I think on the whole you are no better off using wikipedia
No better off compared with what? Personally I find it better than trying to trawl through Google finding sources myself. (Even if having many editors is no less biased than a single author, they've still saved me the work...)
And it's not like Wikipedia is some new concept - the time for debating over whether Wikipedia could work or not is years in the past. Let's judge it by how accurate it is in practice - e.g., comparing it to other sources. So I ask you for a reference for your claims - because no, I don't think that "random guy on Slashdot" is just as good as a reliable source.
Absolute rubbish. Any parent has the legal right to withdraw their child from assembly and religious education lessons in state schools.
Completely irrelevant. It is a compulsory legal requirement that schools carry out religious worship in their assemblies. The fact that parents can ostracise their child to remove them doesn't change that fact at all.
And as you note:
Withdrawing a child from assembly means that they are likely to miss out on any announcements that are given out then.
It's a poor solution, so many will be forced into it anyway, as their parents don't want them to miss out on the useful aspects.
Indeed, it is compulsory for the child, if their parents don't exercise this right. Until recently, this was the case even for 16-17 year olds, though now they can at least exempt themselves from it. Younger children however are forced into it, even if they've decided they are atheists or otherwise non-religious.
Be it toe-sucking David Mellar, another tory MP whom I believe died by strangulation (tights (pantyhose) iirc) they really know where sexual depravity is at. Maybe that's why they keep trying to ban everything
Nah, Labour are the ones who just criminalised that - or rather, a picture of that is now illegal.
Religious education class in the UK isn't allowed to teach that a specific religion is truth, rather it teaches the history and beliefs behind many different religions.
No, they save that for assemblies, where compulsory religious worship is a legal requirement (even in state schools)... Note that this isn't just "religious schools", as you refer to later in your post.
(And I'm not sure it's strictly true that religious education lessons aren't allowed to preach - AFAIK there's no set syllabus, unless that's changed in recent years.)
working IT support in schools once some years ago at a religious school I was rather sickened to hear the teacher make the kids pray to god before they were allowed to go home, now that IS indoctrination
Don't even get me started on European government, which is a fantastic excuse for political parties to push through legislation their electorate don't want because "Europe told me to, mummy!", while conveniently overlooking the way that Europe only considered the issue because the unelected representatives of the country asked them to.
Do you have examples? I'd argue that the UK Government has no trouble pushing through legislation (it has a majority, and it can even force legislation through the Lords with the Parliament Act), without resorting to an excuse. And on the contrary, it's European laws which are the only thing preventing some of the authoritarian laws that the Government has been forcing through (e.g., the recent ruling based on European law that taking DNA and fingerprints of anyone arrested, even if not charged, or found not guilty, is unlawful). It's the European Convention on Human Rights that gives us our only chance of "individual rights and freedoms" that you mention later on.
The Lib Dems seem to think an arbitrarily high level of tax on people who earn more than average is "fair"
Do you have a reference for this policy? Whilst traditionally they said they would increase income tax, now they say they will reduce it ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7615630.stm ) (incidentally, this change came with the "guy with all the depth of a two-dimensional object"). Given that Labour now plan an even higher rate of tax for high earners ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7745070.stm ), I'm not sure off-hand that Lib Dem policies are worse here?
So who does that leave for me, and a heavy majority of friends I've talked to on political subjects, who believe in things like individual rights and freedoms, in exchange for individual responsibility; strong laws, but due process to enforce them; small, weak government; low taxes; healthy European relationships for trade, but not all the other stuff that doesn't work at the current time because the nations are too unequal to start with; basically liberal economics, but with controls imposed to prevent companies that have grown large from becoming too powerful either in a certain market or compared to their employees; a basic social safety net, but otherwise letting people earn their own rewards; and other similar policies?
Remember that no one can be expected to match your views 100% - unless you stand yourself. But Lib Dems fit a lot of those I would say, especially with their changed position on tax.
Every major flavour of Linux comes with more usable applications installed by default than any version of Windows can.
You're not comparing like with like - you're comparing packaged distributions of Linux, with the Windows OS alone. Of course the former has more applications installed!
But retailers often package Windows with additional software. And similarly, if you consider the Linux OS on its own, then by definition you don't get any of that extra software.
What are you saying here? That "Linux packaged with applications" has more applications than a default Windows on its own?
For example, a quick look at Dell shows they have a choice of Microsoft Works or Office. The fact that "Office" is not part of "Windows" is no more relevant than the fact that all the applications in your Linux distribution are not part of "Linux".
there's only one media player installed with Windows and only one browser as well.
And this matters why?
(And anyhow - my Amiga 500 came with a suite of commercial applications, and 50 full price games. Obviously it must be even better than Windows or Linux by this measure.)
Please do not compare a bestbuy installed windows with a downloaded iso linux, they are not nearly the same. When bestbuy installs windows, they find the drivers, install antivirus, add tutorials, etc. When I set up an Ubuntu system, I do the same and they have NO problems!... Please stop spreading this FUD that windows is easier simply because some joker being paid $8/hour set it up for you!
The difference is that Windows set up by a retailer is how most people will get hold of it. Sure, you can make the point that Linux is free whilst Windows costs money - we already know that. So on the one hand, we have an OS that works out of the box when bought from the shop, but on the other, an OS that requires a friend to come and set it up for them. Everytime I see a Linux article, I think to myself "I wonder if Linux is worth having a look at again these days", and then I see comments like this that make me pass.
Yes, Linux is free - but for those people who don't mind spending the money, it's fair game to judge Windows by these terms.
I mean, come on, I have to install office programs, compilers, editors, (non-DRM) media players, (real) CD/DVD burning programs, terminals, secure communication programs, (real) file transfer programs, etc., and that's just the top categories. Let alone all the crap you have to install, just because you're using Windows, like anti-virus and anti-malware programs.
For most users, most of these things will be installed as standard on a PC. What do you mean by "real"? I'm no fan of DRM, but what do you mean by a "non-DRM media player"? Surely WMP can still play non-DRM material? And whilst Windows doesn't come with a command line compiler, Microsoft would rather you use Visual Studio - I suspect that anyone going to use that is capable of installing it themselves.
And then there's the lovely day that a program simply... stops working. Why? Who knows! Time to format and reinstall!
When does this happen? And why would a program not working require a format?
Seriously. I have a Windows partition because I like PC video gaming. (Lord, help me, sometimes even I don't know why. I keep all my drivers up to date, but I still get BSOD's a couple times a month.) But I can't stand to try to use it for real work.
YMMV. I haven't had a crash in years, but I had them much more commonly on Linux.
I agree - I mean, on all of the tests apart from the file transfer and undefined "Richards" benchmark, I note that a 20 year old Amiga would beat them hands down...
Well in the UK, they take DNA from anyone arrested, even if found not guilty, or never charged with an offence (as in, this is standard practice, and not merely a proposal). The European courts ruled it illegal, but that doesn't stop the practice.
I don't think "Don't get so uppity" makes sense - if other countries have it worse, that's just even more depressing, and also adds to fears of where a slippery slope could lead to.
I've heard of schools setting up programs where kids can be fingerprinted if the parents wish, but none where it is mandatory.
Even if it requires parental permission, it's still mandatory for the kids. The kids haven't consented to it. Kids grow up to be adults, and some of them may not want their fingerprints to have been taken.
The parallel is off because you are equating normal marketing practices of companies to get you to THINK the next product is better when it is just new, but in Apple's case, it was indeed better.
Are you seriously suggesting that Windows 7 won't be better than Vista? Or that in general, Apple is the only company that has ever improved its products?
The Apple parallel is a bit off. Had Apple switch to Pentium4s, that would have been pretty hypocritical,
So what's hypocritical about MS here? They're not switching to OS X, they're switching to a newer and better product - just as Apple did with Intel.
but it was pretty universally accepted that the Core2 chip was far better than the Motorola/IBM PowerPC architecture (and the Pentium 4). So, Apple invested in the best technology, AND a much more stable future, given the PowerPC was reaching an end. The benefits of using the leading cpu out there brought down costs, making "Macs are expensive" arguments practically irrelevant, and brought dual-booting to the Mac.
Yes, just as MS will do with Windows 7. I never said that Apple was wrong to move to Intel, my point was that they were right to do so, just as MS are right to move to Windows 7. This is why my post started with "What's wrong with this though?". That's why I stated "It's standard practice that when companies release a new version, they tell you how much better it is than the previous version" - which is just what you've done with your paragraph here, for Apple.
I've been using Macs since the 80s and the Intel switch has been the single most compelling reason to "Buy Me" since the introduction of the desktop metaphor.
Well indeed - I'd say that when Apple ditched the OS, changed the processor, and moved to PC hardware in general, "Macs" finally became compelling to buy...
Apple doesn't have problem with people still preferring to use Tiger
In what sense does Microsoft have a problem with people still using XP (or Vista, when 7 comes out)?
a lot of people do BTW and that is why iTools/iWork 08 (until 09) can be installed to Tiger adding their own frameworks and it keeps getting Quicktime/Security updates.
A lot of people still use XP. And XP still gets updates (not just security).
In fact, they do everything to keep low Mhz CPU people away from Leopard.
And MS are clear about Vista's requirements. You can still buy XP. (Can I still by a Mac with Tiger, OOI?)
Besides trying to justify their move (a big move) to Intel for portable future, they never said anything bad against G5. G5 was and even still is a great CPU but it can't fit to portable and Apple thinks the future is portable (which already proved right).
And I'm sure MS won't say Vista is crap, they'll simply say that 7 is even better.
All in all, I'm not sure how any of this is any different to what MS does. It just proves my point - that all companies have legitimate reasons for saying their newer products are better, without meaning the older products are dropped or criticised.
Judging by sales, I think they get what people want pretty well. It might not be what you want, however. And I don't see how "6 different versions" is related to what I said anyway. Windows 7 will be touted as an improvement over Vista, and that is rightly so, moving with the times, just like Apple and every other company. Are you suggesting that it isn't an improvement over Vista, for this reason?
Well, sure - but I think Microsoft would say the same thing: that Vista was great for its time (no matter what we might think!), but now technology (both the hardware it runs on, and the features offered by the OS) have moved on, and so Windows 7 is now the better product.
It's simple Price discrimination. As some people will be willing to pay more than other people for a product, this allows MS to charge a premium for the full product, whilst still making money from a much larger base of users on a cut down version.
The increase in revenue could easily cover any costs in administrating this (especially as many of these costs would be fixed).
So something is wrong simply because your own thoughts say it is?
That doesn't tell me why something's wrong. It also doesn't sound much of an absolute morality - indeed, defining morality by people's own thoughts is a very relative form of morality. What about someone whose thoughts tell them that killing random people is okay (or breeding them for food)? (And if you discount them as not being "sane", the question then is, how do we decide which versions of morality are "sane"?)
You're arguing against the viewpoint that "Something is right if he thinks it's right" with "Something is wrong if I think 'this is WRONG'", which seems to me to be exactly the same kind of relativistic morality. Neither of you explain why actions are right or wrong, and both of you put it down to what people's thoughts tell them. Or am I misunderstanding?
What? Take a look at your own post, which is nothing more than flamebait.
As the other poster took the trouble to carefully point out to you (and got modded down for his trouble), the flaw with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes the only two possibilities are "No gods exist" and "A god exists who will reward you for believing in him, and punishing you if you don't believe in him".
One could just as well suppose the possibility of a god who punishes believers whilst rewarding atheists and followers of other religions - or, more plausibly, a god who punishes people who only believe for dubious reasons or personal gain such as Pascal's Wager.
Not sure what the mods are up to today - Pascal's Wager is a well known philosophical argument, with well known flaws. There's nothing insightful in linking to it, and certainly nothing trollish in pointing out the problems.
What's wrong with this though? It's standard practice that when companies release a new version, they tell you how much better it is than the previous version. Just as how with Apple, for years PPC was great, but as soon as they switched to Intel, it was "Buy me, I'm Intel".
The only thing that's a problem is if a company ends up urging people to buy a previous version of their product, not a newer one.
Don't tell me about Amigas. Amiga is dead, dead, dead. They were great computers in the day, but that day passed long ago. It's bloody irrelevant.
Yes, your point is irrelevant. DOS PCs and Macs (as in Macs, not OS X machines) are dead too - but if a particular feature that is useful to a person is not present on a modern machine, the fact that a "dead" computer could do it is irrelevant. Anyhow the OP clearly stated "Windows" and "open source OSes" too. But if even old technology was able to do it, I'd say that makes it worse.
If I suddenly want to do a particular thing on a platform, I expect to be able to do it - the fact that a random user of Slashdot rubbishes the idea as to do with so-called dead computers is neither here nor there.
Voila, players that will do MOD, S3M, XM, and much more! If you want iTunes support, a Quicktime codec will work.
So why not say so, instead of trivialising what he wants to do.
If none exists, then there is likely not enough demand to justify it.
This is exactly the problem: not enough demand on OS X.
Get an OSS project started if you want it so badly.
OSS development is a fine thing, but it's clearly a nonsensical answer for most people wanting to do a simple task - especially for a platform allegedly promoted on ideals of being easy to use and "Just Works" (you Just have to open your compiler and write the whole damn program to do it, then it'll Work?)
I mean, I might as well claim that Amigas (or DOS PCs or Macs) are capable of doing anything you want - it's just a question of getting round to writing the software...
I'm not sure I understand you? A sperm and egg "if left alone in the proper enviornment" will eventually become a human, or die in the process. Should sperm and egg have rights too?
But I find it highly doubtful that hydrogen bombs were merely built out of a scientific curiousity of "because we can". There was great political pressure to do so, and I suspect that the policitians (not scientists) gave consideration, and decided that they should build such things.
I'm not saying that building hydrogen bombs were right - but the point is that this isn't an example of "we could rather than we should", because people did think that we should.
Slashdot Mirror
I think on the whole you are no better off using wikipedia
No better off compared with what? Personally I find it better than trying to trawl through Google finding sources myself. (Even if having many editors is no less biased than a single author, they've still saved me the work...)
And it's not like Wikipedia is some new concept - the time for debating over whether Wikipedia could work or not is years in the past. Let's judge it by how accurate it is in practice - e.g., comparing it to other sources. So I ask you for a reference for your claims - because no, I don't think that "random guy on Slashdot" is just as good as a reliable source.
Absolute rubbish. Any parent has the legal right to withdraw their child from assembly and religious education lessons in state schools.
Completely irrelevant. It is a compulsory legal requirement that schools carry out religious worship in their assemblies. The fact that parents can ostracise their child to remove them doesn't change that fact at all.
And as you note:
Withdrawing a child from assembly means that they are likely to miss out on any announcements that are given out then.
It's a poor solution, so many will be forced into it anyway, as their parents don't want them to miss out on the useful aspects.
Indeed, it is compulsory for the child, if their parents don't exercise this right. Until recently, this was the case even for 16-17 year olds, though now they can at least exempt themselves from it. Younger children however are forced into it, even if they've decided they are atheists or otherwise non-religious.
Be it toe-sucking David Mellar, another tory MP whom I believe died by strangulation (tights (pantyhose) iirc) they really know where sexual depravity is at.
Maybe that's why they keep trying to ban everything
Nah, Labour are the ones who just criminalised that - or rather, a picture of that is now illegal.
Religious education class in the UK isn't allowed to teach that a specific religion is truth, rather it teaches the history and beliefs behind many different religions.
No, they save that for assemblies, where compulsory religious worship is a legal requirement (even in state schools)... Note that this isn't just "religious schools", as you refer to later in your post.
(And I'm not sure it's strictly true that religious education lessons aren't allowed to preach - AFAIK there's no set syllabus, unless that's changed in recent years.)
working IT support in schools once some years ago at a religious school I was rather sickened to hear the teacher make the kids pray to god before they were allowed to go home, now that IS indoctrination
We had to pray in both of my state schools :/
I agree that FPTP is a bad system, but:
Don't even get me started on European government, which is a fantastic excuse for political parties to push through legislation their electorate don't want because "Europe told me to, mummy!", while conveniently overlooking the way that Europe only considered the issue because the unelected representatives of the country asked them to.
Do you have examples? I'd argue that the UK Government has no trouble pushing through legislation (it has a majority, and it can even force legislation through the Lords with the Parliament Act), without resorting to an excuse. And on the contrary, it's European laws which are the only thing preventing some of the authoritarian laws that the Government has been forcing through (e.g., the recent ruling based on European law that taking DNA and fingerprints of anyone arrested, even if not charged, or found not guilty, is unlawful). It's the European Convention on Human Rights that gives us our only chance of "individual rights and freedoms" that you mention later on.
The Lib Dems seem to think an arbitrarily high level of tax on people who earn more than average is "fair"
Do you have a reference for this policy? Whilst traditionally they said they would increase income tax, now they say they will reduce it ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7615630.stm ) (incidentally, this change came with the "guy with all the depth of a two-dimensional object"). Given that Labour now plan an even higher rate of tax for high earners ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7745070.stm ), I'm not sure off-hand that Lib Dem policies are worse here?
So who does that leave for me, and a heavy majority of friends I've talked to on political subjects, who believe in things like individual rights and freedoms, in exchange for individual responsibility; strong laws, but due process to enforce them; small, weak government; low taxes; healthy European relationships for trade, but not all the other stuff that doesn't work at the current time because the nations are too unequal to start with; basically liberal economics, but with controls imposed to prevent companies that have grown large from becoming too powerful either in a certain market or compared to their employees; a basic social safety net, but otherwise letting people earn their own rewards; and other similar policies?
Remember that no one can be expected to match your views 100% - unless you stand yourself. But Lib Dems fit a lot of those I would say, especially with their changed position on tax.
Every major flavour of Linux comes with more usable applications installed by default than any version of Windows can.
You're not comparing like with like - you're comparing packaged distributions of Linux, with the Windows OS alone. Of course the former has more applications installed!
But retailers often package Windows with additional software. And similarly, if you consider the Linux OS on its own, then by definition you don't get any of that extra software.
What are you saying here? That "Linux packaged with applications" has more applications than a default Windows on its own?
For example, a quick look at Dell shows they have a choice of Microsoft Works or Office. The fact that "Office" is not part of "Windows" is no more relevant than the fact that all the applications in your Linux distribution are not part of "Linux".
there's only one media player installed with Windows and only one browser as well.
And this matters why?
(And anyhow - my Amiga 500 came with a suite of commercial applications, and 50 full price games. Obviously it must be even better than Windows or Linux by this measure.)
Please do not compare a bestbuy installed windows with a downloaded iso linux, they are not nearly the same. When bestbuy installs windows, they find the drivers, install antivirus, add tutorials, etc. When I set up an Ubuntu system, I do the same and they have NO problems! ... Please stop spreading this FUD that windows is easier simply because some joker being paid $8/hour set it up for you!
The difference is that Windows set up by a retailer is how most people will get hold of it. Sure, you can make the point that Linux is free whilst Windows costs money - we already know that. So on the one hand, we have an OS that works out of the box when bought from the shop, but on the other, an OS that requires a friend to come and set it up for them. Everytime I see a Linux article, I think to myself "I wonder if Linux is worth having a look at again these days", and then I see comments like this that make me pass.
Yes, Linux is free - but for those people who don't mind spending the money, it's fair game to judge Windows by these terms.
I mean, come on, I have to install office programs, compilers, editors, (non-DRM) media players, (real) CD/DVD burning programs, terminals, secure communication programs, (real) file transfer programs, etc., and that's just the top categories. Let alone all the crap you have to install, just because you're using Windows, like anti-virus and anti-malware programs.
For most users, most of these things will be installed as standard on a PC. What do you mean by "real"? I'm no fan of DRM, but what do you mean by a "non-DRM media player"? Surely WMP can still play non-DRM material? And whilst Windows doesn't come with a command line compiler, Microsoft would rather you use Visual Studio - I suspect that anyone going to use that is capable of installing it themselves.
And then there's the lovely day that a program simply... stops working. Why? Who knows! Time to format and reinstall!
When does this happen? And why would a program not working require a format?
Seriously. I have a Windows partition because I like PC video gaming. (Lord, help me, sometimes even I don't know why. I keep all my drivers up to date, but I still get BSOD's a couple times a month.) But I can't stand to try to use it for real work.
YMMV. I haven't had a crash in years, but I had them much more commonly on Linux.
I agree - I mean, on all of the tests apart from the file transfer and undefined "Richards" benchmark, I note that a 20 year old Amiga would beat them hands down...
Well in the UK, they take DNA from anyone arrested, even if found not guilty, or never charged with an offence (as in, this is standard practice, and not merely a proposal). The European courts ruled it illegal, but that doesn't stop the practice.
I don't think "Don't get so uppity" makes sense - if other countries have it worse, that's just even more depressing, and also adds to fears of where a slippery slope could lead to.
I've heard of schools setting up programs where kids can be fingerprinted if the parents wish, but none where it is mandatory.
Even if it requires parental permission, it's still mandatory for the kids. The kids haven't consented to it. Kids grow up to be adults, and some of them may not want their fingerprints to have been taken.
The parallel is off because you are equating normal marketing practices of companies to get you to THINK the next product is better when it is just new, but in Apple's case, it was indeed better.
Are you seriously suggesting that Windows 7 won't be better than Vista? Or that in general, Apple is the only company that has ever improved its products?
Most companies don't say "I'm not as sucky as the last version." They say "Remember how good the last version was?"
I very much doubt that MS will market Windows 7 by saying "I'm not as sucky as the last version".
The Apple parallel is a bit off. Had Apple switch to Pentium4s, that would have been pretty hypocritical,
So what's hypocritical about MS here? They're not switching to OS X, they're switching to a newer and better product - just as Apple did with Intel.
but it was pretty universally accepted that the Core2 chip was far better than the Motorola/IBM PowerPC architecture (and the Pentium 4). So, Apple invested in the best technology, AND a much more stable future, given the PowerPC was reaching an end. The benefits of using the leading cpu out there brought down costs, making "Macs are expensive" arguments practically irrelevant, and brought dual-booting to the Mac.
Yes, just as MS will do with Windows 7. I never said that Apple was wrong to move to Intel, my point was that they were right to do so, just as MS are right to move to Windows 7. This is why my post started with "What's wrong with this though?". That's why I stated "It's standard practice that when companies release a new version, they tell you how much better it is than the previous version" - which is just what you've done with your paragraph here, for Apple.
I've been using Macs since the 80s and the Intel switch has been the single most compelling reason to "Buy Me" since the introduction of the desktop metaphor.
Well indeed - I'd say that when Apple ditched the OS, changed the processor, and moved to PC hardware in general, "Macs" finally became compelling to buy...
Apple doesn't have problem with people still preferring to use Tiger
In what sense does Microsoft have a problem with people still using XP (or Vista, when 7 comes out)?
a lot of people do BTW and that is why iTools/iWork 08 (until 09) can be installed to Tiger adding their own frameworks and it keeps getting Quicktime/Security updates.
A lot of people still use XP. And XP still gets updates (not just security).
In fact, they do everything to keep low Mhz CPU people away from Leopard.
And MS are clear about Vista's requirements. You can still buy XP. (Can I still by a Mac with Tiger, OOI?)
Besides trying to justify their move (a big move) to Intel for portable future, they never said anything bad against G5. G5 was and even still is a great CPU but it can't fit to portable and Apple thinks the future is portable (which already proved right).
And I'm sure MS won't say Vista is crap, they'll simply say that 7 is even better.
All in all, I'm not sure how any of this is any different to what MS does. It just proves my point - that all companies have legitimate reasons for saying their newer products are better, without meaning the older products are dropped or criticised.
Just to add to my previous comment:
Microsoft just doesn't get what people want
Judging by sales, I think they get what people want pretty well. It might not be what you want, however. And I don't see how "6 different versions" is related to what I said anyway. Windows 7 will be touted as an improvement over Vista, and that is rightly so, moving with the times, just like Apple and every other company. Are you suggesting that it isn't an improvement over Vista, for this reason?
Well, sure - but I think Microsoft would say the same thing: that Vista was great for its time (no matter what we might think!), but now technology (both the hardware it runs on, and the features offered by the OS) have moved on, and so Windows 7 is now the better product.
It's simple Price discrimination. As some people will be willing to pay more than other people for a product, this allows MS to charge a premium for the full product, whilst still making money from a much larger base of users on a cut down version.
The increase in revenue could easily cover any costs in administrating this (especially as many of these costs would be fixed).
So something is wrong simply because your own thoughts say it is?
That doesn't tell me why something's wrong. It also doesn't sound much of an absolute morality - indeed, defining morality by people's own thoughts is a very relative form of morality. What about someone whose thoughts tell them that killing random people is okay (or breeding them for food)? (And if you discount them as not being "sane", the question then is, how do we decide which versions of morality are "sane"?)
You're arguing against the viewpoint that "Something is right if he thinks it's right" with "Something is wrong if I think 'this is WRONG'", which seems to me to be exactly the same kind of relativistic morality. Neither of you explain why actions are right or wrong, and both of you put it down to what people's thoughts tell them. Or am I misunderstanding?
What? Take a look at your own post, which is nothing more than flamebait.
As the other poster took the trouble to carefully point out to you (and got modded down for his trouble), the flaw with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes the only two possibilities are "No gods exist" and "A god exists who will reward you for believing in him, and punishing you if you don't believe in him".
One could just as well suppose the possibility of a god who punishes believers whilst rewarding atheists and followers of other religions - or, more plausibly, a god who punishes people who only believe for dubious reasons or personal gain such as Pascal's Wager.
Not sure what the mods are up to today - Pascal's Wager is a well known philosophical argument, with well known flaws. There's nothing insightful in linking to it, and certainly nothing trollish in pointing out the problems.
I know there's also Mac OS X server, but the difference in price tag still helps to make it an easy choice for consumers.
I presume the Windows versions will be priced differently too - otherwise, what would be the point in buying an inferior version?
What's wrong with this though? It's standard practice that when companies release a new version, they tell you how much better it is than the previous version. Just as how with Apple, for years PPC was great, but as soon as they switched to Intel, it was "Buy me, I'm Intel".
The only thing that's a problem is if a company ends up urging people to buy a previous version of their product, not a newer one.
Don't tell me about Amigas. Amiga is dead, dead, dead. They were great computers in the day, but that day passed long ago. It's bloody irrelevant.
Yes, your point is irrelevant. DOS PCs and Macs (as in Macs, not OS X machines) are dead too - but if a particular feature that is useful to a person is not present on a modern machine, the fact that a "dead" computer could do it is irrelevant. Anyhow the OP clearly stated "Windows" and "open source OSes" too. But if even old technology was able to do it, I'd say that makes it worse.
If I suddenly want to do a particular thing on a platform, I expect to be able to do it - the fact that a random user of Slashdot rubbishes the idea as to do with so-called dead computers is neither here nor there.
Voila, players that will do MOD, S3M, XM, and much more! If you want iTunes support, a Quicktime codec will work.
So why not say so, instead of trivialising what he wants to do.
If none exists, then there is likely not enough demand to justify it.
This is exactly the problem: not enough demand on OS X.
Get an OSS project started if you want it so badly.
OSS development is a fine thing, but it's clearly a nonsensical answer for most people wanting to do a simple task - especially for a platform allegedly promoted on ideals of being easy to use and "Just Works" (you Just have to open your compiler and write the whole damn program to do it, then it'll Work?)
I mean, I might as well claim that Amigas (or DOS PCs or Macs) are capable of doing anything you want - it's just a question of getting round to writing the software...
I'm not sure I understand you? A sperm and egg "if left alone in the proper enviornment" will eventually become a human, or die in the process. Should sperm and egg have rights too?
But I find it highly doubtful that hydrogen bombs were merely built out of a scientific curiousity of "because we can". There was great political pressure to do so, and I suspect that the policitians (not scientists) gave consideration, and decided that they should build such things.
I'm not saying that building hydrogen bombs were right - but the point is that this isn't an example of "we could rather than we should", because people did think that we should.