Then count yourself lucky. It doese happen, and way to often.
Though In my experience it's not always been obvious. Usually the app just behaves wierd or crashes under odd circumstances. Now since this happens in winows anyway, and even with built in windows apps, most probably just chalk it up to situation normal. But when you see the app run fine on 98, crash alot on 98 se, behave wierd on 95 and nt, not work at all on 2k, run mostly fine with the occasional slowdown for no reason on xp home, and pop up an occasional wierd error message on Xp pro, all with the same hardware and fairly fresh installs, you start to suspect your o.s. and subcomponents versions are at issue.
Except EULAs are rarely contracts.
They are usually statements made by a piece of software you've already purchased trying to con you into believing you don't have any rights at all to use the product you've ALREADY purchased except in very narrow ways. On top of that they tell you you've not even purchased the product, meerly liscensed it.
When this sort of thing was tried before, on books IIRC, the courts rightfully called foul.
Once you pay for and recieve somthing the deal is done. You can't suddenly add conditions and rules and whatnot afterwards without a new deal, or except as provided in a contract agreed to durring the original negotiations, if there wherre other than 'your total is $53.87'.
Where software companies figure somthing is suddenly leagle just because it's printed on a shiny disk instead of paper I have no clue, and I suspect they know better and are just hopeing to fool the clueless in believing they have ligitimacy.
The ONLY case I've heard of where a post purchase EULA ('shrink wrap liscence') was upheld in court was a case where the guy bought THREE successive versions of a program with the same eula, the eula was reference on the box, and frankly the guy was being a slimeball as he was bassically reformating the database data in the product and adding a bit to it and selling it on the web. The arguments to support the eula were basically that he'd already read it at least once before buying additional versions, and some realy reaching anolgies/arguments that if the guy had hired a lawyer probably wouldn't have flown. It's my opinion that the judge only bought them because it was the only way to deal with someone he felt was a total slimeball.
IANAL and all that.
Mycroft
I only have personal experience to go on. And I do agree that much of what you said about some safty items being good (cab design, styrofoam and shock absorbers etc.) but if you read my earlier postin this thread you'll see why I partially dissagree.
The improvements to bumper design help. but it's the flimsier frames mean that you'll total the new car and barely hurt the solid one. Frankly I expect an acident between an old, solid car and newer, light framed, car that puts the older car driver in the hospital to flat out kill the driver of the newer car.
An 4x4 style newish vehicle in 92 had it's front end destroyed just nocking off a steel bumper on a mid to late 70's 1/4 ton truck.
I won't go into the cost of the replacing the plastic on the bumper of the car in front of me as anything on a $50k+ car is gonna be outrageous.
I don't mind if a $2k part, or even the whole car, is destroyed saving my life in a bad accident. I do mind if it's destroyed in minor fender bender it should have survived just because detroit/asia/whomever wants to save a few buck on production and make even more on parts and repairs.
Hmm, no guarantee the rear car was at fault (well except as a matter of law in some jurisdictions).
I'm pretty good about trying to leave a good safe distance in front of me, but it's nearly impossible, someone always HAS to fill the gap, never mind that they don't get to go faster.
I've had people wedge into spaces between me and the vehicle in front of me with just a couple of feet to spare on a couple of occasions, usually when the vehicle in front of me is breaking fairly hard elswise the space is usually much bigger than that.
Most people don't even know what a safe distance is, especially at highway speed. Though that is not an excuse for not being at a safe distance.
No Kidding. I was the middle vehicle in a 3 car about 12 years ago. I had lots of room, but it was raining and I was in a borrowed truck, a 1970 somthing or other.
The car in front of me was a newer cadillac or somthing in that price range, vehicle behind me wasn't a jeep cherokee, but somthing pretty simular, also new. Plus the guy had obviously dumped a few k$ into it, custom paint job, jacked up, shinny rims, etc.
This was northbound on an interstate where it crossed another Interstate and they were rebuilding the intersection when some idiot cut of the car in front of me and the lady driving it had to slam on her breaks. I did the same but with the rain and mass difference I wound up tapping her at about 5 mph. Small mirical that, as around here if you leave a safe distance between you and the car in front of you some idiot will insist on filling it.
Well a few seconds (2 at most) the other vehicle SLAMS into me from behind and I tap the first car again (still got the break fully depressed).
When all is said and done the expensive car needs a new bumper shell ($1200!!) as the plastic is cracked (sheesh not even a bad crack). The new, expisively modified, vehicle that hit me is toast (front end almost 2' shorter!)
My dads truck? small ding in the rear METAL bumber and the big bolts holding to the frame where sheared off. My dad just re-bolts it on at his job (has access to huge bolts and machine shop, he works on industrial motors and pumps and such) after pounding the metal around the bolt holes back into shape.
Crumple zones, air-bags, anti-lock breaks, and of course seat belts, are all good things for the most part. But I still think todays cars are too flimsy. None of the above are any use if whole car crumples like so much constuction paper.
Purely a side note, but when I was talking to lady of first car a few minutes after the accident to see if she was o.k. and so on her huband pulled up having recognized the car. First words out his mouth? "did you call the police so we can get a report for the insurance?" in a really urgent tone of voice. Admittedly her car wasn't really beat ip, but if it were my wife, I don't think my first thought would've been insurance, but her.
No kidding, My dad had a car from 1960 or 61 in the mid-late 80's. Original engine. Only reason he doesn't have it is he gave it to my aunt.
His twin STILL has the same model, only reason he doesn't drive is because it's a convertable and finding a replacement top for it is expensive and hard. Though to be fair he IS an auto-mechanic. For the last several years he's been working for multi-millioniar (as in 1/4 to 1/2 billioniar) restoring old military vehicles (de-milled of course) such as tanks and apc's and radar trucks, etc. in San-Francisco.
Wherease I've had cars die in much fewer miles and time. such as a 97 that's nearly dead (head gasket leaks, just oil into coolant, but it was a matter of time). My dad's 1ton truck is constantly needing work and it's got less than 90k on it, and while not the mechanic his twin is, he's still not clueless (he doese mechanical work, just on industrial machines and not cars) and does or has done all the recomendended (both by the owners manual and anything extra his twin suggests).
I will admit some of degrade in modern car lifespans is due to thier increased sophistication and complex polution controlls, mostly it's due to the auto industry constantly doing whatever they can to cheapen thier costs. Plastic bumbers are cheaper and lighter than solid metal, aluminum blocks are also lighter and thus cheaper. and so on.
It's not necessary to learn programming at school, by the time I took my class in computers (highschool, 1987-88) I was very frustrated by my teachers total lack of what was to me basic computer knowledge (yet the other teachers all thought she was some kinda computer genuis, I outa tell you some of the dumb things she did, like storing 5.25 floppies in sleeves taped to the sides of the monitors).
By that time I'd managed learn basic, 6510 machine language (not real assembler, at best I had access to opcode memonics, but since I had to type in the program in basic from a magazine myself I pretty much had most of them memorized anyway), had spent four years as a regualar on severa local bbs's. Repaired a floppy disk drive using a repair manual (commodore 1541). Coded my implementation of Conways Life (with user changeable rules, graphics, and other settings). 80-90% out of books/magazines and taking apart other peoples programs and changing them till I knew how they worked.
I'm not trying to brag or anything just caught in nostalgia, I really miss the old bbs days, taking my turn posting to the discusions/debates till 3 am, meeting everyone at the roller ring (including one guy who looked like someones yoga teacher, could outskate any 3 of us, AND rebuilt 70's mini computers for fun).
Been using the same handle/nick almost the whole time.
Anyway, it's quite possible many viruses are done by self taught programmers. many of them seem that way considering how often they do things that make it hard/impossible to achive thier apparent goals.
Motive? that's easy. Power and Authority. They get to be some very important people if believed.
I have no idea why you put the word accurate in there. My first thought is you meant consistant, but since the accounts are not consistant I have no idea.
Ehh, that's not how it works in the rational world.
Proving somthing by falling to disprove it is generally considered quackery at best.
How about instead you prove it. All you've got is multiply translated anectedotes taken down many years after the alledged events, by people dead for almost 2000 years. Come to think of it even the date is still in the 'alledged' state as well.
I do suspect there is enough evidence to support someone around that time stirred up the locals enough to get crucified. But even that is a bit iffy in places.
The other thing to say is that if the evidence was incontrivertable, then that would be tantamount to God taking away our free will to accept or deny him. It is, after all, a matter of faith.
Eh? so he wants lucky guessers, your statement almost makes no sense.
Even if 'god' (any of them, take your pick there are quite a few out there) was to provide 'His' bonafides in a verifiable way, there is still the option of saying "No thanks, I'll just sit here and roast thank you.". People often deliberately, knowing the consequences, choose very poorly for no good reason.
I say almost because the argument that knowledge reduce free will is somewhat vallid, but it doesen't totaly eliminate free will untill it becomes total. Thus omisience (100% total knowledge) is the logical exclusion of omnipotence (100% free will).
Though it's not really a direct thing as some knowledge is necessary to have free will.
The distinction comes in knowledge of the future. The more you know about what will happen the less free your will becomes. If the future IS set then free will is an illusion, if not then it's impossible to know for certain what will happen.
A direct requirement of omniscience is a set fure, an omniscient being would have no free will, and now tru power.
Hmm, I don't think that's as good an explanation as it could be, but it's late, so I appoligize if that winds up more confusing than explanitory.
The problem is WHICH god, most montheistic religeons insist thier 'god' is the only one, and that anyone not following thier 'god' thier way be killed. Just about the only major exception is Christianity (well most of them) allow the Jewish the live in peace, though sometimes only if they keep 'thier place'.
I'd like to take back Sociopath, Narcisstic personality disorder is closer. 'He' pretty much has others do his killing and whatnot for him. though supposedly he did it himself once apon a time (depending on which god we're talking about.
I'm sorry, but some of 'his' behaviours and commands fall short of the standards I set myself, and an all-powerful/all-knowing (nice little paradox there) being should be better than that, or at least willing to give updated explanations from time to time as to what's really going on so us meer mortals can understand it.
It also seems strange that most religions, supposedly handed down from on high, do two things very consistantly. A) grant power and importance to those handed the message b) do thier best to irradicate the 'infidels'/'heathens'.
It's also amazing how much 'the one true religeon' also seems to borrow alot the same crap under different frills as previous religeons, while at the same doing thier best to paint the old religeon as evil incarnate.
Being flammatory and being flamebait are two different things(IMHO of course). I believe it's perfectly valid to voice an honest opinion, even it is flammatory. It becomes flamebait when it's done just because it's flammatory. I see flamebait as particularly hatefull trolling.
I would not call a post flamebait for calling religeon superstious nonsense unless they were clearly just trying to piss people off.
hmm lemme try restateing his reasoning as I undstand it. because you very clearly missed it.
The support for life elsewhere in the universe is the fact that it is known to exist in at least one case. And a large number of the factors known to contribute to it's existance are common enough that it's reasonable to check.
Sol is an unexceptional star, many others match it within reasonalbe limits for size brightness, spectrographic data, ect.
Extra-solar planet have been found, in fairly large numbers given our limited ability to detect them.
Given that it's reasonable to assume, at least in a small percentage of cases (still a large total number given the number of stars out there), that conditions suitable for life exist other than here on earth. This only leaves the mechanism for the initial life in doubt.
The support for a GOD is limited to very old documents by biased sources and anectedotal evidence better explained by known phenomena in most cases.
Given this disparity you can see why I personal see Extra-terrestial life as very likely (not guaranteed). And a God as an improbability(again not guaranteed), esp. any of the popular ones.
It's still the same. At least morally. Do something for no good reason other than a threat.
How would you feel if someone walked into 7-11 you were in and said he was going to shoot everyone who didn't say green was thier favorite color, but those that did could leave right now and he'd pay them $50? Saying green is your favorite color wouldn't really hurt you and get you $50 in bargain.
You'd be ticked as all hell, and you wouldn't believe this guy liked you even if he said green was better for you in your everyday life.
Personally I'd rather be around people who do thier best to be good people than ones who half ass it, yet meet this special requirement for a better afterlife.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to start believing in a being that behaves worse than a spoiled child, threatens those he says he loves, posseses contradictory powers, and has the morals of a sociopath. Especially when there are several such, all claiming to be the only one. And each on is running a different racket than the next, with the only major items in common is that the head believers all get special privilages here in this life, and a series of directives that make not believing a good way to get killed, or in more 'enlightened' cultures/times, meerly treated like a second class citizen and a leper.
While it's less true now. Ms once had the practice of telling vendors "You eigther ship the current MS os on all your computers or none, oh yeah you can't tell anyone we're making you do this". Given the choice of eigther shipping the OS 90%+ of thier customers wanted (like 99% of your competion) on all computers, or not being able to ship it at all. Well it's not a choice, not if you want to stay in bussiness.
And while they got in trouble for it. What do you want to bet they still make it as difficult for vendors to not ship only MS OS products on thier computers as possible without getting into trouble.
And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.
No I wouldn't go sofar as to say mugging, nor pick on just Mr. Gates.
But Microsoft has been found guilty of illeagle activities which apply a coercive pressure on consumers to use thier products.
Embrace and Extend is basicaly a form of coercion to. They have used thier monopoly position to make using a non-ms product in as unatractive as possible.
Take Word for example. Once they reached a point of major dominance, they used a closed format for doc files meaning if you wanted to recieve communication from most of the bussiness world, you had to use word, a fairly recent version too as the format mutates and new versions don't even support old formats.
There are more examples like this. And while it's not mugging, it's still not much better in many cases.
Yep, I wouldn't be suprised if '1337' speak wasn't occasionaly better than my grammer. my spelling, well let's just call it a sever defeciency.
I really don't worry about grammer in conversational setting that much. Usually just enough to avoid major confusion over what I'm saying. And somtimes wreck that as well.
What's really odd is that I'm more likely to fubar spelling on middle sized words. The big ones I usually get. The small ones mostly right with a few I manage to totaly blow consistantly.
Yeah, arguing her bona-fides is pretty much mooted.
Gak. This person doese editing as job, not as an obsesive compulsive behaviou(I hope). I qualified for the Honors course in english when I applied for a local colledge. Doesen't mean I quadruple check everything I write. Only when the grammer itself is important. (like on a placement test).
If you did somthing 8+ hours a day, don't you think you'd relax a bit on your own time.
Now if the grammer had been totaly attrocious, full of '733t' speak and signs of not knowing any grammer, then I'd be suspicious.
You then "reply to that email address which returns a response back to the original complainant" and ask them their real email address so you can clear up this 'misunderstanding.
What's the problem??
The probelm is only an idiot(or the clueless newbee) would actually send an e-mail adress back to 'clear up the missunderstanding', and confirm a valid e-mail to be added to the list that then gets sold to dozens or more spammers.
I've tried following 'opt out lists' and such, all that happens is you get more spam as a result. True a few such 'if you got this e-mail by mistake please tell us so we can take you off the list' type messages are valid and honest. Many are not and all it takes is one for for your e-mail addy to be 'confirmed' and sold.
Thanks, it's been way to long since I did any reading on that area of physics.
There are just so many ineresting things out there it's hard to learn as much as I would like and remember it all.
Speaking of Chandrasekhar, isn't the Chandrasekhar limit another name for the event horizon of a Black hole, or was it some other property? I honestly can't remember.
I was wondering how that unusual word got associated with black holes, didn't know if was named for someone (as apears to be the case) or was a word in some language I don't recognize(that would be most of them).
Slashdot Mirror
Then count yourself lucky. It doese happen, and way to often.
Though In my experience it's not always been obvious. Usually the app just behaves wierd or crashes under odd circumstances. Now since this happens in winows anyway, and even with built in windows apps, most probably just chalk it up to situation normal. But when you see the app run fine on 98, crash alot on 98 se, behave wierd on 95 and nt, not work at all on 2k, run mostly fine with the occasional slowdown for no reason on xp home, and pop up an occasional wierd error message on Xp pro, all with the same hardware and fairly fresh installs, you start to suspect your o.s. and subcomponents versions are at issue.
Mycroft
Except EULAs are rarely contracts.
They are usually statements made by a piece of software you've already purchased trying to con you into believing you don't have any rights at all to use the product you've ALREADY purchased except in very narrow ways. On top of that they tell you you've not even purchased the product, meerly liscensed it.
When this sort of thing was tried before, on books IIRC, the courts rightfully called foul.
Once you pay for and recieve somthing the deal is done. You can't suddenly add conditions and rules and whatnot afterwards without a new deal, or except as provided in a contract agreed to durring the original negotiations, if there wherre other than 'your total is $53.87'.
Where software companies figure somthing is suddenly leagle just because it's printed on a shiny disk instead of paper I have no clue, and I suspect they know better and are just hopeing to fool the clueless in believing they have ligitimacy.
The ONLY case I've heard of where a post purchase EULA ('shrink wrap liscence') was upheld in court was a case where the guy bought THREE successive versions of a program with the same eula, the eula was reference on the box, and frankly the guy was being a slimeball as he was bassically reformating the database data in the product and adding a bit to it and selling it on the web. The arguments to support the eula were basically that he'd already read it at least once before buying additional versions, and some realy reaching anolgies/arguments that if the guy had hired a lawyer probably wouldn't have flown. It's my opinion that the judge only bought them because it was the only way to deal with someone he felt was a total slimeball.
IANAL and all that.
Mycroft
I only have personal experience to go on. And I do agree that much of what you said about some safty items being good (cab design, styrofoam and shock absorbers etc.) but if you read my earlier postin this thread you'll see why I partially dissagree.
The improvements to bumper design help. but it's the flimsier frames mean that you'll total the new car and barely hurt the solid one. Frankly I expect an acident between an old, solid car and newer, light framed, car that puts the older car driver in the hospital to flat out kill the driver of the newer car.
An 4x4 style newish vehicle in 92 had it's front end destroyed just nocking off a steel bumper on a mid to late 70's 1/4 ton truck.
I won't go into the cost of the replacing the plastic on the bumper of the car in front of me as anything on a $50k+ car is gonna be outrageous.
I don't mind if a $2k part, or even the whole car, is destroyed saving my life in a bad accident. I do mind if it's destroyed in minor fender bender it should have survived just because detroit/asia/whomever wants to save a few buck on production and make even more on parts and repairs.
Mycroft
Hmm, no guarantee the rear car was at fault (well except as a matter of law in some jurisdictions).
I'm pretty good about trying to leave a good safe distance in front of me, but it's nearly impossible, someone always HAS to fill the gap, never mind that they don't get to go faster.
I've had people wedge into spaces between me and the vehicle in front of me with just a couple of feet to spare on a couple of occasions, usually when the vehicle in front of me is breaking fairly hard elswise the space is usually much bigger than that.
Most people don't even know what a safe distance is, especially at highway speed. Though that is not an excuse for not being at a safe distance.
Mycroft
No Kidding.
I was the middle vehicle in a 3 car about 12 years ago. I had lots of room, but it was raining and I was in a borrowed truck, a 1970 somthing or other.
The car in front of me was a newer cadillac or somthing in that price range, vehicle behind me wasn't a jeep cherokee, but somthing pretty simular, also new. Plus the guy had obviously dumped a few k$ into it, custom paint job, jacked up, shinny rims, etc.
This was northbound on an interstate where it crossed another Interstate and they were rebuilding the intersection when some idiot cut of the car in front of me and the lady driving it had to slam on her breaks. I did the same but with the rain and mass difference I wound up tapping her at about 5 mph. Small mirical that, as around here if you leave a safe distance between you and the car in front of you some idiot will insist on filling it.
Well a few seconds (2 at most) the other vehicle SLAMS into me from behind and I tap the first car again (still got the break fully depressed).
When all is said and done the expensive car needs a new bumper shell ($1200!!) as the plastic is cracked (sheesh not even a bad crack). The new, expisively modified, vehicle that hit me is toast (front end almost 2' shorter!)
My dads truck? small ding in the rear METAL bumber and the big bolts holding to the frame where sheared off. My dad just re-bolts it on at his job (has access to huge bolts and machine shop, he works on industrial motors and pumps and such) after pounding the metal around the bolt holes back into shape.
Crumple zones, air-bags, anti-lock breaks, and of course seat belts, are all good things for the most part. But I still think todays cars are too flimsy. None of the above are any use if whole car crumples like so much constuction paper.
Purely a side note, but when I was talking to lady of first car a few minutes after the accident to see if she was o.k. and so on her huband pulled up having recognized the car. First words out his mouth? "did you call the police so we can get a report for the insurance?" in a really urgent tone of voice. Admittedly her car wasn't really beat ip, but if it were my wife, I don't think my first thought would've been insurance, but her.
Mycroft
No kidding, My dad had a car from 1960 or 61 in the mid-late 80's. Original engine. Only reason he doesn't have it is he gave it to my aunt.
His twin STILL has the same model, only reason he doesn't drive is because it's a convertable and finding a replacement top for it is expensive and hard. Though to be fair he IS an auto-mechanic. For the last several years he's been working for multi-millioniar (as in 1/4 to 1/2 billioniar) restoring old military vehicles (de-milled of course) such as tanks and apc's and radar trucks, etc. in San-Francisco.
Wherease I've had cars die in much fewer miles and time. such as a 97 that's nearly dead (head gasket leaks, just oil into coolant, but it was a matter of time). My dad's 1ton truck is constantly needing work and it's got less than 90k on it, and while not the mechanic his twin is, he's still not clueless (he doese mechanical work, just on industrial machines and not cars) and does or has done all the recomendended (both by the owners manual and anything extra his twin suggests).
I will admit some of degrade in modern car lifespans is due to thier increased sophistication and complex polution controlls, mostly it's due to the auto industry constantly doing whatever they can to cheapen thier costs. Plastic bumbers are cheaper and lighter than solid metal, aluminum blocks are also lighter and thus cheaper. and so on.
Mycroft
Mycroft
It's not necessary to learn programming at school, by the time I took my class in computers (highschool, 1987-88) I was very frustrated by my teachers total lack of what was to me basic computer knowledge (yet the other teachers all thought she was some kinda computer genuis, I outa tell you some of the dumb things she did, like storing 5.25 floppies in sleeves taped to the sides of the monitors).
By that time I'd managed learn basic, 6510 machine language (not real assembler, at best I had access to opcode memonics, but since I had to type in the program in basic from a magazine myself I pretty much had most of them memorized anyway), had spent four years as a regualar on severa local bbs's. Repaired a floppy disk drive using a repair manual (commodore 1541). Coded my implementation of Conways Life (with user changeable rules, graphics, and other settings). 80-90% out of books/magazines and taking apart other peoples programs and changing them till I knew how they worked.
I'm not trying to brag or anything just caught in nostalgia, I really miss the old bbs days, taking my turn posting to the discusions/debates till 3 am, meeting everyone at the roller ring (including one guy who looked like someones yoga teacher, could outskate any 3 of us, AND rebuilt 70's mini computers for fun).
Been using the same handle/nick almost the whole time.
Anyway, it's quite possible many viruses are done by self taught programmers. many of them seem that way considering how often they do things that make it hard/impossible to achive thier apparent goals.
Mycroft
Yes that's not a great argument. He really should have stuck with the killing and such the bible states 'god' did/ordered/authorized.
Mycroft
Motive? that's easy. Power and Authority. They get to be some very important people if believed.
I have no idea why you put the word accurate in there. My first thought is you meant consistant, but since the accounts are not consistant I have no idea.
Ehh, that's not how it works in the rational world.
Proving somthing by falling to disprove it is generally considered quackery at best.
How about instead you prove it.
All you've got is multiply translated anectedotes taken down many years after the alledged events, by people dead for almost 2000 years. Come to think of it even the date is still in the 'alledged' state as well.
I do suspect there is enough evidence to support someone around that time stirred up the locals enough to get crucified. But even that is a bit iffy in places.
Mycroft
Eh? so he wants lucky guessers, your statement almost makes no sense.
Even if 'god' (any of them, take your pick there are quite a few out there) was to provide 'His' bonafides in a verifiable way, there is still the option of saying "No thanks, I'll just sit here and roast thank you.". People often deliberately, knowing the consequences, choose very poorly for no good reason.
I say almost because the argument that knowledge reduce free will is somewhat vallid, but it doesen't totaly eliminate free will untill it becomes total. Thus omisience (100% total knowledge) is the logical exclusion of omnipotence (100% free will).
Though it's not really a direct thing as some knowledge is necessary to have free will.
The distinction comes in knowledge of the future. The more you know about what will happen the less free your will becomes. If the future IS set then free will is an illusion, if not then it's impossible to know for certain what will happen.
A direct requirement of omniscience is a set fure, an omniscient being would have no free will, and now tru power.
Hmm, I don't think that's as good an explanation as it could be, but it's late, so I appoligize if that winds up more confusing than explanitory.
Mycroft
The problem is WHICH god, most montheistic religeons insist thier 'god' is the only one, and that anyone not following thier 'god' thier way be killed. Just about the only major exception is Christianity (well most of them) allow the Jewish the live in peace, though sometimes only if they keep 'thier place'. /'heathens'.
I'd like to take back Sociopath, Narcisstic personality disorder is closer. 'He' pretty much has others do his killing and whatnot for him. though supposedly he did it himself once apon a time (depending on which god we're talking about.
I'm sorry, but some of 'his' behaviours and commands fall short of the standards I set myself, and an all-powerful/all-knowing (nice little paradox there) being should be better than that, or at least willing to give updated explanations from time to time as to what's really going on so us meer mortals can understand it.
It also seems strange that most religions, supposedly handed down from on high, do two things very consistantly.
A) grant power and importance to those handed the message
b) do thier best to irradicate the 'infidels'
It's also amazing how much 'the one true religeon' also seems to borrow alot the same crap under different frills as previous religeons, while at the same doing thier best to paint the old religeon as evil incarnate.
Mycroft
Lol, I was worried about the quote and got the name wrong. That pretty much sums up my life lately.
thanks
Mycroft
Being flammatory and being flamebait are two different things(IMHO of course). I believe it's perfectly valid to voice an honest opinion, even it is flammatory. It becomes flamebait when it's done just because it's flammatory. I see flamebait as particularly hatefull trolling.
I would not call a post flamebait for calling religeon superstious nonsense unless they were clearly just trying to piss people off.
Mycroft
hmm lemme try restateing his reasoning as I undstand it. because you very clearly missed it.
The support for life elsewhere in the universe is the fact that it is known to exist in at least one case. And a large number of the factors known to contribute to it's existance are common enough that it's reasonable to check.
Sol is an unexceptional star, many others match it within reasonalbe limits for size brightness, spectrographic data, ect.
Extra-solar planet have been found, in fairly large numbers given our limited ability to detect them.
Given that it's reasonable to assume, at least in a small percentage of cases (still a large total number given the number of stars out there), that conditions suitable for life exist other than here on earth. This only leaves the mechanism for the initial life in doubt.
The support for a GOD is limited to very old documents by biased sources and anectedotal evidence better explained by known phenomena in most cases.
Given this disparity you can see why I personal see Extra-terrestial life as very likely (not guaranteed). And a God as an improbability(again not guaranteed), esp. any of the popular ones.
Mycroft
To re-iterate A.C. Clark:
'A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishible from magic.'
Gak I hope that's mostly right. I think I've mispelled something.
Mycroft
It's still the same. At least morally. Do something for no good reason other than a threat.
How would you feel if someone walked into 7-11 you were in and said he was going to shoot everyone who didn't say green was thier favorite color, but those that did could leave right now and he'd pay them $50? Saying green is your favorite color wouldn't really hurt you and get you $50 in bargain.
You'd be ticked as all hell, and you wouldn't believe this guy liked you even if he said green was better for you in your everyday life.
Personally I'd rather be around people who do thier best to be good people than ones who half ass it, yet meet this special requirement for a better afterlife.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to start believing in a being that behaves worse than a spoiled child, threatens those he says he loves, posseses contradictory powers, and has the morals of a sociopath. Especially when there are several such, all claiming to be the only one. And each on is running a different racket than the next, with the only major items in common is that the head believers all get special privilages here in this life, and a series of directives that make not believing a good way to get killed, or in more 'enlightened' cultures/times, meerly treated like a second class citizen and a leper.
Mycroft
While it's less true now. Ms once had the practice of telling vendors "You eigther ship the current MS os on all your computers or none, oh yeah you can't tell anyone we're making you do this". Given the choice of eigther shipping the OS 90%+ of thier customers wanted (like 99% of your competion) on all computers, or not being able to ship it at all. Well it's not a choice, not if you want to stay in bussiness.
And while they got in trouble for it. What do you want to bet they still make it as difficult for vendors to not ship only MS OS products on thier computers as possible without getting into trouble.
Mycroft
No I wouldn't go sofar as to say mugging, nor pick on just Mr. Gates.
But Microsoft has been found guilty of illeagle activities which apply a coercive pressure on consumers to use thier products.
Embrace and Extend is basicaly a form of coercion to. They have used thier monopoly position to make using a non-ms product in as unatractive as possible.
Take Word for example. Once they reached a point of major dominance, they used a closed format for doc files meaning if you wanted to recieve communication from most of the bussiness world, you had to use word, a fairly recent version too as the format mutates and new versions don't even support old formats.
There are more examples like this. And while it's not mugging, it's still not much better in many cases.
Mycroft
Yep, I wouldn't be suprised if '1337' speak wasn't occasionaly better than my grammer. my spelling, well let's just call it a sever defeciency.
I really don't worry about grammer in conversational setting that much. Usually just enough to avoid major confusion over what I'm saying. And somtimes wreck that as well.
What's really odd is that I'm more likely to fubar spelling on middle sized words. The big ones I usually get. The small ones mostly right with a few I manage to totaly blow consistantly.
Yeah, arguing her bona-fides is pretty much mooted.
Mycroft
Gak. This person doese editing as job, not as an obsesive compulsive behaviou(I hope). I qualified for the Honors course in english when I applied for a local colledge. Doesen't mean I quadruple check everything I write. Only when the grammer itself is important. (like on a placement test).
If you did somthing 8+ hours a day, don't you think you'd relax a bit on your own time.
Now if the grammer had been totaly attrocious, full of '733t' speak and signs of not knowing any grammer, then I'd be suspicious.
Mycroft
I sincerly hope if this guy is as bad as everyone say, he gets slaped down hard at that hearing.
I'd like less spam in my inbox as a birthday present.
Mycroft
The probelm is only an idiot(or the clueless newbee) would actually send an e-mail adress back to 'clear up the missunderstanding', and confirm a valid e-mail to be added to the list that then gets sold to dozens or more spammers.
I've tried following 'opt out lists' and such, all that happens is you get more spam as a result. True a few such 'if you got this e-mail by mistake please tell us so we can take you off the list' type messages are valid and honest. Many are not and all it takes is one for for your e-mail addy to be 'confirmed' and sold.
Mycroft
Thanks, it's been way to long since I did any reading on that area of physics.
There are just so many ineresting things out there it's hard to learn as much as I would like and remember it all.
Mycroft
Speaking of Chandrasekhar, isn't the Chandrasekhar limit another name for the event horizon of a Black hole, or was it some other property? I honestly can't remember.
I was wondering how that unusual word got associated with black holes, didn't know if was named for someone (as apears to be the case) or was a word in some language I don't recognize(that would be most of them).
Mycroft