The United States is not a Democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Democracy is mostly similar to "mob rule." Take, for example, a democracy where 51% of the people decide that all the black people are inferior and should be enslaved. This is why the United States is not a democracy. Though we are, day by day, slipping closer toward it... notice how the Democrats are constantly viewing the polls and stating what the "American people" want. Who gives a shit what the American people want! If it violates the *law* it is illegal. Polls do not decide what laws should be followed and which should not.
Let me contradict your point with... scripture
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:18-20
God was too weak to drive out the mountain inhabitants because of their chariots of iron. So much for your omnipotent God. I know you're going to try and counter my point by playing the versions game.
Rubbish, Christianity has the full weight of Divine Truth behind it [ . . . ]
That depends on if the Bible is true, and a critical eye can easily see that it is one of the most flawed pieces of "literature" on the planet.
[ . . . ] and anyone who has accepted the love of the Lord can feel that in their hearts everyday.
This is the "If you feel it, it is true" argument. People who are drunk often feel like they "really love" their friends. People on acid see all sorts of strange things. Do those feelings validate the experience? Does it not strike you as interesting that religion is called "the opiate of the masses"?
Ultimately every person on the planet should realise the Truth of our Lord, irrespective of the colour of their skin.
Wrong, you need to wake up from the dreamworld you are living in and realize that you believe in a lie. If you aren't living in a lie, then would you please drink deadly poison for me? The Bible says you can do this and survive.
The only people who are to be hated are those who revel in Satan's unholy evil.
There is no evidence of Satan, hell, or demons. There is no evidence of heaven, God, souls, or angels. There is no evidence of Santa Claus, Zeus, or leprechauns. Your religion is a myth.
Those heathen sinners could do anything and it wouldn't suprise me, since they, like all who do not follow in the path of our Lord, are destined to Hell anyway.
Let me be graphic to illustrate a point: I am better than your God. I held down Jesus and had sex with him, and he liked it!
Tell me, how can I blaspheme like that and survive? In fact, I have blasphemed like this every day for almost three years now. And yet I'm happier now than I ever was when I was a Christian! Is your God too weak or too stupid to do anything about it? Shame on you for the liar you are!
It's your declaration of it as "egregious evil" that indicates to people that you've got some kind of problem [ . . . ]
What problem would that be?
"[ . . . ] you make it sound like Microsoft is the Third Reich. Which it's not - not by a loooooooooooong stretch. It's those kinds of statements that get people wondering.
I did not say Microsoft was the Third Reich. I claimed that they were evil. I infer from your statements that think that they are not. Could it be possible that the difference stems from what you and I recognize as "evil"?
Personally, I'd say lay off the caffeine and try to learn that life isn't binary; there are shades of gray. This way you'll find it much easier to deal with life in the real world.
You could have said, "Get a life," and said the same thing with fewer words. I don't see how you were able to take my hatred of Microsoft and conclude that I see life only in extremes. Awfully arrogant of you considering you and I have never met, and the only communication from me you have is the few things I have posted here on Slashdot.
Ultimately your post is merely a big ad hominem. If you disagree with my argument, then refute it. If you resort to attacking me, then it shows that either you have no argument or that your argument sucks. Doubting what you perceive as my mental health will not change my mind. A strong argument backed up with plenty of evidence would be infinitely more effecive.
If I were you, then I would proceed by challenging my notion of "evil." That certainly is up for debate.
On an unrelated note, you have a nice looking web page.
Your virulent-anti-Microsoft frame of mind coupled with the lack of *equally* strong foundations to back it up make me wonder about your mental health.
If you are a qualified mental health professional then I'd be interested to know what your diagnosis of my condition is after never meeting me and reading merely a few of my sentences. If you are not a qualified mental health professional, then it should be clear to you how idiotic it is for you to make statements about my mental health.
It can't be [ . ..]
This is an example of "trifurcation" (kind of like bifurcation, except with three examples instead of two). You attempt to discredit my argument my limiting me to three positions and then systematically shoot down each one. Do you think there could be another reason (or reasons) why I loathe and detest Microsoft? Would it make a difference to you if my reasons may be valid? At this point I can't tell if you care.
When you go off the deep end in your dislike of Redmond inhabitants you do more harm to your own position than to Microsoft's.
This is a valid argument, and I agree with you. I find it hard to temper my anger in the face of such egregious evil. At the same time, I know that the Microsoft people will point to me as some "foaming-at-the-mouth linux zealot." You know what? They're right. And it does hurt my position. But when I calm down and explain my position those Microsoft people get awfully quiet or get that deer-in-headlights look. Alas, I'm only human.
When I first talked to a Microsoft employee, it was all I could do to keep from screaming, "How can you do what you do and feel good about yourself! Are you some kind of whore!"
In my current, virulently-anti-Microsoft frame of mind, I don't know how I'd react if any of my friends went and worked there!
You probably don't feel as strongly about Microsoft as I do (I've found few people who do), but do your friends believe the same lies which Microsoft dumps on the public? I.e., have they been "brainwashed" to the "One Microsoft Way"?
And just why do you suppose that one-third of black men aged 18-29 are awating trial, in jail, or on parole? Could it have something to do with a culture of violence that most black people live in?
Yes, I know this is a politically unpopular idea. That's why we have the first amendment.
Any charges of "racism" will be met with the expectation that the person making the charge is capable of defining the term.
As much as I'm sick of arguing religion on Slashdot...
I'm happy to take the debate wherever you wish to go with it.
Globally and historically, Christianity has had its fair share of miracles. I know a LOT of people who have seen "big" miracles:
Globally and historically many religions have claimed miracles. You state that Christianity has had its "fair share" of miracles. Are you admitting that miracles happen in other religions as well? What about the Scientologists who claim that so-called "clears" can heal themselves? Does it not appear curious to you that the belief in supernatural powers seems to frequently follow the belief in some mythical "higher power"?
FWIW, I've seen a number of small ones myself. Yeah, yeah. If my ATM card with a damaged magnetic strip starts working when I pray over it in need, it might be coincidence. But the coincedences sure happen a lot more when I pray. And I really think that, if I continue TRAINING for godliness, I will see the big miracles.
And what happens when you pray for something and you don't get it? The Bible says that you will receive anything you pray for. I'm prepared for the "God grants only that which in his will" argument which usually follows. And why do you need to "train" to be able to make a fig tree wither immediately? Why can't you do it right now, and the Bible (Jesus, no less!) says you can?
That is using small snipits of a book very unfairly. Some parts of what is written in the bible are metaphors.
This is a poor argument. How do you know some parts of the Bible are metaphors? And if you're going to argue that moving a mountain is a metaphor then I'm going to argue that heaven, hell, God, and the resurrection are all metaphors, too. What you are doing is just another form of "That's what it says, but that's not what it means."
While I have seen people peack in tounges and sometimes found out they are really an existing language, the majority of the passage you quoted is again using sybolic language, describing all of the great things his followers would do. It is sometimes used in heritcal cults, though I agree with you, there is no way I am going to first cyanide.
"Symbolic language"? Same argument as before; how do you know what is symbolic and what is not? And thank you for implying that you will, in fact, die if you ingest cyanide, despite the fact that scripture states the contrary. Tell me, if you disbelieve that part of scripture, what else to you disbelieve?
Godel's uncertainty therom proved that there are things that are absolutly true that are unprovable. Knowing this your insistance on proof will ultimatly fail at explaining everything, that has been proven.
This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. What you are saying is "that [it] has been proven" that proof proves nothing.
Furthermore, I didn't insist on proof, and I don't believe things based on proof (except maybe mathematical theorems). I believe things based on evidence. Can I prove that there are no humans living on the surface of the sun? No. Do I believe that there are humans living on the surface of the sun? No. Why? Lack of evidence. Same thing goes for Zeus, Allah, and even your mythical god.
...unless he can drink deadly poison and survive, move a mountain with his faith and faith alone, and make a fig tree wither with his faith and faith alone. Why is the Bible given such respect despite the fact that it cannot live up to its grandiose claims? And why is Billy Graham given such respect despite the fact that he believes a book which claims that people walk on water and rise from the dead?
Anyone is welcome to challenge my allegations. Feel free to email me.
In fact, some people who profess to be Christians, and many others of different beliefs, do indeed drink poison and live. Can you PROVE that these things are impossible? If you can't then you shouldn't make such strong statements.
Let's go back and see what scripture says:
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." -Mark 16:17-18 (NIV)
The scripture doesn't say "just any old poison," it says deadly poison. In other words, a Christian can drink a gallon of drano laced with a pound of cyanide and "it will not hurt them at all." It is not my responsibility to prove it impossible, for the burden of proof falls upon he who alleges. And I believe that it was the Bible and its believers who made this allogation long before I ever lived. Your allegation that I'm making "strong statements" is fairly idiotic in light of the fact that you are defending a book which claims you can drink deadly poison and survive, move a mountain with your faith, and make a fig tree wither immediately with your faith.
I find it quite amusing that you think that your endorsement, or lack thereof, can make a difference one way or the other as to what is possible in this universe and what is not. You would be best served by leaving these topics to those more qualified and knowledgable than yourself.
I find it rather amazing that you believe in a book in which people walk on water, rise from the dead, and are sucked up to heaven in fiery chariots. And insisting that I'm not "qualified" or "knowledgable" enough to point out the flaws in scripture is an ad hominem. If my argument is wrong, then you should be able to refute it easily. Otherwise, why do you need to attack me?
Furthermore, your tone could not be much more condescending. Not very becoming of a Christian, supposedly a person with ultimate humility.
Feel free to email me if you would like me to show you many of the numerous flaws and contradictions in the Bible.
People do not want software that is "easy to use." People want software that looks good. Compare pine and Lotus Notes (as an email client). Which one looks better? Lotus Notes. Which one is easier to use? Pine, by far. But the good-looking one wins.
So don't try and tell me that Microsoft has made software that is easy to use. Visit iarchitect and you can see plenty of counterexamples which prove that a pretty GUI does not deliver an easy-to-use interface. (They have a whole section devoted to that colossal pile of dung known as Lotus Notes.) I don't believe that there is such a software that is "easy enough for the average person to use." I think that there is some psychological phenomenon which turns many people into morons whenever they get near a computer. Read Computer Stupidities for some excellent examples.
Until a computer is developed that completely understands human speech, no software can be "easy to use." And when I say "completely understands," I mean a computer than understands jokes, puns, idioms, and mispronunciations with a 99.999% accuracy; one that can really guess what the user "meant to say." Remember, the true test of fluency in a langauge is when you can understand jokes in that language.
Well done, friend! I think you are exactly right. Remember that CNN (the "Clinton News Network") has strong leftist leanings, and is much more willing to criticize big business and their crimes than it is to criticize big government and its crimes.
I think both government and business collaborate and compete for our privacy. The government is allowed to use force to achieve its goals. Of course, that does not make the evil actions of big business less evil.
I'd moderate your post up, but I lost my moderator status yesterday.;)
Hey, I was mostway through a long reply when Netscape crashed! Long live Microsoft, eh?;) Listen, I am really interested in the discussion and would like to continue. If you don't mind, I'll email my reply this weekend to you. I visited your web page and I believe we agree on most everything except antitrust.
This is the kind of smug self-assuredness that annoys me about the typical slashdot crowd.
Attacking what you percieve as my "smug self-assuredness" is not going to change my position. Save your breath and attack my argument instead.
Here is the crux of your argument:
I support Microsoft primarily for economic and political reasons. The theory surrounding antitrust is full of holes, and this country would be better off without antitrust laws at all. Antitrust as currently written is vague, overly broad, and basically makes every corporation with a large market share in violation of the law. This makes any successful company a target of potential lawsuits, which envious competitors use to beat in the courtroom those who they couldn't beat in the marketplace.
This is not very compelling. What are the "holes" in antitrust theory? And your argument that antitrust laws are "vague" and "overly broad" is weak, since those adjectives apply to hundreds of other laws as well. It seems that your problem is with antitrust itself, not with the vagueness and too-broad-ness of legislation.
I believe that no company has a right to make a profit. A company only has a right to produce a product or a service and hope that it's good enough that someone buy it. I believe that antitrust is a valid reason for government, for I believe that the *only* thing a company can do in order to sell more products or services is to improve the quality of their products and services so that consumers prefer them to the products and services of the company's competitors. They have to work very very hard, innovate, cut costs, and be very smart.
I think there are a lot of people who assume that any company which is successful is therefore right. (Essentially an ad crumenam argument.) This can only be true if the successful company achieved their success by hard work and skill and nothing else.
But we all know that luck and trechery beat out hard work and skill any day of the year. It isn't hard at all to see where Microsoft was unbelievably lucky (MS-DOS), and the trecherous part is what antitrust seeks to stop.
It is no accident that Sun, Netscape, and Oracle-- three of Microsoft's biggest competitors-- are actively supporting this case. I think this is a clear case of competitors using antitrust law as a club against more able competitors.
Likewise it is also no surprise that a rape victim cheers the law which puts her attacker in prison. Your argument only works under the assumption that Microsoft has done nothing wrong.
I can certainly understand that intelligent people can disagree with me. I am extremely annoyed, however, that the reverse is not true. There is a near-universal assumption that anyone who opposes the dominant anti-Microsoft view is either woefully misinformed or in the pay of the Evil Empire.
There is another type that I can think of: those people whose jobs depend on Microsoft products. Given that you don't know what the difference between NT server and NT workstation is (and thus how that relates to IIS), that you don't know how and why Direct3D got so popular, and that you don't know how much Internet Explorer costs, I think you are uninformed.
For the record, I've never paid Microsoft a penny for its products, own no Microsoft stock, and have never been paid by them. I simply believe in the value of free markets and the right of producers to keep the fruits of their labors.
I didn't assume you were a Microsoft worshipper. The other type of Microsoft supporter is the Ayn Rand type of capitalist who believes that any company which is successful is, by virtue of their success, right. If you accept that there can be some anticompetitve actions taken by companies which are excusable, then the only question remaining is, "How much do we let companies get away with?"
Companies only like "free markets" as long as they can enter the market freely to make money. Otherwise, they hate free markets. They would much rather be the sole producer of any given product. Then they wouldn't have to work so hard to make money. Companies would much rather sell us their excrement (literally!) than have to work hard to make good products. Competition ensures hard work and innovation, and companies can not be expected to play fair to ensure that competition exists.
I don't see why you use the Holocaust as an example.
Assume that he wasn't using the Holocaust as an example. His point is still valid, and you did not address it. If "majority rule" is the law of the land, and the majority of the people want to kill all of the Jews, then what happens?
For what it's worth, I'd also like to remind you that it's entirely possible for moderately intelligent, well-informed members of the public to support Microsoft.
If you ask almost any moderately intelligent and well-informed member of the public what the difference between NT server and NT workstation is, or how and why Direct3D became so popular, or how much Internet Explorer *really* costs, then you'll get a dear-in-headlights stare back at you. I think that it is impossible to support Microsoft if you are concerned about the future of computing and computer science as science, regardless of your intelligence or how well-informed you are.
Whether or not I qualify as "moderately intelligent, well-informed", I am a member of the public, and I am a proud Microsoft customer, supporter and shareholder. Yeah, crazy, huh?)
What about Microsoft makes you proud?
Personally, I think your attitude smacks of elitism and if anything, undermines your point.
By implying that the majority of people are too stupid to dictate the law of the land? Frankly, I agree with him and I don't think there's anything elitist or otherwise wrong in saying that. What's the difference between "Democracy" and "Mob Rule"?
I'd say, on the whole, our legislators are generally well-educated, presumably intelligent and America's "best and brightest." And look how badly Congress is capable of screwing things up. I doubt the track record of the general public could be that much worse:)
Most all of our elected officials are power-grabbing bastards. They don't have to be intelligent; they just have to say what enough voters want to hear in order to keep them in power. Why do you think the democrats insist on enacting and maintaining bankrupt social schemes? Because those schemes buy votes! Why do you think the Republicans keep trying to criminalize behavior in which no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property? Because such legislation buys votes!
And as far as the public's track record goes: WCW Nitro, Rosie O'Donnell, and NASCAR are immensely popular with the public. C-SPAN is not. Tell me again why you think that the public can be trusted to govern this country?
This reminds me of a ridiculous and stupid thing I read a while back in some columbine-reactionary-editorial. It said, and I'm paraphrasing, It's a shame that such violence happens in high school, the one place where kids are supposed to feel safe.
I read that and I thought, "What fairyland, mythical high school did this person go to!" I don't know about y'all, but high school (and middle school, too) for me was the most brutal, cruel, dehumanizing, and horrible social experience I can remember. In high school people can do things with minor repercussions that, in the adult world, are called "slander," "assault," "sexual harrassment", and "battery." Adults and legislators look on this and say, "This is just normal high school activity" and then act shocked when one of them has had enough and decides to kill some of his/her tormentors.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has fantasized more than once during school about murdering some of his evil classmates.
So if assault, battery, sexual harrassment, and slander are "ok," then why are people having such a cow over mere libel? And when I say "ok" I mean "punished very lightly despite the severity of the crime." I once had a person tell me to my face, "I'm going to rip off your f*cking head and ram it up your g*ddamn ass, you f*cking f*ggot" and he meant every word of it. (No doubt he could have made good on his promise, too. I was a little crybaby kid in high school.) What defense does the average high school kid have against that crime? And this poor kid was arrested for calling people "drunks" and "sluts"?
So why is there a double standard? What makes libel so egregious while assault and sexual harrassment are overlooked as "typical high-school kid-stuff"?
Remember: Lawyers are trained to intimidate people. Don't allow yourself to be intimidated. Answer factually and rely on your lawyers. You have my best wishes!
What if 60% of the citizens vote "yes" to kill all of the jewish citizens?
What is the difference between "democracy" and "mob rule"?
Regarding your.sig, as long as the luser is not a criminal then yes I would allow him/her to have a gun. Root access and the right to be able to defend oneself with a handgun are two very different things.
I've read most of Katz's postings when they're available. I thought his pieces were thought-provoking, sometimes insightful, and sometimes stupid. But what I am really disappointed with is the reactions that many people post whenever Katz's postings are mentioned here. "Katz sucks!" "Yet another one of Katz's iditotic diatribes." Iterate those as many times as you can adding some padding words, and you may possibly get 35% of the postings which will follow.
If you disagree with Katz then point out where his statements are invalid and back up your contentions with evidence. That will be much more effective than posting some variant of "Katz sucks!" and you won't come off souding like a petulant child to boot.
I totally agree with you that we need openness and criticism, but I think you are working from the assumption that all criticism is valid in any shape or form. This is not the case. There is a difference between constructive criticism and flaming. If the person wanted to make a good argument then she/he would have made a statement and provided some points to back it up. Instead, the person seems to be sarcastically attacking mozilla and providing no supporting statements. Hence, I think a moderation of that post as "flamebait" is valid.
There is no place for ad hominems, insulting sarcasm, and deliberately hurtful words in open discourse. Otherwise, I could argue something totally horrible and irrelevant like, "you're wrong because you're gay and you fsck your father" and that would be protected under the guise of "criticism."
I welcome constructive critism and differing points of view. I eschew and reject any other kinds of critisicm or negativity, and I do not think they belong on Slashdot.
I'm always learning something new about IBM. They are an amazing company -- even if part of their history is downright evil. For a while they had a compilier which they considered so awesome that they wouldn't even sell it. You had to ship your source code to IBM on tape, they would compile it, and then return the object code to you on tape. Hearing that was almost too much for my little GPL-steeped brain to handle.;)
Having said that, their mainframe products are still the gold standard for speed and reliability in a corporate IT environment.
Agreed, particularly on the reliability front. Perhaps the speed would be more obvious if OS/390 wasn't so sucky! (Again, my biased opinion.) Some folks don't seem to realize that (I think) every bank and financial institution on the planet relies on an IBM mainframe and that won't be changing anytime soon. IBM is faaaar from irrelevent.
Which means that some of us UNIX people are going to have to continue to be familiar with all those ridiculous acronyms and gobs of proprietary, expensive IBM hardware. As long as we don't have to learn SNA!
Slashdot Mirror
The United States is not a Democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Democracy is mostly similar to "mob rule." Take, for example, a democracy where 51% of the people decide that all the black people are inferior and should be enslaved. This is why the United States is not a democracy. Though we are, day by day, slipping closer toward it... notice how the Democrats are constantly viewing the polls and stating what the "American people" want. Who gives a shit what the American people want! If it violates the *law* it is illegal. Polls do not decide what laws should be followed and which should not.
God was too weak to drive out the mountain inhabitants because of their chariots of iron. So much for your omnipotent God. I know you're going to try and counter my point by playing the versions game.
Rubbish, Christianity has the full weight of Divine Truth behind it [ . . . ]
That depends on if the Bible is true, and a critical eye can easily see that it is one of the most flawed pieces of "literature" on the planet.
[ . . . ] and anyone who has accepted the love of the Lord can feel that in their hearts everyday.
This is the "If you feel it, it is true" argument. People who are drunk often feel like they "really love" their friends. People on acid see all sorts of strange things. Do those feelings validate the experience? Does it not strike you as interesting that religion is called "the opiate of the masses"?
Ultimately every person on the planet should realise the Truth of our Lord, irrespective of the colour of their skin.
Wrong, you need to wake up from the dreamworld you are living in and realize that you believe in a lie. If you aren't living in a lie, then would you please drink deadly poison for me? The Bible says you can do this and survive.
The only people who are to be hated are those who revel in Satan's unholy evil.
There is no evidence of Satan, hell, or demons. There is no evidence of heaven, God, souls, or angels. There is no evidence of Santa Claus, Zeus, or leprechauns. Your religion is a myth.
Those heathen sinners could do anything and it wouldn't suprise me, since they, like all who do not follow in the path of our Lord, are destined to Hell anyway.
Let me be graphic to illustrate a point: I am better than your God. I held down Jesus and had sex with him, and he liked it!
Tell me, how can I blaspheme like that and survive? In fact, I have blasphemed like this every day for almost three years now. And yet I'm happier now than I ever was when I was a Christian! Is your God too weak or too stupid to do anything about it? Shame on you for the liar you are!
It's your declaration of it as "egregious evil" that indicates to people that you've got some kind of problem [ . . . ]
What problem would that be?
"[ . . . ] you make it sound like Microsoft is the Third Reich. Which it's not - not by a loooooooooooong stretch. It's those kinds of statements that get people wondering.
I did not say Microsoft was the Third Reich. I claimed that they were evil. I infer from your statements that think that they are not. Could it be possible that the difference stems from what you and I recognize as "evil"?
Personally, I'd say lay off the caffeine and try to learn that life isn't binary; there are shades of gray. This way you'll find it much easier to deal with life in the real world.
You could have said, "Get a life," and said the same thing with fewer words. I don't see how you were able to take my hatred of Microsoft and conclude that I see life only in extremes. Awfully arrogant of you considering you and I have never met, and the only communication from me you have is the few things I have posted here on Slashdot.
Ultimately your post is merely a big ad hominem. If you disagree with my argument, then refute it. If you resort to attacking me, then it shows that either you have no argument or that your argument sucks. Doubting what you perceive as my mental health will not change my mind. A strong argument backed up with plenty of evidence would be infinitely more effecive.
If I were you, then I would proceed by challenging my notion of "evil." That certainly is up for debate.
On an unrelated note, you have a nice looking web page.
Your virulent-anti-Microsoft frame of mind coupled with the lack of *equally* strong foundations to back it up make me wonder about your mental health.
If you are a qualified mental health professional then I'd be interested to know what your diagnosis of my condition is after never meeting me and reading merely a few of my sentences. If you are not a qualified mental health professional, then it should be clear to you how idiotic it is for you to make statements about my mental health.
It can't be [ . . .]
This is an example of "trifurcation" (kind of like bifurcation, except with three examples instead of two). You attempt to discredit my argument my limiting me to three positions and then systematically shoot down each one. Do you think there could be another reason (or reasons) why I loathe and detest Microsoft? Would it make a difference to you if my reasons may be valid? At this point I can't tell if you care.
When you go off the deep end in your dislike of Redmond inhabitants you do more harm to your own position than to Microsoft's.
This is a valid argument, and I agree with you. I find it hard to temper my anger in the face of such egregious evil. At the same time, I know that the Microsoft people will point to me as some "foaming-at-the-mouth linux zealot." You know what? They're right. And it does hurt my position. But when I calm down and explain my position those Microsoft people get awfully quiet or get that deer-in-headlights look. Alas, I'm only human.
When I first talked to a Microsoft employee, it was all I could do to keep from screaming, "How can you do what you do and feel good about yourself! Are you some kind of whore!"
In my current, virulently-anti-Microsoft frame of mind, I don't know how I'd react if any of my friends went and worked there!
You probably don't feel as strongly about Microsoft as I do (I've found few people who do), but do your friends believe the same lies which Microsoft dumps on the public? I.e., have they been "brainwashed" to the "One Microsoft Way"?
And just why do you suppose that one-third of black men aged 18-29 are awating trial, in jail, or on parole? Could it have something to do with a culture of violence that most black people live in?
Yes, I know this is a politically unpopular idea. That's why we have the first amendment.
Any charges of "racism" will be met with the expectation that the person making the charge is capable of defining the term.
As much as I'm sick of arguing religion on Slashdot...
I'm happy to take the debate wherever you wish to go with it.
Globally and historically, Christianity has had its fair share of miracles. I know a LOT of people who have seen "big" miracles:
Globally and historically many religions have claimed miracles. You state that Christianity has had its "fair share" of miracles. Are you admitting that miracles happen in other religions as well? What about the Scientologists who claim that so-called "clears" can heal themselves? Does it not appear curious to you that the belief in supernatural powers seems to frequently follow the belief in some mythical "higher power"?
FWIW, I've seen a number of small ones myself. Yeah, yeah. If my ATM card with a damaged magnetic strip starts working when I pray over it in need, it might be coincidence. But the coincedences sure happen a lot more when I pray. And I really think that, if I continue TRAINING for godliness, I will see the big miracles.
And what happens when you pray for something and you don't get it? The Bible says that you will receive anything you pray for. I'm prepared for the "God grants only that which in his will" argument which usually follows. And why do you need to "train" to be able to make a fig tree wither immediately? Why can't you do it right now, and the Bible (Jesus, no less!) says you can?
That is using small snipits of a book very unfairly. Some parts of what is written in the bible are metaphors.
This is a poor argument. How do you know some parts of the Bible are metaphors? And if you're going to argue that moving a mountain is a metaphor then I'm going to argue that heaven, hell, God, and the resurrection are all metaphors, too. What you are doing is just another form of "That's what it says, but that's not what it means."
While I have seen people peack in tounges and sometimes found out they are really an existing language, the majority of the passage you quoted is again using sybolic language, describing all of the great things his followers would do. It is sometimes used in heritcal cults, though I agree with you, there is no way I am going to first cyanide.
"Symbolic language"? Same argument as before; how do you know what is symbolic and what is not? And thank you for implying that you will, in fact, die if you ingest cyanide, despite the fact that scripture states the contrary. Tell me, if you disbelieve that part of scripture, what else to you disbelieve?
Godel's uncertainty therom proved that there are things that are absolutly true that are unprovable. Knowing this your insistance on proof will ultimatly fail at explaining everything, that has been proven.
This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. What you are saying is "that [it] has been proven" that proof proves nothing.
Furthermore, I didn't insist on proof, and I don't believe things based on proof (except maybe mathematical theorems). I believe things based on evidence. Can I prove that there are no humans living on the surface of the sun? No. Do I believe that there are humans living on the surface of the sun? No. Why? Lack of evidence. Same thing goes for Zeus, Allah, and even your mythical god.
...unless he can drink deadly poison and survive, move a mountain with his faith and faith alone, and make a fig tree wither with his faith and faith alone. Why is the Bible given such respect despite the fact that it cannot live up to its grandiose claims? And why is Billy Graham given such respect despite the fact that he believes a book which claims that people walk on water and rise from the dead?
Anyone is welcome to challenge my allegations. Feel free to email me.
Actually, it is you who has reasoned defectively.
In fact, some people who profess to be Christians, and many others of different beliefs, do indeed drink poison and live. Can you PROVE that these things are impossible? If you can't then you shouldn't make such strong statements.
Let's go back and see what scripture says:
The scripture doesn't say "just any old poison," it says deadly poison. In other words, a Christian can drink a gallon of drano laced with a pound of cyanide and "it will not hurt them at all." It is not my responsibility to prove it impossible, for the burden of proof falls upon he who alleges. And I believe that it was the Bible and its believers who made this allogation long before I ever lived. Your allegation that I'm making "strong statements" is fairly idiotic in light of the fact that you are defending a book which claims you can drink deadly poison and survive, move a mountain with your faith, and make a fig tree wither immediately with your faith.
I find it quite amusing that you think that your endorsement, or lack thereof, can make a difference one way or the other as to what is possible in this universe and what is not. You would be best served by leaving these topics to those more qualified and knowledgable than yourself.
I find it rather amazing that you believe in a book in which people walk on water, rise from the dead, and are sucked up to heaven in fiery chariots. And insisting that I'm not "qualified" or "knowledgable" enough to point out the flaws in scripture is an ad hominem. If my argument is wrong, then you should be able to refute it easily. Otherwise, why do you need to attack me?
Furthermore, your tone could not be much more condescending. Not very becoming of a Christian, supposedly a person with ultimate humility.
Feel free to email me if you would like me to show you many of the numerous flaws and contradictions in the Bible.
That is, unless, someone can do the following for me:
1. Drink poison and survive
2. Move a mountain with faith and faith alone
3. Make a fig tree wither immediately with faith and faith alone.
But no Christian can, despite the fact that the Bible says otherwise.
The plural of "Nazi" is "Nazis," not "Nazi's."
People do not want software that is "easy to use." People want software that looks good. Compare pine and Lotus Notes (as an email client). Which one looks better? Lotus Notes. Which one is easier to use? Pine, by far. But the good-looking one wins.
So don't try and tell me that Microsoft has made software that is easy to use. Visit iarchitect and you can see plenty of counterexamples which prove that a pretty GUI does not deliver an easy-to-use interface. (They have a whole section devoted to that colossal pile of dung known as Lotus Notes.) I don't believe that there is such a software that is "easy enough for the average person to use." I think that there is some psychological phenomenon which turns many people into morons whenever they get near a computer. Read Computer Stupidities for some excellent examples.
Until a computer is developed that completely understands human speech, no software can be "easy to use." And when I say "completely understands," I mean a computer than understands jokes, puns, idioms, and mispronunciations with a 99.999% accuracy; one that can really guess what the user "meant to say." Remember, the true test of fluency in a langauge is when you can understand jokes in that language.
Well done, friend! I think you are exactly right. Remember that CNN (the "Clinton News Network") has strong leftist leanings, and is much more willing to criticize big business and their crimes than it is to criticize big government and its crimes.
I think both government and business collaborate and compete for our privacy. The government is allowed to use force to achieve its goals. Of course, that does not make the evil actions of big business less evil.
I'd moderate your post up, but I lost my moderator status yesterday. ;)
Hey, I was mostway through a long reply when Netscape crashed! Long live Microsoft, eh? ;) Listen, I am really interested in the discussion and would like to continue. If you don't mind, I'll email my reply this weekend to you. I visited your web page and I believe we agree on most everything except antitrust.
Regards,
Jimmy
I have been perfecting my regex for IBM products. Before your post, it was this:
As you can see, this regex matches the following IBM products:
However, if what you say about (what I thought was written as) DB/2 is correct, then my regex has to be modified again:
This is the kind of smug self-assuredness that annoys me about the typical slashdot crowd.
Attacking what you percieve as my "smug self-assuredness" is not going to change my position. Save your breath and attack my argument instead.
Here is the crux of your argument:
I support Microsoft primarily for economic and political reasons. The theory surrounding antitrust is full of holes, and this country would be better off without antitrust laws at all. Antitrust as currently written is vague, overly broad, and basically makes every corporation with a large market share in violation of the law. This makes any successful company a target of potential lawsuits, which envious competitors use to beat in the courtroom those who they couldn't beat in the marketplace.
This is not very compelling. What are the "holes" in antitrust theory? And your argument that antitrust laws are "vague" and "overly broad" is weak, since those adjectives apply to hundreds of other laws as well. It seems that your problem is with antitrust itself, not with the vagueness and too-broad-ness of legislation.
I believe that no company has a right to make a profit. A company only has a right to produce a product or a service and hope that it's good enough that someone buy it. I believe that antitrust is a valid reason for government, for I believe that the *only* thing a company can do in order to sell more products or services is to improve the quality of their products and services so that consumers prefer them to the products and services of the company's competitors. They have to work very very hard, innovate, cut costs, and be very smart.
I think there are a lot of people who assume that any company which is successful is therefore right. (Essentially an ad crumenam argument.) This can only be true if the successful company achieved their success by hard work and skill and nothing else.
But we all know that luck and trechery beat out hard work and skill any day of the year. It isn't hard at all to see where Microsoft was unbelievably lucky (MS-DOS), and the trecherous part is what antitrust seeks to stop.
It is no accident that Sun, Netscape, and Oracle-- three of Microsoft's biggest competitors-- are actively supporting this case. I think this is a clear case of competitors using antitrust law as a club against more able competitors.
Likewise it is also no surprise that a rape victim cheers the law which puts her attacker in prison. Your argument only works under the assumption that Microsoft has done nothing wrong.
I can certainly understand that intelligent people can disagree with me. I am extremely annoyed, however, that the reverse is not true. There is a near-universal assumption that anyone who opposes the dominant anti-Microsoft view is either woefully misinformed or in the pay of the Evil Empire.
There is another type that I can think of: those people whose jobs depend on Microsoft products. Given that you don't know what the difference between NT server and NT workstation is (and thus how that relates to IIS), that you don't know how and why Direct3D got so popular, and that you don't know how much Internet Explorer costs, I think you are uninformed.
For the record, I've never paid Microsoft a penny for its products, own no Microsoft stock, and have never been paid by them. I simply believe in the value of free markets and the right of producers to keep the fruits of their labors.
I didn't assume you were a Microsoft worshipper. The other type of Microsoft supporter is the Ayn Rand type of capitalist who believes that any company which is successful is, by virtue of their success, right. If you accept that there can be some anticompetitve actions taken by companies which are excusable, then the only question remaining is, "How much do we let companies get away with?"
Companies only like "free markets" as long as they can enter the market freely to make money. Otherwise, they hate free markets. They would much rather be the sole producer of any given product. Then they wouldn't have to work so hard to make money. Companies would much rather sell us their excrement (literally!) than have to work hard to make good products. Competition ensures hard work and innovation, and companies can not be expected to play fair to ensure that competition exists.
I don't see why you use the Holocaust as an example.
Assume that he wasn't using the Holocaust as an example. His point is still valid, and you did not address it. If "majority rule" is the law of the land, and the majority of the people want to kill all of the Jews, then what happens?
For what it's worth, I'd also like to remind you that it's entirely possible for moderately intelligent, well-informed members of the public to support Microsoft.
If you ask almost any moderately intelligent and well-informed member of the public what the difference between NT server and NT workstation is, or how and why Direct3D became so popular, or how much Internet Explorer *really* costs, then you'll get a dear-in-headlights stare back at you. I think that it is impossible to support Microsoft if you are concerned about the future of computing and computer science as science, regardless of your intelligence or how well-informed you are.
Whether or not I qualify as "moderately intelligent, well-informed", I am a member of the public, and I am a proud Microsoft customer, supporter and shareholder. Yeah, crazy, huh?)
What about Microsoft makes you proud?
Personally, I think your attitude smacks of elitism and if anything, undermines your point.
By implying that the majority of people are too stupid to dictate the law of the land? Frankly, I agree with him and I don't think there's anything elitist or otherwise wrong in saying that. What's the difference between "Democracy" and "Mob Rule"?
I'd say, on the whole, our legislators are generally well-educated, presumably intelligent and America's "best and brightest." And look how badly Congress is capable of screwing things up. I doubt the track record of the general public could be that much worse :)
Most all of our elected officials are power-grabbing bastards. They don't have to be intelligent; they just have to say what enough voters want to hear in order to keep them in power. Why do you think the democrats insist on enacting and maintaining bankrupt social schemes? Because those schemes buy votes! Why do you think the Republicans keep trying to criminalize behavior in which no one is deprived of life, liberty, or property? Because such legislation buys votes!
And as far as the public's track record goes: WCW Nitro, Rosie O'Donnell, and NASCAR are immensely popular with the public. C-SPAN is not. Tell me again why you think that the public can be trusted to govern this country?
This reminds me of a ridiculous and stupid thing I read a while back in some columbine-reactionary-editorial. It said, and I'm paraphrasing, It's a shame that such violence happens in high school, the one place where kids are supposed to feel safe.
I read that and I thought, "What fairyland, mythical high school did this person go to!" I don't know about y'all, but high school (and middle school, too) for me was the most brutal, cruel, dehumanizing, and horrible social experience I can remember. In high school people can do things with minor repercussions that, in the adult world, are called "slander," "assault," "sexual harrassment", and "battery." Adults and legislators look on this and say, "This is just normal high school activity" and then act shocked when one of them has had enough and decides to kill some of his/her tormentors.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has fantasized more than once during school about murdering some of his evil classmates.
So if assault, battery, sexual harrassment, and slander are "ok," then why are people having such a cow over mere libel? And when I say "ok" I mean "punished very lightly despite the severity of the crime." I once had a person tell me to my face, "I'm going to rip off your f*cking head and ram it up your g*ddamn ass, you f*cking f*ggot" and he meant every word of it. (No doubt he could have made good on his promise, too. I was a little crybaby kid in high school.) What defense does the average high school kid have against that crime? And this poor kid was arrested for calling people "drunks" and "sluts"?
So why is there a double standard? What makes libel so egregious while assault and sexual harrassment are overlooked as "typical high-school kid-stuff"?
Remember: Lawyers are trained to intimidate people. Don't allow yourself to be intimidated. Answer factually and rely on your lawyers. You have my best wishes!
What if 60% of the citizens vote "yes" to kill all of the jewish citizens?
What is the difference between "democracy" and "mob rule"?
Regarding your .sig, as long as the luser is not a criminal then yes I would allow him/her to have a gun. Root access and the right to be able to defend oneself with a handgun are two very different things.
I've read most of Katz's postings when they're available. I thought his pieces were thought-provoking, sometimes insightful, and sometimes stupid. But what I am really disappointed with is the reactions that many people post whenever Katz's postings are mentioned here. "Katz sucks!" "Yet another one of Katz's iditotic diatribes." Iterate those as many times as you can adding some padding words, and you may possibly get 35% of the postings which will follow.
If you disagree with Katz then point out where his statements are invalid and back up your contentions with evidence. That will be much more effective than posting some variant of "Katz sucks!" and you won't come off souding like a petulant child to boot.
I totally agree with you that we need openness and criticism, but I think you are working from the assumption that all criticism is valid in any shape or form. This is not the case. There is a difference between constructive criticism and flaming. If the person wanted to make a good argument then she/he would have made a statement and provided some points to back it up. Instead, the person seems to be sarcastically attacking mozilla and providing no supporting statements. Hence, I think a moderation of that post as "flamebait" is valid.
There is no place for ad hominems, insulting sarcasm, and deliberately hurtful words in open discourse. Otherwise, I could argue something totally horrible and irrelevant like, "you're wrong because you're gay and you fsck your father" and that would be protected under the guise of "criticism."
I welcome constructive critism and differing points of view. I eschew and reject any other kinds of critisicm or negativity, and I do not think they belong on Slashdot.
I'm always learning something new about IBM. They are an amazing company -- even if part of their history is downright evil. For a while they had a compilier which they considered so awesome that they wouldn't even sell it. You had to ship your source code to IBM on tape, they would compile it, and then return the object code to you on tape. Hearing that was almost too much for my little GPL-steeped brain to handle. ;)
Having said that, their mainframe products are still the gold standard for speed and reliability in a corporate IT environment.
Agreed, particularly on the reliability front. Perhaps the speed would be more obvious if OS/390 wasn't so sucky! (Again, my biased opinion.) Some folks don't seem to realize that (I think) every bank and financial institution on the planet relies on an IBM mainframe and that won't be changing anytime soon. IBM is faaaar from irrelevent.
Which means that some of us UNIX people are going to have to continue to be familiar with all those ridiculous acronyms and gobs of proprietary, expensive IBM hardware. As long as we don't have to learn SNA!