I dont find it strange at all. Why waste their time supporting linux? Soon UT, Quake III, and possibly some other games will be out commercially for linux. When they come out, BUY THEM. If you take the attitude that you wont buy them since they arent out as soon as windows, then the game makers will see that there is no market for Linux games. That would be the touch of death for your hopes that linux may someday be a gaming OS.
I am not sure about OS/2, but in my opinion Novell and Netscape DID die because of "natural" evolution. It is a good thing that both networking and Internet browsers are build into the operating system. It is not Microsoft's fault that this new innovation destroyed these companies.
Also, Novell and Netscape are not any better than Microsoft. I trained on Novell during my two years of vocational school and I use Microsoft exclusively today. I see no real differences in performance. Also, I still use Internet Explorer at work as do everyone I work with even though Netscape is only a 10 minute download. IE locks up much less than Netscape.
Delayed 2 - 4 months??? Diablo II was delayed well over a year. My brother was planning on getting it for me last christmas.
Re:Hunger in the RealWorld(tm)?
on
NetSlaves
·
· Score: 1
I believe he was talking about the American economy, not the world economy. America has a great economy in my opinion. We have so much that we waste more natural resources in this country than the average country uses. And I believe we use about 5 times as much resources as an average country. Good old US of A.
I wasnt talking about the kid in the article, I was referring to the post that I replied to.
And yes, you can protest, but the kid I was referring to was protesting by breaking into the school computers. What you are saying is that it is okay to protest against a law by killing the legislators that passed the law.
You cannot judge people just by WHO THEY ARE because there are far too many people in this country. You generalize everything you see every day. You could never remember the nutritional content of every food there is, but you can remember that fruits contain a good amount of sugar in the form of glucose and meats contain a large amount of fat. Without generalizations we couldnt function as a society. It may not seam morally correct but it is needed.
I cant stand it when people protest and then complain about being punished. You have a right to protest but then you must be ready to face the consequences. The founders of our nation protested against the British Empire, but they were prepared to die for their beliefs. If you openly protest the school is such a manner that they are bound to find out then you brought on the punishment, not them.
As soon as you're tossed in jail for 20 years or more for a crime you didn't commit, then you can talk about how it's a necessary thing because we don't live in a perfect world. Until then, your opinion carries very little weight.
Actually, it isnt until he is tossed in jail for 20 years for a crime he didnt commit that his opinion carries little weight. If that were to happen to him then his opinion would be clouded with his own emotions. It is the same reason why a psychologist cannot work with a person that he/she has an emotional relationship with.
Also, even though it may be morally hard for some people to deal with, his point is correct. To make one person suffer injustly to stop two or more people from suffering injustly is a good thing.
Saying that religious people are the cause of bloodshed is simply idiocy. More wars have been waged for political reasons that religous reasons. Even the often used example of the Crusades is incorrect because it began for purely political reasons. It just so happened that the Pope backed it and recruited armies based on a false religious context.
Also, athiests have never truly been in power during history, so you cant blame religion for wars at all. Russia and China are the only non-religious run countries that I can think of, and they arent exactly utopias. It is the people in power that cause the problems in society, not religion.
Oh, and by the way. I am an athiest, not a religious zealot. I just dont agree with blaming religon for all of the world's problems simply because our leaders happen to be religious.
I believe that the reason ritilin works is because it stimulates the reticular formation in your brain. The reticular formation is the portion of your brain that keeps you alert and attentive. People with ADHD have trouble doing these things. The ritilin stimulates this portion of the brain, and therefor people with ADHD can keep attentive better.
As you can see, even science agrees that its own theories are full of bullshit.
Science does not say this at all. It only admits that everything we "know" as true is somehow flawed by something we havent discovered yet. That is why theories are constantly changed. Science doesnt care if it is the absolute "truth", but as long as we know enough about physics to accomplish something useful (such as flight), thats good enough.
If I am going to believe in something which has no evidence whatsoever then I shall choose the option which makes the most sense and promises the most reward.
Science, by definition, is based on the evidence at hand. Religion is the only belief system based on no evidence. Also, psychology (to name only one scientific discipline) has proven that many things which we percieve as "common sense" are very flawed by our own perceptions. Scientific research comes much closer to finding the correct answer to a problem than commone sense. And if a politician was to proclaim that he could end all poverty and crime, would you then elect him as president based on these rediculous promises.
Religion is a GOOD thing, it teaches people not to kill each other, not to rape each other, not to steal from each other.
Actually, it is our parents and other indirect guardians that teach these values to us. Without these figures telling us that the Bible's moral rules should be followed, we wouldn't care what the Bible says. Even with the absence of religion, human decency and morals will not disappear, they will simply be taught using a different medium.
Now, there is no conclusive evidence that there is or is not a deity of some kind in existence. Agnostics far out number Atheists, and there are plenty of perfectly reasonable intelligent, un brainwashed people who believe in God or some other deity.
There is an alien ship floating above the earth right now with a missile pointed at the White House but we cant see it because it is cloaked. If you dont believe me then prove that it isnt true. You cant. Do not presume that simply because you cannot disprove something doesnt mean that it definetly exists. You must first prove something before you can expect someone to be able to disprove ite. Agnostics are more abundant because while many people are realizing that the religions of the world are incorrect, they cant come to terms with the fact that there may be no meaning for their existance. They still need to think that some supreme being which is looking out for them still does exist. And the definition for religion and irrational (belief in something with no proof) are very similar. That means anyone believing in a religion is being somewhat irrational (synonyms for irrational include absurb, foolish, illogical, and unreasonable). While it may not mean that religous people are idiots, they are definetly not rational human beings.
1. It is agreed that life can not be created from non-life in a scientific manner.
2. It is impracticle to assume with no evidence that the universe was formed with no outside force acting upon it.
3. Referencing number 1 it is not generally believed to be possible that even if life could come into being from nonlife that such life would exist in great enough quanitites or in such conditions that it would progress beyond the original form without outside interference.
4. There is no natural progression or link from a single common animal at the origin of earth to suggest that life evolved from a single point.
Just because we cant do something or arent sure how it is done doesnt mean it is impossible. Just because we couldnt create electricity a thousand years ago doesnt mean it didnt exist. We did not invent Oxygen, we just discovered it. The same holds true for your above points. Why is it hard to believe that the universe could just have always been there? (im not saying that is my belief but it is a possibility) Just because we cant understand it doesnt mean it might not exist. But to create a sentient being to describe such far off ideas simply goes too far. If I was to believe that a potatoe like vegetable created the entire universe it would be no different than to believe that a human like god did so.
Will religion fade away into obscurity? While it may never go away, I think the answer to this question is a definite yes. With your biblical prediction babble aside, there is overwhelming reason why this will happen.
With today being an age of great intellectual thought, more and more people are becoming athiests. Almost the only people who still believe in a diety are :
1) Brainwashed by their environment, 2) Suffering from problems only a god could help them with, or 3) Illogical and uneducated individuals. Hopefully with better schooling and genetically enhanced human minds, idiocy will someday be only a memory. That takes care of #3. Also, with more people being atheist, less children will be brought up in religous homes. Slowly #1 will fade away as well. Im not sure what to do about #2 though.
After a few generations, religion will not be as prevelent in our society as it now is. Religion will never completely go away, or maybe I am too pessimistic to believe that such a utopia could exist.
There is now a thunder storm in that same area that the lines are down. The company that is fixing the lines has stated that a storm is keeping them from fixing the lines. They have no estimation of when it will be fixed.
I work at an internet service provider (UTI) which is being hit by this right now. I hope it gets fixed quick since the tech support calls keep rolling in.
Why wouldnt a robot be able to be conscious? Our brains are simply a collection of neurons that pass chemicals to eachother and work electrically internally. This we know. That is not much different than how computers work. Since it took nature billions of years to make our brains, I can see why it is taking us a while to do this in computers. But I dont see conscious computers as impossible, we just might not see it for a few decades.
>>But keep in mind that evolution took 3 billion years to evolve human "intelligence". I don't see why the machines should be able to do it faster.
It is because we do everything better than nature. We can evolve breeds of cattle much faster than nature did and we can provide more food than any other of nature's animals. We are merely the student that surpased his teacher. Since we also have nature's examples to work off of, it shouldnt take us that long to have "intellingent" machines. I just hope it takes about another 30 years so I am retired before it happens.
The reason why kids are so interested in computers is because of the opportunities that have in learning about them while still young. You dont learn anything useful about physics or chemistry until college. I was already programming computer games that my friends and I would play when I was in sixth grade. But now im a sophmore in college and I still am not allowed to do anything on my own. You cant just dabble with chemistry in your room like you can with computers. If you could we would have alot of dead potential chemistry majors. (oops, i spilled sulfiric acid on my shirt. oh well, ill clean it up later)
When it comes to AP and honors classes, of course people in them are going to do well. That is because the people in them are the smartest in the school. But the problem with our schools is that people can actually get a high school diploma with only 1 algebra class in there entire life. You could go all the way to AP Calculus and AP Physics, and you would get the same degree as someone who only got through Algebra I B and Biology B. (B - basic) And since tests such as the ACT and SAT are so easy that almost anyone can get a 19 and 1100, almost anyone can get into most colleges. Once in college you can get a bachelors degree without taking any calculus classes at all. Also, by taking an introductory Biology and maybe a Geology class you can get by without any in depth science courses.
The point of all this is that while you still can learn alot in our school system, it doesnt force you to. You can get a 4-year degree without learning much math or science. This makes a general populace that doesnt have the ability to make educated decisions in most fields of technology.
We already can enhance intelligence just as well as we can enhance strength. Of course some people are just born smarter than others just the same as some people are born stronger. It is called reading and thinking. All things being equal the person who reads more and trains themselves to think logically will be smarter.
Also, I found nothing morally wrong with the world in Gattaca. Sure a few people are screwed, but the society as a whole was better. The average person was smarter, stronger, and had less chance of diseases. I have no problem with that.
The difference between this kind of crime and graffiti is that it is a new kind of crime. That means that we can set a new precedence. I think they would try the same thing against people doing graffiti if they could. It is the same reason why beer and cigarretes are legal and marrijuana (sp?) is not.
Even though this strays us yet furthur off the current topic (what was it again?), I want to show that I agree that using Java technology on the battlefield may not be a wise decision. Im not completely brain washed by the military (yet), so I can and do often find faults in their decisions. Even furthur off topic though, we started the Vietnam war so it was our duty to try to end it. If it wasnt for the protestors, it would have ended much quicker since we would have been able to send a larger force in early in the war. By sending more troops we would have saved lives and still gained the military practice that made the Vietnam War so valuable.
You mention the similarities that Java has with both Lisp and C++. I could to the same and talk about the similarites betwean Linux and Windows. Since they do have some similarities, they must both be completely equal.
While I do fault Lisp for being interpreted, its benefits far overwiegh this one downfall. And the similarites betwean C++ and Java are almost only in syntax and OOP use. Java is both slow and has no increased functinality over C++. Like I said, Java and Perl are the future of simple web scripts, but that is where there uses end. Of course you can make good applications with it, but you can do the same with QBasic. In fact, I think I would rather go back to QBasic than use Java regularly. Now as for GWBasic, that im not sure about.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont find it strange at all. Why waste their time supporting linux? Soon UT, Quake III, and possibly some other games will be out commercially for linux. When they come out, BUY THEM. If you take the attitude that you wont buy them since they arent out as soon as windows, then the game makers will see that there is no market for Linux games. That would be the touch of death for your hopes that linux may someday be a gaming OS.
I am not sure about OS/2, but in my opinion Novell and Netscape DID die because of "natural" evolution. It is a good thing that both networking and Internet browsers are build into the operating system. It is not Microsoft's fault that this new innovation destroyed these companies.
Also, Novell and Netscape are not any better than Microsoft. I trained on Novell during my two years of vocational school and I use Microsoft exclusively today. I see no real differences in performance. Also, I still use Internet Explorer at work as do everyone I work with even though Netscape is only a 10 minute download. IE locks up much less than Netscape.
Most of my teacher's notes are from my textbooks anyways, so I dont really see why my teacher has any special rights to my notes.
Delayed 2 - 4 months??? Diablo II was delayed well over a year. My brother was planning on getting it for me last christmas.
I believe he was talking about the American economy, not the world economy. America has a great economy in my opinion. We have so much that we waste more natural resources in this country than the average country uses. And I believe we use about 5 times as much resources as an average country. Good old US of A.
I wasnt talking about the kid in the article, I was referring to the post that I replied to.
And yes, you can protest, but the kid I was referring to was protesting by breaking into the school computers. What you are saying is that it is okay to protest against a law by killing the legislators that passed the law.
You cannot judge people just by WHO THEY ARE because there are far too many people in this country. You generalize everything you see every day. You could never remember the nutritional content of every food there is, but you can remember that fruits contain a good amount of sugar in the form of glucose and meats contain a large amount of fat. Without generalizations we couldnt function as a society. It may not seam morally correct but it is needed.
I cant stand it when people protest and then complain about being punished. You have a right to protest but then you must be ready to face the consequences. The founders of our nation protested against the British Empire, but they were prepared to die for their beliefs. If you openly protest the school is such a manner that they are bound to find out then you brought on the punishment, not them.
As soon as you're tossed in jail for 20 years or more for a crime you didn't commit, then you can talk about how it's a necessary thing because we don't live in a perfect world. Until then, your opinion carries very little weight.
Actually, it isnt until he is tossed in jail for 20 years for a crime he didnt commit that his opinion carries little weight. If that were to happen to him then his opinion would be clouded with his own emotions. It is the same reason why a psychologist cannot work with a person that he/she has an emotional relationship with.
Also, even though it may be morally hard for some people to deal with, his point is correct. To make one person suffer injustly to stop two or more people from suffering injustly is a good thing.
>>You make all of humanity look bad before his eyes.
And you make his so called creation look like a race of illiterate, inbred, idiots.
Saying that religious people are the cause of bloodshed is simply idiocy. More wars have been waged for political reasons that religous reasons. Even the often used example of the Crusades is incorrect because it began for purely political reasons. It just so happened that the Pope backed it and recruited armies based on a false religious context.
Also, athiests have never truly been in power during history, so you cant blame religion for wars at all. Russia and China are the only non-religious run countries that I can think of, and they arent exactly utopias. It is the people in power that cause the problems in society, not religion.
Oh, and by the way. I am an athiest, not a religious zealot. I just dont agree with blaming religon for all of the world's problems simply because our leaders happen to be religious.
I believe that the reason ritilin works is because it stimulates the reticular formation in your brain. The reticular formation is the portion of your brain that keeps you alert and attentive. People with ADHD have trouble doing these things. The ritilin stimulates this portion of the brain, and therefor people with ADHD can keep attentive better.
As you can see, even science agrees that its own theories are full of bullshit.
Science does not say this at all. It only admits that everything we "know" as true is somehow flawed by something we havent discovered yet. That is why theories are constantly changed. Science doesnt care if it is the absolute "truth", but as long as we know enough about physics to accomplish something useful (such as flight), thats good enough.
If I am going to believe in something which has no evidence whatsoever then I shall choose the option which makes the most sense and promises the most reward.
Science, by definition, is based on the evidence at hand. Religion is the only belief system based on no evidence. Also, psychology (to name only one scientific discipline) has proven that many things which we percieve as "common sense" are very flawed by our own perceptions. Scientific research comes much closer to finding the correct answer to a problem than commone sense. And if a politician was to proclaim that he could end all poverty and crime, would you then elect him as president based on these rediculous promises.
Religion is a GOOD thing, it teaches people not to kill each other, not to rape each other, not to steal from each other.
Actually, it is our parents and other indirect guardians that teach these values to us. Without these figures telling us that the Bible's moral rules should be followed, we wouldn't care what the Bible says. Even with the absence of religion, human decency and morals will not disappear, they will simply be taught using a different medium.
Now, there is no conclusive evidence that there is or is not a deity of some kind in existence. Agnostics far out number Atheists, and there are plenty of perfectly reasonable intelligent, un brainwashed people who believe in God or some other deity.
There is an alien ship floating above the earth right now with a missile pointed at the White House but we cant see it because it is cloaked. If you dont believe me then prove that it isnt true. You cant. Do not presume that simply because you cannot disprove something doesnt mean that it definetly exists. You must first prove something before you can expect someone to be able to disprove ite. Agnostics are more abundant because while many people are realizing that the religions of the world are incorrect, they cant come to terms with the fact that there may be no meaning for their existance. They still need to think that some supreme being which is looking out for them still does exist. And the definition for religion and irrational (belief in something with no proof) are very similar. That means anyone believing in a religion is being somewhat irrational (synonyms for irrational include absurb, foolish, illogical, and unreasonable). While it may not mean that religous people are idiots, they are definetly not rational human beings.
1. It is agreed that life can not be created from non-life in a scientific manner.
2. It is impracticle to assume with no evidence that the universe was formed with no outside force acting upon it.
3. Referencing number 1 it is not generally believed to be possible that even if life could come into being from nonlife that such life would exist in great enough quanitites or in such conditions that it would progress beyond the original form without outside interference.
4. There is no natural progression or link from a single common animal at the origin of earth to suggest that life evolved from a single point.
Just because we cant do something or arent sure how it is done doesnt mean it is impossible. Just because we couldnt create electricity a thousand years ago doesnt mean it didnt exist. We did not invent Oxygen, we just discovered it. The same holds true for your above points. Why is it hard to believe that the universe could just have always been there? (im not saying that is my belief but it is a possibility) Just because we cant understand it doesnt mean it might not exist. But to create a sentient being to describe such far off ideas simply goes too far. If I was to believe that a potatoe like vegetable created the entire universe it would be no different than to believe that a human like god did so.
Will religion fade away into obscurity? While it may never go away, I think the answer to this question is a definite yes. With your biblical prediction babble aside, there is overwhelming reason why this will happen.
With today being an age of great intellectual thought, more and more people are becoming athiests. Almost the only people who still believe in a diety are :
1) Brainwashed by their environment,
2) Suffering from problems only a god could help them with, or
3) Illogical and uneducated individuals.
Hopefully with better schooling and genetically enhanced human minds, idiocy will someday be only a memory. That takes care of #3. Also, with more people being atheist, less children will be brought up in religous homes. Slowly #1 will fade away as well. Im not sure what to do about #2 though.
After a few generations, religion will not be as prevelent in our society as it now is. Religion will never completely go away, or maybe I am too pessimistic to believe that such a utopia could exist.
There is now a thunder storm in that same area that the lines are down. The company that is fixing the lines has stated that a storm is keeping them from fixing the lines. They have no estimation of when it will be fixed.
I work at an internet service provider (UTI) which is being hit by this right now. I hope it gets fixed quick since the tech support calls keep rolling in.
Why wouldnt a robot be able to be conscious? Our brains are simply a collection of neurons that pass chemicals to eachother and work electrically internally. This we know. That is not much different than how computers work. Since it took nature billions of years to make our brains, I can see why it is taking us a while to do this in computers. But I dont see conscious computers as impossible, we just might not see it for a few decades.
>>But keep in mind that evolution took 3 billion years to evolve human "intelligence". I don't see why the machines should be able to do it faster.
It is because we do everything better than nature. We can evolve breeds of cattle much faster than nature did and we can provide more food than any other of nature's animals. We are merely the student that surpased his teacher. Since we also have nature's examples to work off of, it shouldnt take us that long to have "intellingent" machines. I just hope it takes about another 30 years so I am retired before it happens.
The reason why kids are so interested in computers is because of the opportunities that have in learning about them while still young. You dont learn anything useful about physics or chemistry until college. I was already programming computer games that my friends and I would play when I was in sixth grade. But now im a sophmore in college and I still am not allowed to do anything on my own. You cant just dabble with chemistry in your room like you can with computers. If you could we would have alot of dead potential chemistry majors. (oops, i spilled sulfiric acid on my shirt. oh well, ill clean it up later)
You stupid idiot. So if you are able to break into someone's house and steal their possessions then it is okay since you are able to do it?
When it comes to AP and honors classes, of course people in them are going to do well. That is because the people in them are the smartest in the school. But the problem with our schools is that people can actually get a high school diploma with only 1 algebra class in there entire life. You could go all the way to AP Calculus and AP Physics, and you would get the same degree as someone who only got through Algebra I B and Biology B. (B - basic) And since tests such as the ACT and SAT are so easy that almost anyone can get a 19 and 1100, almost anyone can get into most colleges. Once in college you can get a bachelors degree without taking any calculus classes at all. Also, by taking an introductory Biology and maybe a Geology class you can get by without any in depth science courses.
The point of all this is that while you still can learn alot in our school system, it doesnt force you to. You can get a 4-year degree without learning much math or science. This makes a general populace that doesnt have the ability to make educated decisions in most fields of technology.
We already can enhance intelligence just as well as we can enhance strength. Of course some people are just born smarter than others just the same as some people are born stronger. It is called reading and thinking. All things being equal the person who reads more and trains themselves to think logically will be smarter.
Also, I found nothing morally wrong with the world in Gattaca. Sure a few people are screwed, but the society as a whole was better. The average person was smarter, stronger, and had less chance of diseases. I have no problem with that.
The difference between this kind of crime and graffiti is that it is a new kind of crime. That means that we can set a new precedence. I think they would try the same thing against people doing graffiti if they could. It is the same reason why beer and cigarretes are legal and marrijuana (sp?) is not.
Even though this strays us yet furthur off the current topic (what was it again?), I want to show that I agree that using Java technology on the battlefield may not be a wise decision. Im not completely brain washed by the military (yet), so I can and do often find faults in their decisions.
Even furthur off topic though, we started the Vietnam war so it was our duty to try to end it. If it wasnt for the protestors, it would have ended much quicker since we would have been able to send a larger force in early in the war. By sending more troops we would have saved lives and still gained the military practice that made the Vietnam War so valuable.
You mention the similarities that Java has with both Lisp and C++. I could to the same and talk about the similarites betwean Linux and Windows. Since they do have some similarities, they must both be completely equal.
While I do fault Lisp for being interpreted, its benefits far overwiegh this one downfall. And the similarites betwean C++ and Java are almost only in syntax and OOP use. Java is both slow and has no increased functinality over C++. Like I said, Java and Perl are the future of simple web scripts, but that is where there uses end. Of course you can make good applications with it, but you can do the same with QBasic. In fact, I think I would rather go back to QBasic than use Java regularly. Now as for GWBasic, that im not sure about.