I'm pretty sure many would get into clocks, clockworks, automats and mechanical toys.
There's been a long geek tradition with making automats and mechanical toys, and funny enough the Japanese in the Edo period (1600 onwards) were really good at that stuff, because "inventions" were not allowed in that era. The feudal lords were afraid "inventions" could be used against them, so only fun automats ("karakuri ningyo" etc.) were considered harmless enough, that people were allowed to "invent" if it was for mechanical toys and automats. This started a real boom of the production of ever more amazing geek gadgets.
Depending on which religions I'm comparing, I see a rewrite of the essential principles of same. In fact, with salvation being an essential principle, I see that non-Mormons will never achieve the highest level of same unless they convert to Mormonism during their life or after-life. I also see that dead people can be baptised by proxy, that God was born an imperfect being with a physical body (like you and I) and had to progress to become a God, that you and I can literally become Gods and sit at the throne next to God himself to rule over our kingdom, and a bunch of other science-fiction nonsense, depending on which essential principles I'm comparing.
The problem is, you apparently don't know how to read that stuff. The problem is most "religious" people don't know. This is one of the characteristics of the Kali-Yuga, in which were in, that even the most religious people in this age are nothing compared to even the least enlightened ones in the Golden Age.
BTW I just mentioned how religion is using parables, and the next thing you do is take everything in a literal sense. Now this is not stupid anymore, but simply stubborn.
We talk about religions and the best example you can come up with is Mormonism. Well then, let's talk about science and I start quoting Erich von Däniken, so we get to the same level, OK?
We used to say that about Homer as well. But ever since the "Prolegomena ad Homerum" written in 1795 put this in question there remain doubts about this "historical" person.
We are not sure whether he really existed, or even if he did whether he wrote the Illiad and Odyssey (and his other works) himself or just collected those works together.
What I'm trying to say that even simple facts, where one would think it's obvious to see whether someone existed or not, might not always be so sure, if you take a second look.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. X11 is there because it has a past. Its future doesn't look all that bright though.
As for Aqua or to be more precise Quartz (because that's the display engine), I'd say it is one of the most advanced windows/display/compositing eninges available (Quartz extreme has yet to find its match in the OSS world) so yes, it does have a future indeed.
Really? Does science have hundreds of different theories (religions), each with its own rewrite of the laws of physics (canons), with explanations that disagree with others?
Over time yes. Many past axioms of science have been proven wrong over time (earth is flat, earth is in the centre of the universe, nothing can travel faster than sound, things "heavier than air" can't fly--despite having birds, moskitos, butterflies, you name it, flying over the head of those people every day).
There are quite some disputes about the laws of relativity and the speed of light as the absolute fastest speed information can travel. There are disputes about quantum mechanics, black holes, the existens of worm holes etc.
There are many many disputes about evolution--wow here's a recognized science which lacks any proof whatsoever, and still you all believe it. Now isn't that amazing.
You might say they don't all come with their own rewrites of the laws of physics, but hey, when I look at all the religions I don't see a rewrite of the fundamentals laws (not the practial rules like the 10 commandments, but the essential principles religions are based on). They all look at the light (final truth) through the prism called logic mind and language, so one says the light's green, the other one says it's red. While they're all correct, because they look at only aspects of the whole truth, that is the white light which can never be fully expressed in words, because as noted above, language is too much bound to logic, and therefore too limited.
That is also why religions make use of parables so often. It is due to the fact, that language is bound too much to logical thinking (as in mathematical logic), and therefore cannot perfectly convey contents which are beyond logic which only exposes part of the whole truth.
If religion were truely orthogonal to science, it wouldn't make claims about scientifically-testable physical effects. But that's what "miracles" are.
A manifestation into the bodily world, doesn't necessarily mean it is scientifcally-testable. BTW you are mistaking the church for religion. So I'm afraid you don't have much of a point here.
No cause and effect? Tell that to all the preachers shouting about which actions will send you to hell, and what specific corrective devotions you can recite to stave off that effect.
I'm not talking about doctrines (which suck) preachers (which suck) or any kind of "official" religious community (most of which suck). I'm talking about the essence of religion, the very esoteric part of what it's all about (maybe Zen Buddhism is a good example for that, since it's rather doctrine free).
But if a god wanted, he could prove it exists... this constitutes logical proof that gods are either nonexistent, wish to seem nonexistent [...]
The real message is that without any readyness on your side (i.e. actively trying to seek the truth and trying to better yourself very hard and not just sitting in your armchair with a bud on your side and shouting: "c'mon you sucker prove your existence") you will get nowhere. And with really hard, I mean really hard. Not just a visit to the local Zen temple and meditating twice a week.
StarTrek is the sick vision of the future as a totalitarion US regime would like to see it. It could almost be written by G.W. Bush.
Have you ever wondered why all politically important places in the StarTrek earth of the future, are in the US? Why the "cultural" aspects in StarTrek are so US centric? Why everyone speaks English?
>Religion has got to be the longest-running form of science fiction ever
Nope. Because there's no science in it. Religion is beyond cause and effect, beyond "logic", so even if science wanted it couldn't prove gods existence, simply because the two systems are too different.
It's as if you'd wanted to prove the beauty of Mozarts music with science, or to prove the correctness of a mathematical formula with Music. The two systems do not match in such a way. They partly overlap (as does science an Music, when it comes to waveforms and such), but this doesn't make them completely "compatible" in every aspect.
4: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must not allow itself or any other object to come to harm.
Wouldn't the "not allowing itself to come to harm" mean that you'd never be able to use androids for rescueing people or in areas where significant danger is involved (hazardous environment etc.)?
>If you're trying OSX because of Unix then you've already answered your problem with the middle paste. >If you're using OSX because of Apple, then you'll like everything it has to offer.
I'm an old time Mac user (since System 6), but before my first Mac I actually once played with a NeXT box and immediately fell in love (didn't like the price tag, though).
So, if you ask me they should have stayed much closer to the much more consistent and cleaner NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP interface. I know this might have alienated many Mac OS users, but the die hard OS 7,8,9 guys still don't like OS X anyway.
We could have had the most consistent powerful desktop environment (just think all the NeXT goodies + Quartz Extreme and such!), but we've now ended up with a somewhat inconsistent, but slightly better GUI than the old and crufty Mac OS, and lost a lot of the NeXT power (and gained some new stuff, admittedly).
It's a bit of a shame. I hope the NeXT guys slowly take over control (looking at recent developements there still is hope) and bring us a two-button mouse, tear-off menues and get rid of the menue bar on top. I think the NeXT approach was better, considering dual-headed display and huge monitors (30" upwards).
So, Mr. "GIMP on apple is simple enough for idiots", how come it doesn't fucking work?!?
GIMP.app should actually launch X11 if it's not running yet (provided X11 is installed on your machine--you know, X11 is not the pinnacle of consistency and ease of use, that's why it isn't installed by default on OS X, 'tis a geek thing).
If you have X11 installed (from your OS CD/DVD) and it doesn't work, contact the developer. Please don't blame Apple if an open source app is showing weird behaviour on OS X.
It does help a bit I think. But you really have to play around in Interface builder yourself, to see how easy, fun and productive it is to make UIs with it.
You'll be surprised in how helpful it is helping you not to screw up the interface up too badly (lots of useful dynamic guides for alignment etc.).
Well, when it comes to good GUI design, someone has to make decisions.
If you let everyone have it their way, you get the GUI disaster that is Linux (take one or the other of the big DEs alone, and there is a little more consitency, but then, who are the GNOME or KDE guys to tell me: only run KDE or GNOME apps otherwise your whole consistency in UI design goes down the drain).
I meant "acknowledgement" with ACK. I thought your comment was very well written, so I was wondering why you'd post as Anonymous Coward--that way many people won't even see your post, which is a waste in my opinion.
Maybe you're not aware of this but many on Slashdot set their preferences to not even display AC posts.
Slashdot Mirror
To summarize the summary of the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
~Douglas Adams.
If he says he finds black and white people stupid that makes him a racist. ;-)
I'm pretty sure many would get into clocks, clockworks, automats and mechanical toys.
There's been a long geek tradition with making automats and mechanical toys, and funny enough the Japanese in the Edo period (1600 onwards) were really good at that stuff, because "inventions" were not allowed in that era. The feudal lords were afraid "inventions" could be used against them, so only fun automats ("karakuri ningyo" etc.) were considered harmless enough, that people were allowed to "invent" if it was for mechanical toys and automats. This started a real boom of the production of ever more amazing geek gadgets.
Maybe you can become a disciple of ESR or better RMS and then go out into the world to spread the gospel of the GPL.
Depending on which religions I'm comparing, I see a rewrite of the essential principles of same.
In fact, with salvation being an essential principle, I see that non-Mormons will never achieve
the highest level of same unless they convert to Mormonism during their life or after-life. I also
see that dead people can be baptised by proxy, that God was born an imperfect being with
a physical body (like you and I) and had to progress to become a God, that you and I can
literally become Gods and sit at the throne next to God himself to rule over our kingdom, and a
bunch of other science-fiction nonsense, depending on which essential principles I'm comparing.
The problem is, you apparently don't know how to read that stuff. The problem is most "religious" people don't know. This is one of the characteristics of the Kali-Yuga, in which were in, that even the most religious people in this age are nothing compared to even the least enlightened ones in the Golden Age.
BTW I just mentioned how religion is using parables, and the next thing you do is take everything in a literal sense. Now this is not stupid anymore, but simply stubborn.
We talk about religions and the best example you can come up with is Mormonism. Well then, let's talk about science and I start quoting Erich von Däniken, so we get to the same level, OK?
jeez, Americans.
We used to say that about Homer as well. But ever since the "Prolegomena ad Homerum" written in 1795 put this in question there remain doubts about this "historical" person.
We are not sure whether he really existed, or even if he did whether he wrote the Illiad and Odyssey (and his other works) himself or just collected those works together.
What I'm trying to say that even simple facts, where one would think it's obvious to see whether someone existed or not, might not always be so sure, if you take a second look.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. X11 is there because it has a past. Its future doesn't look all that bright though.
As for Aqua or to be more precise Quartz (because that's the display engine), I'd say it is one of the most advanced windows/display/compositing eninges available (Quartz extreme has yet to find its match in the OSS world) so yes, it does have a future indeed.
Path Finder seems to be a very interesting alternative to the Finder
http://www.cocoatech.com/
Really? Does science have hundreds of different theories (religions), each with its own rewrite
of the laws of physics (canons), with explanations that disagree with others?
Over time yes. Many past axioms of science have been proven wrong over time (earth is flat, earth is in the centre of the universe, nothing can travel faster than sound, things "heavier than air" can't fly--despite having birds, moskitos, butterflies, you name it, flying over the head of those people every day).
There are quite some disputes about the laws of relativity and the speed of light as the absolute fastest speed information can travel. There are disputes about quantum mechanics, black holes, the existens of worm holes etc.
There are many many disputes about evolution--wow here's a recognized science which lacks any proof whatsoever, and still you all believe it. Now isn't that amazing.
You might say they don't all come with their own rewrites of the laws of physics, but hey, when I look at all the religions I don't see a rewrite of the fundamentals laws (not the practial rules like the 10 commandments, but the essential principles religions are based on). They all look at the light (final truth) through the prism called logic mind and language, so one says the light's green, the other one says it's red. While they're all correct, because they look at only aspects of the whole truth, that is the white light which can never be fully expressed in words, because as noted above, language is too much bound to logic, and therefore too limited.
That is also why religions make use of parables so often. It is due to the fact, that language is bound too much to logical thinking (as in mathematical logic), and therefore cannot perfectly convey contents which are beyond logic which only exposes part of the whole truth.
If religion were truely orthogonal to science, it wouldn't make claims about scientifically-testable physical effects. But that's what "miracles" are.
A manifestation into the bodily world, doesn't necessarily mean it is scientifcally-testable. BTW you are mistaking the church for religion. So I'm afraid you don't have much of a point here.
No cause and effect? Tell that to all the preachers shouting about which actions will send you to hell, and what specific corrective devotions you can recite to stave off that effect.
I'm not talking about doctrines (which suck) preachers (which suck) or any kind of "official" religious community (most of which suck). I'm talking about the essence of religion, the very esoteric part of what it's all about (maybe Zen Buddhism is a good example for that, since it's rather doctrine free).
But if a god wanted, he could prove it exists... this constitutes logical proof that gods are either nonexistent, wish to seem nonexistent [...]
The real message is that without any readyness on your side (i.e. actively trying to seek the truth and trying to better yourself very hard and not just sitting in your armchair with a bud on your side and shouting: "c'mon you sucker prove your existence") you will get nowhere. And with really hard, I mean really hard. Not just a visit to the local Zen temple and meditating twice a week.
I was saying that there's no science in it and you try to prove that religion belongs to science-fiction?
Can anyone mod this guy offtopic?
I tell ya, just put OS X for Intel on BitTorrent, and post it on Slashdot.
The geeks will be there before you hit [submit]
If that's not faster than light, I don't know.
There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night!
~Reginald Buller
This killfest sounds more like "Enter the Dragon"
You've nailed it.
StarTrek is the sick vision of the future as a totalitarion US regime would like to see it. It could almost be written by G.W. Bush.
Have you ever wondered why all politically important places in the StarTrek earth of the future, are in the US? Why the "cultural" aspects in StarTrek are so US centric? Why everyone speaks English?
If physical existence/evidence is a necessity for you to believe in things, then I can only recommend you to give up science as well.
At least everything about electromagnetic waves and such.
>Religion has got to be the longest-running form of science fiction ever
Nope. Because there's no science in it. Religion is beyond cause and effect, beyond "logic", so even if science wanted it couldn't prove gods existence, simply because the two systems are too different.
It's as if you'd wanted to prove the beauty of Mozarts music with science, or to prove the correctness of a mathematical formula with Music. The two systems do not match in such a way. They partly overlap (as does science an Music, when it comes to waveforms and such), but this doesn't make them completely "compatible" in every aspect.
4: (So long as it does not conflict with the above,) An android must not allow itself or any other object to come to harm.
Wouldn't the "not allowing itself to come to harm" mean that you'd never be able to use androids for rescueing people or in areas where significant danger is involved (hazardous environment etc.)?
Zen Kôan:
What is the sound of one glass breaking in space?
Cool! Let's make an aquarium and put some whales in there!
>If you're trying OSX because of Unix then you've already answered your problem with the middle paste.
>If you're using OSX because of Apple, then you'll like everything it has to offer.
I'm an old time Mac user (since System 6), but before my first Mac I actually once played with a NeXT box and immediately fell in love (didn't like the price tag, though).
So, if you ask me they should have stayed much closer to the much more consistent and cleaner NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP interface. I know this might have alienated many Mac OS users, but the die hard OS 7,8,9 guys still don't like OS X anyway.
We could have had the most consistent powerful desktop environment (just think all the NeXT goodies + Quartz Extreme and such!), but we've now ended up with a somewhat inconsistent, but slightly better GUI than the old and crufty Mac OS, and lost a lot of the NeXT power (and gained some new stuff, admittedly).
It's a bit of a shame. I hope the NeXT guys slowly take over control (looking at recent developements there still is hope) and bring us a two-button mouse, tear-off menues and get rid of the menue bar on top. I think the NeXT approach was better, considering dual-headed display and huge monitors (30" upwards).
I'd double that. Just because it's almost as good as Windows doesn't mean shit. Even it being better as Windows doesn't.
Windows is an inconsitent godawful mess, so being better than the worst doesn't a good GUI make.
So, Mr. "GIMP on apple is simple enough for idiots", how come it doesn't fucking work?!?
GIMP.app should actually launch X11 if it's not running yet (provided X11 is installed on your machine--you know, X11 is not the pinnacle of consistency and ease of use, that's why it isn't installed by default on OS X, 'tis a geek thing).
If you have X11 installed (from your OS CD/DVD) and it doesn't work, contact the developer. Please don't blame Apple if an open source app is showing weird behaviour on OS X.
It does help a bit I think. But you really have to play around in Interface builder yourself, to see how easy, fun and productive it is to make UIs with it.
You'll be surprised in how helpful it is helping you not to screw up the interface up too badly (lots of useful dynamic guides for alignment etc.).
Well, when it comes to good GUI design, someone has to make decisions.
If you let everyone have it their way, you get the GUI disaster that is Linux (take one or the other of the big DEs alone, and there is a little more consitency, but then, who are the GNOME or KDE guys to tell me: only run KDE or GNOME apps otherwise your whole consistency in UI design goes down the drain).
I meant "acknowledgement" with ACK. I thought your comment was very well written, so I was wondering why you'd post as Anonymous Coward--that way many people won't even see your post, which is a waste in my opinion.
Maybe you're not aware of this but many on Slashdot set their preferences to not even display AC posts.
Just my two cents (in Euro, that is)...