).
As for the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church, the common man was denied access to the Bible and therefore was led to believe only what the "Church" wanted him to hear. The base of the Catholic religion is only very loosely based on the Bible. I still see a very definitive line between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Denomonations. If you want to blame anything blame human nature, the lust for power, etc. There will always be fanatics, and they will always do what they will
I will however refuse comment on situation in Ireland as it hits very close to home and I would be forced even farther off topic to rant about my views. (Funny thing I kinda side with the Catholics in Ireland, but only politically)
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
OK OK i forgot my_ ________
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I feel that the book that is the basis of the religion (Catholic or Protestant) is the catylist of the killing.
_ ________
Vengence is mine saith the Lord (notice it does not vengence is yours)
Judge not lest ye be judged
Love thy neighbor as thyself(nope no qualifiers on neighbor here)
I feel that one sects purposful mis-interpretation of the Bible for their own political gain should not cast a shadow on the other followers of that religion(not aying that Protestants are perfect in the least, that is another discussion)
So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians, that akin to saying that the enslavement of African-Americans is the fault of all whites. So the division of the two sects in this case is one that is necessary because the Catholic Church was acting as more than a church at the time in question, and using religion and the public lack of access to the Bible to commit these atrocities.
How can you not seperate the two when one persecuted the other, that alone would almost serve as a dividing line.
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Ok maybe I missed your point, but I still think that a distinction between Catholic and Protestant must be made. As for breaking murded down by race in the US (Attn:moderator we are now off topic) that is people killing people if you look at it that way then why even seperate out the Christians, it's all people killing people, and that is what is wrong.
_ ________
I do, however, hold in contempt an institution (or idea) that has resulted in the slaughter of so many innocent people.
The institution you speak of is the Catholic Church, which is entirely seperate from the protestant church.
The Inquisition:
An attempt to finaly quash the last remaining vestages of Goddess-type worship
You will find that they (the Catholic Church) not only went after Goddess worship, but they also attacked any non-Catholic believers they found along their way. The Inquisition was an assault on anything non-Catholic, be it Goddess religion, multi-deity religion, or Christian churches that did not believe that the Catholic Church was right. For those reasons I feel it necessary to distinguish between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.
As a side note I do not believe that any hate crime laws are good, all they do is make one race more important than another, and one of the precepts I believe is that we are all equal.
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
I think that if you look you will find that other "Crusade" style wars have happened thoughout history that were not based on Christianity. In fact you might even do well to seperate Catholic and Protestant and not lump them all together under the banner of "Christian", better yet, why not break it down into the factions that it truly is, the denomonations.
/. id a bashing ground for religion, Christian or otherwise, I would think that geeks wouldn't care about each others religion nor lower ourselves to the level of attacking someones beliefs.
_ ____________
I can't understand why
I liked Katz's article, I found his parallels amusing at the very least. I in fact did not see it as a slam to any religion since all he did was point out accepted historical facts. I have only one question, why must an "Age Of Enlightenment" have to destroy religions, why can it not expound on them and help us become more accepting of each other ? It would seem the more enlightened you are, the less you would look down on those different than you.
The more you look down on someone the better the chance they aren't looking up to you.
___________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99