The dismal failure of Vista hasn't pushed people to try Linux. It's only kept them on XP. Why would people switch to an entirely new platform when what they have works perfectly well?
I recently purchased a laptop for my parents, and was tempted to put Ubuntu on it. However what changed my mind wasn't hardware concerns (AFAIK, Thinkpads play very nicely with Linux), but the "Where's my [insert Windows app here]??" factor.
My parents are like most computer users in that they don't really know anything about different operating systems. They simply expect the software on the CD (or that they downloaded) to install and work. If that doesn't happen, guess who gets a phone call.
Yes, I know that's not a flaw in Linux. But it took a lot of people considerable time to get comfortable with Windows, and they aren't particularly interested in starting over again.
I still don't accept your argument that the two have nothing to do with one another. While the moral aspects of religion have no counterpart in science, many religious explanations for physical phenomena are at direct odds with what we have learned through scientific discovery.
Either the Earth came into existence several billion years ago or several thousand. It can't be both.
What are you, some kind of racist? We ALL know that the apparent lack of progress in the Middle East is caused by Zionism. The Jews (and by proxy the United States) are responsible for a thousand years of Arab non-progress.
Disclaimer: this is just my opinion. I am not a theologist.
I think that religion began as a way to explain things that were (at whatever time) impossible to explain. As our knowledge of the world grew, the role of religious superstition gave way to scientific discovery.
However, human nature got in the way of that because religion gave its leaders power. If religious leaders were to allow science to run its course, their power would be threatened.
I see evidence of that everywhere. It seems that our scientific knowledge has grown despite religion, not because of it. The two simply cannot peacefully co-exist.
I could have said that there has been no visible evidence of scientific progress from the Middle East since 1500 years ago because Muslims have spent the majority of that time either invading other countries or killing each another. Either way, I'm sure my views make me some kind of racist, right?
I would not be surprised. However Spain was conquered only a short time after the founding of Islam, so one could argue that most (if not all) of the knowledge brought to Spain by the conquering Muslims was discovered before Muhammad's time.
...was once the height of scientific enlightenment. Then along came Islam, and since then very little has progressed (without outside influence).
One can only imagine what civilizsation would be like today if religion (of all stripes, mind you) hadn't stifled scientific progress since man first walked upright.
You might make yourself at least slightly aware of the issue before commenting on it.
The whole point of this story (and others like it) is that the media has been completely cut off from these demonstrations and the violence that ensued.
You dislike U.S. news media. That's great; here's a cookie. Try paying attention next time.
Please define a "real alternative fuel". If it's a good idea, I'm sure there's a big (evil) business that would be happy to exploit it for profit. That's your real beef with ethanol, isn't it?
Environmentalists have been shrieking and crying about government funding for alternative fuels, and now that we've rushed to pacify them, we discover it's not such a great investment afterall.
Well that's what tends to happen when energy policy is influenced by knee-jerk alarmists.
Laws restricting smoking were just the beginning. Then came the trans fat ban. Is fast food next?
Governments in the US are already regulating individual lifestyle decisions in the name of reducing healthcare costs, and we don't even have a socialized system!
The same tracks that are capable of delivering goods to the city can also deliver people.
And that's fine for the people who work in cities. What about people who don't?
Mass transit depends on two factors to be successful: high population concentrated in a relatively small space. The cost of having similar service (track infrastructure and frequency of trains to be specific) spread out all over suburban and rural areas would be astronomical.
Let the government into the business of "preventative care" and you let them regulate everything you do that may affect your health. Mandated diet programs and exercise routines... and don't even THINK about having a beer!
It's called "mass transit". It even comes with a chauffeur, so nobody can ever blame you for an accident. Can't beat that with a stick. It's a very good idea. Professional, qualified drivers, not the tens of thousands of drunks operating dangerous machinery we have today.
It's obvious you don't live in a rural area, where mass transit would be completely unfeasable.
They already have too much influence.
Agreed. So why give them more?
They are amongst the richest organizations in the world, and they still don't pay taxes. Totally unfair.
Ahh yes, I get it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
I don't go to church, I want the portion of my taxes that supports those churches back.
I'll agree that churches shouldn't receive government funding. However if you are simply equating their tax-exempt status as a government subsidy, you are simply wrong.
I have my own weapon and I'll defend my property myself, I don't want to pay for police services that others use.
That would be fine if protecting your person and property was all they did.
You can design a socialized medical system where people with money are perfectly free to choose their own insurance or to visit private doctors.
That's the same argument people make when the issue of school taxes comes up. People are free to send their kids to a private school if they so choose, but they are still forced to pay for both the public school and private. That is wrong.
Granted, a few inconsequential voices spoke out against it (and I happen to be a big fan of Ron Paul). But the vast majority of both parties are directed by their respective leadership to support anything that consolidates federal power.
Slashdot Mirror
The dismal failure of Vista hasn't pushed people to try Linux. It's only kept them on XP. Why would people switch to an entirely new platform when what they have works perfectly well?
I recently purchased a laptop for my parents, and was tempted to put Ubuntu on it. However what changed my mind wasn't hardware concerns (AFAIK, Thinkpads play very nicely with Linux), but the "Where's my [insert Windows app here]??" factor.
My parents are like most computer users in that they don't really know anything about different operating systems. They simply expect the software on the CD (or that they downloaded) to install and work. If that doesn't happen, guess who gets a phone call.
Yes, I know that's not a flaw in Linux. But it took a lot of people considerable time to get comfortable with Windows, and they aren't particularly interested in starting over again.
"So much for using dummies in the front seat."
I thought they used all of those up filling seats on the city council.
I still don't accept your argument that the two have nothing to do with one another. While the moral aspects of religion have no counterpart in science, many religious explanations for physical phenomena are at direct odds with what we have learned through scientific discovery.
Either the Earth came into existence several billion years ago or several thousand. It can't be both.
What are you, some kind of racist? We ALL know that the apparent lack of progress in the Middle East is caused by Zionism. The Jews (and by proxy the United States) are responsible for a thousand years of Arab non-progress.
"there can be no conflict between two systems that don't speak the same language or investigate the same phenomena."
The Scopes Monkey begs to differ.
Disclaimer: this is just my opinion. I am not a theologist.
I think that religion began as a way to explain things that were (at whatever time) impossible to explain. As our knowledge of the world grew, the role of religious superstition gave way to scientific discovery.
However, human nature got in the way of that because religion gave its leaders power. If religious leaders were to allow science to run its course, their power would be threatened.
I see evidence of that everywhere. It seems that our scientific knowledge has grown despite religion, not because of it. The two simply cannot peacefully co-exist.
I could have said that there has been no visible evidence of scientific progress from the Middle East since 1500 years ago because Muslims have spent the majority of that time either invading other countries or killing each another. Either way, I'm sure my views make me some kind of racist, right?
I would not be surprised. However Spain was conquered only a short time after the founding of Islam, so one could argue that most (if not all) of the knowledge brought to Spain by the conquering Muslims was discovered before Muhammad's time.
...was once the height of scientific enlightenment. Then along came Islam, and since then very little has progressed (without outside influence).
One can only imagine what civilizsation would be like today if religion (of all stripes, mind you) hadn't stifled scientific progress since man first walked upright.
You might make yourself at least slightly aware of the issue before commenting on it.
The whole point of this story (and others like it) is that the media has been completely cut off from these demonstrations and the violence that ensued.
You dislike U.S. news media. That's great; here's a cookie. Try paying attention next time.
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Indeed. Eerily ironic, no?
This travesty in Burma is a good chance for all of us living in luxury to get a little much-needed perspective on what real censorship looks like.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Please define a "real alternative fuel". If it's a good idea, I'm sure there's a big (evil) business that would be happy to exploit it for profit. That's your real beef with ethanol, isn't it?
Environmentalists have been shrieking and crying about government funding for alternative fuels, and now that we've rushed to pacify them, we discover it's not such a great investment afterall.
Well that's what tends to happen when energy policy is influenced by knee-jerk alarmists.
Laws restricting smoking were just the beginning. Then came the trans fat ban. Is fast food next?
Governments in the US are already regulating individual lifestyle decisions in the name of reducing healthcare costs, and we don't even have a socialized system!
The same tracks that are capable of delivering goods to the city can also deliver people.
And that's fine for the people who work in cities. What about people who don't?
Mass transit depends on two factors to be successful: high population concentrated in a relatively small space. The cost of having similar service (track infrastructure and frequency of trains to be specific) spread out all over suburban and rural areas would be astronomical.
Contrary to what you may believe, religious organizations that participate in political advocacy are indeed taxed.
Let the government into the business of "preventative care" and you let them regulate everything you do that may affect your health. Mandated diet programs and exercise routines... and don't even THINK about having a beer!
Is that really what you want??
What else do the police do, other than protecting my person and property?
I think you've confused the police with private security guards.
It's called "mass transit". It even comes with a chauffeur, so nobody can ever blame you for an accident. Can't beat that with a stick. It's a very good idea. Professional, qualified drivers, not the tens of thousands of drunks operating dangerous machinery we have today.
It's obvious you don't live in a rural area, where mass transit would be completely unfeasable.
They already have too much influence.
Agreed. So why give them more?
They are amongst the richest organizations in the world, and they still don't pay taxes. Totally unfair.
Ahh yes, I get it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
I don't go to church, I want the portion of my taxes that supports those churches back.
I'll agree that churches shouldn't receive government funding. However if you are simply equating their tax-exempt status as a government subsidy, you are simply wrong.
I have my own weapon and I'll defend my property myself, I don't want to pay for police services that others use.
That would be fine if protecting your person and property was all they did.
Socialized cars would make sure everybody has the means to drive themselves to work, but that doesn't make it a good (let alone feasable) idea.
I don't recall making the decision to support hateful religionists through my taxes, but 'churches' are tax exempt.
Don't you realize that if you start taxing churches, you legitimize their stake in government?? I'd think that's the last thing you'd want.
You can design a socialized medical system where people with money are perfectly free to choose their own insurance or to visit private doctors.
That's the same argument people make when the issue of school taxes comes up. People are free to send their kids to a private school if they so choose, but they are still forced to pay for both the public school and private. That is wrong.
Granted, a few inconsequential voices spoke out against it (and I happen to be a big fan of Ron Paul). But the vast majority of both parties are directed by their respective leadership to support anything that consolidates federal power.