A complete redesign from the ground up.
I'm talking about making it look more like Linux, but with Windows' support (i.e. everything "just work" 90% of the time). Why is C:\ still the local disk that houses the OS, for example?
If they just keep building on top of the same system and adding on to it, eventually Linux will leave them in the dust (specifically when it becomes much more user friendly). Seriously. Just redesign the whole thing to make more sense from a management and browsing perspective (among many other things).
Off-topic: Can someone explain to me how to make line-breaks on/.? Shift+Enter and Enter do not do it.
My problem with such things, in regards to your Photon example, is that it is to be assumed that the laws of our universe don't change. i.e. my max speed always being 100 MPH over that hour.
I have no evidence to give to say that such things can change, but at the same time, I haven't been adequately convinced that such things don't change.
It seems like a very strong assumption to make that things, as we view them, are as they have always been over a 13.6 Billion year time period when we have only been observing for a few thousand years.
I built my first PC a few years ago, and since then, I never buy prebuilt. It takes a bit of time, but I prefer to build my systems myself. Are people like me considered in these numbers? From the looks of the companies listed, I would say no. Hopefully this is a combination of people moving to tablets and phone as well as people actually building their own machines. Though obviously I expect the former to be far more influential in these numbers than the latter. Oh, and I use Windows 8.1. With mods/programs (specifically ClassicShell), it looks like a new Windows 7 that uses less resources. Metro is still there, but I haven't touched it since.
So because the concept of God, by nature, makes it such that we cannot understand Him, it is stupidly illogical?
So logic is then defined as only that which Man can understand? Then yes, I agree. Completely illogical. I don't see why that would mean He shouldn't exist. Our understanding of something (as the universe has repeatedly shown) is not necessary for it to be as it is. If it were, well, we'd be screwed.
Just to be clear, I'm assuming you mean the first and third segments of your comment. Which would be these:
"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.... Is he both able and willing? The whence cometh evil?"
Of course, there is no formatting (since/. doesn't count Shift+Enter as a line break for some reason), so I made up my own segments.
I re-read those segments, but it didn't change my problem with the quote, as I basically view it as a sort of straw man. I mean, not in the traditional debating sense, but similar to one. Where the only things considered in the argument are the speaker's own constructed views such that he would win and nothing else.
I don't think it covers everything for what God is and does, or what we would define Him as (i.e. all powerful, good, and such). Being good and righteous and are not one in the same from our perspective because we are human and we are talking about absolutes which we ourselves aren't.
If Man can judge God, He is not God. Because the whole point is that He is beyond us to the point that we literally can't do that. My point in saying that is to say that those who actively try to judge whether God is or isn't, or His perceived actions are benevolent or malevolent defeat the whole point.
Because if their judgement is valid in any way, He isn't and His actions are irrelevant. So judging Him is pointless if only to feed the idea that He isn't.
Sort of like a Catch-22, or a system set up to fail if it is ever started, even if it was set up correctly. It's hard to describe, I'm afraid.
I believe the answer to that question is simply that you don't understand what "believing the theory of evolution is true" can be construed as.
Does that mean that it happened ver batim, as text books described, or does that mean that you believe the system (evolution) exists and influences the world and is largely a part of the reason it is as it is?
Your question implies you take it to mean the former, while I'm pretty sure a Christian (like me) who would say they believe the theory of evolution is true (as I do) takes it as the latter.
i.e. There was an Adam and Eve, but Evolution was a system God made and everything went forward from there. Whether that was 6,000 years ago or 100,000+, people will disagree about, but that's the basic idea that I believe the Voyager529 (if that is who you are replying to) agrees with.
What if He is willing and able, but requires something specific to do so?
According to the Bible (if that is the God you direct this at, or any form of the idea), He is righteous. He will not do something wrong, where wrong is breaking the rules of morality that He defined for Man, Himself, and the interaction between the two. Undoing evil that Man brought upon himself (by way of rebellion) when Man deserves it is wrong if nothing changes (i.e. Jesus).
Mind you, most of these moral laws are laws forMan. I think it's actually backwards to say He is evil because He commanded genocide and other things that He said Man shouldn't do. To say He must abide by the same rules He gives us is to say He is equal to us.
If that is the case, what is the point in calling Him God to begin with?
Ya know, I always thought it would only be Creationists who would take the Bible out of context to back whatever opinion, but I guess I was wrong.
I don't think those verses are talking about what you think they are talking about personally.
Slashdot Mirror
A complete redesign from the ground up. I'm talking about making it look more like Linux, but with Windows' support (i.e. everything "just work" 90% of the time). Why is C:\ still the local disk that houses the OS, for example? If they just keep building on top of the same system and adding on to it, eventually Linux will leave them in the dust (specifically when it becomes much more user friendly). Seriously. Just redesign the whole thing to make more sense from a management and browsing perspective (among many other things). Off-topic: Can someone explain to me how to make line-breaks on /.? Shift+Enter and Enter do not do it.
I'm getting a Logic 404 in regards to that reply. Could you either clarify where you get what you said?
My problem with such things, in regards to your Photon example, is that it is to be assumed that the laws of our universe don't change. i.e. my max speed always being 100 MPH over that hour. I have no evidence to give to say that such things can change, but at the same time, I haven't been adequately convinced that such things don't change. It seems like a very strong assumption to make that things, as we view them, are as they have always been over a 13.6 Billion year time period when we have only been observing for a few thousand years.
I built my first PC a few years ago, and since then, I never buy prebuilt. It takes a bit of time, but I prefer to build my systems myself. Are people like me considered in these numbers? From the looks of the companies listed, I would say no. Hopefully this is a combination of people moving to tablets and phone as well as people actually building their own machines. Though obviously I expect the former to be far more influential in these numbers than the latter. Oh, and I use Windows 8.1. With mods/programs (specifically ClassicShell), it looks like a new Windows 7 that uses less resources. Metro is still there, but I haven't touched it since.
So because the concept of God, by nature, makes it such that we cannot understand Him, it is stupidly illogical? So logic is then defined as only that which Man can understand? Then yes, I agree. Completely illogical. I don't see why that would mean He shouldn't exist. Our understanding of something (as the universe has repeatedly shown) is not necessary for it to be as it is. If it were, well, we'd be screwed.
Just to be clear, I'm assuming you mean the first and third segments of your comment. Which would be these: "Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. ... Is he both able and willing? The whence cometh evil?"
Of course, there is no formatting (since /. doesn't count Shift+Enter as a line break for some reason), so I made up my own segments.
I re-read those segments, but it didn't change my problem with the quote, as I basically view it as a sort of straw man. I mean, not in the traditional debating sense, but similar to one. Where the only things considered in the argument are the speaker's own constructed views such that he would win and nothing else.
I don't think it covers everything for what God is and does, or what we would define Him as (i.e. all powerful, good, and such). Being good and righteous and are not one in the same from our perspective because we are human and we are talking about absolutes which we ourselves aren't.
If Man can judge God, He is not God. Because the whole point is that He is beyond us to the point that we literally can't do that. My point in saying that is to say that those who actively try to judge whether God is or isn't, or His perceived actions are benevolent or malevolent defeat the whole point.
Because if their judgement is valid in any way, He isn't and His actions are irrelevant. So judging Him is pointless if only to feed the idea that He isn't.
Sort of like a Catch-22, or a system set up to fail if it is ever started, even if it was set up correctly. It's hard to describe, I'm afraid.
Not always. Sometimes, but not always. I'm a Creationist btw.
I believe the answer to that question is simply that you don't understand what "believing the theory of evolution is true" can be construed as. Does that mean that it happened ver batim, as text books described, or does that mean that you believe the system (evolution) exists and influences the world and is largely a part of the reason it is as it is? Your question implies you take it to mean the former, while I'm pretty sure a Christian (like me) who would say they believe the theory of evolution is true (as I do) takes it as the latter. i.e. There was an Adam and Eve, but Evolution was a system God made and everything went forward from there. Whether that was 6,000 years ago or 100,000+, people will disagree about, but that's the basic idea that I believe the Voyager529 (if that is who you are replying to) agrees with.
What if He is willing and able, but requires something specific to do so? According to the Bible (if that is the God you direct this at, or any form of the idea), He is righteous. He will not do something wrong, where wrong is breaking the rules of morality that He defined for Man, Himself, and the interaction between the two. Undoing evil that Man brought upon himself (by way of rebellion) when Man deserves it is wrong if nothing changes (i.e. Jesus). Mind you, most of these moral laws are laws forMan. I think it's actually backwards to say He is evil because He commanded genocide and other things that He said Man shouldn't do. To say He must abide by the same rules He gives us is to say He is equal to us. If that is the case, what is the point in calling Him God to begin with?
Ya know, I always thought it would only be Creationists who would take the Bible out of context to back whatever opinion, but I guess I was wrong. I don't think those verses are talking about what you think they are talking about personally.