A while back I talked to a Microsoft technical drone who told me that Win2K will contain full command line support. He explained that everything that can be done from the GUI can be done from the command line. I recounted for him the story I read about another Microsoft spokesdroid stating that "the command line and scripting were weaknesses of UNIX." His response to that was to make a face at me.
So if what he says was true (and, of course, all his words are suspect as he was a Microsoft employee), then future versions of Windows will definately contain some kind of CLI support (which will probably be MS-DOS based).
People go to jail, but corporations don't. All they get is fines (which by the way I swear, are considered a business expense and a tax writeoff!).
I agree: this sucks. It shows how corporations are protected but individuals aren't. Kind of brings to light Ayn Rand's quote about the individual being the most persecuted minority.
Each corp. has a charter to exist granted it by the state; Nader suggests that if a corp. has a long-enough track record of evil, (eg tobacco companies) that the state revoke its charter (the company dies or gets suspended or some such).
How in the hell did you come to this conclusion? "The current law permits corporations to escape justice, so let's implement communism!" Perhaps you need to read Animal Farm, too. Or go see "The Killing Fields."
Also he's for taking away corporations' right to give money to politicians, which I think most people would agree with.
I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
I have to say, the Green Party is like open-source politics; it relies on volunteers (one paid person in the whole Northeast US, as far as I can tell).
And that's where the similarities between open-source (software) and The Red^H^H^HGreen Party end. When did open-source advocates indicate that the government should own all the biggest businesses and dictate how much money people can make?
If you want something done, you have to do it yourself!
It seems to me that you are playing with semantics to achieve your goal.
Who said anything about right? The "right" world, where nobody commits force or fraud or breaks an obligation to anyone else, *cannot exist*.
I was talking about "right" (the noun), meaning "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature." Then you accused me of talking about "right" (the adjective), meaning "Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality." You should already see where you have gone wrong.
So, granting that there are neglected children, we're no longer choosing between "right" and "wrong", even by libertarian axioms. We're choosing between a world with children getting cheated out of the majority of the food, shelter, and education that their parents should have been responsible enough to provide, and a world with taxpayers getting cheated out of a small fraction of their earnings to pay for children who aren't theirs.
Since your foundation is faulty, so is your conclusion. I agree that it is wrong that children go without food, clothing, or shelter. But that does not imply that the government has the right to take my money to "raise" those children.
There is no easy out, no "let's get the government out of the way and nobody gets their rights violated"; the very presupposition of children stuck in poverty means that somebody's rights are getting violated.
First, who defines what "poverty" is? Do you realize that under the current government definition of "poverty" I can live in a $500,000 house and own three Ferraris and still be living "in poverty"? Second, what "rights" are you talking about? Can you please indicate to me where in the Constitution these rights you mention are enumerated?
Even the majority of libertarians favor spending money on a police force to protect
people's lives and property; how is spending money on child welfare to protect their lives and property any morally different?
This displays your ignorance about the Libertarian party. You accept (correctly) that Libertarians recognize law enforcement as a valid function of government and then conclude (falsely) that Libertarians must also believe that it is the government, not parents, who should be responsible for "child welfare."
You're right, there is no "easy way out." That does not imply that the government is the "solution" to the problem.
One of the platforms of the Green party is that the largest corporations of the world should be carved up and taken over by the government. I believe that they have also proposed the idea of a "maximum wage."
You are not throwing your vote away when you vote your conscience.
A definiton of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It is time for change.
The Democrats and Republicans are not two parties. They are the same party. They may differ in rhetoric, but their platform is the same: BIG GOVERNMENT.
In a sense you're right: you must vote for one party or the other. Either the party that says that government is most fit to run your life, or the party that says that YOU are most fit to run your life. Do you thing that G.W. Bush and Al Gore are best fit to run your life?
I cannot believe the stupid things people keep saying over and over again.
I am continually bothered by the fact that Libertarians makes noone responsible for the less fortunate.
This is a lie. The Libertarian party makes the private sector responsible for the less fortunate. (You need to consult a dictionary to understand what I mean by the word "fortunate.") The huge problem with liberal thought is that whenever there is a problem the assumption is that the government has to step in to "fix" it. (Like they "fixed" our retirement with the bankrupt social security scam and they "fixed" health care for the elderly with the bankrupt Medicare scam). At this point usually the liberals scream, "But the Libertarian solution is not perfect! They'll leave kids starving in the streets!" Well guess what? Is the government solution perfect? Hell no! Will it ever be? Hell no! If you're looking for a "perfect" solution then you're going to be looking forever.
Not everyone comes out of a wealthy family that can afford a)health care b)good food and c)safe living conditions.
If someone can't afford health care, good food, and safe living conditions, then why the hell are they having children?? People treat it like it's some kind of right, and if they can't afford it then they have the right to use the government as an instrument of plunder.
Its not their fault mommie's a crackwhore, and daddy's in prison, but they get no welfare, can't pay for education, and don't stand a rats ass of surviving to adulthood.
You're right. But guess what? That doesn't make it my fault either! So how on earth does this give the government the right to take my money by force when it's not my goddamned responsibility?
And the rich grow richer.
This is the "evil rich" argument. The formula works this way: you can use peoples jealousy over other people's property to buy votes and political support. Pretty scummy, isn't it?
And don't give me that "voluntary taxation" shite. Look how well "voluntary standards" work (not at all). There will always be unpopular charities (like disease research that's doesn't have the word "cancer", or any celebrities suffering from it, but still kills/cripples lots of people), and besides, why should the charitable be punished, and the heartless be rewarded?
How much more popular would charities be if we weren't currently being taxed higher than we were during the height of world war II? And I don't know what your last question refers to, but let me counter with this: why should the achievers be punished and the irresponsible be rewarded?
Well, could be a state endorsement of judaism... The Ten Commandments being in the OLD
Testament an' all.
It could be, but it's really much more of a state endorsement of Christianity, since Christians outnumber Jews in this country about a gazillion to one (except in government, where the ratio is, from what I understand, different).
Most Christians believe that the Bible was written by God, through men. This is usually called "inspiration" by God. That idea comes from passages such as 2 Peter 1:20-21:
But scripture says nothing about how the books were chosen to go into the Bible, does it? Nor does it say anything about which manuscripts the books were translated from, right? So your "inspiration" argument falls flat on its face as soon as the pens left the parchment of the original autographa. But guess what? Even Christians concede that the original autographa no longer exist! So how do we know if the manuscripts which were used for translation were even valid? What verse in scripture will address this question?
This is such a troll, but I'll bite for the fun of it.
Still reeling from the absence of the Ten Commandments in public schools,
How would the posting of the Ten Commandments in government schools not be a state endorsement of Christianity?
without having the entire fossil record from the first genetic material to the present.
This is the stupid argument that Christians always bring up. "You don't have the entire fossil record, so how can you say it's true?" Well, the counter to that is this: Christians have no evidence of God, souls, angels, demons, heaven, hell, raising the dead, walking on water, or any miracles that Jesus himself promised Christians would be able to do, so how can Christians claim that they have "The Truth"? I guarantee that there is much more evidence for evolution than there is for any of those things I mentioned in the last sentence.
How can I feel good about myself if I am reminded that I share common ancestry with ape-brutes?
Why is the government's responsibility to protect your feelings? Do you have some special right enumerated in the Constitution which guarantees this?
I've been to the zoo, and I decline to write of the horrid, disgusting things I have seen the creatures do.
You also declined to write of the horrid, disgusting things that we have seen Christians do. You have also declined to write of the horrid, disgusting things that your God has done (such as mandating the murder of children, the ripping of infants from the wombs of their mothers by sword, and the taking of sexual plunder). Instead you chose to pick on animals which have not need for conscience nor morals.
Take a moment and reflect on the innocence lost the day our world left it's prominent spot
at the center of the universe.
The world's position did not change relative to the universe. It may have changed relative to the beliefs of human beings.
Does a man who is doing his utmost to get into heaven benefit from filling his head with theories?
Perhaps you need to go back and read your Bible a little more carefully. Did not Paul say that there is nothing you can do to enter heaven? That is is faith and faith alone which saves? Then again, perhaps you are following the words of Jesus instead, who stated that it is works and works along which grants entry into heaven. In that case, you are correct -- but it doesn't answer the blatant contradiction between Jesus and Paul on the most important question the Bible could possible raise: How can I escape eternal torture? I can think of at least four other ways the Bible says one can be saved, and they are all mutually exclusive. Which one is right?
Do we want our teachers questioning all that is good and decent, twisting things around with their fancy words?
Who decides what is "good and decent"? It certainly won't be "God." It will be some person, which, according to the Bible, is just as evil and "worthy of hell" as the next person.
I run GNOME v1.2 at work and at home. At work it is flawless. At home, the tasklist_applet crashes constantly. It really sucks; it just spits out a gdk error and dies. I ended up writing a perl script that was a while(1){system("tasklist_appet");} and nohup'ing that. That brings a few quirks of its own, but at least it keeps the applet running.
Personally, I agree with the original post. Perhaps some more stability improvements in GNOME are in order. I doubt that I'm the only one with quirky problems.
Not that I don't like GNOME -- I am using it 100% of the time.:)
I think that you and I agree on more things that you think we do. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in the last post, so let me say it here: The only thing I object to is the use of the word "unnatural" as a moral judgement. That is what I thought you were doing.
With this in mind and the incalculable risks of geneering, it should not be released in any way before it's proven without doubt (reasonable or not) that it's harmless.
I agree with what you say, except that you and I both know that it's impossible to *prove* anything (except maybe mathematical theorems and such things). It is possible to gather enough evidence to convince people, and I think that's what we're both after. I don't want an unsafe product released, either.
You think I eat flowers? I do not fucking care whether it's natural or from Krypton, wiping life off the planet is just not cool.
Can you calm down so that we can have a rational discussion? I agree with you here, too. Wiping all life off of Earth would be a bad thing! However, it would not be (as I gathered you thought) "unnatural." But here you admit that its being "natural" is not of any concern to you. I wonder then why you brought it up in your prior post, as that seemed to be the crux of your objection.
So is tetraodontoxin. Help yourself.
I think you are missing the point. I did not equate "natural" with "good." Child abuse is natural, after all, and I think it is the ultimate single evil act (as opposed to genocide, which I think falls in a different class of evil). My objection is to the misuse of the word "unnatural." It seems to me that when people do things that people don't like, some people will call those actions "unnatural" as a special label for "immoral."
How many people would you expect, who like a world riddled with deseases, old and new, where China's oppressive government is as dominant as US' oppressive (but PC) government is today and a single clever nanoscientist can change the biosphere into a ceramic shell in a few days? Obviously, the problem is not about judgment. I don't claim to know the future, I only claim to see risks, much larger ones than the risks posed by nuclear weapons.
How can you "see" risks? Personally, I can imagine risks, but you seem to contradict yourself by stating that you don't know the future while implying exactly the opposite. Others can imagine many benefits from new technology. Personally, I agree with you that your vision of the future would be crappy. But your calling it "unnatural" is bogus. All I ask is that you call it what it is ("crappy" works fine for me), not use the word "unnatural" for something that clearly is not.
People should not utterly annihilate a continents people and structures, as WASPs' ancestors (in a social, not racial sense) did in Africa. To now blame Africans for the consequences is beyond words.
Take note that it is you who brought up Africans. Children are starving all over the world, not just in Africa. Your inference that I was blaming Africans for anything is exactly that: your inference. I believe no such thing. My argument still stands: people should not have children that they cannot afford to raise. It is a grave injustice to bring a child into a world in which the parents cannot provide for her or him.
Sounds like you're making excuses for your actions with the 'everything we experience is completely natural' line. I think everyone can understand that when people say 'unnatural', they mean man-made, regardless of the fact that man is (more or less) 'natural'.
I am not excusing my actions with the "natural" argument. I am looking at the situation from this point of view: If I were a hyperintelligent alien looking down on humanity from space, what actions of humanity would seem "unnatural"? None of them, for humanity is part of nature, and thus all of their acts are also "occuring in nature." By your argument the surgery is unnatural. I say it is completely natural, for it is occuring in nature. It seems to me that you and others call things "unnatural" when you mean that those things should not happen in nature. But whether or not they should is irrelevent. The fact is that they do, and therefore they are natural.
Your comment about Nature not helping the Native Americans with smallpox is also off-base; there was nothing 'natural' about the migration of European microbes to North America by boatloads of colonists (unless you consider boats to be natural as well). Nature did provide Native Americans with what they needed to survive in their environment.
Are you saying that the European invasion of the Americas did not occur in nature? How else could you call it "unnatural"? It should be clear from my words how I feel about what happened to the Native Americans (the fact that Andrew Jackson is on the twenty-dollar bill is a travesty!). I object to the misuse of the word "natural," not the correct identification of the massive slaughter and mistreatment of Native Americans as a gravely evil act.
I think the only part of your comment that I consider even vaguely worth listening to is the idea that antibiotic-immune bacteria are natural; everything else is so much smoke in the wind.
I've noted the fact that you haven't really responded to my comment. You've only dismissed it with a couple of flawed arguments.
I did not say that children should starve; that was your inference. I believe that it is the job of the private sector to help those who are truly in need. As is, the government of the United States rewards people who have children that they cannot afford to raise. And the money used in said rewards is taken by force from other people.
I don't think that any human or group of humans has Nature's wisdom.
How the hell can nature have wisdom?
TV commercials hereabout are full of antibiotic stuff, inevitably producing immune strains. At least two cases of untreatable infections have already occured (Japan and USA, not Rwanda and Bangladesh) and physicians predict a post-antibiotic age.
As is completely natural.
While Nature's wisdom provided humanity with enough brain to weather anything natural thrown at them [ . . . ]
This statement is patently false. Nature didn't give much help to the Native Americans when they were introduced to smallpox.
Genetics and nanotechnology are easily capable of wiping life off the planet, even in tiny doses.
As is completely natural.
The sheer arrogance of scientist claiming to 'improve' stuff in days that is millions of years old is sickening.
Have you considered that the world is changing and perhaps you are just resistant to that change? Do you think that people 1,000 years ago would like and appreciate the world we have today (given that they could see and understand the future)? I would guess that some would and some wouldn't. Isn't that exactly what is happening right now? You're just one of the people who "sees" a future and doesn't like it. Likewise there are people here who see the same future and like it. Plus ça change, plus c'est the même chose, n'est-ce pas?
But this is all entirely natural. Everything we experience is entirely natural. People only say that things are "unnatural" when they want to demonize them.
Regarding your statement about Bill Gates, it's important for us all to recognize that he got his money through luck, not skill or hard work. Regarding your statement about starving children, people should not have children that they cannot afford to raise.
Why don't you get off your high horse! What kind of aristocrat are you? Sure, there are flaws to any kind of society, and capitalism's happens to be a separation of haves and have-nots.
There is always going to be a separation between the haves and the have-nots, even in the blessed socialist systems. King Bill and Queen Hillary get to do whatever they want while us, the lowly peons, only get to do what they think is best for us. How much public money has Hillary spent in her carpetbagging campaign? It totals in the millions. Do you have millions of other people's money to spend as you see fit?
But that doesn't mean we have to try to increase that flaw! No system is perfect, "pure" capitalism just leads to greed!
This is the idiotic "capitalism is greedy" argument. Greed is a psychological fact. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Does socialism magically make people not greedy? No. It just uses government force to try and compel people to behave according to the way their leaders dictate.
One of the major tenants of western democracy is equality. Don't try to tell me that you're more equal than others.
First, The United States is not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Second, we are guaranteed equal rights. Not equal health care, equal money, equal jobs, or equal entertainment.
If you think that the media in America is free then you really are blind.
I did not say anything about the American media, so this is a strawman. Furthermore, since you had to resort to calling me "blind" it is also an ad hominem. I suggest you study some logical fallacies which are common in debates. It would do well to improve the quality of your arguments.
And if capitalism is all about freedom, why are they so keen on trading with that most repressive of regimes, China.
There is a difference between capitalism (which is about competition and free markets) and corporatism (which is "whatever makes money is right"). You seem to like beating up on arguments that you try and put in my mouth. Personally, I think it sucks that we're trading with China.
Maybe you should try finding out the difference between the vicious dictatorships that called themselves socialist and what socialism actually is.
Since it seems that you are the keeper of the true definition of socialism, why don't you just tell me what it is? I do take notice that you didn't actually respond to my charge that socialism implies that some people are making decisions for someone else.
BTW capitalism != democracy.
Obviously. Did I state the contrary? Democracy is mob rule. I believe in the rule of law; hence, Constitutional Republic.
I think the screenshots look quite nice (though I hate the file browser that has the directories and files in the same window -- iarchitect has an excellent explanation in their criticism of Windows Explorer as to why this is a bad design), and the features look compelling.
And yet, there are still quite a few people who absolutely loathe and detest KDE. Those of you who hate KDE, could you share for us why? I'm not doubting that you have compelling reasons; I'm instead looking for some valid criticisms of KDE instead of the tired and lame "KDE looks like Windows."
I'm afraid that the only reason Microsoft has done as well financially is successful is becuase IBM handed them the PC operating system market. If not for that event Microsoft probably would not exist.
It is luck, pure luck, which gave rise to Microsoft.
This reminds me of a time when I was working at my old company and one of my coworkers asked me if there was any computer (hardware or software) company that I liked. I answered, "No." (Though I admit that I didn't think very hard -- the only companies which came to mind were Sun, IBM, Hewlett Packard, and Microsoft, so I answered "no"). Then he asked me, "Do you like the company you're working for?"
I had to think about it. I eventually answered "yes," and I told him that I think it's a good idea to evaluate your company on a routine basis and ask yourself, "Is this the kind of company I want to work for?"
In the case of Microsoft, I would demand one billion dollars for every second that I work for them. That's really the only way I could feel justified working for them (demanding a salary which would bankrupt them), for they stand against everything I love about computing. It's time to re-read the Halloween documents and remind ourselves of exactly why and how Microsoft is so evil.
Slashdot Mirror
A while back I talked to a Microsoft technical drone who told me that Win2K will contain full command line support. He explained that everything that can be done from the GUI can be done from the command line. I recounted for him the story I read about another Microsoft spokesdroid stating that "the command line and scripting were weaknesses of UNIX." His response to that was to make a face at me.
So if what he says was true (and, of course, all his words are suspect as he was a Microsoft employee), then future versions of Windows will definately contain some kind of CLI support (which will probably be MS-DOS based).
Can someone clarify this matter?
People go to jail, but corporations don't. All they get is fines (which by the way I swear, are considered a business expense and a tax writeoff!).
I agree: this sucks. It shows how corporations are protected but individuals aren't. Kind of brings to light Ayn Rand's quote about the individual being the most persecuted minority.
Each corp. has a charter to exist granted it by the state; Nader suggests that if a corp. has a long-enough track record of evil, (eg tobacco companies) that the state revoke its charter (the company dies or gets suspended or some such).
How in the hell did you come to this conclusion? "The current law permits corporations to escape justice, so let's implement communism!" Perhaps you need to read Animal Farm, too. Or go see "The Killing Fields."
Also he's for taking away corporations' right to give money to politicians, which I think most people would agree with.
I'm not sure how I feel about this one.
I have to say, the Green Party is like open-source politics; it relies on volunteers (one paid person in the whole Northeast US, as far as I can tell).
And that's where the similarities between open-source (software) and The Red^H^H^HGreen Party end. When did open-source advocates indicate that the government should own all the biggest businesses and dictate how much money people can make?
If you want something done, you have to do it yourself!
That's awfully individualist of you.
It seems to me that you are playing with semantics to achieve your goal.
Who said anything about right? The "right" world, where nobody commits force or fraud or breaks an obligation to anyone else, *cannot exist*.
I was talking about "right" (the noun), meaning "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature." Then you accused me of talking about "right" (the adjective), meaning "Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality." You should already see where you have gone wrong.
So, granting that there are neglected children, we're no longer choosing between "right" and "wrong", even by libertarian axioms. We're choosing between a world with children getting cheated out of the majority of the food, shelter, and education that their parents should have been responsible enough to provide, and a world with taxpayers getting cheated out of a small fraction of their earnings to pay for children who aren't theirs.
Since your foundation is faulty, so is your conclusion. I agree that it is wrong that children go without food, clothing, or shelter. But that does not imply that the government has the right to take my money to "raise" those children.
There is no easy out, no "let's get the government out of the way and nobody gets their rights violated"; the very presupposition of children stuck in poverty means that somebody's rights are getting violated.
First, who defines what "poverty" is? Do you realize that under the current government definition of "poverty" I can live in a $500,000 house and own three Ferraris and still be living "in poverty"? Second, what "rights" are you talking about? Can you please indicate to me where in the Constitution these rights you mention are enumerated?
Even the majority of libertarians favor spending money on a police force to protect
people's lives and property; how is spending money on child welfare to protect their lives and property any morally different?
This displays your ignorance about the Libertarian party. You accept (correctly) that Libertarians recognize law enforcement as a valid function of government and then conclude (falsely) that Libertarians must also believe that it is the government, not parents, who should be responsible for "child welfare."
You're right, there is no "easy way out." That does not imply that the government is the "solution" to the problem.
In the 1950s, corporations paid 30% of all taxes int the US. Now they pay less than 10%.
Corporations do not pay taxes. They collect taxes.
One of the platforms of the Green party is that the largest corporations of the world should be carved up and taken over by the government. I believe that they have also proposed the idea of a "maximum wage."
Perhaps you need to go read Animal Farm again.
In a sense you're right: you must vote for one party or the other. Either the party that says that government is most fit to run your life, or the party that says that YOU are most fit to run your life. Do you thing that G.W. Bush and Al Gore are best fit to run your life?
I am continually bothered by the fact that Libertarians makes noone responsible for the less fortunate.
This is a lie. The Libertarian party makes the private sector responsible for the less fortunate. (You need to consult a dictionary to understand what I mean by the word "fortunate.") The huge problem with liberal thought is that whenever there is a problem the assumption is that the government has to step in to "fix" it. (Like they "fixed" our retirement with the bankrupt social security scam and they "fixed" health care for the elderly with the bankrupt Medicare scam). At this point usually the liberals scream, "But the Libertarian solution is not perfect! They'll leave kids starving in the streets!" Well guess what? Is the government solution perfect? Hell no! Will it ever be? Hell no! If you're looking for a "perfect" solution then you're going to be looking forever.
Not everyone comes out of a wealthy family that can afford a)health care b)good food and c)safe living conditions.
If someone can't afford health care, good food, and safe living conditions, then why the hell are they having children?? People treat it like it's some kind of right, and if they can't afford it then they have the right to use the government as an instrument of plunder.
but, if I use a cliche, think of the children.
Yes! The chiiiiiiilllllldren!!! The ultimate political whore!
Its not their fault mommie's a crackwhore, and daddy's in prison, but they get no welfare, can't pay for education, and don't stand a rats ass of surviving to adulthood.
You're right. But guess what? That doesn't make it my fault either! So how on earth does this give the government the right to take my money by force when it's not my goddamned responsibility?
And the rich grow richer.
This is the "evil rich" argument. The formula works this way: you can use peoples jealousy over other people's property to buy votes and political support. Pretty scummy, isn't it?
And don't give me that "voluntary taxation" shite. Look how well "voluntary standards" work (not at all). There will always be unpopular charities (like disease research that's doesn't have the word "cancer", or any celebrities suffering from it, but still kills/cripples lots of people), and besides, why should the charitable be punished, and the heartless be rewarded?
How much more popular would charities be if we weren't currently being taxed higher than we were during the height of world war II? And I don't know what your last question refers to, but let me counter with this: why should the achievers be punished and the irresponsible be rewarded?
Well, could be a state endorsement of judaism... The Ten Commandments being in the OLD
Testament an' all.
It could be, but it's really much more of a state endorsement of Christianity, since Christians outnumber Jews in this country about a gazillion to one (except in government, where the ratio is, from what I understand, different).
Most Christians believe that the Bible was written by God, through men. This is usually called "inspiration" by God. That idea comes from passages such as 2 Peter 1:20-21:
But scripture says nothing about how the books were chosen to go into the Bible, does it? Nor does it say anything about which manuscripts the books were translated from, right? So your "inspiration" argument falls flat on its face as soon as the pens left the parchment of the original autographa. But guess what? Even Christians concede that the original autographa no longer exist! So how do we know if the manuscripts which were used for translation were even valid? What verse in scripture will address this question?
The Bible was written by committee, not by God.
Still reeling from the absence of the Ten Commandments in public schools,
How would the posting of the Ten Commandments in government schools not be a state endorsement of Christianity?
without having the entire fossil record from the first genetic material to the present.
This is the stupid argument that Christians always bring up. "You don't have the entire fossil record, so how can you say it's true?" Well, the counter to that is this: Christians have no evidence of God, souls, angels, demons, heaven, hell, raising the dead, walking on water, or any miracles that Jesus himself promised Christians would be able to do, so how can Christians claim that they have "The Truth"? I guarantee that there is much more evidence for evolution than there is for any of those things I mentioned in the last sentence.
How can I feel good about myself if I am reminded that I share common ancestry with ape-brutes?
Why is the government's responsibility to protect your feelings? Do you have some special right enumerated in the Constitution which guarantees this?
I've been to the zoo, and I decline to write of the horrid, disgusting things I have seen the creatures do.
You also declined to write of the horrid, disgusting things that we have seen Christians do. You have also declined to write of the horrid, disgusting things that your God has done (such as mandating the murder of children, the ripping of infants from the wombs of their mothers by sword, and the taking of sexual plunder). Instead you chose to pick on animals which have not need for conscience nor morals.
Take a moment and reflect on the innocence lost the day our world left it's prominent spot
at the center of the universe.
The world's position did not change relative to the universe. It may have changed relative to the beliefs of human beings.
Does a man who is doing his utmost to get into heaven benefit from filling his head with theories?
Perhaps you need to go back and read your Bible a little more carefully. Did not Paul say that there is nothing you can do to enter heaven? That is is faith and faith alone which saves? Then again, perhaps you are following the words of Jesus instead, who stated that it is works and works along which grants entry into heaven. In that case, you are correct -- but it doesn't answer the blatant contradiction between Jesus and Paul on the most important question the Bible could possible raise: How can I escape eternal torture? I can think of at least four other ways the Bible says one can be saved, and they are all mutually exclusive. Which one is right?
Do we want our teachers questioning all that is good and decent, twisting things around with their fancy words?
Who decides what is "good and decent"? It certainly won't be "God." It will be some person, which, according to the Bible, is just as evil and "worthy of hell" as the next person.
In other words, you don't think it's funny. That doesn't change the fact that at least one other person *did* find it funny.
What I find interesting is that someone moderated you "insightful" for saying what amounts to "I disagree."
I run GNOME v1.2 at work and at home. At work it is flawless. At home, the tasklist_applet crashes constantly. It really sucks; it just spits out a gdk error and dies. I ended up writing a perl script that was a while(1){system("tasklist_appet");} and nohup'ing that. That brings a few quirks of its own, but at least it keeps the applet running.
:)
Personally, I agree with the original post. Perhaps some more stability improvements in GNOME are in order. I doubt that I'm the only one with quirky problems.
Not that I don't like GNOME -- I am using it 100% of the time.
I think that you and I agree on more things that you think we do. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in the last post, so let me say it here: The only thing I object to is the use of the word "unnatural" as a moral judgement. That is what I thought you were doing.
With this in mind and the incalculable risks of geneering, it should not be released in any way before it's proven without doubt (reasonable or not) that it's harmless.
I agree with what you say, except that you and I both know that it's impossible to *prove* anything (except maybe mathematical theorems and such things). It is possible to gather enough evidence to convince people, and I think that's what we're both after. I don't want an unsafe product released, either.
You think I eat flowers? I do not fucking care whether it's natural or from Krypton, wiping life off the planet is just not cool.
Can you calm down so that we can have a rational discussion? I agree with you here, too. Wiping all life off of Earth would be a bad thing! However, it would not be (as I gathered you thought) "unnatural." But here you admit that its being "natural" is not of any concern to you. I wonder then why you brought it up in your prior post, as that seemed to be the crux of your objection.
So is tetraodontoxin. Help yourself.
I think you are missing the point. I did not equate "natural" with "good." Child abuse is natural, after all, and I think it is the ultimate single evil act (as opposed to genocide, which I think falls in a different class of evil). My objection is to the misuse of the word "unnatural." It seems to me that when people do things that people don't like, some people will call those actions "unnatural" as a special label for "immoral."
How many people would you expect, who like a world riddled with deseases, old and new, where China's oppressive government is as dominant as US' oppressive (but PC) government is today and a single clever nanoscientist can change the biosphere into a ceramic shell in a few days? Obviously, the problem is not about judgment. I don't claim to know the future, I only claim to see risks, much larger ones than the risks posed by nuclear weapons.
How can you "see" risks? Personally, I can imagine risks, but you seem to contradict yourself by stating that you don't know the future while implying exactly the opposite. Others can imagine many benefits from new technology. Personally, I agree with you that your vision of the future would be crappy. But your calling it "unnatural" is bogus. All I ask is that you call it what it is ("crappy" works fine for me), not use the word "unnatural" for something that clearly is not.
People should not utterly annihilate a continents people and structures, as WASPs' ancestors (in a social, not racial sense) did in Africa. To now blame Africans for the consequences is beyond words.
Take note that it is you who brought up Africans. Children are starving all over the world, not just in Africa. Your inference that I was blaming Africans for anything is exactly that: your inference. I believe no such thing. My argument still stands: people should not have children that they cannot afford to raise. It is a grave injustice to bring a child into a world in which the parents cannot provide for her or him.
Sounds like you're making excuses for your actions with the 'everything we experience is completely natural' line. I think everyone can understand that when people say 'unnatural', they mean man-made, regardless of the fact that man is (more or less) 'natural'.
I am not excusing my actions with the "natural" argument. I am looking at the situation from this point of view: If I were a hyperintelligent alien looking down on humanity from space, what actions of humanity would seem "unnatural"? None of them, for humanity is part of nature, and thus all of their acts are also "occuring in nature." By your argument the surgery is unnatural. I say it is completely natural, for it is occuring in nature. It seems to me that you and others call things "unnatural" when you mean that those things should not happen in nature. But whether or not they should is irrelevent. The fact is that they do, and therefore they are natural.
Your comment about Nature not helping the Native Americans with smallpox is also off-base; there was nothing 'natural' about the migration of European microbes to North America by boatloads of colonists (unless you consider boats to be natural as well). Nature did provide Native Americans with what they needed to survive in their environment.
Are you saying that the European invasion of the Americas did not occur in nature? How else could you call it "unnatural"? It should be clear from my words how I feel about what happened to the Native Americans (the fact that Andrew Jackson is on the twenty-dollar bill is a travesty!). I object to the misuse of the word "natural," not the correct identification of the massive slaughter and mistreatment of Native Americans as a gravely evil act.
I think the only part of your comment that I consider even vaguely worth listening to is the idea that antibiotic-immune bacteria are natural; everything else is so much smoke in the wind.
I've noted the fact that you haven't really responded to my comment. You've only dismissed it with a couple of flawed arguments.
I did not say that children should starve; that was your inference. I believe that it is the job of the private sector to help those who are truly in need. As is, the government of the United States rewards people who have children that they cannot afford to raise. And the money used in said rewards is taken by force from other people.
I don't think that any human or group of humans has Nature's wisdom.
How the hell can nature have wisdom?
TV commercials hereabout are full of antibiotic stuff, inevitably producing immune strains. At least two cases of untreatable infections have already occured (Japan and USA, not Rwanda and Bangladesh) and physicians predict a post-antibiotic age.
As is completely natural.
While Nature's wisdom provided humanity with enough brain to weather anything natural thrown at them [ . . . ]
This statement is patently false. Nature didn't give much help to the Native Americans when they were introduced to smallpox.
Genetics and nanotechnology are easily capable of wiping life off the planet, even in tiny doses.
As is completely natural.
The sheer arrogance of scientist claiming to 'improve' stuff in days that is millions of years old is sickening.
Have you considered that the world is changing and perhaps you are just resistant to that change? Do you think that people 1,000 years ago would like and appreciate the world we have today (given that they could see and understand the future)? I would guess that some would and some wouldn't. Isn't that exactly what is happening right now? You're just one of the people who "sees" a future and doesn't like it. Likewise there are people here who see the same future and like it. Plus ça change, plus c'est the même chose, n'est-ce pas?
But this is all entirely natural. Everything we experience is entirely natural. People only say that things are "unnatural" when they want to demonize them.
Regarding your statement about Bill Gates, it's important for us all to recognize that he got his money through luck, not skill or hard work. Regarding your statement about starving children, people should not have children that they cannot afford to raise.
Why don't you get off your high horse! What kind of aristocrat are you? Sure, there are flaws to any kind of society, and capitalism's happens to be a separation of haves and have-nots.
There is always going to be a separation between the haves and the have-nots, even in the blessed socialist systems. King Bill and Queen Hillary get to do whatever they want while us, the lowly peons, only get to do what they think is best for us. How much public money has Hillary spent in her carpetbagging campaign? It totals in the millions. Do you have millions of other people's money to spend as you see fit?
But that doesn't mean we have to try to increase that flaw! No system is perfect, "pure" capitalism just leads to greed!
This is the idiotic "capitalism is greedy" argument. Greed is a psychological fact. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Does socialism magically make people not greedy? No. It just uses government force to try and compel people to behave according to the way their leaders dictate.
One of the major tenants of western democracy is equality. Don't try to tell me that you're more equal than others.
First, The United States is not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Second, we are guaranteed equal rights. Not equal health care, equal money, equal jobs, or equal entertainment.
If you think that the media in America is free then you really are blind.
I did not say anything about the American media, so this is a strawman. Furthermore, since you had to resort to calling me "blind" it is also an ad hominem. I suggest you study some logical fallacies which are common in debates. It would do well to improve the quality of your arguments.
And if capitalism is all about freedom, why are they so keen on trading with that most repressive of regimes, China.
There is a difference between capitalism (which is about competition and free markets) and corporatism (which is "whatever makes money is right"). You seem to like beating up on arguments that you try and put in my mouth. Personally, I think it sucks that we're trading with China.
Maybe you should try finding out the difference between the vicious dictatorships that called themselves socialist and what socialism actually is.
Since it seems that you are the keeper of the true definition of socialism, why don't you just tell me what it is? I do take notice that you didn't actually respond to my charge that socialism implies that some people are making decisions for someone else.
BTW capitalism != democracy.
Obviously. Did I state the contrary? Democracy is mob rule. I believe in the rule of law; hence, Constitutional Republic.
Thanks for the information. Shows what I get when I speak too soon. :)
I think the screenshots look quite nice (though I hate the file browser that has the directories and files in the same window -- iarchitect has an excellent explanation in their criticism of Windows Explorer as to why this is a bad design), and the features look compelling.
And yet, there are still quite a few people who absolutely loathe and detest KDE. Those of you who hate KDE, could you share for us why? I'm not doubting that you have compelling reasons; I'm instead looking for some valid criticisms of KDE instead of the tired and lame "KDE looks like Windows."
For the record, I use GNOME.
You're right. It's still pure luck.
Yes; it's amazing what appeals to people when they are being paid.
I'm afraid that the only reason Microsoft has done as well financially is successful is becuase IBM handed them the PC operating system market. If not for that event Microsoft probably would not exist.
It is luck, pure luck, which gave rise to Microsoft.
This reminds me of a time when I was working at my old company and one of my coworkers asked me if there was any computer (hardware or software) company that I liked. I answered, "No." (Though I admit that I didn't think very hard -- the only companies which came to mind were Sun, IBM, Hewlett Packard, and Microsoft, so I answered "no"). Then he asked me, "Do you like the company you're working for?"
I had to think about it. I eventually answered "yes," and I told him that I think it's a good idea to evaluate your company on a routine basis and ask yourself, "Is this the kind of company I want to work for?"
In the case of Microsoft, I would demand one billion dollars for every second that I work for them. That's really the only way I could feel justified working for them (demanding a salary which would bankrupt them), for they stand against everything I love about computing. It's time to re-read the Halloween documents and remind ourselves of exactly why and how Microsoft is so evil.
That doesn't make them stupid.
You're right. It makes them evil.