I found the installer using Google. Just like I would in Linux. Sure, maybe the software is available from apt-get, but generally I'd have to hit Google just to find out that the MP3 player for Linux is XMMS, so no extra time spent there.
As for security - look, I'm talking about ease of use. Security is an afterthought - if that - by most home Windows users. You may not like it. I certainly don't. But it doesn't enter into the ease-of-use question. Installation from a website is the easiest thing ever. Click Download, NNNF.
The problem is, the Linux world is inhabited by some pretty smart people who are willing to put in the effort to use Linux. If Linux is ever going to take the home desktop, the community has to ask itself "What if I had the IQ of a retarded monkey and the attention span of a gnat?".
My Windows came with a webserver that is easily configured using a GUI. I can install the DivX codec using the exact same install sequence as anything else - NextNextNextFinish. Installing Visual Studio - same thing. Installation is a breeze. Configuration - as long as you don't need fine-grained control - is as easy as a few point-and-clicks.
Is installing a codec as easy in Linux? What media player/writer are you using? What's the configuration format? Can you just drop the codec in the filesystem and forget about it? Sure, it's usually pretty easy to find out, but in Windows: NextNextNextFinish.
Setting up a new virtual directory on your web server? Windows: Right-click your server, New Virtual Directory, Next, enter server path, Next, enter filesystem path, Finish. Every step logically follows the last to complete a simple task. Apache? Edit httpd.conf. If you've worked on it recently, or have a template to go on, you might not even have to look to the man pages. In Windows you could be asked to do it again next week and not have to pull in a single reference manual. In Linux, you're looking for an existing configuration file to copy, or going back to the man pages.
Or maybe I can put this another way. I'm a geek. I ran Linux exclusively for three years. I've been programming since I was twelve. I've written clients and servers and simply enjoy tinkering.
For installation and configuration, I find Windows programs have a smoother learning curve and make new things easier than Linux programs do (once again - two years ago - things may have changed). You may disagree, but you'd be in the minority - and when it comes to ease-of-use, majority opinion tends to rule.
The word "supernatural" itself bothers me. Even if there is a God, He acts according to his will. His religions assume that he works by certain "rules" - doling out punishment and miracles based on factors only he knows of. I'd still consider that a "natural cause that we don't understand the natural drivers behind".
Just as quantum physics - according to some - is actually produced by pure randomness that changes depending on whether it is being observed. Even *pure randomness* is considered a natural cause. I have no freaking clue what a "supernatural phenomenon" would be.
Just speaking for myself, I'm not about to let atheists.org tell me what I believe. Specifically #3 seems like an article of faith that just doesn't belong there. As for the other two, the phrase "natural phenomena" and even "matter" are ambiguous at this stage of our scientific advancement. I suppose I believe 1 and 2, but their meanings are so broad as to include the traditional definition of God (a "natural phenomenon" made of "matter" in another dimension, whose thoughts are a property of that "matter"), so they're pretty much meaningless.
Sorry, this simply isn't true. To get Windows to a point where I can use it, it's generally a four-hour process, and then gradual tweaking of things over the next few weeks.
Linux is about a four-hour process too, for just the basic installation. But getting it to a point where I can use it is far more involved. I've had to edit XF86Config files to get my desktop how I want it, locate and install special codecs for mplayer, edit httpd.conf for my web server. For a novice, each of these things is about half a day of researching the problems and playing around with different configuration options. Even now that I've done them, I still have to refresh my memory on the dozens of different configuration file formats if I ever have to dive into them again.
Windows *is* easier to use. Learn one interface (Next->Typical Install->Next->Next->Finish->Start Menu->All Programs->Click the program name), and you've learned 90% of what is involved in installing and configuring new software. For someone who's never used a computer before, maybe that is a half-day process as well. But Linux has different install interfaces every way you turn, and special cases out the yin-yang (not Linux' fault most of the time due to proprietary formats or patent issues, but that doesn't make the cases any less special)
Maybe it's changed in the two years since my last install, but I doubt it.
Bottom line - For a lot of things Linux is, more stable, more powerful, offers more fine control, and is simply a better OS for developers and sysadmins.
There are a number of tests that would invalidate evolution, but some are very hard to control. Just remember that an experiment can still be valid even if it were "performed" millions of years ago. If the current theory of evolution states that you will never see a mammal with leaves, and you find a mammal with leaves (or a fossil thereof), then the theory has been invalidated. In all likelihood it would be replaced by a similar theory that takes into account the new evidence.
*sigh* - because - as others have pointed out - this "evidence" against evolution is bad science. Here - let's play a game.
You give me some evidence against evolution, and I'll refute it. If the evidence is as good as you claim, I should have no recourse but to accept your theory that evolution did not produce the myriad of species on earth today.
The program manager had to convince Gates that doing so was a good idea
Of course he did. They're making a gigantic change to the UI of their main moneymaker. But attributing the change to Gates belittles the effort of the hundreds of people who actually designed the thing.
I think your "moral life" may differ very much from that of a Muslim extremist or Amish.
This is true, but it stands as a testament to the fact that just because religion begets morality, does not mean that morality is absolute. The "axioms" (interpretation of God's will) accepted by the two above groups lead to completely different moral codes. If there is a divine source of morality, then one of these two groups has it completely wrong, and yet is absolutely sure of their correctness. If there's no way of telling whether your moral code is the "correct" one or not, then is this any different from there being no "true" moral source - at least from our myopic view here on earth?
it's odd to me that someone who doesn't believe in a higher power and doesn't believe in an after life would honestly accept something like the "Maximum happiness for the maximum number of people"
I can see why this could be considered odd, but I've had a lot more time to think about it than you have:) One strong point for improving the lot of others is brought up later in your post - I am going to die, and I believe that after that point, I will be nothing. The universe will go on without me, and a great many people like me - and unlike me - will follow.
I have the choice of dedicating my life to the transient pleasure of 200lbs of flesh for about 80 years - or to the improvement of thousands or more people for possibly generations to come. Once I'm dead, I will have no memory of this life, and the pleasure I experienced would have had no lasting impact - or worse, a negative one. Perhaps it is just a genetic chance, but it seems to me that people crave purpose - and living a life of selfish pleasure does not satisfy that need.
Finally, I do believe in justice and goodwill and all of the other aspects of society that have no base in atoms and photons. However, without a god to enforce them, that leaves it up to us. If angels do not exist, then we must become them.
Are there not 256 different dyes out there that a) Reflect a narrow frequency range b) Pass through most of the rest?
(This is a serious question - I have no idea if that many dyes could be layered/mixed such that the first one laid down would still be readable - and it would probably depend on the size of the "dot")
If so, there's no reason one could not layer 256 different colors on top of each other, and turning the colors on or off gives you your 2^256.
But you can extend "higher power" to such a broad definition as to be meaningless in the context of religion. Can "reason" be a "higher power"? I argue that it can. The basic axioms you start with (E.g.: Maximum happiness for the maximum number of people) lead you to a moral life. So while you can argue that a "higher power" is neccessary, it becomes a fairly meaningless phrase, since everyone believes in something that could be considered a "higher" power.
"Let's see... we want to design a computer program that predicts the summed electromagnetic behavior of, oh, several tens of millions of atoms? Beyond the obvious hardware scaling problems, we must think of the individual quantum behaviour of these atoms, each of which has different quantum numbers and energy."
Never underestimate the power of large numbers of like items to have high-level patterns.
If they believe in a higher power they would ask if the action aligns with their higher power's moral standard. If they do not, and believe that morality is a social construct, then they ask themselves... what would the consequences of this action be if I am caught and am I willing to accept those consequences.
Do you honestly believe this? Do you believe there's no capacity in mankind for true altruism and goodness unless they believe in a higher power?
Hell, maybe it's true - I believe in a higher power myself, but it has nothing to do with God. I imagine myself - then ten of me, then hundreds, then billions. Not me - but people nonetheless - individuals. Billions of conscious minds with hopes and dreams and feelings. How can you not be in awe of that much sheer consciousness?
And as far as I'm concerned, it's my purpose during my short time on earth to improve the lot of that consciousness as much as I can. In no small way, I'm helping myself - or at least many like me.
You know, I'm not as cynical as you regarding power. There have been some damn fine powerful people - but they tend to have that power thrust on them.
I think the problem is that throughout history societies have been set up such that those who get the power are the ones who want it most - and the ones who want it most are more corruptable. I won't go into a theory as to why those attributes go hand in hand (I don't know that I have one)
But I do believe in great leaders. We just haven't designed a way to generate more of them.
Apparently you're not getting the point of this thread.
He was punched in the face when he was not resisting arrest. Simple as that. It does not matter what happened before then.
How did he get on the ground in the first place? Let the courts figure that one out when he gets his day for whatever he was arrested for. The video gives me enough to see a man who is not a threat being beaten. Simple as that.
Ask for some fucking help! You think the rest of the world wants to see the US go down in a wave of Schadenfreude? Okay - even if some do - do you think they want the same for Iraqis?
How about some mea culpas? How about admitting that you (no, not *you* you, just you in general) fucked the whole thing up? The only way out of this without leaving the country in chaos is for the whole world to actually take this seriously and try to rebuild the place into some semblance of a free state.
Frankly - you might have some trouble getting the support - but the alternative is that you allowed your government to be taken over and in the process destroyed an entire nation - and you then did nothing to fix it. Do you want that on your conscience...again?
An overzealous Dem supporter, I assume - I wouldn't mod you down, but I would disagree with the sentiment.
It's not the Dems getting what they want, it's Americans. It's hard to tell since at the moment the biggest thing both groups want is the Republicans out of power.
As to whether it's a good thing? Unequivocally. The one-party rule has resulted in a mountain of corruption and one - maybe two - quagmire wars. Obviously a balancing force is needed.
Now, if the Dems move to one-party rule in 2008 - that's the time to be asking whether it's a good thing. The bottom-feeders who corrupted the Republicans have no party loyalty - they're just drawn to power.
Are you sure about that? I think it might have deflated the R's more than the D's - and given real credence to the "time for a change" meme.
Of course, I believe this mainly because the R's didn't set the resignation on Monday - if they had thought it would benefit them, be sure that Rumsfeld would have been gone at least two days ago.
Will it heal the Iraqi people? Will it slow down the violence? Will it do anything other than make people feel warm and fuzzy in an eye-for-an-eye sort of way?
He's a horrible man and doesn't deserve the life he has, but really - what's the point? How does killing this man improve the world in which we live?
I don't know if you intend to be taken seriously, but the tone of this comment screams "troll". I tend to dismiss the opinion of anyone that sounds like - well - the above post.
Slashdot Mirror
I found the installer using Google. Just like I would in Linux. Sure, maybe the software is available from apt-get, but generally I'd have to hit Google just to find out that the MP3 player for Linux is XMMS, so no extra time spent there.
As for security - look, I'm talking about ease of use. Security is an afterthought - if that - by most home Windows users. You may not like it. I certainly don't. But it doesn't enter into the ease-of-use question. Installation from a website is the easiest thing ever. Click Download, NNNF.
The problem is, the Linux world is inhabited by some pretty smart people who are willing to put in the effort to use Linux. If Linux is ever going to take the home desktop, the community has to ask itself "What if I had the IQ of a retarded monkey and the attention span of a gnat?".
My Windows came with a webserver that is easily configured using a GUI. I can install the DivX codec using the exact same install sequence as anything else - NextNextNextFinish. Installing Visual Studio - same thing. Installation is a breeze. Configuration - as long as you don't need fine-grained control - is as easy as a few point-and-clicks.
Is installing a codec as easy in Linux? What media player/writer are you using? What's the configuration format? Can you just drop the codec in the filesystem and forget about it? Sure, it's usually pretty easy to find out, but in Windows: NextNextNextFinish.
Setting up a new virtual directory on your web server? Windows: Right-click your server, New Virtual Directory, Next, enter server path, Next, enter filesystem path, Finish. Every step logically follows the last to complete a simple task. Apache? Edit httpd.conf. If you've worked on it recently, or have a template to go on, you might not even have to look to the man pages. In Windows you could be asked to do it again next week and not have to pull in a single reference manual. In Linux, you're looking for an existing configuration file to copy, or going back to the man pages.
Or maybe I can put this another way. I'm a geek. I ran Linux exclusively for three years. I've been programming since I was twelve. I've written clients and servers and simply enjoy tinkering.
For installation and configuration, I find Windows programs have a smoother learning curve and make new things easier than Linux programs do (once again - two years ago - things may have changed). You may disagree, but you'd be in the minority - and when it comes to ease-of-use, majority opinion tends to rule.
The word "supernatural" itself bothers me. Even if there is a God, He acts according to his will. His religions assume that he works by certain "rules" - doling out punishment and miracles based on factors only he knows of. I'd still consider that a "natural cause that we don't understand the natural drivers behind".
Just as quantum physics - according to some - is actually produced by pure randomness that changes depending on whether it is being observed. Even *pure randomness* is considered a natural cause. I have no freaking clue what a "supernatural phenomenon" would be.
Just speaking for myself, I'm not about to let atheists.org tell me what I believe. Specifically #3 seems like an article of faith that just doesn't belong there. As for the other two, the phrase "natural phenomena" and even "matter" are ambiguous at this stage of our scientific advancement. I suppose I believe 1 and 2, but their meanings are so broad as to include the traditional definition of God (a "natural phenomenon" made of "matter" in another dimension, whose thoughts are a property of that "matter"), so they're pretty much meaningless.
Sorry, this simply isn't true. To get Windows to a point where I can use it, it's generally a four-hour process, and then gradual tweaking of things over the next few weeks.
Linux is about a four-hour process too, for just the basic installation. But getting it to a point where I can use it is far more involved. I've had to edit XF86Config files to get my desktop how I want it, locate and install special codecs for mplayer, edit httpd.conf for my web server. For a novice, each of these things is about half a day of researching the problems and playing around with different configuration options. Even now that I've done them, I still have to refresh my memory on the dozens of different configuration file formats if I ever have to dive into them again.
Windows *is* easier to use. Learn one interface (Next->Typical Install->Next->Next->Finish->Start Menu->All Programs->Click the program name), and you've learned 90% of what is involved in installing and configuring new software. For someone who's never used a computer before, maybe that is a half-day process as well. But Linux has different install interfaces every way you turn, and special cases out the yin-yang (not Linux' fault most of the time due to proprietary formats or patent issues, but that doesn't make the cases any less special)
Maybe it's changed in the two years since my last install, but I doubt it.
Bottom line - For a lot of things Linux is, more stable, more powerful, offers more fine control, and is simply a better OS for developers and sysadmins.
But ease of use? Forget about it.
There are a number of tests that would invalidate evolution, but some are very hard to control. Just remember that an experiment can still be valid even if it were "performed" millions of years ago. If the current theory of evolution states that you will never see a mammal with leaves, and you find a mammal with leaves (or a fossil thereof), then the theory has been invalidated. In all likelihood it would be replaced by a similar theory that takes into account the new evidence.
*sigh* - because - as others have pointed out - this "evidence" against evolution is bad science. Here - let's play a game.
You give me some evidence against evolution, and I'll refute it. If the evidence is as good as you claim, I should have no recourse but to accept your theory that evolution did not produce the myriad of species on earth today.
The program manager had to convince Gates that doing so was a good idea
Of course he did. They're making a gigantic change to the UI of their main moneymaker. But attributing the change to Gates belittles the effort of the hundreds of people who actually designed the thing.
I could live with universal surveillance as long as the streams (and speakers) were open to *all*.
I think your "moral life" may differ very much from that of a Muslim extremist or Amish.
:) One strong point for improving the lot of others is brought up later in your post - I am going to die, and I believe that after that point, I will be nothing. The universe will go on without me, and a great many people like me - and unlike me - will follow.
This is true, but it stands as a testament to the fact that just because religion begets morality, does not mean that morality is absolute. The "axioms" (interpretation of God's will) accepted by the two above groups lead to completely different moral codes. If there is a divine source of morality, then one of these two groups has it completely wrong, and yet is absolutely sure of their correctness. If there's no way of telling whether your moral code is the "correct" one or not, then is this any different from there being no "true" moral source - at least from our myopic view here on earth?
it's odd to me that someone who doesn't believe in a higher power and doesn't believe in an after life would honestly accept something like the "Maximum happiness for the maximum number of people"
I can see why this could be considered odd, but I've had a lot more time to think about it than you have
I have the choice of dedicating my life to the transient pleasure of 200lbs of flesh for about 80 years - or to the improvement of thousands or more people for possibly generations to come. Once I'm dead, I will have no memory of this life, and the pleasure I experienced would have had no lasting impact - or worse, a negative one. Perhaps it is just a genetic chance, but it seems to me that people crave purpose - and living a life of selfish pleasure does not satisfy that need.
Finally, I do believe in justice and goodwill and all of the other aspects of society that have no base in atoms and photons. However, without a god to enforce them, that leaves it up to us. If angels do not exist, then we must become them.
Impossible?
Are there not 256 different dyes out there that
a) Reflect a narrow frequency range
b) Pass through most of the rest?
(This is a serious question - I have no idea if that many dyes could be layered/mixed such that the first one laid down would still be readable - and it would probably depend on the size of the "dot")
If so, there's no reason one could not layer 256 different colors on top of each other, and turning the colors on or off gives you your 2^256.
But you can extend "higher power" to such a broad definition as to be meaningless in the context of religion. Can "reason" be a "higher power"? I argue that it can. The basic axioms you start with (E.g.: Maximum happiness for the maximum number of people) lead you to a moral life. So while you can argue that a "higher power" is neccessary, it becomes a fairly meaningless phrase, since everyone believes in something that could be considered a "higher" power.
"Let's see... we want to design a computer program that predicts the summed electromagnetic behavior of, oh, several tens of millions of atoms? Beyond the obvious hardware scaling problems, we must think of the individual quantum behaviour of these atoms, each of which has different quantum numbers and energy."
Never underestimate the power of large numbers of like items to have high-level patterns.
If they believe in a higher power they would ask if the action aligns with their higher power's moral standard. If they do not, and believe that morality is a social construct, then they ask themselves... what would the consequences of this action be if I am caught and am I willing to accept those consequences.
Do you honestly believe this? Do you believe there's no capacity in mankind for true altruism and goodness unless they believe in a higher power?
Hell, maybe it's true - I believe in a higher power myself, but it has nothing to do with God. I imagine myself - then ten of me, then hundreds, then billions. Not me - but people nonetheless - individuals. Billions of conscious minds with hopes and dreams and feelings. How can you not be in awe of that much sheer consciousness?
And as far as I'm concerned, it's my purpose during my short time on earth to improve the lot of that consciousness as much as I can. In no small way, I'm helping myself - or at least many like me.
I watched the video and didn't catch it - can you give me a timestamp?
You know, I'm not as cynical as you regarding power. There have been some damn fine powerful people - but they tend to have that power thrust on them.
I think the problem is that throughout history societies have been set up such that those who get the power are the ones who want it most - and the ones who want it most are more corruptable. I won't go into a theory as to why those attributes go hand in hand (I don't know that I have one)
But I do believe in great leaders. We just haven't designed a way to generate more of them.
No - you don't get the point of the thread, because you continue to bring up a point that you've been repeatedly told doesn't matter.
At that time, it's important to either move onto another argument, or explain why it does matter. You've done neither.
Apparently you're not getting the point of this thread.
He was punched in the face when he was not resisting arrest. Simple as that. It does not matter what happened before then.
How did he get on the ground in the first place? Let the courts figure that one out when he gets his day for whatever he was arrested for. The video gives me enough to see a man who is not a threat being beaten. Simple as that.
Well, it was either this, or win the lottery. I stand by my decision.
I could care less about most of the stuff I want. A lot less. In fact, the stuff I want is some of the most important stuff I want!
Am I a tax-dodging fatcat?
Ask for some fucking help! You think the rest of the world wants to see the US go down in a wave of Schadenfreude? Okay - even if some do - do you think they want the same for Iraqis?
How about some mea culpas? How about admitting that you (no, not *you* you, just you in general) fucked the whole thing up? The only way out of this without leaving the country in chaos is for the whole world to actually take this seriously and try to rebuild the place into some semblance of a free state.
Here are some historic troop-level stats. As you said - about 500K troops are needed according to this most basic analysis.
Frankly - you might have some trouble getting the support - but the alternative is that you allowed your government to be taken over and in the process destroyed an entire nation - and you then did nothing to fix it. Do you want that on your conscience...again?
An overzealous Dem supporter, I assume - I wouldn't mod you down, but I would disagree with the sentiment.
It's not the Dems getting what they want, it's Americans. It's hard to tell since at the moment the biggest thing both groups want is the Republicans out of power.
As to whether it's a good thing? Unequivocally. The one-party rule has resulted in a mountain of corruption and one - maybe two - quagmire wars. Obviously a balancing force is needed.
Now, if the Dems move to one-party rule in 2008 - that's the time to be asking whether it's a good thing. The bottom-feeders who corrupted the Republicans have no party loyalty - they're just drawn to power.
Are you sure about that? I think it might have deflated the R's more than the D's - and given real credence to the "time for a change" meme.
Of course, I believe this mainly because the R's didn't set the resignation on Monday - if they had thought it would benefit them, be sure that Rumsfeld would have been gone at least two days ago.
Will it heal the Iraqi people? Will it slow down the violence? Will it do anything other than make people feel warm and fuzzy in an eye-for-an-eye sort of way?
He's a horrible man and doesn't deserve the life he has, but really - what's the point? How does killing this man improve the world in which we live?
I don't know if you intend to be taken seriously, but the tone of this comment screams "troll". I tend to dismiss the opinion of anyone that sounds like - well - the above post.
I don't think I'm the only one, either.