This seems like a really silly attitude to take. Yes, I'm pro-linux, but my OS is not my religion.
Another reason to go all-Linux is because Microsoft is evil. For me, this is a religious issue, I suppose. After seeing Microsoft's repeated and blatant attempts to turn computing and networking into something they control, police, and tax, I can never use their products again and feel good about it.
To say, "I have to use Microsoft because it does what I want it to do" is an invalid argument to me. I do not compromise with evil. Period.
The expected response to this is, "This is so typical of Linux zealots." That is ad hominem. You would have a much more effective argument if you disputed my claim which is central to my argument: Microsoft is evil. Unfortunately the facts are not on your side if you're going to try to argue that Microsoft is actually good.
Let me ask this question again: how different would developers feel about developing games for Linux if all of the Linux users who currently use Windows stopped using Windows, went compeletely Linux, and demanded Linux versions?
BTW, I use "Linux," but you can substitute your alternative OS of choice. I'm much more anti-Microsoft than I am pro-Linux. But I do like Linux a heck of a lot.
I knew nothing at mainframes until I worked at a shop where one was used. Coming from a Windoze/UNIX background I was really really surprised to learn that there is this whole other mainframe universe in which there are many people working, coding, and living as if Windoze and UNIX didn't even exist. (Well, of course they're all aware of Microsoft.)
I got to learn a little bit about OS/390 (the operating system which runs on those mainframes) and it's a nightmare (in this UNIX bigot's opinion). lrecl, fb or vb, PDSes, GDGs, ftp commands like 'put BFDG.XD.DIWDOS(+1)', ISPF, fortythousand acronyms, gawd. From what I understand, IBM didn't even consider supporting TCP/IP until about ten years ago or so -- for a very Microsoft reason: they don't want to support any protocols they can't control (see also Direct3D vs. OpenGL and kerberos). There are several thousand supported instructions on IBM's assembler for OS/390. This is because there was such a huge number of assembler programmers for OS/390 IBM kept adding instructions to make programming easier. If I understand correctly, I think there is even a "print" instruction in OS/390 assembler.
90% of IBM's products =~ m|\w\w?/\d{1,4}|;
But the IBM of today is, what appears to me, a very different company. The prospect of running Linux on IBM is, in my mind, revolutionary for IBM. The prospects of Linux on IBM look really cool -- kind of like compacting hundreds of linux boxen into one big, black, airstreamed box with a big, red, candylike power switch that screams "Flip me!" So I think this is great. The more Linux, the better.
One of the things that I think is a serious drawback to Linux gaming is the fact that so many Linux users still use Windows. "But I have to have games!" they whine.
About a year ago I decided that I would never willingly use Windows again, and I turned my dual-boot machine into a Linux-only machine. Yes, I lost a lot of apps and games, but I looked at it this way: what benefit am I doing to the Linux cause if I still settle for Windows? Guess what -- I am a much happier person now.
If you are currently dual-booting, ask yourself the following questions: What good am I doing for myself or for Linux by continuing to use Windows? How much stronger would the Linux gaming (and application) lobby if every single person who dual-booted became Linux-only users and demanded Linux versions?
If you really want to help the cause of Linux without having to code, test, or write documentation, then the absolute best thing for you to do is to eliminate all Microsoft products forever. You will survive, I promise. And you'll be a smarter person for it too.
There are probably many other web pages talking about the many non-Linux-related aspects of E3 that you could find on zdnet or perhaps gamecenter.com. What exactly did you expect to find on slashdot?
I think most Europeans know that the U.S. is one of the most sexually repressed countries in the world. I think that there are some middle-eastern totalitarian religious regimes which may beat it out, but not by much. At the same time, the porn industry in America is absolutely huge. But because of the fact that there are so many tightwad Americans who think that there is something wrong with porn, it's never referred to in the same sentence as "legitimate" companies such as Microsoft, Aetna, and R. J. Reynolds.
And I find that interesting becuase I think those three companies I mentioned are much more unethical than any porn industry could ever dream to be. Porn is "sinful," yet making money off of R. J. Reynolds's stock value (inflated by the cancer-ridden corpses of millions and the perjury of the Seven Dwarfs) is acceptable.
I wonder how long it will take for porn to receive the legitimate business treatment that it deserves in America. Is some kind of web app like this the answer? (Yeah, I know, -1 Offtopic. But it's been something I've been wanting to mention for a while and this seemed like as good a time as any!)
Honestly, I didn't think this to be a comp.religion.flamewars thing. In my world this was all started by Phillip's statements:
Lisp is the most powerful and also easiest to use programming language ever developed.
The best introduction to Lisp is also the best introduction to computer science[.]
Lisp programmers forced to look at Perl code would usually say "if there were any justice in this world, the guys who wrote this would go to jail."
I was merely questioning these kinds of statements. I wanted some evidence to back up those statements. Tell me, is it not Phillip who was making flamewar type statements?
And I must respond to something you wrote:
But you came on the scene telling philg off, saying that LISP and other MIT tools are bad news, and demanding refutation.
I do not remember telling Phillip off. Perhaps you thought that my words were aggressive, for I did question his judgement (because of his fawning over what I believe is a language that is useless outside of academic circles). I did not say LISP is bad news (though from the little I've seen I do believe it to be a Lot of Idiotic, Stupid Parentheses), nor did I say that "MIT tools" are bad news. I did infer that MIT people were snobs, based on what Phillip had said about LISP. And I did not demand refutation, I demanded evidence. And If I have the burden of proof, as you claim I do, tell me, what is it that I am supposed to prove to you? I remember questioning, not alleging. And the burden of proof falls on he/she who alleges.
The reason I'm so "obsessed" as you claim I am is because I asked some simple questions and got an earful of slander. Your attitude in your first response is no expection (but I do appreciate your improved attitude in this recent response). If you read Phillip's first response to me, you'll see he was downright rude. So now it's bit of a sticking point to me. It's petty of me to do so, but the fact that I couldn't get straight answers the first time around and received a bunch of personal attacks has made me want to demand the truth of the LISPers.
And yes, I know that I can pick up LISP and learn it. I tried that about a year ago. Funnily enough, the resources on LISP are meager compared to the resources on Perl, Python, C, Tcl, etc. When I did find a tutorial, I found language to be non-intuitive and ugly. Plus I'm fond of things like iteration and variables. Perhaps I didn't receive the right introduction, perhaps I'm just stupid. Regardless, I know quite enough syntax of C, Perl, and shell to do everything I need to do. I don't want to waste my precious time having to learn another language which I think is worthless outside of academic circles. Programmers always have to choose which programming language to use for their projects, and there must be a reason why the vast majority of them choose not to use LISP.
And I told you why I thought your argument was not valid. Your previous argument only goes to show how LISP can be a good educational tool, but does not show any uses of LISP.
I hope that this helps show you what I'm thinking. I'm not against you or Phillip. What I'm against is this notion that "LISP is great, and if you don't agree then you're not a good programmer." This is the attitude that I've seen emenating from LISPers, and I think its a negative and divisive attitude that needs to die. Is my impression wrong? I'm not afraid to admit that I'm wrong, for I often am.
Am I making sense to you?
Regarding the.sig, thanks. It's a long story where it came from. e-mail me if you're really interested.
I think you are arguing from the wrong place from the beginning. I was first responding to Phillip's contention (and all of the other LISP-ers contention) that LISP is "the easiest and most powerful programming language." It was Phillip who made the statement, and thus it is Phillip who must prove his statement. I am taking the skeptical viewpoint, which explains why I am looking for evidence. The burden of proof falls upon the person who alleges. This is why your statement, "Firstly, you have yet to prove that LISP is worthless; your lack of knowledge of apps is not proof." is ridiculous. I have to prove nothing. It is up to the LISP people to prove that LISP is everything that they claim it to be.
I must also add that you are taking the tone of the whining, pissed-off LISP bigot, not the tone of an effective defender of LISP. For example, "But to humor the remainder of your post..." Honestly, you don't need to humor me. You would find that your words are much more effective if you provide me with compelling evidence.
You give some good points about some of the aspects of LISP as to why it may be better than other programming languages. But that's not what I was requesting, if you remember. What I asked for is this: Name me some applications that are written in LISP, and name me the technical reasons why LISP was chosen in those situations. I will add one more caveat here: the application must not have been written by MIT people.
Phillip Greenspun gave one example, but he only fulfilled half of my request: he didn't tell me why LISP was chose -- meaning, what were the compelling technical reasons to choose LISP over any other langauge? Also, was the application written by MIT people? Also, was the application written entirely in LISP, or only partially? The answers to these questions could quickly weaken the yahoo store as evidence of the usefulness of LISP. Furthermore, he brought up the number $50 million three times. I interpreted this as an ad crumenam argument.
"So, you've reiterated your position; which we've heard like 4-5 times now." This cannot be true, for I think I've only posted my opinion two or three times. If you were just being snide, then remember that your being snide, condescending, or insulting will not convince me. Evidence will.
"Your contention that LISP has no functional value is hopefully negated by the above." Actually, it's not negated at all. Your argument is pathetic. I asked specifically what would convince me that LISP is useful outside of academic snobbery, and yet your response matches what I have heard up to this point. Reading your answers I can conclude that LISP would be very valuable as a teaching tool, but I still see no evidence of anything outside of that. Perhaps if it *were* something more than that, then you and millions of others would be using it in place of Perl. I could be wrong, though, provided that you or someone can provide me of some evidence of real applications that are actually written in LISP.
"But you have failed to inform us why your preferred languages are better, other than that they are popular (which we already knew)." The usefulness of LISP will be proven much more easily by LISP itself, not by me trying to "one-up" LISP with something else. All I ask is that someone show my why LISP is more than just the snobbery of some elitist MIT bigots. I don't think that's too much to ask, considering the grandiose claims that MIT people seem to make about LISP.
It's obvious that you know a lot more about LISP than I do, and I'll even say that you know a lot more about programming languages than I do. Given that, perhaps you'd like to tell me the areas in which LISP is crap as compared to other langauges, and why that might contribute to its non-use outside of academic and MIT circles.
Bottom line is that Emacs + clever programmer will always crush a fancy commercial tool + weak programmer.
I brought this up when the AD university was announced, and I received quite a bit more ad hominems than I did real responses to my argument. My feelings about AD then are the same as they are now: this is coming from a person whose teaching is swayed by this bizarre bias towards LISP and Emacs. Honestly, why could the sentence above not be written as, "Bottom line is that a text editor + clever programmer will always crush a fancy commercial tool + weak programmer."? Is Emacs really so incredible that anyone not using it is not a good programmer (as Phillip implies)?
Let me reiterate my position: I think LISP and Emacs are used more for their religious value than their functional value. (Moreso LISP than Emacs, for people are actually using Emacs to develop things -- people in my office are doing it right now. But they're not writing in LISP, of course.) LISP, like Pascal, can be a great teaching tool, but is otherwise worthless. I asked people to tell me what has been written in LISP, and I received nebulous answers, "research projects," and ad hominems. However, if someone can produce some evidence for me that shows me that LISP is something more than just ivory tower bigotry (that means show me actual applications that were written in LISP and why the technical merits of LISP made it the optimal language to use for those applications), then my opinion about LISP will change. Since I see no evidence that LISP is anything but ivory tower bigotry, I think that Phillip's judgement must be questioned when he calls LISP "the most powerful and also easiest to use programming language ever developed."
A side note: are LISP people just jealous that C, Tcl, and Perl are much more useful (and thus used) than LISP?
And Phillip, if you're reading, I did not get a response to my last post. You can check it out here . I was enjoying the discussion and was hoping I could get some answers to my questions.
Flames, as always, will be ignored. And if you find yourself flaming me, then you are losing the argument.
One of the biggest lies of socialism is that they want to "make everyone equal" or that they believe that "everyone is equal." Yet how can this be possible when one group of people (government) gets to decide what is right and wrong for another group of people (non government)? How could this possibly fit in with the definition of equality? How equal are the Cubans compared to Castro's regime which controls all media and believes that the Cubans citizens are "property of the state"? Socialists believe that the government knows best, but governments are always comprised of people who are just as corrupt as any person you can find on the street.
I would be happy to be a socialist as long as I knew 100% that the socialiast government in question was completely infallible. For this same reason I stopped pledging allegiance to the American flag when I was in high school. Why would I pledge allegiance to a government that is not infallible? Why would I pledge allegiance to a government which might use its CIA to conduct brainwashing experiments on its own citizens? (Yes, the CIA did this!)
I am a strong believer in individualism, free enterprise, competition (bust up M$), and freedom. Socialism stands in the way of every one of those goals, and I have no problem thinking that I would literally go to war to put bullets in the heads of those people who dare try and take those freedoms from me. If this sounds harsh to you, then try to remember how many people died in China's "Great Leap Forward."
And as far as our movement being founded by communists: so what? It is far from a "communist movement." If it were, then the state would mandate that all software companies had to produce software for free. But that's not what it is -- It's much more of a meritocracy. Those who have the best brains turning out the best code have ascended to the thrones of the Open Source movement. I'm sure it irks you to think that some people have actually succeeded without the help of the government.
I don't understand what your point is in posting this. The book is posted on an MIT site. It's written by three people who are obviously affiliated with MIT. So of course they're going to fawn over the incredible awesomeness of LISP. That is one of my beliefs: that the only people who talk about how great LISP is are MIT people. My question is this: are there any non-MIT people who will rave on and on about how great LISP is?
I beg you: prove me wrong. Show me that LISP advocacy is more than just MIT snobbery.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I can see your point of view. At the same time, I think it enables me to put mine into better perspective.
My whole point is that I feared a course in programming coming from a person who was a LISP/Emacs/MIT bigot. Mind you, this is my impression of MIT people: they think they are smarter than everyone else, they think Emacs is better than any other application (I believe you wrote on your web page, "All good programmers will spend most of their time in Emacs," from which I infer that if you aren't spending most of your time in Emacs, then you're not a good programmer), and they think that LISP is better than any other programming language. In short, they are elitist snobs. I used a few of your quotes regarding LISP and Perl to illustrate.
But am I wrong about MIT people? Are they not snobs? Is LISP really a useful programming language? I don't know, I can be convinced otherwise. But I think that I'm not the only one who has this opinion.
If you look back on some of the things in your respone to my response, I think they can still reinforce my point:
Lisp programmers were too busy congratulating themselves for being smarter than C programmers.
As for Lisp, a lot of language bigotry caused Lisp programmers to waste time arguing and reimplementing Lisp instead of building apps.
So I can't be all wrong about LISP programmers being snobs.
And as to your claims about what LISP as produced,
The operating system. Time-sharing. RSA encryption. TCP/IP and a lot of earlier network stuff.
This does not really look all that impressive. Isn't it true that several of these concepts were also implemented in other langauges other than LISP? Isn't it also true that there are hundreds of other concepts in the field of computer science that were implemented in languages other than LISP? In short, what makes LISP so great? What makes it stand out among the other languages? To me, the only thing that makes it stand out is the LISP "bigots" who are "too busy congratulating themselves for being smarter than C programmers."
And another question, I understand that you are tired of people arguing about which language is better than the other, and I certainly understand that. Why then did you go into detail about how awesome LISP is and how horrible Perl is? If the tools are unimportant, then I don't see the point in all the LISP touting and Perl bashing.
I must add that what I am totally against is a few people being elitist about some "lots of inane and stupid parentheses" language that no one is using except for some research projects at MIT. Personally, I think it's what gives MIT programmers a bad name.
Phillip, there's no need to get uppity. If I'm in the wrong, and I often am, then simply pointing out to me where I'm wrong and educating me as to the truth in this situation will be sufficient to change my point of view.
Why do we use Tcl for this last step? We don't anymore. ArsDigita will build you a 100% pure Java site and support it.
This is not an improvement! Java has proven itself to be nothing but hype and nothing but slow. Where is this supposed "Java revolution" that's supposed to have happened? Tcl/Tk (or Perl/Tk, for that matter) is more cross platform than is Java and faster, too. It is Java which has earned the moniker "Write once, Debug everywhere," not Tcl/Tk.
It turns out that AOLserver is a great efficient proven Web development tool. It happened to include a compiled-in Tcl interpreter. So we used it.
Why didn't AOLserver include a compiled-in LISP interpreter? For that matter, why isn't there any web server which includes a comiled-in LISP interpreter? If LISP is as great as you people claim it is, then certainly there should be at least one, right? Several people have come to your defense by saying, "The reason that AD didn't use LISP is because they used AOLserver, which used Tcl." I think that's a cop-out. The response is obvious: Then why didn't AD select a web server which uses LISP?
If we were as smart as you, we'd have rewritten the whole thing in Perl instead of building a $20 million (revenue) profitable business.
If you have built a $20 million in revenue profitable business then you have built one more $20 million in revenue business than I have, and that is to be congratulated. Why then do you feel the need to make such snide comments to me like the one above?
If you don't know about any of the advancements in computer technology developed at MIT over the last 40 years nor any of the useful innovative software systems written in Lisp, maybe you should take a computer history course.
Why don't you just tell me some of them? Provide hyperlinks if available. I will be convinced and believe your point of view if I see good evidence that LISP is as great as you claim it to be. But as is, you look much more like an upset, MIT snob than an effective defender of LISP.
This is from the glossary of Phillip and Alex's guide to Web publishing.
LISP: "Lisp is the most powerful and also easiest to use programming language ever developed. Invented by John McCarthy at MIT in the late 1950s, Lisp is today used by the most sophisticated programmers pushing the limits of computers in mathematical physics, computer-aided engineering, and computer-aided genetics. Lisp is also used by thousands of people who don't think of themselves as programmers at all, only people who want to define shortcuts in AutoCAD or the Emacs text editor. The best introduction to Lisp is also the best introduction to computer science."
And here's what he says about Perl: "Lisp programmers forced to look at Perl code would usually say 'if there were any justice in this world, the guys who wrote this would go to jail.'"
Elsewhere on the site, he has this to say about Perl: "As nasty and tasteless as Tcl is, it is a positive dream compared to Perl. The only conceivable way to write a correct Perl program IMHO is cutting and pasting from someone else's code."
I'm up on free education as the next joe, but take into account how biased this type of education may be. If you read on in the site, you'll read more about "MIT this" and "MIT that." Perhaps that's why he thinks LISP is so great. From what I understand, MIT is a haven for LISP and Emacs bigot, whereas evereywhere else most everyone uses Perl, C, shell, Python, and other useful programming languages.
And that's another comment I'd like to make. Almost every LISP bigot I've heard of talks about how "beautiful" LISP is. My reaction is, So what if it's beautiful? Computer languages are written to be useful, not just beautiful. Is anyone actually developing anything useful in LISP? I think it's pretty obvious that Perl is very useful.
I apologize if this seems off-topic, but for me I feel wary of education which may actually be rife with a bunch of MIT intellectual "LISP is beautiful!" garbage. If LISP is so great then why does ArsDigita use Tcl instead of the almighty beautiful LISP?
Like everyone, I have heard time and time again how great Win2K is. I think what is important to realize is that in almost every cirumstance it is being called great only when it is being compared to NT 4.0.
It now includes a telnet server, which NT 4.0 did not. It has only 2 things which require a reboot, unlike the 60 or so that NT 4.0 required. It's now a lot more stable than NT 4.0. It now includes plug and pray, which NT 4.0 didn't. It now allows for command-line administration, which NT 4.0 didn't. And on and on and on...
The problem with this is that it does not show how good that Win2K is. It only shows how bad NT 4.0 is. Looking at it all I cannot believe that Microsoft had the unbelievable nerve to charge a damn thing for that piece of dog shit known as NT. It is an insult to our intelligence as technichal people, but not to the intelligence of management (who bought into the lies of Microsoft).
The only time I've seen Win2K being compared to another OS is when Inactive Directory is being compared to NDS. From the (biased) reports I've seen, it looks like NDS is better.
Win2K is only great in that it's a lot better than the problems that Microsoft created with NT4. I can't wait to see Microsoft destroyed by the DOJ and by the EU. They deserve it.
"All our sysops dont know fuck about novell because they have been using MacOS all along..."
First, if all of their skills are in MacOS, then why are they your sysops? I think that they should rather be your advertisers or graphic designers or one of those other Mac-friendly type jobs.
Second, if the sysops don't know how to use the OS, then it makes more sense to train them how to use the current OS then to license yet another OS which they don't know how to use.
Third, NT is not easy to use. If it were, then there would not be so many people complaining about it. I admit that it looks better than Novell, but that does not make it easier to use. That is one of the biggest problems with point-and-drool people: they equate "more attractive" with "easier to use."
And I'm hardly a Novell advocate. I just think NT is a big pile of dog shit and I can't believe so many people have been suckered into paying money for it. I recently had to install some software on some NT machines. I was amazed at how many reboots I had to do, how it asked me, "You should exit all other Windows applications" (why?), how slow it was, how un-intuitive setting up devices and the network was, and how single-user-minded it was. I really wish that ISS would port its software to a real operating system.
One of my favorite NT lies is that NT is "easy to use" while *IX is "obscure," "archaic," and "1960's technology."
If NT is "easy to use," then shouldn't it also be easy to make secure as well? The fact that it takes time and skill to "properly" configure an NT server to be secure undermines the claim that NT is "easier" than *IX.
One of the interesting things about Windows2000 is that it has complete command-line functionality; at least, that's what the Microsoft brainwashed drone told me. In other words, anything you can do from the GUI you can do from the command line. And I thought that Microsoft's claim that the command line was "archaic" and "going away." Microsoft lies lead to Microsoft failures and backpedaling. It's a shame that they are so good at marketing and politics.
The Federal Government is the largest it's been ever. But I think the real problem is not the government, but the complacent Americans who sit and let it happen while getting really worked up watching NASCAR and Ally McBeal. We currently are at the highest tax level we've been at since World War II, and Americans are freaking out about... having to pay ATM fees?
Those of us who belive in freedom and individual responsibility must evangelize. Nowadays I like Linux and Libertarianism for the same reasons: for me, both mean that I am smart enough to make my own choices and I do not need any other person, government, or corportaion to make my choices for me.
I have noticed that anytime someone posts a pro-Microsoft post like this that they almost always post as an Anonymous Coward. Is this because they're too afraid of slashdot "retribution"? Or is it perhaps because a certain percentage of them are Microsoft employees?
And I've also noticed that the tone of these pro-Microsoft posts are almost always along the lines of, "See, you Linux zealots. Microsoft does turn out some good thing *after all.* That ought to show you! Microsoft rulez!" Even despite some serious evidence that whatever is being commented on can be debunked by more than one other story.
In other news, my corporation now has a Microsoft employee in our building who is helping us with an evaluation of Windows NT. I met him and shoot his hand, but I didn't really know how to react. As a representative of my company, I was cordial. But I honestly had a lot of questions that I wanted to ask him. Lots of questions ranging from pointed to downright insulting.
It amazes me the crap which comes out of normally intelligent people. It seems that once they go in to "god mode" then they lose all ability to think.
Schools force owr kids to learn Evolution as a fact. If you look into it, you'll find that there is no posable way that it works on any time schedule.
Care to elaborate on this "no possible way that it work on any time schedule"? Sounds like a big fat opinion to me. In the meantime perhaps you can explain how the earth was created only 4 thousand years ago. Or perhaps you are one of those people who believe that five billion years somehow passed between Gen 1 and Gen 2.
So it is a belief, not a fact.
I believe it based on the facts. There is still no factual evidence behind heaven, hell, souls, angels, deamons, or god. Hence, I don't believe all that garbage.
So I guess Christians dont have the fredom to pray in school? I bet you didn't say anything when they took that freedom away.
Perhaps we didn't say anything because that freedom was never removed. What *was* removed was the school sponsorship of prayer and the attempt to use school power to force all the kids to pray. Let me say this again: No one is preventing any child any where in the United States from praying in school. I dare and defy you to show me any instance of a law being created that denies anyone the right to pray in school.
Religion is 'man trying to reach or attain God. But Christianity is 'God trying to reach man.'
Chapter and verse, please. Likewise, show some evidence that Xtianity is somehow different from all the other religions out there.
You know the commandment about 'thow shalt not kill(murder)?'
Which is it, Xtian? "Kill," or "murder"? They are quite different! I guess it depends on which translation you read, doesn't it?
Ow yeah, it's a commandment by the way.
Maybe for you, but not for me. And as much as you probably want to, you can't make be believe your crap. I wonder how many Xtian moderators will moderate this one down becuase it doesn't "further the cause of Christ"?
I totally agree. There are people who are in jail for many, many years because of drug use (possession). Yet some of our leaders (Dubya, Clinton, Gore, Gingrich) seem to be exempt from this punishment. Blatant hypocrisy and abuse of power! The "War on Drugs" is not a war on drugs at all -- otherwise they would alcohol and tobacco which kill more people in a year than cocaine use has ever killed. Not to mention marijuana which has never killed *anyone*. If you want to see a web site that will piss you off in five minutes then visit www.injusticeline.com. Vote libertarian!
Liar. The biggest of the NT lies is "NT is easy to use." To a skilled UNIX sysadmin adding a user by hand is also "too easy." The fact that something like this requires all the steps that you describe totally blows away the conention that NT is "easy to use." NT should just pop up a messagebox that says, "I've found a problem and I'm fixing it." Or better yet, it fixes the problem silently without any user interaction needed. As is you outlined at least six involved steps that are necessary to fix this problem, and yet you call this "easy." Heh. Only easy to those who have seen and fixed it multiple times. But that couldn't have happened considering that NT is rock-solid and a problems of any sort are extremely rare, right?
>Are you on a network (y/n)
>(y) copy your suspect volume to the network. make >sure you are not running any >applications or services that could have locks on >any of the files.
And how can you verify that in an easy way, since NT is so easy to use?
> Stop services with control >panel, kill stray processs with taskman. Use the >xcopy (or scopy as needed) command and >/s/e/c/h / switches to upload your disk to a >server.
You mean from the command line? God, I thought that the command line was cryptic technology from the '60s that should be going away with all those dinosaur-like UNIX servers.
> Verify the integrity of the copy!.
Shouldn't NT do this for you? I thought it was supposed to be easy to use!
>Format the partition. Copy data back to newly >formated drive.
With the same cryptic and outdated command-line argument you gave us before? Or are the cryptic switches different when you copy back?
Slashdot Mirror
This seems like a really silly attitude to take. Yes, I'm pro-linux, but my OS is not my religion.
Another reason to go all-Linux is because Microsoft is evil. For me, this is a religious issue, I suppose. After seeing Microsoft's repeated and blatant attempts to turn computing and networking into something they control, police, and tax, I can never use their products again and feel good about it.
To say, "I have to use Microsoft because it does what I want it to do" is an invalid argument to me. I do not compromise with evil. Period.
The expected response to this is, "This is so typical of Linux zealots." That is ad hominem. You would have a much more effective argument if you disputed my claim which is central to my argument: Microsoft is evil. Unfortunately the facts are not on your side if you're going to try to argue that Microsoft is actually good.
Let me ask this question again: how different would developers feel about developing games for Linux if all of the Linux users who currently use Windows stopped using Windows, went compeletely Linux, and demanded Linux versions?
BTW, I use "Linux," but you can substitute your alternative OS of choice. I'm much more anti-Microsoft than I am pro-Linux. But I do like Linux a heck of a lot.
I knew nothing at mainframes until I worked at a shop where one was used. Coming from a Windoze/UNIX background I was really really surprised to learn that there is this whole other mainframe universe in which there are many people working, coding, and living as if Windoze and UNIX didn't even exist. (Well, of course they're all aware of Microsoft.)
I got to learn a little bit about OS/390 (the operating system which runs on those mainframes) and it's a nightmare (in this UNIX bigot's opinion). lrecl, fb or vb, PDSes, GDGs, ftp commands like 'put BFDG.XD.DIWDOS(+1)', ISPF, fortythousand acronyms, gawd. From what I understand, IBM didn't even consider supporting TCP/IP until about ten years ago or so -- for a very Microsoft reason: they don't want to support any protocols they can't control (see also Direct3D vs. OpenGL and kerberos). There are several thousand supported instructions on IBM's assembler for OS/390. This is because there was such a huge number of assembler programmers for OS/390 IBM kept adding instructions to make programming easier. If I understand correctly, I think there is even a "print" instruction in OS/390 assembler.
90% of IBM's products =~ m|\w\w?/\d{1,4}|;
But the IBM of today is, what appears to me, a very different company. The prospect of running Linux on IBM is, in my mind, revolutionary for IBM. The prospects of Linux on IBM look really cool -- kind of like compacting hundreds of linux boxen into one big, black, airstreamed box with a big, red, candylike power switch that screams "Flip me!" So I think this is great. The more Linux, the better.
One of the things that I think is a serious drawback to Linux gaming is the fact that so many Linux users still use Windows. "But I have to have games!" they whine.
About a year ago I decided that I would never willingly use Windows again, and I turned my dual-boot machine into a Linux-only machine. Yes, I lost a lot of apps and games, but I looked at it this way: what benefit am I doing to the Linux cause if I still settle for Windows? Guess what -- I am a much happier person now.
If you are currently dual-booting, ask yourself the following questions: What good am I doing for myself or for Linux by continuing to use Windows? How much stronger would the Linux gaming (and application) lobby if every single person who dual-booted became Linux-only users and demanded Linux versions?
If you really want to help the cause of Linux without having to code, test, or write documentation, then the absolute best thing for you to do is to eliminate all Microsoft products forever. You will survive, I promise. And you'll be a smarter person for it too.
There are probably many other web pages talking about the many non-Linux-related aspects of E3 that you could find on zdnet or perhaps gamecenter.com. What exactly did you expect to find on slashdot?
I think most Europeans know that the U.S. is one of the most sexually repressed countries in the world. I think that there are some middle-eastern totalitarian religious regimes which may beat it out, but not by much. At the same time, the porn industry in America is absolutely huge. But because of the fact that there are so many tightwad Americans who think that there is something wrong with porn, it's never referred to in the same sentence as "legitimate" companies such as Microsoft, Aetna, and R. J. Reynolds.
And I find that interesting becuase I think those three companies I mentioned are much more unethical than any porn industry could ever dream to be. Porn is "sinful," yet making money off of R. J. Reynolds's stock value (inflated by the cancer-ridden corpses of millions and the perjury of the Seven Dwarfs) is acceptable.
I wonder how long it will take for porn to receive the legitimate business treatment that it deserves in America. Is some kind of web app like this the answer? (Yeah, I know, -1 Offtopic. But it's been something I've been wanting to mention for a while and this seemed like as good a time as any!)
Honestly, I didn't think this to be a comp.religion.flamewars thing. In my world this was all started by Phillip's statements:
Lisp is the most powerful and also easiest to use programming language ever developed.
The best introduction to Lisp is also the best introduction to computer science[.]
Lisp programmers forced to look at Perl code would usually say "if there were any justice in this world, the guys who wrote this would go to jail."
I was merely questioning these kinds of statements. I wanted some evidence to back up those statements. Tell me, is it not Phillip who was making flamewar type statements?
And I must respond to something you wrote:
But you came on the scene telling philg off, saying that LISP and other MIT tools are bad news, and demanding refutation.
I do not remember telling Phillip off. Perhaps you thought that my words were aggressive, for I did question his judgement (because of his fawning over what I believe is a language that is useless outside of academic circles). I did not say LISP is bad news (though from the little I've seen I do believe it to be a Lot of Idiotic, Stupid Parentheses), nor did I say that "MIT tools" are bad news. I did infer that MIT people were snobs, based on what Phillip had said about LISP. And I did not demand refutation, I demanded evidence. And If I have the burden of proof, as you claim I do, tell me, what is it that I am supposed to prove to you? I remember questioning, not alleging. And the burden of proof falls on he/she who alleges.
The reason I'm so "obsessed" as you claim I am is because I asked some simple questions and got an earful of slander. Your attitude in your first response is no expection (but I do appreciate your improved attitude in this recent response). If you read Phillip's first response to me, you'll see he was downright rude. So now it's bit of a sticking point to me. It's petty of me to do so, but the fact that I couldn't get straight answers the first time around and received a bunch of personal attacks has made me want to demand the truth of the LISPers.
And yes, I know that I can pick up LISP and learn it. I tried that about a year ago. Funnily enough, the resources on LISP are meager compared to the resources on Perl, Python, C, Tcl, etc. When I did find a tutorial, I found language to be non-intuitive and ugly. Plus I'm fond of things like iteration and variables. Perhaps I didn't receive the right introduction, perhaps I'm just stupid. Regardless, I know quite enough syntax of C, Perl, and shell to do everything I need to do. I don't want to waste my precious time having to learn another language which I think is worthless outside of academic circles. Programmers always have to choose which programming language to use for their projects, and there must be a reason why the vast majority of them choose not to use LISP.
And I told you why I thought your argument was not valid. Your previous argument only goes to show how LISP can be a good educational tool, but does not show any uses of LISP.
I hope that this helps show you what I'm thinking. I'm not against you or Phillip. What I'm against is this notion that "LISP is great, and if you don't agree then you're not a good programmer." This is the attitude that I've seen emenating from LISPers, and I think its a negative and divisive attitude that needs to die. Is my impression wrong? I'm not afraid to admit that I'm wrong, for I often am.
Am I making sense to you?
Regarding the .sig, thanks. It's a long story where it came from. e-mail me if you're really interested.
I think you are arguing from the wrong place from the beginning. I was first responding to Phillip's contention (and all of the other LISP-ers contention) that LISP is "the easiest and most powerful programming language." It was Phillip who made the statement, and thus it is Phillip who must prove his statement. I am taking the skeptical viewpoint, which explains why I am looking for evidence. The burden of proof falls upon the person who alleges. This is why your statement, "Firstly, you have yet to prove that LISP is worthless; your lack of knowledge of apps is not proof." is ridiculous. I have to prove nothing. It is up to the LISP people to prove that LISP is everything that they claim it to be.
I must also add that you are taking the tone of the whining, pissed-off LISP bigot, not the tone of an effective defender of LISP. For example, "But to humor the remainder of your post..." Honestly, you don't need to humor me. You would find that your words are much more effective if you provide me with compelling evidence.
You give some good points about some of the aspects of LISP as to why it may be better than other programming languages. But that's not what I was requesting, if you remember. What I asked for is this: Name me some applications that are written in LISP, and name me the technical reasons why LISP was chosen in those situations. I will add one more caveat here: the application must not have been written by MIT people.
Phillip Greenspun gave one example, but he only fulfilled half of my request: he didn't tell me why LISP was chose -- meaning, what were the compelling technical reasons to choose LISP over any other langauge? Also, was the application written by MIT people? Also, was the application written entirely in LISP, or only partially? The answers to these questions could quickly weaken the yahoo store as evidence of the usefulness of LISP. Furthermore, he brought up the number $50 million three times. I interpreted this as an ad crumenam argument.
"So, you've reiterated your position; which we've heard like 4-5 times now." This cannot be true, for I think I've only posted my opinion two or three times. If you were just being snide, then remember that your being snide, condescending, or insulting will not convince me. Evidence will.
"Your contention that LISP has no functional value is hopefully negated by the above." Actually, it's not negated at all. Your argument is pathetic. I asked specifically what would convince me that LISP is useful outside of academic snobbery, and yet your response matches what I have heard up to this point. Reading your answers I can conclude that LISP would be very valuable as a teaching tool, but I still see no evidence of anything outside of that. Perhaps if it *were* something more than that, then you and millions of others would be using it in place of Perl. I could be wrong, though, provided that you or someone can provide me of some evidence of real applications that are actually written in LISP.
"But you have failed to inform us why your preferred languages are better, other than that they are popular (which we already knew)." The usefulness of LISP will be proven much more easily by LISP itself, not by me trying to "one-up" LISP with something else. All I ask is that someone show my why LISP is more than just the snobbery of some elitist MIT bigots. I don't think that's too much to ask, considering the grandiose claims that MIT people seem to make about LISP.
It's obvious that you know a lot more about LISP than I do, and I'll even say that you know a lot more about programming languages than I do. Given that, perhaps you'd like to tell me the areas in which LISP is crap as compared to other langauges, and why that might contribute to its non-use outside of academic and MIT circles.
Bottom line is that Emacs + clever programmer will always crush a fancy commercial tool + weak programmer.
I brought this up when the AD university was announced, and I received quite a bit more ad hominems than I did real responses to my argument. My feelings about AD then are the same as they are now: this is coming from a person whose teaching is swayed by this bizarre bias towards LISP and Emacs. Honestly, why could the sentence above not be written as, "Bottom line is that a text editor + clever programmer will always crush a fancy commercial tool + weak programmer."? Is Emacs really so incredible that anyone not using it is not a good programmer (as Phillip implies)?
Let me reiterate my position: I think LISP and Emacs are used more for their religious value than their functional value. (Moreso LISP than Emacs, for people are actually using Emacs to develop things -- people in my office are doing it right now. But they're not writing in LISP, of course.) LISP, like Pascal, can be a great teaching tool, but is otherwise worthless. I asked people to tell me what has been written in LISP, and I received nebulous answers, "research projects," and ad hominems. However, if someone can produce some evidence for me that shows me that LISP is something more than just ivory tower bigotry (that means show me actual applications that were written in LISP and why the technical merits of LISP made it the optimal language to use for those applications), then my opinion about LISP will change. Since I see no evidence that LISP is anything but ivory tower bigotry, I think that Phillip's judgement must be questioned when he calls LISP "the most powerful and also easiest to use programming language ever developed."
A side note: are LISP people just jealous that C, Tcl, and Perl are much more useful (and thus used) than LISP?
And Phillip, if you're reading, I did not get a response to my last post. You can check it out here . I was enjoying the discussion and was hoping I could get some answers to my questions.
Flames, as always, will be ignored. And if you find yourself flaming me, then you are losing the argument.
One of the biggest lies of socialism is that they want to "make everyone equal" or that they believe that "everyone is equal." Yet how can this be possible when one group of people (government) gets to decide what is right and wrong for another group of people (non government)? How could this possibly fit in with the definition of equality? How equal are the Cubans compared to Castro's regime which controls all media and believes that the Cubans citizens are "property of the state"? Socialists believe that the government knows best, but governments are always comprised of people who are just as corrupt as any person you can find on the street.
I would be happy to be a socialist as long as I knew 100% that the socialiast government in question was completely infallible. For this same reason I stopped pledging allegiance to the American flag when I was in high school. Why would I pledge allegiance to a government that is not infallible? Why would I pledge allegiance to a government which might use its CIA to conduct brainwashing experiments on its own citizens? (Yes, the CIA did this!)
I am a strong believer in individualism, free enterprise, competition (bust up M$), and freedom. Socialism stands in the way of every one of those goals, and I have no problem thinking that I would literally go to war to put bullets in the heads of those people who dare try and take those freedoms from me. If this sounds harsh to you, then try to remember how many people died in China's "Great Leap Forward."
And as far as our movement being founded by communists: so what? It is far from a "communist movement." If it were, then the state would mandate that all software companies had to produce software for free. But that's not what it is -- It's much more of a meritocracy. Those who have the best brains turning out the best code have ascended to the thrones of the Open Source movement. I'm sure it irks you to think that some people have actually succeeded without the help of the government.
I don't understand what your point is in posting this. The book is posted on an MIT site. It's written by three people who are obviously affiliated with MIT. So of course they're going to fawn over the incredible awesomeness of LISP. That is one of my beliefs: that the only people who talk about how great LISP is are MIT people. My question is this: are there any non-MIT people who will rave on and on about how great LISP is?
I beg you: prove me wrong. Show me that LISP advocacy is more than just MIT snobbery.
Phillip,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I can see your point of view. At the same time, I think it enables me to put mine into better perspective.
My whole point is that I feared a course in programming coming from a person who was a LISP/Emacs/MIT bigot. Mind you, this is my impression of MIT people: they think they are smarter than everyone else, they think Emacs is better than any other application (I believe you wrote on your web page, "All good programmers will spend most of their time in Emacs," from which I infer that if you aren't spending most of your time in Emacs, then you're not a good programmer), and they think that LISP is better than any other programming language. In short, they are elitist snobs. I used a few of your quotes regarding LISP and Perl to illustrate.
But am I wrong about MIT people? Are they not snobs? Is LISP really a useful programming language? I don't know, I can be convinced otherwise. But I think that I'm not the only one who has this opinion.
If you look back on some of the things in your respone to my response, I think they can still reinforce my point:
Lisp programmers were too busy congratulating themselves for being smarter than C programmers.
As for Lisp, a lot of language bigotry caused Lisp programmers to waste time arguing and reimplementing Lisp instead of building apps.
So I can't be all wrong about LISP programmers being snobs.
And as to your claims about what LISP as produced,
The operating system. Time-sharing. RSA encryption. TCP/IP and a lot of earlier network stuff.
This does not really look all that impressive. Isn't it true that several of these concepts were also implemented in other langauges other than LISP? Isn't it also true that there are hundreds of other concepts in the field of computer science that were implemented in languages other than LISP? In short, what makes LISP so great? What makes it stand out among the other languages? To me, the only thing that makes it stand out is the LISP "bigots" who are "too busy congratulating themselves for being smarter than C programmers."
And another question, I understand that you are tired of people arguing about which language is better than the other, and I certainly understand that. Why then did you go into detail about how awesome LISP is and how horrible Perl is? If the tools are unimportant, then I don't see the point in all the LISP touting and Perl bashing.
I must add that what I am totally against is a few people being elitist about some "lots of inane and stupid parentheses" language that no one is using except for some research projects at MIT. Personally, I think it's what gives MIT programmers a bad name.
I appreciate the discussion.
Phillip, there's no need to get uppity. If I'm in the wrong, and I often am, then simply pointing out to me where I'm wrong and educating me as to the truth in this situation will be sufficient to change my point of view.
Why do we use Tcl for this last step? We don't anymore. ArsDigita will build you a 100% pure Java site and support it.
This is not an improvement! Java has proven itself to be nothing but hype and nothing but slow. Where is this supposed "Java revolution" that's supposed to have happened? Tcl/Tk (or Perl/Tk, for that matter) is more cross platform than is Java and faster, too. It is Java which has earned the moniker "Write once, Debug everywhere," not Tcl/Tk.
It turns out that AOLserver is a great efficient proven Web development tool. It happened to include a compiled-in Tcl interpreter. So we used it.
Why didn't AOLserver include a compiled-in LISP interpreter? For that matter, why isn't there any web server which includes a comiled-in LISP interpreter? If LISP is as great as you people claim it is, then certainly there should be at least one, right? Several people have come to your defense by saying, "The reason that AD didn't use LISP is because they used AOLserver, which used Tcl." I think that's a cop-out. The response is obvious: Then why didn't AD select a web server which uses LISP?
If we were as smart as you, we'd have rewritten the whole thing in Perl instead of building a $20 million (revenue) profitable business.
If you have built a $20 million in revenue profitable business then you have built one more $20 million in revenue business than I have, and that is to be congratulated. Why then do you feel the need to make such snide comments to me like the one above?
If you don't know about any of the advancements in computer technology developed at MIT over the last 40 years nor any of the useful innovative software systems written in Lisp, maybe you should take a computer history course.
Why don't you just tell me some of them? Provide hyperlinks if available. I will be convinced and believe your point of view if I see good evidence that LISP is as great as you claim it to be. But as is, you look much more like an upset, MIT snob than an effective defender of LISP.
This is from the glossary of Phillip and Alex's guide to Web publishing.
LISP: "Lisp is the most powerful and also easiest to use programming language ever developed. Invented by John McCarthy at MIT in the late 1950s, Lisp is today used by the most sophisticated programmers pushing the limits of computers in mathematical physics, computer-aided engineering, and computer-aided genetics. Lisp is also used by thousands of people who don't think of themselves as programmers at all, only people who want to define shortcuts in AutoCAD or the Emacs text editor. The best introduction to Lisp is also the best introduction to computer science."
And here's what he says about Perl: "Lisp programmers forced to look at Perl code would usually say 'if there were any justice in this world, the guys who wrote this would go to jail.'"
Elsewhere on the site, he has this to say about Perl: "As nasty and tasteless as Tcl is, it is a positive dream compared to Perl. The only conceivable way to write a correct Perl program IMHO is cutting and pasting from someone else's code."
I'm up on free education as the next joe, but take into account how biased this type of education may be. If you read on in the site, you'll read more about "MIT this" and "MIT that." Perhaps that's why he thinks LISP is so great. From what I understand, MIT is a haven for LISP and Emacs bigot, whereas evereywhere else most everyone uses Perl, C, shell, Python, and other useful programming languages.
And that's another comment I'd like to make. Almost every LISP bigot I've heard of talks about how "beautiful" LISP is. My reaction is, So what if it's beautiful? Computer languages are written to be useful, not just beautiful. Is anyone actually developing anything useful in LISP? I think it's pretty obvious that Perl is very useful.
I apologize if this seems off-topic, but for me I feel wary of education which may actually be rife with a bunch of MIT intellectual "LISP is beautiful!" garbage. If LISP is so great then why does ArsDigita use Tcl instead of the almighty beautiful LISP?
Oh, and by the way, Perl rules the universe.
"Post that Emacs Lisp package you've been playing with on your own machine."
CADDDDDDDDDDR(((but(((why((would
(((anyone))
))use))it)))?
Sorry, it's flamebait, but I fucking hate Emacs and Lisp. Who the hell uses it besides MIT and other elitist bigots?
Like everyone, I have heard time and time again how great Win2K is. I think what is important to realize is that in almost every cirumstance it is being called great only when it is being compared to NT 4.0.
It now includes a telnet server, which NT 4.0 did not. It has only 2 things which require a reboot, unlike the 60 or so that NT 4.0 required. It's now a lot more stable than NT 4.0. It now includes plug and pray, which NT 4.0 didn't. It now allows for command-line administration, which NT 4.0 didn't. And on and on and on...
The problem with this is that it does not show how good that Win2K is. It only shows how bad NT 4.0 is. Looking at it all I cannot believe that Microsoft had the unbelievable nerve to charge a damn thing for that piece of dog shit known as NT. It is an insult to our intelligence as technichal people, but not to the intelligence of management (who bought into the lies of Microsoft).
The only time I've seen Win2K being compared to another OS is when Inactive Directory is being compared to NDS. From the (biased) reports I've seen, it looks like NDS is better.
Win2K is only great in that it's a lot better than the problems that Microsoft created with NT4. I can't wait to see Microsoft destroyed by the DOJ and by the EU. They deserve it.
"All our sysops dont know fuck about novell because they have been using MacOS all along..."
First, if all of their skills are in MacOS, then why are they your sysops? I think that they should rather be your advertisers or graphic designers or one of those other Mac-friendly type jobs.
Second, if the sysops don't know how to use the OS, then it makes more sense to train them how to use the current OS then to license yet another OS which they don't know how to use.
Third, NT is not easy to use. If it were, then there would not be so many people complaining about it. I admit that it looks better than Novell, but that does not make it easier to use. That is one of the biggest problems with point-and-drool people: they equate "more attractive" with "easier to use."
And I'm hardly a Novell advocate. I just think NT is a big pile of dog shit and I can't believe so many people have been suckered into paying money for it. I recently had to install some software on some NT machines. I was amazed at how many reboots I had to do, how it asked me, "You should exit all other Windows applications" (why?), how slow it was, how un-intuitive setting up devices and the network was, and how single-user-minded it was. I really wish that ISS would port its software to a real operating system.
The only reason you would write something so abusive is because it makes you feel better about yourself.
At this point, I expect you to tell me that you feel fine about yourself, and then attack me. That's what most people in your position do.
But the simple fact remains that the only reason why someone would be so downright abusive to another person is to feel better about him/herself.
One of my favorite NT lies is that NT is "easy to use" while *IX is "obscure," "archaic," and "1960's technology."
If NT is "easy to use," then shouldn't it also be easy to make secure as well? The fact that it takes time and skill to "properly" configure an NT server to be secure undermines the claim that NT is "easier" than *IX.
One of the interesting things about Windows2000 is that it has complete command-line functionality; at least, that's what the Microsoft brainwashed drone told me. In other words, anything you can do from the GUI you can do from the command line. And I thought that Microsoft's claim that the command line was "archaic" and "going away." Microsoft lies lead to Microsoft failures and backpedaling. It's a shame that they are so good at marketing and politics.
The Federal Government is the largest it's been ever. But I think the real problem is not the government, but the complacent Americans who sit and let it happen while getting really worked up watching NASCAR and Ally McBeal. We currently are at the highest tax level we've been at since World War II, and Americans are freaking out about ... having to pay ATM fees?
Those of us who belive in freedom and individual responsibility must evangelize. Nowadays I like Linux and Libertarianism for the same reasons: for me, both mean that I am smart enough to make my own choices and I do not need any other person, government, or corportaion to make my choices for me.
I have noticed that anytime someone posts a pro-Microsoft post like this that they almost always post as an Anonymous Coward. Is this because they're too afraid of slashdot "retribution"? Or is it perhaps because a certain percentage of them are Microsoft employees?
And I've also noticed that the tone of these pro-Microsoft posts are almost always along the lines of, "See, you Linux zealots. Microsoft does turn out some good thing *after all.* That ought to show you! Microsoft rulez!" Even despite some serious evidence that whatever is being commented on can be debunked by more than one other story.
In other news, my corporation now has a Microsoft employee in our building who is helping us with an evaluation of Windows NT. I met him and shoot his hand, but I didn't really know how to react. As a representative of my company, I was cordial. But I honestly had a lot of questions that I wanted to ask him. Lots of questions ranging from pointed to downright insulting.
I wonder what I'll say come Monday.
It amazes me the crap which comes out of normally intelligent people. It seems that once they go in to "god mode" then they lose all ability to think.
Schools force owr kids to learn Evolution as a fact. If you look into it, you'll find that there is no posable way that it works on any time schedule.
Care to elaborate on this "no possible way that it work on any time schedule"? Sounds like a big fat opinion to me. In the meantime perhaps you can explain how the earth was created only 4 thousand years ago. Or perhaps you are one of those people who believe that five billion years somehow passed between Gen 1 and Gen 2.
So it is a belief, not a fact.
I believe it based on the facts. There is still no factual evidence behind heaven, hell, souls, angels, deamons, or god. Hence, I don't believe all that garbage.
So I guess Christians dont have the fredom to pray in school? I bet you didn't say anything when they took that freedom away.
Perhaps we didn't say anything because that freedom was never removed. What *was* removed was the school sponsorship of prayer and the attempt to use school power to force all the kids to pray. Let me say this again: No one is preventing any child any where in the United States from praying in school. I dare and defy you to show me any instance of a law being created that denies anyone the right to pray in school.
Religion is 'man trying to reach or attain God. But Christianity is 'God trying to reach man.'
Chapter and verse, please. Likewise, show some evidence that Xtianity is somehow different from all the other religions out there.
You know the commandment about 'thow shalt not kill(murder)?'
Which is it, Xtian? "Kill," or "murder"? They are quite different! I guess it depends on which translation you read, doesn't it?
Ow yeah, it's a commandment by the way.
Maybe for you, but not for me. And as much as you probably want to, you can't make be believe your crap. I wonder how many Xtian moderators will moderate this one down becuase it doesn't "further the cause of Christ"?
I totally agree. There are people who are in jail for many, many years because of drug use (possession). Yet some of our leaders (Dubya, Clinton, Gore, Gingrich) seem to be exempt from this punishment. Blatant hypocrisy and abuse of power! The "War on Drugs" is not a war on drugs at all -- otherwise they would alcohol and tobacco which kill more people in a year than cocaine use has ever killed. Not to mention marijuana which has never killed *anyone*. If you want to see a web site that will piss you off in five minutes then visit www.injusticeline.com. Vote libertarian!
All available online, as they have been for years and will be for the forseeable future.
How much of the future is forseeable? A month? A week? A day? A second?
And who is capable of seeing the future? Wise men? Seers? Be developers? You?
I'm gay but not a moderator. Sorry to buck the trend. Any straight moderators out there care to comment?
>This is to easy.
/e /c /h / switches to upload your disk to a >server.
Liar. The biggest of the NT lies is "NT is easy to use." To a skilled UNIX sysadmin adding a user by hand is also "too easy." The fact that something like this requires all the steps that you describe totally blows away the conention that NT is "easy to use." NT should just pop up a messagebox that says, "I've found a problem and I'm fixing it." Or better yet, it fixes the problem silently without any user interaction needed. As is you outlined at least six involved steps that are necessary to fix this problem, and yet you call this "easy." Heh. Only easy to those who have seen and fixed it multiple times. But that couldn't have happened considering that NT is rock-solid and a problems of any sort are extremely rare, right?
>Are you on a network (y/n)
>(y) copy your suspect volume to the network. make >sure you are not running any
>applications or services that could have locks on >any of the files.
And how can you verify that in an easy way, since NT is so easy to use?
> Stop services with control
>panel, kill stray processs with taskman. Use the >xcopy (or scopy as needed) command and
>/s
You mean from the command line? God, I thought that the command line was cryptic technology from the '60s that should be going away with all those dinosaur-like UNIX servers.
> Verify the integrity of the copy!.
Shouldn't NT do this for you? I thought it was supposed to be easy to use!
>Format the partition. Copy data back to newly >formated drive.
With the same cryptic and outdated command-line argument you gave us before? Or are the cryptic switches different when you copy back?