Oh, and as for your "24 major arguments for the existence of god", I'll raise you over three hundred. All just as specious as any medieval wanker could dream up.
I'm not afraid of the command line. I've been a software developer since the days when the command line was all we had. The point you're missing is that Linux needs to become easy to use. If you don't understand this basic fact, then you are not among the people who can help. Just how thick are you?
My, you do love to trot out every possible fallacy in support of your unsupportable conjecture, don't you? Even if Dawkins possed every single character flaw that people like you attribute to him, that would still in no way support your contention that your imaginary friend in the sky exists. Your god is a conjecture which is utterly unsupported by evidence, and all the huffing and puffing you can muster doesn't change that.
What I really find amusing about you, is the way you continue to toss off one courtier's reply after another, and then imagine that you've made some kind of a point.
Dawkins is a freak show with a big ego, nothing more.
I beg to differ. I just read the god delusion, and Dawkins gave a very thorough and thoughtful examination of the damage that superstition causes. Besides being one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, he's also a very fine author.
Sorry to pop your bubble there sport, but the existence of your imaginary friend in the sky is an unsupportable conjecture, and piling on academic affectations is nothing more than a courtier's reply.
Do a search on the statistics of sexual abuse among Catholic clergy and compare that with rabbis and other Christian clergy, not to mention hockey coaches, teachers, parents, uncles etc. One would quickly learn that the stats on Catholic priests molesting boys is far lower than nearly all of those listed.
That's an interesting claim, but since you're the one making it, the burden of proof is yours.
Nevertheless, it's not the fact of the attacks that got the church into trouble, it was the policy of covering up the crimes and shuffling the culprits around to new parishes where they could continue their predations. That's what made the organization culpable for the abuse. If the church had a policy of turning child molesters over to the cops and cooperating fully with investigations, they might even have won the civil cases.
Study the issue of mortal sin and the Sacrament of Reconciliation to understand more.
What utter tripe.
"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all."
Brooke Shields did a magnificent job of telling Tom Cruise to go fuck himself when he got on her case for taking medication to treat post-partum depression.
They also speak up on economic, political, and philosophical subjects, and make even bigger fools of themselves, all too often. I'm waiting for some interviewer to lose his patience with Charlie Sheen spewing his 9/11 conspiracy theories, and just tell him "Oh, shut your stupid pie hole."
My understanding is that the way to hide data in a picture is to store it in the least significant bit of each pixel.
That's a way, not the way. Most observers aren't going to notice slight changes in the blue component of most RGB images, but you can also make it more elaborate than that. Depending on just how much data you want to hide in a given image, you can do any number of transformations to the plain text before you apply it to the image data, and you can do so by putting it in the second bitplane and dithering the LSB to obscure it, interleaving it among components, etc, etc.
You really enjoy looking down on people who can't be bothered to learn the UNIX shells, don't you? Come on, admit it: I felt that way myself twenty-two years ago, until I caught my first sight of a Lisa computer and realized that the skills I was so proud of were only necessary because computers were so lousy.
Now, it's fine and dandy to look down on the people who don't want to follow you up that learning curve, if you want Linux to remain what it is today. If, on the other hand, you want to see it gain enough traction that hardware manufacturers all consider Linux support a critical item to deliver, then you'll have to realize that Linux will only get there if it becomes better than MS-Windows (and better includes ease of use, no matter how proud you are of your EMACS muscle-memory.)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and as for your "24 major arguments for the existence of god", I'll raise you over three hundred. All just as specious as any medieval wanker could dream up.
-jcr
I'm not afraid of the command line. I've been a software developer since the days when the command line was all we had. The point you're missing is that Linux needs to become easy to use. If you don't understand this basic fact, then you are not among the people who can help. Just how thick are you?
-jcr
My, you do love to trot out every possible fallacy in support of your unsupportable conjecture, don't you? Even if Dawkins possed every single character flaw that people like you attribute to him, that would still in no way support your contention that your imaginary friend in the sky exists. Your god is a conjecture which is utterly unsupported by evidence, and all the huffing and puffing you can muster doesn't change that.
What I really find amusing about you, is the way you continue to toss off one courtier's reply after another, and then imagine that you've made some kind of a point.
-jcr
You apparently have little to no philosophical background
Oh, please. You're the one with the imaginary friend, and you want to denigrate Dawkins?
-jcr
Dawkins is a freak show with a big ego, nothing more.
I beg to differ. I just read the god delusion, and Dawkins gave a very thorough and thoughtful examination of the damage that superstition causes. Besides being one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, he's also a very fine author.
-jcr
That's another very common tactic, to pretend that atheism is a religion. It's not: It's a rejection of your unsupported postulates, nothing more.
-jcr
My, how you do go on.
Sorry to pop your bubble there sport, but the existence of your imaginary friend in the sky is an unsupportable conjecture, and piling on academic affectations is nothing more than a courtier's reply.
-jcr
Do a search on the statistics of sexual abuse among Catholic clergy and compare that with rabbis and other Christian clergy, not to mention hockey coaches, teachers, parents, uncles etc. One would quickly learn that the stats on Catholic priests molesting boys is far lower than nearly all of those listed.
That's an interesting claim, but since you're the one making it, the burden of proof is yours.
Nevertheless, it's not the fact of the attacks that got the church into trouble, it was the policy of covering up the crimes and shuffling the culprits around to new parishes where they could continue their predations. That's what made the organization culpable for the abuse. If the church had a policy of turning child molesters over to the cops and cooperating fully with investigations, they might even have won the civil cases.
-jcr
The Church gets blamed because of faulty parenting?
I'd divide the culpability for such a thing equally between the priests who promulgate the superstition, and the parents who fall for it.
-jcr
Theology as a discipline has certain forms for researching.
Nope. It's entirely predicated on an untestable assumption.
-jcr
Study the issue of mortal sin and the Sacrament of Reconciliation to understand more.
What utter tripe.
"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all."
-jcr
That's not a crack.. That's trying a known set of keys, which is a far easier problem.
-jcr
solid theology
Is an oxymoron.
-jcr
In fact, every Catholic before becoming a full member, has the opportunity to turn away from the faith if they so choose.
And god knows, every catholic mother would take it stride if her kid did so, right?
Get real.
-jcr
Someone touch a nerve there, Padre?
-jcr
Brooke Shields did a magnificent job of telling Tom Cruise to go fuck himself when he got on her case for taking medication to treat post-partum depression.
-jcr
If you don't mind being limited
Yep, no room for a clue to squeeze past your defenses. Fortunately, smarter people than you are working on improving Linux's user experience.
-jcr
They also speak up on economic, political, and philosophical subjects, and make even bigger fools of themselves, all too often. I'm waiting for some interviewer to lose his patience with Charlie Sheen spewing his 9/11 conspiracy theories, and just tell him "Oh, shut your stupid pie hole."
-jcr
My understanding is that the way to hide data in a picture is to store it in the least significant bit of each pixel.
That's a way, not the way. Most observers aren't going to notice slight changes in the blue component of most RGB images, but you can also make it more elaborate than that. Depending on just how much data you want to hide in a given image, you can do any number of transformations to the plain text before you apply it to the image data, and you can do so by putting it in the second bitplane and dithering the LSB to obscure it, interleaving it among components, etc, etc.
-jcr
Commandline *is* more flexible and powerful, theres no denying it.
Way to not get the point, dude.
-jcr
Too bad you didn't have the option of taking your manager to Uganda, and leaving him there.
-jcr
Ok, that sounds way too high. I've had a couple of weasels in my chain of command during my career to date, but nothing like that many.
-jcr
Small-minded software for small-minded users.
You really enjoy looking down on people who can't be bothered to learn the UNIX shells, don't you? Come on, admit it: I felt that way myself twenty-two years ago, until I caught my first sight of a Lisa computer and realized that the skills I was so proud of were only necessary because computers were so lousy.
Now, it's fine and dandy to look down on the people who don't want to follow you up that learning curve, if you want Linux to remain what it is today. If, on the other hand, you want to see it gain enough traction that hardware manufacturers all consider Linux support a critical item to deliver, then you'll have to realize that Linux will only get there if it becomes better than MS-Windows (and better includes ease of use, no matter how proud you are of your EMACS muscle-memory.)
-jcr
Pages does seem to have some table functionality, although I have no idea how well featured it is.
I use it. I like it. But, it's not a spreadsheet. It doesn't suffice for writing the financials for a business plan, or even for tracking my stocks.
-jcr
.I have to use Notes at work for email
;-)
So, you're job-hunting, I take it?
-jcr