Then how come OSX is so freakin' easy for everyone to use? It only takes a few minutes.
I've used Macs & windows for years (until Mac OSx). One of my largest clients has only had macs in their offices for the last 15 years. _Yet_ when I meet with them and they bring their laptops they are often confused by the windows, file management and navigation.
I've never seen a more messed up and confusing GUI in my life. Stuff flying all over the screen, stuff disappearing and you have no idea why or what you did to cause it or how to find it again, colors for buttons. (color blindness?) Colored buttons are completely absurd... Yes I know if you roll over them they "reveal" their functions, but that's just another point against their GUI's ease of use.
The MacOS X GUI appears to be really just an elite form of visual GUI, not an _easier_ GUI. Easier means _less_ work to use, faster to learn/adapt to, easier to understand what it's doing, etc...
If you have to understand your system enough to "turn off" all the funky confusing stuff, then perhaps the GUI is not designed for _ease of use_ but for GUI power users...
I fail to see how the ability to measure entropy correlates to the idea that entropy will increase.
Obviously by your own statements you are saying that entropy won't increase, but I said was that entropy will fluctuate. Sometimes it will be more and sometimes less, as earth is a complex system.
But by the theories presented in evolution we are supposed to believe that a one celled organism suddenly exhisted at one point ( I will go along with this ) but that it's energy level _increased_ for millions of years.
What caused this? Why is it that only "living" things have had a constant focusing and increasing amount of energy, where as say the sun, earth,....everything else, are all _losing_ energy!
Please do explain, I am really not intelligent in these matters and barely understand basic physics, but I have serious misgivings about evolution because it has never been _proved_ to be true. Neither has ID, so I'm not debating between them.
...the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems,
"Thermal entropy is a measure of the amount of thermal energy in a closed system that is not available to do work. Entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables and physical laws."
From a possible crazy person, but his explainations are in support of evolution...
It seems you have not removed entropy from the discussion. Feel free to elaborate or prove the above comment as innacurate, but if you are to spend the effort please provide proof, as I am interested in learning, not merely believing.
...why does that necessarily have to conflict with the established theory of evolution?
When I was in 6th grade they showed us these fradulent drawings of the fetus looking like a frog, chicken, etc... these were lies from the 50's or so, yet in the 80's were still part of the education system even though many people knew they were fradulent to begin with. Is this one of the facts that support evolution? A blatant lie?
Established does _not_ mean "true" or "proven".
The small 'missing link' remains found in Alaska, later to be found a monkey. The amazing missing link tooth found in Nebraska, later is found to be a pigs tooth, etc...
All this "evidence" get's spread around very quickly. But the fact that this "evidence" is later refuted categorically is not spread at all, so there is a common belief that there is a lot of proof of evolution, when there really isn't. This reminds me of bunch of stories about wmd's....
As for intelligent design... it's just a buzzword to avoid bringing religion into this.:P
One statement I'd like someone to debate with me on though. How can scientist believe in a theory that violates the law of entropy, where the energy should be dispersing into uniformity?
Entropy is proven law, yet seems to be not discussed in the same discussions as with the psudo science of evolution.
I was more responding to the original poster who seemed to think it was his God given right to have a port done for Windows.?
It seems I was the oiginal poster in this farce... I never implied it was a "right" of any kind, I just asked if there was a windows version, and with my astounding ability to _not_ make a joke, I may have come across as meerly stupid.
So I agree with your statements, I am just ammused that people would freak out on me (read other posts in reply) for simply asking if there _was_ a windows port. *sigh*
No, actually I'm not. My simple question was (and it was all in a stupid joking manner, please reread my original post) is there a windows version?
You fit into the exact description I made. You criticize me (and by extension others) for simply asking a question. I've lived in a hippy commune (sp), only so many people do the cooking & cleaning. But there are people that tell other people that the kitchen exhists, support the kitchen socially, help bring other cooks, etc...
If one of the people that came there and simply asked "is there a vegan version of the meal today?" Would you treat this person the same way? Seems dumb to me to chew this person out for just asking a question.
Don't just expect people to do this for you. Those who run Linux and OS X have no real need for Windows. It might be frustrating, but, well, tough.
I am sure you aren't trying to be rude, so I will try as well.
Your response is at the social edge of the uppity 133t h4x0rs out there that think we should all pitch in a help, and if we don't we are a bunch of lazy leacher punks.
I simply have no skills in programming this kind of thing what so ever. Period. And there are a ton of people that use OSS every day that would never in a million years _ever_ be able to help port anything.
So you know what I and every other lazy bastard out there that "expect people to do this for us"? A user base that makes OSS work.
Without a userbase, there lacks popularity, without popularity there lacks the free advertising, marketing, etc.. that drives new programmers, bug testers, quality feedback, etc.. back to the those "that can do this for us".
Yes it's free software, and guess what? That's the only reason I use it. Call me selfish, but I'm a spokesman and advocate of OSS to the normal schmoes. I defend our rights with my speech. I encourage non-techie users to use OSS. I feel that I, and many others, that can't "do this for ourselves" add a huge aspect to the OSS community that the core programmers perhaps take for granted.
If only people that could compile linux used it, it would absolutely pathetic community supporting by comparison to the current reality.
If so, I'll be taking home that bacon. Unfortunately for a us stranded in the middle of the MS desert, we have been left out in the cold. Where's the Windoze port of this?
I hope the OSS community doesn't think that designers use only Mac and *gasp* Linux for graphic design?
Please mod the parent up for those of use designers that need a good chuckle after all the grueling debating we had to surf through to find the most enjoyable post of this story.
If you don't find the link really funny, then you are not a designer. It's obvious the designer had some fun with it.:P
There are few things more enjoyable than hearing a hundred 5th grade boys yelling back and forth at eachother and pounding on the tables in the echo of a gymansium converted at lunch time to a cafeteria, tastes great! less filling! tastes great! less filling! tastes great! less filling!
ah... the memories of childhood, what would we have done without our tv commercial based social culture?
Your arguments seem to lack either logic or reasoning of some kind. Do you have a solid position on the debate of religion/athesim in light of the original comments or are you wasting time?
I think I've gone in circles with the other poster, I made the exact point about religion/atheism and the issues surrounding the communists. Perhaps it's a waste of time to debate such things when the posters to the contrary cannot, or will not, post relevant data, facts or proofs or even sound reasoning to back up their statements.
Sure there is, you can show me what you believe, what is the point of discussion if we do not express alternate views. If I beleive something is a fact and you feel it's an opinion that is part of the discussion. But you seem to not be addressing the core disucssion, only fringes of it.
Does a belief system kill people? ( atheism as not religion (from your definition) versus religion)
It's not a redifinition, it's simply a fact. If you have a belief system for which you have no scientific basis for believing in, then it's a form of religion.
Besides, you've debated me on a number of points, but here's the original point I brought out that no one so far has been able to dispute. Religion doesn't kill people. Here's the original quote I replied to.
On the whole, religion has killed more people than all forms of revolution and all wars over money, gold or resources
Do you agree with this? If so, what evidence can you provide to support the claim that a method of believing in a God causes death?
How can you account for the fact that there are far more recorded attrocities caused by non-Christians than "Christians"? (or at least those that act under the guise of Christianity...)
One can determine that an adult using a position of power over someone of lesser age is immoral on a purely logical basis
Libertarians on the extreme side use their own logic to say otherwise. So on what core basis can you make a logical determination that a particular act is immoral? Using the Bible as a standard is one way to determine right vs wrong, what other method would you suggest? Keep in mind, you'd have to enforce your method on others for it to be universally accepted, otherwise you do have anarchy. So why should anyone follow your definition or whatever popular definition of morality exhists when it's just based on another persons' perspective?
Look at Bush supporters... if they were truly Christian, why would they vote for capital punishment and foreign wars?
This is _exactly_ my point, is it the fact that they claim to be Christians the _cause_ of the problem? Or is it the fact that these people simply do not do what they should? Blaiming the religion of Christianity for their problems seems absurd considering they aren't practicing it.
If you want a fair comparison, you need to compare things that are otherwise similar except for the trait that you are testing.
The comparison was fair, based on religious freedom. Would you rather live in a country that has and honors this freedom or one that does not.
He does not do it in the name of religion (he has none).
Atheism _is_ a religion too. You have no proof that God doesn't exist, you have to have faith that there is no God. So perhaps I should clarify the question, what is the difference between promoting violence/war from the perspective of the atheism religion vs the Christian/Jewish/Moslem religions?
War is war and violence is violence, how can one instigator and brainwashing method be better/worse than another if the end result is identical?
No, it's about how believers are manipulated to approve of and support certain types of violence/wars. Burn the witch! Slay the unbelievers!
Atheists also manipulate people to support war and violence. It's harder to see because it's spread out over many areas and not given one name, but abortion is one example of this. "Get your rosaries off my ovaries!","Not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate". Only the target of the violence is far less able to defend themselves.
These chants and protests are no different from a logical perspective. They are to induce agreement from other people.
Just because the religious influence has been recorded more thoroughly in history does not negate secular influences we have today that are atheistic.
It was said by another poster that Robin Williams pointed out that the sins of the preists were felonies. The same is true about abortion, it's the death of a human being (murder), which is illegal, though the law seems quite distorted at this point (why the double standard?). But from an atheistic perspective you can define life how ever you want to justify the behavior. Once an idea is created, mass education to the public to support this idea is spread by secular groups in an evangelical, and often extremely zealous, manner.
So what is the difference between a pretend religious leader calling for violence against a group of people and an atheist calling for violence against a group of people?
The law of the land says that murder is wrong, and that is all you need.
I agree that our current laws set a standard, but this debate did not start from a perspective of law vs religion, it's about the claim that religion causes war/violence, where as non-relgion (atheism) does not. Whether or not we have laws is irrelevant in this regard. The Law I was refering to was religious or belief based laws, not public governmental laws.
There was no need to consult the church or take their input at all
I agree, this is quite ridiculous to consider from even a basic level of reasoning. Though keep in mind that if the people of the Catholic Church really believed and followed that Bible those preists (the ones not thrown in jail) would have no parishioners to speak to on Sunday. So is seems that any "Christian" that supports a preist like that would then be a party to their deeds.
But, an atheist has no moral ground to accuse the preist of wrong doing outside of law, which from a society perspective is a deeper issue.
A better question would be an Athiest USA and a Christian USA
Yes, perhaps it was loaded, but viewed strictly from the sense that Russia actively persecuted religion vs the US which has actively promoted it, from a religious stand point (and even for the athiest) it would be better to live in the US, purely on the basis of religious freedom. (And all the societal benefits that come from that freedom.)
You can not use atheism to justify murder, because there are no rules to enforce unlike in (most) religions.
There being no rules is exactly why you _can_ use it as a way to justify murder. Having no rules vs having rules is not a logical reason to say one belief system causes violence and another doesn't.
The question arises then, what law or belief in atheism says murder is wrong? There is a natural understanding that murder is wrong, but a violent anarchist, or other such forms of belief that support violence, has no moral restrictions and no other person of atheistic beliefs has a right, under their own chosen belief system, to tell another atheist that murder is wrong.
So is it better for society to have at least moral ground work that at the least maintains a social preasure to be non-violent versuses a belief system that by it's own nature cannot hold another person accountable for their actions?
At the very least if a "Christian" commits a violent crime it can be called against him that he violated his own beliefs and is guilty based on a community standard of what it means to be "Christian".
I do not disagree that religion has been the justification for war (by Christians, Jews and Moslems), but it was not done by the followers of Christ it was done by those that merely claimed they followed him. And for the sake of argument, even if a Christian did commit murder (as is recorded in the Bible for sure), the whole point of this religion is that the believers are supposed to feel sorry for their actions and repent. There is no requirement of repentance of any kind in atheism.
So if you had to choose between living in Soviet Russia (an atheistic society) vs the USA (mainly Christian/Jewish society), which would you choose? (setting aside the fact that many people may not act on their professed belief systems)
Slashdot Mirror
I've used Macs & windows for years (until Mac OSx). One of my largest clients has only had macs in their offices for the last 15 years. _Yet_ when I meet with them and they bring their laptops they are often confused by the windows, file management and navigation.
I've never seen a more messed up and confusing GUI in my life. Stuff flying all over the screen, stuff disappearing and you have no idea why or what you did to cause it or how to find it again, colors for buttons. (color blindness?) Colored buttons are completely absurd... Yes I know if you roll over them they "reveal" their functions, but that's just another point against their GUI's ease of use.
The MacOS X GUI appears to be really just an elite form of visual GUI, not an _easier_ GUI. Easier means _less_ work to use, faster to learn/adapt to, easier to understand what it's doing, etc...
If you have to understand your system enough to "turn off" all the funky confusing stuff, then perhaps the GUI is not designed for _ease of use_ but for GUI power users...
Obviously by your own statements you are saying that entropy won't increase, but I said was that entropy will fluctuate. Sometimes it will be more and sometimes less, as earth is a complex system.
But by the theories presented in evolution we are supposed to believe that a one celled organism suddenly exhisted at one point ( I will go along with this ) but that it's energy level _increased_ for millions of years.
What caused this? Why is it that only "living" things have had a constant focusing and increasing amount of energy, where as say the sun, earth, ....everything else, are all _losing_ energy!
Please do explain, I am really not intelligent in these matters and barely understand basic physics, but I have serious misgivings about evolution because it has never been _proved_ to be true. Neither has ID, so I'm not debating between them.
"Thermal entropy is a measure of the amount of thermal energy in a closed system that is not available to do work. Entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables and physical laws."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_car rier/entropy.html
From a possible crazy person, but his explainations are in support of evolution...
It seems you have not removed entropy from the discussion. Feel free to elaborate or prove the above comment as innacurate, but if you are to spend the effort please provide proof, as I am interested in learning, not merely believing.
When I was in 6th grade they showed us these fradulent drawings of the fetus looking like a frog, chicken, etc... these were lies from the 50's or so, yet in the 80's were still part of the education system even though many people knew they were fradulent to begin with. Is this one of the facts that support evolution? A blatant lie?
Established does _not_ mean "true" or "proven".
The small 'missing link' remains found in Alaska, later to be found a monkey. The amazing missing link tooth found in Nebraska, later is found to be a pigs tooth, etc...
All this "evidence" get's spread around very quickly. But the fact that this "evidence" is later refuted categorically is not spread at all, so there is a common belief that there is a lot of proof of evolution, when there really isn't. This reminds me of bunch of stories about wmd's....
As for intelligent design... it's just a buzzword to avoid bringing religion into this. :P
One statement I'd like someone to debate with me on though. How can scientist believe in a theory that violates the law of entropy, where the energy should be dispersing into uniformity?
Entropy is proven law, yet seems to be not discussed in the same discussions as with the psudo science of evolution.
It seems I was the oiginal poster in this farce... I never implied it was a "right" of any kind, I just asked if there was a windows version, and with my astounding ability to _not_ make a joke, I may have come across as meerly stupid.
So I agree with your statements, I am just ammused that people would freak out on me (read other posts in reply) for simply asking if there _was_ a windows port. *sigh*
No, actually I'm not. My simple question was (and it was all in a stupid joking manner, please reread my original post) is there a windows version?
You fit into the exact description I made. You criticize me (and by extension others) for simply asking a question. I've lived in a hippy commune (sp), only so many people do the cooking & cleaning. But there are people that tell other people that the kitchen exhists, support the kitchen socially, help bring other cooks, etc...
If one of the people that came there and simply asked "is there a vegan version of the meal today?" Would you treat this person the same way? Seems dumb to me to chew this person out for just asking a question.
I am sure you aren't trying to be rude, so I will try as well.
Your response is at the social edge of the uppity 133t h4x0rs out there that think we should all pitch in a help, and if we don't we are a bunch of lazy leacher punks.
I simply have no skills in programming this kind of thing what so ever. Period. And there are a ton of people that use OSS every day that would never in a million years _ever_ be able to help port anything.
So you know what I and every other lazy bastard out there that "expect people to do this for us"? A user base that makes OSS work.
Without a userbase, there lacks popularity, without popularity there lacks the free advertising, marketing, etc.. that drives new programmers, bug testers, quality feedback, etc.. back to the those "that can do this for us".
Yes it's free software, and guess what? That's the only reason I use it. Call me selfish, but I'm a spokesman and advocate of OSS to the normal schmoes. I defend our rights with my speech. I encourage non-techie users to use OSS. I feel that I, and many others, that can't "do this for ourselves" add a huge aspect to the OSS community that the core programmers perhaps take for granted.
If only people that could compile linux used it, it would absolutely pathetic community supporting by comparison to the current reality.
Perhaps, but does it run windows?
If so, I'll be taking home that bacon. Unfortunately for a us stranded in the middle of the MS desert, we have been left out in the cold. Where's the Windoze port of this?
I hope the OSS community doesn't think that designers use only Mac and *gasp* Linux for graphic design?
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137085&thr eshold=5&commentsort=0&tid=141&tid=155&tid=106&mod e=thread&cid=11454343
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137085&thr eshold=5&commentsort=0&tid=141&tid=155&tid=106&mod e=thread&cid=11454343
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137085&thr eshold=5&commentsort=0&tid=141&tid=155&tid=106&mod e=thread&cid=11454343
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137085&thr eshold=5&commentsort=0&tid=141&tid=155&tid=106&mod e=thread&cid=11454343
This isn't actually true. If you are in the military and are 18, you can drink. (on _any_ military base) :)
Too bad you are right about the other stuff though. :(
If you don't find the link really funny, then you are not a designer. It's obvious the designer had some fun with it. :P
ah... the memories of childhood, what would we have done without our tv commercial based social culture?
Your argument
None the less, I don't post/read for entertainment, I thought (mistakenly) you were debating because you felt you had something of worth to say.
I think I've gone in circles with the other poster, I made the exact point about religion/atheism and the issues surrounding the communists. Perhaps it's a waste of time to debate such things when the posters to the contrary cannot, or will not, post relevant data, facts or proofs or even sound reasoning to back up their statements.
Does a belief system kill people? ( atheism as not religion (from your definition) versus religion)
It's not a redifinition, it's simply a fact. If you have a belief system for which you have no scientific basis for believing in, then it's a form of religion.
Besides, you've debated me on a number of points, but here's the original point I brought out that no one so far has been able to dispute. Religion doesn't kill people. Here's the original quote I replied to.
On the whole, religion has killed more people than all forms of revolution and all wars over money, gold or resources
Do you agree with this? If so, what evidence can you provide to support the claim that a method of believing in a God causes death?
How can you account for the fact that there are far more recorded attrocities caused by non-Christians than "Christians"? (or at least those that act under the guise of Christianity...)
original post against athesism's support of war and attrocities
Libertarians on the extreme side use their own logic to say otherwise. So on what core basis can you make a logical determination that a particular act is immoral? Using the Bible as a standard is one way to determine right vs wrong, what other method would you suggest? Keep in mind, you'd have to enforce your method on others for it to be universally accepted, otherwise you do have anarchy. So why should anyone follow your definition or whatever popular definition of morality exhists when it's just based on another persons' perspective?
Look at Bush supporters... if they were truly Christian, why would they vote for capital punishment and foreign wars?
This is _exactly_ my point, is it the fact that they claim to be Christians the _cause_ of the problem? Or is it the fact that these people simply do not do what they should? Blaiming the religion of Christianity for their problems seems absurd considering they aren't practicing it.
If you want a fair comparison, you need to compare things that are otherwise similar except for the trait that you are testing.
The comparison was fair, based on religious freedom. Would you rather live in a country that has and honors this freedom or one that does not.
Atheism _is_ a religion too. You have no proof that God doesn't exist, you have to have faith that there is no God. So perhaps I should clarify the question, what is the difference between promoting violence/war from the perspective of the atheism religion vs the Christian/Jewish/Moslem religions?
War is war and violence is violence, how can one instigator and brainwashing method be better/worse than another if the end result is identical?
Atheists also manipulate people to support war and violence. It's harder to see because it's spread out over many areas and not given one name, but abortion is one example of this. "Get your rosaries off my ovaries!","Not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate". Only the target of the violence is far less able to defend themselves.
These chants and protests are no different from a logical perspective. They are to induce agreement from other people.
Just because the religious influence has been recorded more thoroughly in history does not negate secular influences we have today that are atheistic.
It was said by another poster that Robin Williams pointed out that the sins of the preists were felonies. The same is true about abortion, it's the death of a human being (murder), which is illegal, though the law seems quite distorted at this point (why the double standard?). But from an atheistic perspective you can define life how ever you want to justify the behavior. Once an idea is created, mass education to the public to support this idea is spread by secular groups in an evangelical, and often extremely zealous, manner.
So what is the difference between a pretend religious leader calling for violence against a group of people and an atheist calling for violence against a group of people?
I agree that our current laws set a standard, but this debate did not start from a perspective of law vs religion, it's about the claim that religion causes war/violence, where as non-relgion (atheism) does not. Whether or not we have laws is irrelevant in this regard. The Law I was refering to was religious or belief based laws, not public governmental laws.
There was no need to consult the church or take their input at all
I agree, this is quite ridiculous to consider from even a basic level of reasoning. Though keep in mind that if the people of the Catholic Church really believed and followed that Bible those preists (the ones not thrown in jail) would have no parishioners to speak to on Sunday. So is seems that any "Christian" that supports a preist like that would then be a party to their deeds.
But, an atheist has no moral ground to accuse the preist of wrong doing outside of law, which from a society perspective is a deeper issue.
A better question would be an Athiest USA and a Christian USA
Yes, perhaps it was loaded, but viewed strictly from the sense that Russia actively persecuted religion vs the US which has actively promoted it, from a religious stand point (and even for the athiest) it would be better to live in the US, purely on the basis of religious freedom. (And all the societal benefits that come from that freedom.)
There being no rules is exactly why you _can_ use it as a way to justify murder. Having no rules vs having rules is not a logical reason to say one belief system causes violence and another doesn't.
The question arises then, what law or belief in atheism says murder is wrong? There is a natural understanding that murder is wrong, but a violent anarchist, or other such forms of belief that support violence, has no moral restrictions and no other person of atheistic beliefs has a right, under their own chosen belief system, to tell another atheist that murder is wrong.
So is it better for society to have at least moral ground work that at the least maintains a social preasure to be non-violent versuses a belief system that by it's own nature cannot hold another person accountable for their actions?
At the very least if a "Christian" commits a violent crime it can be called against him that he violated his own beliefs and is guilty based on a community standard of what it means to be "Christian".
I do not disagree that religion has been the justification for war (by Christians, Jews and Moslems), but it was not done by the followers of Christ it was done by those that merely claimed they followed him. And for the sake of argument, even if a Christian did commit murder (as is recorded in the Bible for sure), the whole point of this religion is that the believers are supposed to feel sorry for their actions and repent. There is no requirement of repentance of any kind in atheism.
So if you had to choose between living in Soviet Russia (an atheistic society) vs the USA (mainly Christian/Jewish society), which would you choose? (setting aside the fact that many people may not act on their professed belief systems)