Don't get me wrong - I do not hope Novell dies, but given their history they may well just become just another linux distribution. Their strength with some applications seems to be losing ground to the competition. eDirectory has AD (their both directories, right?), Zenworks has Novadigm (which is excellent), Groupwise has Exchange and others, and so on. I hope Novell finally hit upon a killer marketing campaign with great ideas such as iFoler, iPrint, Silverstream, etc
To spite repeated assurances from the CEO Jack Messman when Novell purchased SuSE that "they were not dropping Netware, but adding linux", everyone saw through the market spin and prophesied this would happen.
It's not the dropping of Netware that should concern Novell customers, but the lack of applications and features available for years in Netware that are still not in the linux versions, and the (still) glaring lack of a truly single management tool for all servers, applications, and services. (iManager was a move in the right direction, but it never seem to be complete, thus forced admins to continue using Console1, NWAdmin and the terminal).
The best thing Novell could have done was to license it's awesome directory technology to anyone who wanted it, including Microsoft. The comparison between eDirectory and AD is pointless - there is none. eDirectory has features that AD can never have without a complete rewrite (and we have seen Microsoft's competence with developing new platforms via Vista).
I was a huge Novell fan for many years - they had the right technology, but terrible marketing abilities. Nowadays all I am seeing is the beginning of the end of this once very promising company.
Again - the Pope concentrates on the good parts of the Bible, while ignoring the bad parts, of which there are many more. Also, don't make the mistake that their word is all good - the Pope condemns condoms in third world countries where thousands are dying of AIDS based on some outdated dogma. I can not comment on the second character - never heard of him.
I agree that the majority of religious messages are one of peace, but this is due to concentrating on the good messages in the good book. If you actually read the books (cover to cover) these faiths are based on instead of just listening to the priest, you may come away with a very different impression. I did.
It seems to me most followers have never actually read their holy books - they just listen to what they are told. The ones that do read the books either alter their interpretations to suit their morality, or become fundamentalist. It could be argued the later category are true followers as they follow God's word, and these are the ones who perform horrible acts of violent hate.
Millions of believers within a population do not have a problem, unless they take their book too seriously in which case all homosexuals, people who work on Sundays and kids who swear at you should be put to death - to take Christianity as an example. However, at the borders with opposing religions there is tremendous violence and death - the books instruct it!
We are at a cross roads. We have stone age beliefs in magical sky Gods and space age weapons of mass destruction. For the first time in history it is now possible for one religious group to totally annihilate another because their imaginary friend is better. If that doesn't scare you, then you are very certain there must be an afterlife. I am not that convinced.
Firstly, the labelling of any child as Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Catholic, Buddhist, etc is a premature decision based on the parents desire for their children to continue the faith. All children should be taught all religions and it is for them to decide which one (if any) they follow.
Where I live, most people are open minded, rational and intelligent - even those that belief in an all powerful supernatural being who created everything, mucked it up and had to sacrifice himself in the form of his own son to give us a chance at redemption, provided we still believe in him. When questioned, many define God very differently to the one portrayed in the holy texts. At some point in examining any topic people get to a point where the only answer they have is "I don't know", to which some optionally append the phrase "God must have done it". A God that fills the gaps in our knowledge. Many people in progressive societies follow this line, and I suspect you may be one of them given the questions raised.
Unfortunately, there are many who do not achieve this level of understanding and take the (insert whatever holy text is yours here) to be the literal and inerrant word of God. The world was created in 6 days, there was a great flood and God destroyed Saddam and Gomorrah for being wicked. Here is where the dark underbelly of religion can be found. "God did it", "He is all powerful", "I have his book and he says you are a sinner" and "I must do God's will" are dangerous words for these people and has lead to untold horrors, in the name of God.
You mention evolution, which describes the process of change in organisms over time, but state the whole concept is flawed because we don't know how is started. Abiogenesis and evolution are different fields - disproving an hypothesis in one does not disprove the other. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, but we still have few clues to how it all started (although we are getting there).
There are many contradictions in the Bible - far too many to list here, but I will highlight this "love" you speak of. Lev.20:13 says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." That's pretty clear about what God thinks of homosexuals, what about other faiths? Read Deuteronomy 13:6-10. Care to retract your "love everyone statement"?
I very much doubt we actually have (therefore evolved) a "God" part of the brain. However, we have a great ability to think and experiment with the world in our heads. The question of where we came from would not be alien to any thinking creature. As for your statement regarding Dawkins; I don't think an Oxford Professor in Evolutionary Biology lacks an understanding in the subject. Perhaps his books simplify the subject for the masses, but that's not the same thing. Please refer to where he blames all wars on religion because after watching almost everything he has produced I have never heard this, but I am willing to change my mind if credible evidence presents itself - something religion seems extremely reluctant to do.
Have you actually read the entire Bible? It is filled with hate, killing, murder, genocide, rape, war, genocide, etc. The Quran is no better.
To be fair, there are good passages in both books and these are the ones moderate believers follow. Indeed, these are the only passages I have *ever* heard in sermons or discussed in religious gatherings. This is a distortion of the message contained within the Bible - its is primarily hate. Read it.
Teaching religion to kids is a form of abuse that should stop immediately. Religion subvert real thinking, scepticism and logic. Whenever I hear someone say "God did it" I hear "I do not know, nor do I have an explanation so I am going to stop thinking about it and attribute this to a magical man in the sky who can do anything".
It is ironic that you use logic in your argument against atheism as if Christianity is the most rational explanation for the universe around us. There are far too many contradictions, falsehoods, and faulty logic in the Bible and the teaching of the church to *ever* call them logical. Looking at the vast mountains of evidence the only rational deduction is that there most likely is not a God (agnostic), just as there is no invisible pink unicorn living on Pluto.
Questioning minds and the seek for knowledge as driven science to uncover more about the world around us than religion has ever done. If we all just listened to the priests we would still be stuck in the dark ages - and they were named that for a very good reason. Science has giving us computers, medicine, transport, communications, new materials, etc. What has the church given you? Hope? The belief that the evils of the world will be settled in an after life? Based on what proof? The rantings of some desert nomads with a mental disorder 2,000 years ago - give me a break.
What underpins atheism is a sceptical, logical, rational mind. No person was driving to acts of madness, murder and horror by being too rational. I suggest you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris and "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.
Bugger - there goes my karma - if there was such a thing.
I would NOT recommend reading the Bible/Quran if you want to avoid death, destruction, violence, genocide, hatred, torture, massacres and war. Both books are filled to the brim with such atrocities. If we are going to ban books that incite terrorism - let's start with these two.
When I fist read the title I thought it meant "48% of American's refuse to evolve". I am not sure this erroneous misreading is actually that wrong after reading the storey.
This story poses an interesting challenge for those people blocking stem cell research on religious grounds.
The concept of the soul entering the zygote at the moment of conception raises puzzling questions when the resulting cell goes on to split into two viable individuals. What happens to the soul? Is it split in two? Does another soul enter the second? What happens when the individuals are not identical, do we get another soul?
The situation becomes even more untenable when individual zygotes (re)combine to form a single individual (apparently this happen quite often). Where does the second soul go? Did either have one to begin with?
As Sam Harris said - "This sort of soul arithmetic does not make sense."
Stem cell research has the potential to save the live of many. Let's get some sense into the debate and drag ourselves away from ancient thinking.
This is a nice summary and I am glad others have raised Occam's razor. Unfortunately, every solution we have to date (and probably forever) is required to deal with infinity/eternity or something coming into existence from nothing. Both seem unsatisfactory and will remain so due to our limited capacity for understanding. Science will progress our understanding of the world and religion will always have gaps to hide in.
On top of that: If it really was a virgin birth then what does Joseph's ancestry have to do with it? A plausible explanation is what the lineage is important in order to fulfill the old testament prophecies and has been fabricated by both authors retrospectively. Perhaps they should have compared notes?
I find it rather interesting that religious people discount some stories in the Bible as being poetic, symbolic, allegory or parables when the evidence and rational thought show them to be lacking. However, the miracles performed by Jesus are not seen in this way - they are taken as an accurate factual account of events.
The Bible does not signify which stories belong to which categories, so the whole thing is open to interpretation and argument both between individuals of a denomination and between the various religions themselves. As no proof can be claimed by either side they both take the "moral" high ground and proclaim it is their faith. It seems the more you continue to believe in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary, the more faithful you become. Faith is seen as a virtue.
It is not a great leap to reject all evidence and totally believe in the "word of God" and be considered a true believer (many moderates would consider this view fanatical). Belief without evidence or proof can, and is, used to justify many atrocities against humanity and will be the undoing of our species if we continue to tolerate it.
Most religious people are "mostly harmless" (to quote a famous atheist). The problem is religion harbors and encourages fanatics. Sept 11 is one horrific example of this and the American response just as bad (remember, George Bush said "God told me to invade Iraq").
Read Sam Harris's "End of Faith" and "A letter to a Christian Nation", Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and watch Brian Flemming's "The God who was not there". Keep an open mind, question what you *really* belief and make a decision.
So, it is just like imagining falling asleep and never waking up. I think it's the "never" part people have a problem with. When we fall asleep we are still conscious on some level and can dream; besides we know (or at least hope) that we will wake up in the morning. IMHO, the *only* thing scary about not existing is the effect it will have on those I leave behind, but that won't really worry me at the time. I think your right - people don't give it much thought.
As long as it does not prevent you from trying to find out the wondrous, delicate and intricate subtleties of the universe I do not have a problem. Faith, however, requires belief without evidence and is considered by many religious people to be a virtue. This undermines inquiring into knowing. I am not suggesting this is your view, or the norm, but religion encourages it and the result in some religions are people willing to martyr themselves to go straight to heaven where 11 virgins await.
My wife is a Christian, my father plays the pipe organ for a local church and my grandfather was a minister. None of them fear(ed) death as they believe in an after life in which God will look after them. I am an atheist and I do not fear death. I was dead for millennium before I was alive and so it will be when I cease. I hope I live my life as most religious people hope to live theirs - full of love, laughter, friendship and sharing. My legacy is my memory in those that knew me, the impact I had on society and the genetic information in my beautiful daughters.
I look on to some religious people with amusement. They are so worried about eternal hell they forget to really live; "Good, God-fearing folk". I think many actually fake belief, which is something I am not prepared to do. If by some chance their is a God, I think he/she will respect how you live much more than what you believed.
I seem to have gotten off topic. To me, the answer to you question is: "People can not conceive an eternity of not existing, so they invent God to rescue them." "Life after death" sums it up nicely.
Not having an explanation is not a good basis to say "Well then, it must be God."
The title of that article should read '13 things science hasn't been able to explain, yet...' and many of the digg comments point this out as well. Science is the search for the *truth* and along the way there will be many things we will not fully understand. Only by constant questions, hypothesis, experimentation evidence and logic will we discover the ways of the universe. Religion subverts the process and configures the "I don't know and nobody can explain it, so God must have done it" trap that you have fallen into.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard James Packer has left (or at least wants to leave).
Of course, they could also participate in popular torrents at local exchanges to speed data transfer and lower the traffic on the WAN.
Don't get me wrong - I do not hope Novell dies, but given their history they may well just become just another linux distribution. Their strength with some applications seems to be losing ground to the competition. eDirectory has AD (their both directories, right?), Zenworks has Novadigm (which is excellent), Groupwise has Exchange and others, and so on. I hope Novell finally hit upon a killer marketing campaign with great ideas such as iFoler, iPrint, Silverstream, etc
To spite repeated assurances from the CEO Jack Messman when Novell purchased SuSE that "they were not dropping Netware, but adding linux", everyone saw through the market spin and prophesied this would happen. It's not the dropping of Netware that should concern Novell customers, but the lack of applications and features available for years in Netware that are still not in the linux versions, and the (still) glaring lack of a truly single management tool for all servers, applications, and services. (iManager was a move in the right direction, but it never seem to be complete, thus forced admins to continue using Console1, NWAdmin and the terminal). The best thing Novell could have done was to license it's awesome directory technology to anyone who wanted it, including Microsoft. The comparison between eDirectory and AD is pointless - there is none. eDirectory has features that AD can never have without a complete rewrite (and we have seen Microsoft's competence with developing new platforms via Vista). I was a huge Novell fan for many years - they had the right technology, but terrible marketing abilities. Nowadays all I am seeing is the beginning of the end of this once very promising company.
To paraphrase Sun: "The keyboard *is* the laptop".
Why not implement quality of service on the network and give priority to web, email and FTP traffic?
Yep - We were screwed over on the referendum. The questions should have been:
....
1) Should we become a republic?
2) If so, choose a model from the following options:
3)
I did not deny humans were violent, but it seems our all loving God is as well - odd.
Again - the Pope concentrates on the good parts of the Bible, while ignoring the bad parts, of which there are many more. Also, don't make the mistake that their word is all good - the Pope condemns condoms in third world countries where thousands are dying of AIDS based on some outdated dogma. I can not comment on the second character - never heard of him.
I agree that the majority of religious messages are one of peace, but this is due to concentrating on the good messages in the good book. If you actually read the books (cover to cover) these faiths are based on instead of just listening to the priest, you may come away with a very different impression. I did.
It seems to me most followers have never actually read their holy books - they just listen to what they are told. The ones that do read the books either alter their interpretations to suit their morality, or become fundamentalist. It could be argued the later category are true followers as they follow God's word, and these are the ones who perform horrible acts of violent hate.
Millions of believers within a population do not have a problem, unless they take their book too seriously in which case all homosexuals, people who work on Sundays and kids who swear at you should be put to death - to take Christianity as an example. However, at the borders with opposing religions there is tremendous violence and death - the books instruct it!
We are at a cross roads. We have stone age beliefs in magical sky Gods and space age weapons of mass destruction. For the first time in history it is now possible for one religious group to totally annihilate another because their imaginary friend is better. If that doesn't scare you, then you are very certain there must be an afterlife. I am not that convinced.
Hello AN,
Firstly, the labelling of any child as Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Catholic, Buddhist, etc is a premature decision based on the parents desire for their children to continue the faith. All children should be taught all religions and it is for them to decide which one (if any) they follow.
Where I live, most people are open minded, rational and intelligent - even those that belief in an all powerful supernatural being who created everything, mucked it up and had to sacrifice himself in the form of his own son to give us a chance at redemption, provided we still believe in him. When questioned, many define God very differently to the one portrayed in the holy texts. At some point in examining any topic people get to a point where the only answer they have is "I don't know", to which some optionally append the phrase "God must have done it". A God that fills the gaps in our knowledge. Many people in progressive societies follow this line, and I suspect you may be one of them given the questions raised.
Unfortunately, there are many who do not achieve this level of understanding and take the (insert whatever holy text is yours here) to be the literal and inerrant word of God. The world was created in 6 days, there was a great flood and God destroyed Saddam and Gomorrah for being wicked. Here is where the dark underbelly of religion can be found. "God did it", "He is all powerful", "I have his book and he says you are a sinner" and "I must do God's will" are dangerous words for these people and has lead to untold horrors, in the name of God.
You mention evolution, which describes the process of change in organisms over time, but state the whole concept is flawed because we don't know how is started. Abiogenesis and evolution are different fields - disproving an hypothesis in one does not disprove the other. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, but we still have few clues to how it all started (although we are getting there).
There are many contradictions in the Bible - far too many to list here, but I will highlight this "love" you speak of. Lev.20:13 says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." That's pretty clear about what God thinks of homosexuals, what about other faiths? Read Deuteronomy 13:6-10. Care to retract your "love everyone statement"?
I very much doubt we actually have (therefore evolved) a "God" part of the brain. However, we have a great ability to think and experiment with the world in our heads. The question of where we came from would not be alien to any thinking creature. As for your statement regarding Dawkins; I don't think an Oxford Professor in Evolutionary Biology lacks an understanding in the subject. Perhaps his books simplify the subject for the masses, but that's not the same thing. Please refer to where he blames all wars on religion because after watching almost everything he has produced I have never heard this, but I am willing to change my mind if credible evidence presents itself - something religion seems extremely reluctant to do.
Have you actually read the entire Bible? It is filled with hate, killing, murder, genocide, rape, war, genocide, etc. The Quran is no better.
To be fair, there are good passages in both books and these are the ones moderate believers follow. Indeed, these are the only passages I have *ever* heard in sermons or discussed in religious gatherings. This is a distortion of the message contained within the Bible - its is primarily hate. Read it.
Teaching religion to kids is a form of abuse that should stop immediately. Religion subvert real thinking, scepticism and logic. Whenever I hear someone say "God did it" I hear "I do not know, nor do I have an explanation so I am going to stop thinking about it and attribute this to a magical man in the sky who can do anything".
It is ironic that you use logic in your argument against atheism as if Christianity is the most rational explanation for the universe around us. There are far too many contradictions, falsehoods, and faulty logic in the Bible and the teaching of the church to *ever* call them logical. Looking at the vast mountains of evidence the only rational deduction is that there most likely is not a God (agnostic), just as there is no invisible pink unicorn living on Pluto.
Questioning minds and the seek for knowledge as driven science to uncover more about the world around us than religion has ever done. If we all just listened to the priests we would still be stuck in the dark ages - and they were named that for a very good reason. Science has giving us computers, medicine, transport, communications, new materials, etc. What has the church given you? Hope? The belief that the evils of the world will be settled in an after life? Based on what proof? The rantings of some desert nomads with a mental disorder 2,000 years ago - give me a break.
What underpins atheism is a sceptical, logical, rational mind. No person was driving to acts of madness, murder and horror by being too rational. I suggest you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris and "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.
Bugger - there goes my karma - if there was such a thing.
I would NOT recommend reading the Bible/Quran if you want to avoid death, destruction, violence, genocide, hatred, torture, massacres and war. Both books are filled to the brim with such atrocities. If we are going to ban books that incite terrorism - let's start with these two.
When I fist read the title I thought it meant "48% of American's refuse to evolve". I am not sure this erroneous misreading is actually that wrong after reading the storey.
I would mod that up if I could :)
They do when one blocks the other.
Not to hijack the story, but:
This story poses an interesting challenge for those people blocking stem cell research on religious grounds.
The concept of the soul entering the zygote at the moment of conception raises puzzling questions when the resulting cell goes on to split into two viable individuals. What happens to the soul? Is it split in two? Does another soul enter the second? What happens when the individuals are not identical, do we get another soul?
The situation becomes even more untenable when individual zygotes (re)combine to form a single individual (apparently this happen quite often). Where does the second soul go? Did either have one to begin with?
As Sam Harris said - "This sort of soul arithmetic does not make sense."
Stem cell research has the potential to save the live of many. Let's get some sense into the debate and drag ourselves away from ancient thinking.
This is a nice summary and I am glad others have raised Occam's razor. Unfortunately, every solution we have to date (and probably forever) is required to deal with infinity/eternity or something coming into existence from nothing. Both seem unsatisfactory and will remain so due to our limited capacity for understanding. Science will progress our understanding of the world and religion will always have gaps to hide in.
On top of that: If it really was a virgin birth then what does Joseph's ancestry have to do with it? A plausible explanation is what the lineage is important in order to fulfill the old testament prophecies and has been fabricated by both authors retrospectively. Perhaps they should have compared notes?
I find it rather interesting that religious people discount some stories in the Bible as being poetic, symbolic, allegory or parables when the evidence and rational thought show them to be lacking. However, the miracles performed by Jesus are not seen in this way - they are taken as an accurate factual account of events.
The Bible does not signify which stories belong to which categories, so the whole thing is open to interpretation and argument both between individuals of a denomination and between the various religions themselves. As no proof can be claimed by either side they both take the "moral" high ground and proclaim it is their faith. It seems the more you continue to believe in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary, the more faithful you become. Faith is seen as a virtue.
It is not a great leap to reject all evidence and totally believe in the "word of God" and be considered a true believer (many moderates would consider this view fanatical). Belief without evidence or proof can, and is, used to justify many atrocities against humanity and will be the undoing of our species if we continue to tolerate it.
Most religious people are "mostly harmless" (to quote a famous atheist). The problem is religion harbors and encourages fanatics. Sept 11 is one horrific example of this and the American response just as bad (remember, George Bush said "God told me to invade Iraq").
Read Sam Harris's "End of Faith" and "A letter to a Christian Nation", Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and watch Brian Flemming's "The God who was not there". Keep an open mind, question what you *really* belief and make a decision.
Good points. Sounds like we have the same views, but come to different conclusions.
As long as it does not prevent you from trying to find out the wondrous, delicate and intricate subtleties of the universe I do not have a problem. Faith, however, requires belief without evidence and is considered by many religious people to be a virtue. This undermines inquiring into knowing. I am not suggesting this is your view, or the norm, but religion encourages it and the result in some religions are people willing to martyr themselves to go straight to heaven where 11 virgins await.
My wife is a Christian, my father plays the pipe organ for a local church and my grandfather was a minister. None of them fear(ed) death as they believe in an after life in which God will look after them. I am an atheist and I do not fear death. I was dead for millennium before I was alive and so it will be when I cease. I hope I live my life as most religious people hope to live theirs - full of love, laughter, friendship and sharing. My legacy is my memory in those that knew me, the impact I had on society and the genetic information in my beautiful daughters.
I look on to some religious people with amusement. They are so worried about eternal hell they forget to really live; "Good, God-fearing folk". I think many actually fake belief, which is something I am not prepared to do. If by some chance their is a God, I think he/she will respect how you live much more than what you believed.
I seem to have gotten off topic. To me, the answer to you question is: "People can not conceive an eternity of not existing, so they invent God to rescue them." "Life after death" sums it up nicely.
Not having an explanation is not a good basis to say "Well then, it must be God."
The title of that article should read '13 things science hasn't been able to explain, yet...' and many of the digg comments point this out as well. Science is the search for the *truth* and along the way there will be many things we will not fully understand. Only by constant questions, hypothesis, experimentation evidence and logic will we discover the ways of the universe. Religion subverts the process and configures the "I don't know and nobody can explain it, so God must have done it" trap that you have fallen into.