Consider this: God created a world with pain and suffering with the full knowledge that He Himself would enter that world as a man, endure that same suffering we do and die one of the most painful deaths man would ever invent so that we would turn back to him. The universe was created to demonstrate God's glory. Pain and suffering were created so that He could demonstrate His love.
Consider this: God created a world with pain and suffering with the full knowledge that He Himself would enter that world as a man, endure that same suffering we do and die one of the most painful deaths man would ever invent so that we would turn back to him. The universe was created to demonstrate God's glory. Pain and suffering were created so that He could demonstrate His love.
The appendix, like the tonsils, are part of the immune system. From the linked article:
There are two main theories about the function of the appendix. Some experts think it serves as a "factory" for bacteria that help us digest the cellulose in some plants we eat. But most scientists believe that both the appendix and the tonsils are part of our immune system, manufacturing B-Lymphocytes, which are white blood cells that produce antibodies to fight infections in the body.
We can live without it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose while we have it.
I just named several in that linked document. The whole development of the embryo continues to be mistaught in many schools today despite the fact that modern medicine has long since debunked these myths. There is also this interesting article which attempts to debunk most of the theories regarding human evolution by studying the DNA. While I am not in complete agreement with the conclusion, it is definite some food for thought. Make sure to check out the article's references.
One of the big problems I see is that school textbooks are not updated with the current information. One textbook I saw being used in schools still referenced the Nebraska man!
I disagree. It's completely rational. The argument I put forth has no flaws in it, no logical way out.
I would be careful about making such bold proclamations as this. Next you will be saying that you never make mistakes. And I know that that is not true. We were all children at one point after all.
The point the parent was so logically trying to make is that we cannot possibly know the purpose of omnipotent, omniscient God. Until you can see the "big picture", how can you possibly judge a creature that is infinitely greater than yourself. I cannot claim even remotely to understand the purposes of God, but perhaps a few examples can be given for how love and pain can co-exist. Consider discipline. Parents often cause "pain" on the part of their children to re-inforce a behavioral standard. This does not need to constitute spanking, because even a "time-out" can be considered very "painful" to a young child. However, you would not consider a parent who is trying to guide their child toward adulthood as not loving their child. Rather, the parent who never disciplines their child and never re-directs their immaturity is the one who hates their child because they do not want them to grow up to be well-adjusted adults who are mentally prepared to face the world.
Also, great learning often comes from pain. Some of the most compassionate and loving people in the world are those who have experienced the most pain. People who have suffered from poverty or disease or torture or depression. If you have gone through painful processes, you know that often you come through much wiser and you care more for those you see around you who are suffering. If you talk to parents of highly disabled children, you almost always hear them talk about how their child is so loving and caring - a sweet, beautiful person.
You will probably quickly dismiss what I have said so far as "illogical", but how can you hope to discuss logic as a finite, mortal being with limited knowledge, experience, understanding and wisdom with an immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing being whose very existence transcends time? Who are you to tell God that His way is the wrong way or that He is not loving? Can we even be totally sure that we completely understand what love really is?
By the way, Biblical scholars have debated this very issue many times over the centuries. If you are truly curious how more logical thinkers than myself have handled these issues, I encourage you to read some of their books. You might start with "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis.
We came from apes. Apes came from monkeys. Monkeys came from lemurs. Lemurs came from rodents. Rodents came from some earlier mammal. That mammal came from reptiles. Reptiles came from amphibians. Amphibians came from fish. And so on. In fact, the biggest evidence of this IS embryology. Do some research on it some time. There's a reason human embryos have a tail, and are indistinguishable from nearly every other land dwelling embryo for quite a large amount of it's development.
This is simply not true. There are no "leftover" organs from evolution. The "tail" is extremely important for balance among other things. Doctors are learning more and more about the importance of every single organ in the human body. Check out the link above for a very detailed discussion on the topic.
It frustrates me that we Christians are so often criticized for our ignorance when there is just as much ignorance among evolutionists -- probably because of the poor excuse for education in America today. A large percentage of the evolutionary "facts" they teach in schools today have been disproven by evolutionist scientists decades ago, but these lies continue to be propogated. That is not to say that there is not still a lot of evidence that points toward evolution, but rather that creationists do not have a monopoly on ignorance and misleading "evidence".
Most of the ones that are religious don't deal with the stuff that gets close to religious questions. For instance, those who deal with biology and evolution and such tend to be far less religious, than, say, those who do metalurgy or whatnot.
There is a very notable exception which also makes me wonder if the entire assertion is based on a false premise. Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project, is a professing Christian and involved in a field that most would not expect a Christian to be involved in yet alone leading. I highly recommend reading the linked article if you want to see how a Christian views the scientific world. I wonder, sometimes, if the reason why we don't "see" a lot of Christian scientists these days is due to the prejudice of the current scientific establishment.
I was a huge fan of both Wolfenstein and Doom (having wasted many hours of my college life on both), but I have to agree with their choice. Doom brought one huge factor into the FPS that Wolfenstein lacked: multiplayer capability. Before Doom, we used to hike up to Macintosh lab so we could play Bolo, a simple player-vs-player real network game where you fought each other in little tanks. It was actually a very fun and addictive game. But it was Doom that brought this concept to the mainstream. In Wolfenstein, once you solved the maps, there was no replay unless you downloaded your own level builder, but with Doom and multiplayer, you could play the same levels again and again. It made Doom highly addictive at the time.
I remember a couple friends of mine created a network of four computers in our dorm(at a time when they still gave out college credit to CS students who fought through the headaches of networking a couple computers), and for the next semester, there was a death match running until about 2 am every night. It was huge. Of course, later came Descent (a revolutionary game in its own right), Hexen, Quake, etc., but it was Doom that truly kicked off the revolution. Without multiplayer, it would have been a pretty substantial upgrade to the graphics, but the player-vs-player death match would change the gaming world forever.
The problem here is not just that Microsoft was talking about doing something to hurt the market share of another company, but rather that the method they were looking to use was of a monopolistic nature. By cutting out Microsoft Office from Apple, they would hurt the Microsoft Office division but would help the Microsoft Windows division. Basically, by a single company owning the overwhelmingly dominant office suite and operating system, they had the ability to destroy competition. Consider, for example, that Microsoft was divided into two (or more) distinctive companies: one that developed the operating system and related development tools and one that developed Microsoft Office products. In this scenario, Microsoft Office would continue to support Apple due to the revenue stream. The Microsoft Windows company would be required to compete on an equal footing against the Mac OS and any other operating system.
This is not to say that this is complete monopoly. Linux does not have Microsoft Office, but they are able to compete with Open Office. However, it is an example of how Microsoft's position in multiple sectors can be combined to give them an unfair advantage. It is almost like the phone company also owning the electricity companies. "Sure you can use our competitor's phone service, but then you won't get any power." Some choice. (Of course, phone companies are their own form of evil monopoly, but that is another story.)
But yeah, I agree that China has some MAJOR issues that will be coming at them. But the difference in sex is less of a problem for china. As you pointed out, that lots of single men tend to be agressive (think of the west or even of alaska). That can be hard on a society. But historically, nations have harnessed that into armies and invaded other nations. In particular, they do so to take a resource, such as an island, water, iron or copper. Of course, some just go after oil.
This has made me wonder if India should be more than a little nervous. They are the only country in Asia (actually, the world) with enough women to meet the building demand in China. And they are, after all, neighbors. I guess it is a good thing that they have the largest mountain range in the world between them.
This article has taken great and repetitive pains to explain something that may in fact not be true. A previous./ story talked about indications that the speed of light may in fact be slowing down. Depending on the rate of change, they could be witnessing events significantly closer to the current time -- especially when we are talking billions of years.
You're right about the duration. My memory was playing tricks on me as I forgot about the layover in Auckland, New Zealand (which while adding time made the trip a little easier with the break).
The wind speed of the jet stream may not change much, but the path of the jet stream varies quite a bit. Sometimes they are able to take advantage of it more than others. On one flight I was on, they were able to shave off two hours because of a favorable jet stream.
Post 9/11; four hours pre-flight, eight hours in flight, one hour at the other end : 13 hours
For a flight to London maybe that is correct, but for a long international flight the situation looks much better. For example, the flight from Los Angeles, USA to Sydney, Australia takes somewhere around 18 hours today (depending on the jet stream). In this scenario, you go from 23 hours to 7. That is a huge improvement. This new plane is for the very long flights that take you around the world.
After having flown the Sydney to L.A. flight a number of times, I laugh whenever I hear someone complaining about a "long" domestic flight. I would much rather take the two-hour-with-a-great-view flight than endure 18 hours on a single plane.
Everyone here is jumping on the misleading article concerning this game. The fact is that killing is strongly discouraged in this game. Now, I am not completely supporting it (there are some pretty hokey aspects in my opinion), but we need to get the facts straight here. This game is not like most RTS games out there. You are actually penalized for killing the opponent's people because the goal is to convert everyone.
Each unit in the game has a "spirit" score that determines which side they are on. If they have a spirit score above 60, they are a Christian and therefore on your side. If their spirit score is below 40, they are the enemy and will try to kill or subvert you. Anyone between 60 and 40 is neutral and can be converted. If any of your units kills another unit, they lose spirit points. Only through prayer and inspirational music (who defines inspirational anyway, but I digress...) and good sermons can you increase the spirit points. The whole system is designed to discourage combat, but it realizes that in any conflict, sometimes you don't have much of a choice. If someone comes at you with a gun, you either die or your fight back to protect yourself. This is where the combat comes in. This is not a game of convert-or-die. Also, the anti-christ team can "win", but this means that all of the units left in the game are going to hell (according to the game's rules) -- so in essence it is a loss.
As far as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc., if you actually look at what transpired there, it had very little to do with true Christianity. None of the acts carried out in the name of Christ were actually in keeping with his teachings. Many causes are subverted by those who take matters into their own hands. Sometimes it is because they are too zealous. Sometimes it is because they can use the system to serve their own purposes. Just because terrible things have been done in the name of Christ does not mean that Christianity is in itself evil. All of the Christians I know (including myself) abhor what happened in the Crusades. The Crusaders didn't just kill non-believers when they sacked Jerusalem. They killed everyone: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. It was an act of barbarous and hideous evil that sickens me every time I think about it.
The problem was not Christianity, but the tightly held monopoly of the Church of Rome that kept its people in the dark about the truths of scripture while allowing corrupt people to wield incredible power. The crusaders were told that they would be "forgiven of all sins" if they went on the crusade, and in their ignorance, they did not know that Jesus gave forgiveness freely for sins confessed (you don't even need a priest). Thus the religion was subverted and misused to the profit of greedy men. As I said, it had very little to do with the religion of Christianity and everything to do with the corruption of man.
My favorite was the "My Life: Bill Clinton" contrasted with "Don't Waste Your Life". So, did Bill Clinton waste his life, or is the reading of his book a waste of our own?:-)
That reminds me of a great children's book I ran across a few years ago called Motel of the Mysteries. It was a comical take on what archaeologists might think of our culture as they unearth a 20th century motel. It really makes you wonder how utterly wrong our understanding of history may be. The one thing I remember best from the history of ancient Greece is that all of our knowledge of that culture is based on a single book and a few fragments.
It's not really news as it is just reaffirmation that the weakest link in security is the human factor. It's been a known problem that someone could just walk in and pretend to be tech support/help desk/repair for as long as their has been computers.
While this is not technically "news", it serves as a good reminder and notice of warning. As mentioned in the article...
Combine catching the bad guy and letting an organization know this type of theft and criminal behavior really exists, and you get one of the best tools in educating employees about vigilance and how to be proactive in security.
Hearing stories like this raises awareness for all of us, and reminds us of different ways that we can be exploited so that we can avoid them. Just like learning from history, it is always better to learn from someone else's mistake instead of learning it the hard way.
Not to mention that "cellphone" rolls off the tongue much faster and easier than "mobile phone" (even in the shortened form -- cell vs mobile). I think it is a combination of the two.
That said, it DID start off really slow in the first season. But the later seasons were some of the finest sci-fi I've ever seen on television.
I would also add that the second season was also very, very dark. I know some friends who had a hard time watching the series because of all of the bad things that happened in the second season, but I guarantee you, the payoff in seasons 3 and 4 are worth it. You certainly cannot stop watching before you get to Severed Dreams, the episode that forever hooked me to Babylon 5 never to recover. In order to truly enjoy the victory, you have to first taste the defeat.
The problem I see right now with the Democratic party is that they are not really offering any alternatives. The only definite thing I am hearing from their camp is the desire to repeal the tax breaks, but it was those tax breaks that got the economy back on its feet. There is now more tax revenue specifically because of those tax cuts -- more money in individuals hands to invest back into the system.
When it comes to the war, they say to pull out the troops, but I have not really heard a coherent plan for how to achieve a solid ending for the war in Iraq. What is their plan for fixing Social Security? What is their plan for dealing with terrorism going forward? What is their plan for solving the border problems with Mexico? I am not saying that the Republicans solutions are acceptable either (especially on the last point), but the Democrats haven't offered anything... better or otherwise.
As near as I can tell, rabid partisanship has reached the point in the U.S. where no issue matters unless it is a partisan issue. This would explain all the utterly moronic responses to this article that suggest "this is no big deal because it's JUST gross incompetence on the part of the machine manufacturer. After all, it's not like this is something REALLY IMPORTANT like Republicans versus Democrats!"
I think you are completely missing the point. This is a very important issue, but it is not a political one. It is not the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats. It is a flawed design -- pure and simple. That is what those "utterly moronic" posts are trying to say. This is not to diminish the problem at all -- quite the contrary. The political climate is bad enough without providing additional ammunition to the partisan bickering. I don't think these machines should be used at all until a better design can be developed.
Except that to anyone who hasn't been lobotomized by party loyalty, nothing is more important than a reliable, trusted electoral system. And the terrifying thing is that there does not seem to be anyone like that left in the United States.
Exactly, and this is where the debate should focus. That is exactly what d3ac0n and I are trying to say, but somehow you missed the point -- and apparently, there are at least two people in the United States that are "like that". The whole point is to steer the conversation away from politics and toward solving the actual problem. Is it possible to design an electronic voting machine that is reliable and secure?
It is not rocket science to deduct the machines were intentionally miscalibrated - especially when the producer of voting machines happens to be a republican backing company.
Give me a break! I can just as easily say that all democrats are communists and are helping the Chinese plot an invasion to get some American territory (and women!). Have we become so cynical that we believe the absolute worst of everyone? (Answer: yes) I think everyone needs to take a chill pill for second. Just because a company can does not mean that they will. It is just as likely that it was a genuine mistake that just happened to appear slanted toward Democrats. Remember, we all have a tendency to find patterns that conform to our personal bias. Until there is actual proof of intentional tampering, we need to give the benefit of the doubt. Remember, it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty (regardless what the IRS does).
This inane bashing of the other party has got to stop. For every attack on Republican ethics, I can guarantee that I can name one for the Democrats. They both seem to be crooked and immoral. The fact is that I don't like either side right now. The Republicans seem to causing more harm than good and have lost their foundation. The Democrats offer no real solutions than to say they would do "better" than the Republicans. Both sides seem to be borderline incompetent (okay... no, the Democrats are incompetent -- this election should probably be won by a landslide, but they insist on shooting themselves in the foot). Until we actually start debating what is actually best for the country instead of what will best push forward our agenda or political party, we will only continue to tear ourselves apart.
Why can't we just focus on the problems with electronic voting rather than turning it into a political debate? Why can't we just say that the design is flawed and should not be used? A company can have a bad or flawed design without malicious intent. Anyone who doesn't think so hasn't programmed in the business world very long.
I wish I had mod points for you, because that was exactly my first thought. There is a huge difference between software that looks beautiful and software that is beautiful. A well designed application need not have visually fantastic features -- in fact, often the most "beautiful" applications have very simple interfaces, but they are very intuitive and a joy to use. I have not actually used a Mac in over a decade, but I am tempted to get one just because of the care Apple seems to take in everything that they do. In Windows Vista, Microsoft is doing exactly what Mark Shuttleworth has called for. They are trying to cover up the flaws and problems with Windows without actually redesigning the system.
The problem with Linux for me has been its clunky feel. Most of the applications felt like hacks. There was no coherent organization for system tools, or there were multiple collections of applications that seemed to do the same thing but with slight differences (equivalent of two apps to change the screen settings, but one sets the resolution and background and the other the background and color settings). The applications felt poorly designed and half-baked with inconsistent interfaces. Now granted, it has been a couple years since I last touched a Linux distribution, so things may have changed since then, but somehow I doubt it. Installing new software was a chore, and was never as simple as it should have been. It seemed that most applications were even worse in Linux than in Windows for scattering files all of the file system. Many applications required edits to text files for configuration which while making some configuration possible to automate from the command line does not make things easy to use for the casual user (where was the config file again?).
Really, from what I understand of OS X, Apple came much closer to what really needs to be done -- a complete revamping of the structure of Linux. Create a consistent, simplified and enforced directory structure to make application and driver installation much easier to manage. Replace all configuration with graphical tools while leaving the power of the command line available for those who wish to tap into it but out of plain view. Create a consistent user experience with well thought out conventions that create an atmosphere of familiarity throughout all applications that run in the system. Unfortunately, I am not sure that this is possible in the open source arena because you almost need a more totalitarian organization system to enforce it. Transforming Linux into a real competitor with OS X and Windows will take a great deal of organization and cooperation -- something that Linux seems to lack, especially when you consider how many flavors of Linux there are. Unity has never been their strong suit, but to accomplish what Mark Shuttleworth is suggesting, they will need a unified effort from the core systems all the way to the MP3 player to make it happen.
I'm sure hell.com will sell for a fair bit - but it will only be effective as a one-off marketing ploy (hey! Look! So-and-so casino has bought hell.com), no long term value in it.
Although I doubt they could afford it, Hell, Michigan might just be interested in this one.:-)
all it takes is a population of sufficiently violent, uneducated people with strong views, who have no respect for human rights and civil liberties.
As I was reading this, I could already see people making comments about those stupid Americans and uneducated, NASCAR-watching rednecks.... but some of the most hateful and dangerous comments come from the most educated people. Liberal campuses are very hateful toward conservative speakers often creating heckling mobs to try to disrupt their meetings. Professors routinely repress opposite points of view and openly deride those who try to express them. People are made to feel stupid if they have a difference of opinion because the "smart" people know all of the answers. To go against the opinions of the elite intelligensia is intolerable.
The problem is that education creates pride, and pride often blinds people to the truth. Some of the most profound observations come from children -- the most uneducated of all of us -- because they are not bogged down by the distractions and biases that education brings. Yet, the educated feel they are above that, and since they know so much more than those around them, they silence the thoughts and observations of the others since they cannot possibly be right.
One thing to remember with Americans is that compared to the world (not just Europe... there are other continents out there as well), we are very educated. Almost everyone has graduated from high school and a very large percentage of our population has been to or graduated from college. Yet there is a lot of hostility toward other points of views both from conservatives and liberals. I have certainly witnessed this harassment here on Slashdot where being conservative or religious can be grounds for modding down (regardless of the validity of the point) and Slashdot tends to be very educated. Censorship and repression of freedom are not only practiced by the ignorant -- but also by the proud.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider this: God created a world with pain and suffering with the full knowledge that He Himself would enter that world as a man, endure that same suffering we do and die one of the most painful deaths man would ever invent so that we would turn back to him. The universe was created to demonstrate God's glory. Pain and suffering were created so that He could demonstrate His love.
Consider this: God created a world with pain and suffering with the full knowledge that He Himself would enter that world as a man, endure that same suffering we do and die one of the most painful deaths man would ever invent so that we would turn back to him. The universe was created to demonstrate God's glory. Pain and suffering were created so that He could demonstrate His love.
The appendix, like the tonsils, are part of the immune system. From the linked article:
We can live without it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't serve a purpose while we have it.
I just named several in that linked document. The whole development of the embryo continues to be mistaught in many schools today despite the fact that modern medicine has long since debunked these myths. There is also this interesting article which attempts to debunk most of the theories regarding human evolution by studying the DNA. While I am not in complete agreement with the conclusion, it is definite some food for thought. Make sure to check out the article's references.
One of the big problems I see is that school textbooks are not updated with the current information. One textbook I saw being used in schools still referenced the Nebraska man!
I would be careful about making such bold proclamations as this. Next you will be saying that you never make mistakes. And I know that that is not true. We were all children at one point after all.
The point the parent was so logically trying to make is that we cannot possibly know the purpose of omnipotent, omniscient God. Until you can see the "big picture", how can you possibly judge a creature that is infinitely greater than yourself. I cannot claim even remotely to understand the purposes of God, but perhaps a few examples can be given for how love and pain can co-exist. Consider discipline. Parents often cause "pain" on the part of their children to re-inforce a behavioral standard. This does not need to constitute spanking, because even a "time-out" can be considered very "painful" to a young child. However, you would not consider a parent who is trying to guide their child toward adulthood as not loving their child. Rather, the parent who never disciplines their child and never re-directs their immaturity is the one who hates their child because they do not want them to grow up to be well-adjusted adults who are mentally prepared to face the world.
Also, great learning often comes from pain. Some of the most compassionate and loving people in the world are those who have experienced the most pain. People who have suffered from poverty or disease or torture or depression. If you have gone through painful processes, you know that often you come through much wiser and you care more for those you see around you who are suffering. If you talk to parents of highly disabled children, you almost always hear them talk about how their child is so loving and caring - a sweet, beautiful person.
You will probably quickly dismiss what I have said so far as "illogical", but how can you hope to discuss logic as a finite, mortal being with limited knowledge, experience, understanding and wisdom with an immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing being whose very existence transcends time? Who are you to tell God that His way is the wrong way or that He is not loving? Can we even be totally sure that we completely understand what love really is?
By the way, Biblical scholars have debated this very issue many times over the centuries. If you are truly curious how more logical thinkers than myself have handled these issues, I encourage you to read some of their books. You might start with "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis.
This is simply not true. There are no "leftover" organs from evolution. The "tail" is extremely important for balance among other things. Doctors are learning more and more about the importance of every single organ in the human body. Check out the link above for a very detailed discussion on the topic.
It frustrates me that we Christians are so often criticized for our ignorance when there is just as much ignorance among evolutionists -- probably because of the poor excuse for education in America today. A large percentage of the evolutionary "facts" they teach in schools today have been disproven by evolutionist scientists decades ago, but these lies continue to be propogated. That is not to say that there is not still a lot of evidence that points toward evolution, but rather that creationists do not have a monopoly on ignorance and misleading "evidence".
There is a very notable exception which also makes me wonder if the entire assertion is based on a false premise. Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project, is a professing Christian and involved in a field that most would not expect a Christian to be involved in yet alone leading. I highly recommend reading the linked article if you want to see how a Christian views the scientific world. I wonder, sometimes, if the reason why we don't "see" a lot of Christian scientists these days is due to the prejudice of the current scientific establishment.
I was a huge fan of both Wolfenstein and Doom (having wasted many hours of my college life on both), but I have to agree with their choice. Doom brought one huge factor into the FPS that Wolfenstein lacked: multiplayer capability. Before Doom, we used to hike up to Macintosh lab so we could play Bolo, a simple player-vs-player real network game where you fought each other in little tanks. It was actually a very fun and addictive game. But it was Doom that brought this concept to the mainstream. In Wolfenstein, once you solved the maps, there was no replay unless you downloaded your own level builder, but with Doom and multiplayer, you could play the same levels again and again. It made Doom highly addictive at the time.
I remember a couple friends of mine created a network of four computers in our dorm(at a time when they still gave out college credit to CS students who fought through the headaches of networking a couple computers), and for the next semester, there was a death match running until about 2 am every night. It was huge. Of course, later came Descent (a revolutionary game in its own right), Hexen, Quake, etc., but it was Doom that truly kicked off the revolution. Without multiplayer, it would have been a pretty substantial upgrade to the graphics, but the player-vs-player death match would change the gaming world forever.
The problem here is not just that Microsoft was talking about doing something to hurt the market share of another company, but rather that the method they were looking to use was of a monopolistic nature. By cutting out Microsoft Office from Apple, they would hurt the Microsoft Office division but would help the Microsoft Windows division. Basically, by a single company owning the overwhelmingly dominant office suite and operating system, they had the ability to destroy competition. Consider, for example, that Microsoft was divided into two (or more) distinctive companies: one that developed the operating system and related development tools and one that developed Microsoft Office products. In this scenario, Microsoft Office would continue to support Apple due to the revenue stream. The Microsoft Windows company would be required to compete on an equal footing against the Mac OS and any other operating system.
This is not to say that this is complete monopoly. Linux does not have Microsoft Office, but they are able to compete with Open Office. However, it is an example of how Microsoft's position in multiple sectors can be combined to give them an unfair advantage. It is almost like the phone company also owning the electricity companies. "Sure you can use our competitor's phone service, but then you won't get any power." Some choice. (Of course, phone companies are their own form of evil monopoly, but that is another story.)
This has made me wonder if India should be more than a little nervous. They are the only country in Asia (actually, the world) with enough women to meet the building demand in China. And they are, after all, neighbors. I guess it is a good thing that they have the largest mountain range in the world between them.
This article has taken great and repetitive pains to explain something that may in fact not be true. A previous ./ story talked about indications that the speed of light may in fact be slowing down. Depending on the rate of change, they could be witnessing events significantly closer to the current time -- especially when we are talking billions of years.
You're right about the duration. My memory was playing tricks on me as I forgot about the layover in Auckland, New Zealand (which while adding time made the trip a little easier with the break).
The wind speed of the jet stream may not change much, but the path of the jet stream varies quite a bit. Sometimes they are able to take advantage of it more than others. On one flight I was on, they were able to shave off two hours because of a favorable jet stream.
For a flight to London maybe that is correct, but for a long international flight the situation looks much better. For example, the flight from Los Angeles, USA to Sydney, Australia takes somewhere around 18 hours today (depending on the jet stream). In this scenario, you go from 23 hours to 7. That is a huge improvement. This new plane is for the very long flights that take you around the world.
After having flown the Sydney to L.A. flight a number of times, I laugh whenever I hear someone complaining about a "long" domestic flight. I would much rather take the two-hour-with-a-great-view flight than endure 18 hours on a single plane.
Everyone here is jumping on the misleading article concerning this game. The fact is that killing is strongly discouraged in this game. Now, I am not completely supporting it (there are some pretty hokey aspects in my opinion), but we need to get the facts straight here. This game is not like most RTS games out there. You are actually penalized for killing the opponent's people because the goal is to convert everyone.
Each unit in the game has a "spirit" score that determines which side they are on. If they have a spirit score above 60, they are a Christian and therefore on your side. If their spirit score is below 40, they are the enemy and will try to kill or subvert you. Anyone between 60 and 40 is neutral and can be converted. If any of your units kills another unit, they lose spirit points. Only through prayer and inspirational music (who defines inspirational anyway, but I digress...) and good sermons can you increase the spirit points. The whole system is designed to discourage combat, but it realizes that in any conflict, sometimes you don't have much of a choice. If someone comes at you with a gun, you either die or your fight back to protect yourself. This is where the combat comes in. This is not a game of convert-or-die. Also, the anti-christ team can "win", but this means that all of the units left in the game are going to hell (according to the game's rules) -- so in essence it is a loss.
As far as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc., if you actually look at what transpired there, it had very little to do with true Christianity. None of the acts carried out in the name of Christ were actually in keeping with his teachings. Many causes are subverted by those who take matters into their own hands. Sometimes it is because they are too zealous. Sometimes it is because they can use the system to serve their own purposes. Just because terrible things have been done in the name of Christ does not mean that Christianity is in itself evil. All of the Christians I know (including myself) abhor what happened in the Crusades. The Crusaders didn't just kill non-believers when they sacked Jerusalem. They killed everyone: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. It was an act of barbarous and hideous evil that sickens me every time I think about it.
The problem was not Christianity, but the tightly held monopoly of the Church of Rome that kept its people in the dark about the truths of scripture while allowing corrupt people to wield incredible power. The crusaders were told that they would be "forgiven of all sins" if they went on the crusade, and in their ignorance, they did not know that Jesus gave forgiveness freely for sins confessed (you don't even need a priest). Thus the religion was subverted and misused to the profit of greedy men. As I said, it had very little to do with the religion of Christianity and everything to do with the corruption of man.
My favorite was the "My Life: Bill Clinton" contrasted with "Don't Waste Your Life". So, did Bill Clinton waste his life, or is the reading of his book a waste of our own? :-)
That reminds me of a great children's book I ran across a few years ago called Motel of the Mysteries. It was a comical take on what archaeologists might think of our culture as they unearth a 20th century motel. It really makes you wonder how utterly wrong our understanding of history may be. The one thing I remember best from the history of ancient Greece is that all of our knowledge of that culture is based on a single book and a few fragments.
While this is not technically "news", it serves as a good reminder and notice of warning. As mentioned in the article...
Hearing stories like this raises awareness for all of us, and reminds us of different ways that we can be exploited so that we can avoid them. Just like learning from history, it is always better to learn from someone else's mistake instead of learning it the hard way.
Not to mention that "cellphone" rolls off the tongue much faster and easier than "mobile phone" (even in the shortened form -- cell vs mobile). I think it is a combination of the two.
I would also add that the second season was also very, very dark. I know some friends who had a hard time watching the series because of all of the bad things that happened in the second season, but I guarantee you, the payoff in seasons 3 and 4 are worth it. You certainly cannot stop watching before you get to Severed Dreams, the episode that forever hooked me to Babylon 5 never to recover. In order to truly enjoy the victory, you have to first taste the defeat.
Going off topic here, but....
The problem I see right now with the Democratic party is that they are not really offering any alternatives. The only definite thing I am hearing from their camp is the desire to repeal the tax breaks, but it was those tax breaks that got the economy back on its feet. There is now more tax revenue specifically because of those tax cuts -- more money in individuals hands to invest back into the system.
When it comes to the war, they say to pull out the troops, but I have not really heard a coherent plan for how to achieve a solid ending for the war in Iraq. What is their plan for fixing Social Security? What is their plan for dealing with terrorism going forward? What is their plan for solving the border problems with Mexico? I am not saying that the Republicans solutions are acceptable either (especially on the last point), but the Democrats haven't offered anything... better or otherwise.
I think you are completely missing the point. This is a very important issue, but it is not a political one. It is not the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats. It is a flawed design -- pure and simple. That is what those "utterly moronic" posts are trying to say. This is not to diminish the problem at all -- quite the contrary. The political climate is bad enough without providing additional ammunition to the partisan bickering. I don't think these machines should be used at all until a better design can be developed.
Exactly, and this is where the debate should focus. That is exactly what d3ac0n and I are trying to say, but somehow you missed the point -- and apparently, there are at least two people in the United States that are "like that". The whole point is to steer the conversation away from politics and toward solving the actual problem. Is it possible to design an electronic voting machine that is reliable and secure?
Give me a break! I can just as easily say that all democrats are communists and are helping the Chinese plot an invasion to get some American territory (and women!). Have we become so cynical that we believe the absolute worst of everyone? (Answer: yes) I think everyone needs to take a chill pill for second. Just because a company can does not mean that they will. It is just as likely that it was a genuine mistake that just happened to appear slanted toward Democrats. Remember, we all have a tendency to find patterns that conform to our personal bias. Until there is actual proof of intentional tampering, we need to give the benefit of the doubt. Remember, it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty (regardless what the IRS does).
This inane bashing of the other party has got to stop. For every attack on Republican ethics, I can guarantee that I can name one for the Democrats. They both seem to be crooked and immoral. The fact is that I don't like either side right now. The Republicans seem to causing more harm than good and have lost their foundation. The Democrats offer no real solutions than to say they would do "better" than the Republicans. Both sides seem to be borderline incompetent (okay... no, the Democrats are incompetent -- this election should probably be won by a landslide, but they insist on shooting themselves in the foot). Until we actually start debating what is actually best for the country instead of what will best push forward our agenda or political party, we will only continue to tear ourselves apart.
Why can't we just focus on the problems with electronic voting rather than turning it into a political debate? Why can't we just say that the design is flawed and should not be used? A company can have a bad or flawed design without malicious intent. Anyone who doesn't think so hasn't programmed in the business world very long.
I wish I had mod points for you, because that was exactly my first thought. There is a huge difference between software that looks beautiful and software that is beautiful. A well designed application need not have visually fantastic features -- in fact, often the most "beautiful" applications have very simple interfaces, but they are very intuitive and a joy to use. I have not actually used a Mac in over a decade, but I am tempted to get one just because of the care Apple seems to take in everything that they do. In Windows Vista, Microsoft is doing exactly what Mark Shuttleworth has called for. They are trying to cover up the flaws and problems with Windows without actually redesigning the system.
The problem with Linux for me has been its clunky feel. Most of the applications felt like hacks. There was no coherent organization for system tools, or there were multiple collections of applications that seemed to do the same thing but with slight differences (equivalent of two apps to change the screen settings, but one sets the resolution and background and the other the background and color settings). The applications felt poorly designed and half-baked with inconsistent interfaces. Now granted, it has been a couple years since I last touched a Linux distribution, so things may have changed since then, but somehow I doubt it. Installing new software was a chore, and was never as simple as it should have been. It seemed that most applications were even worse in Linux than in Windows for scattering files all of the file system. Many applications required edits to text files for configuration which while making some configuration possible to automate from the command line does not make things easy to use for the casual user (where was the config file again?).
Really, from what I understand of OS X, Apple came much closer to what really needs to be done -- a complete revamping of the structure of Linux. Create a consistent, simplified and enforced directory structure to make application and driver installation much easier to manage. Replace all configuration with graphical tools while leaving the power of the command line available for those who wish to tap into it but out of plain view. Create a consistent user experience with well thought out conventions that create an atmosphere of familiarity throughout all applications that run in the system. Unfortunately, I am not sure that this is possible in the open source arena because you almost need a more totalitarian organization system to enforce it. Transforming Linux into a real competitor with OS X and Windows will take a great deal of organization and cooperation -- something that Linux seems to lack, especially when you consider how many flavors of Linux there are. Unity has never been their strong suit, but to accomplish what Mark Shuttleworth is suggesting, they will need a unified effort from the core systems all the way to the MP3 player to make it happen.
Although I doubt they could afford it, Hell, Michigan might just be interested in this one. :-)
As I was reading this, I could already see people making comments about those stupid Americans and uneducated, NASCAR-watching rednecks.... but some of the most hateful and dangerous comments come from the most educated people. Liberal campuses are very hateful toward conservative speakers often creating heckling mobs to try to disrupt their meetings. Professors routinely repress opposite points of view and openly deride those who try to express them. People are made to feel stupid if they have a difference of opinion because the "smart" people know all of the answers. To go against the opinions of the elite intelligensia is intolerable.
The problem is that education creates pride, and pride often blinds people to the truth. Some of the most profound observations come from children -- the most uneducated of all of us -- because they are not bogged down by the distractions and biases that education brings. Yet, the educated feel they are above that, and since they know so much more than those around them, they silence the thoughts and observations of the others since they cannot possibly be right.
One thing to remember with Americans is that compared to the world (not just Europe... there are other continents out there as well), we are very educated. Almost everyone has graduated from high school and a very large percentage of our population has been to or graduated from college. Yet there is a lot of hostility toward other points of views both from conservatives and liberals. I have certainly witnessed this harassment here on Slashdot where being conservative or religious can be grounds for modding down (regardless of the validity of the point) and Slashdot tends to be very educated. Censorship and repression of freedom are not only practiced by the ignorant -- but also by the proud.