Well there must be something stopping all those companies who are based on selling Open Source products from making big bucks - Red Hat is the only one who is even close to making money. They have revenue, sure, but they don't have big profits...
The other guy is right, but he's left out some important parts of the argument. Support and services are one way to make money off the software, and they're big, don't get me wrong.
But why should someone buy software you've produced and offered as GPL? First, presumably you've trademarked the name. So now nobody can take the same exact software under the same name and sell it using your trademark (not sure if that violates the GPL or not, actually). That causes them to have to build up the software under a new name. Second, you don't just make it freely available. You sell it to people either with the source code bundled or with a written offer to give them the source code, either one of which will satisfy the GPL. Yes they can copy it for their friends, and yes they can post it for download on the internet. But only the copy they bought from you, for the latest version, well, they'd have to buy it again, wouldn't they?
Last, at least as far as making money up front off the software, is value. How much value is in the package? The question is never "Why should I buy it from you when I can download it for free?" It's always "Why should I buy it from you? What's in it for me?" IF they can download it for free, that's a complication to the question, but you have to wipe it away. What value is in your package? Any? Is there a manual on disc in PDF format? Is there an installer that works with 5 different package managers? Is there a dead tree manual? Is there example content, tutorials, movies, etc, to help the user to learn quicker? Is there an update service?
Hey, here's some value. You get the software under the GPL. So you get the source code. You can modify it yourself. You can pay me to modify it for you. You can pay someone else if I won't do it, and I might be willing to accept their changes into my source tree.
Yeah, to a large extent the GPL makes it much harder to write a piece of software once and spend the rest of your life enjoying the royalties off of it and living like a fat, lazy slob. Yes, you do have to think more and make better business decisions when your business revolves around GPL code. It's a free market, after all, and we're changing the rules because we can, and because we should.;)
Don't change your story and expect to defeat me. The post to which I responded made no mention of any specific license you use or anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, you were writing in support of proprietary software.
I'll gladly concede that proprietary software has its place, so long as one simple condition is applied: no copyright on the binary distribution. Copyright on the source, fine. Patent the binary but not the source, also fine, provided the source is provided. Keep your source locked up? Fine, but no copyright protections on the binary. That is the only solution I've been able to find/come up with that properly satisfies the social reasons for copyright and other intellectual property law. Proprietary software as it stands today takes much from society and offers very little benefit in return.
A government-granted monopoly on a product is not a right, and is in fact antithetical to the concept of a free market. So I'm throwing the fascist label right back at you, who supports proprietary software, which can only exist in its current state with a government-granted monopoly.
Hey, no problem dude, I just wanted to see what shit really sounded like. I'll just stop, 'cause I didn't want to hear shit anyway. Or maybe I did. Er...
Hmm, wait a minute. I wasn't doing anything commercial! You can't sue me! I'll represent myself. Wait till I drop a load on the bench and say "I played this on my computer and those asshole that made it say I stole it from them". Move for immediate dismissal with prejudice.;)
Whine whine whine, piss and moan. Look, if you really want to get paid, go open up a charity or something. Here in the US, and in many parts of the world, we have a free market, and you're gonna have to compete on it against our free code. Got a problem with it? Go to cuba, I hear they're still communist, and they'll gladly pay you to keep working.
Free Software is not communist in any way, but neither is it capitalist. It is Free of any economic system and is focused completely on the rights of the end-user. You want to steal my rights from me? Fascist. You can have my rights when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.
You programmers who don't have rich parents and don't want to live in your parent's basement that need to get paid for your work must know that something like 90% of all development is in-house stuff that never sees the light of day. Probably less than 1% of all development is actually products that reach market, and most of those are games!
Quit whining, fucker. If Free Software causes software to no longer be sold as product, it's effect on the marketplace will be minimal at worst, completely unnoticeable at best.
Really, the time of DVD on desktop computers for anything other than loading software and (if it's a burner) burning DVDs is gone, gone, gone. Long live the cheapo "hacked by Chinese" DVD player.
What are you smoking? For the price you're talking, sure you could buy two hacked by Chinese DVD players, and all those two devices can do is play dvds and take up space. A computer can do a whole helluva lot more, and is well worth the extra money it costs to get it going. Not to mention that you can get a computer that can play dvds for that same price nowadays and a Free OS to boot! So, should I spend $X on a machine that I only use once a week, or should I spend $X on a machine that I'll use everyday and still does what that other box does that I'll use once a week?
It's a no-brainer. There's a reason everything's getting l'il computers in it and Linux is getting embedded all over the place (TiVo, anyone?). The flexibility is well worth it, and the reduction in R&D brings the products to market both faster and cheaper.
I just tested his hypothesis with predictable results. I heard "Oops I did it again". Based on this observation, I think that if I use dog poop I'll get some Outta Sync stuff. Who needs peer to peer when you've got toilet paper?
the fact is that what we say is no less important than what we do.
The fact also remains that what I said is no more harmful than the guilt doctrines of Christianity, and the hell-fire and brimstone that frequently accompany it.
Some time ago I decided not to take any more crap from Christianity, and sometime after that I decided to start dealing back. Enough turning the other cheek, I'm confronting this menace face-to-face. You don't have to like it, nor do you have to like my methods, but it's pretty easy to see that with my attitude these days I get less heckling from fanatics.;)
If there really is a God, heaven and hell and so forth, I'm going straight to hell, and I couldn't be happier about it.
The wording of the story, and most of the replies i've read have shown me that while most of us want everyone to have free software (as in freedom) we still dont respect people's right to be free to believe what they want, no matter how much we might disagree.
Sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference between respecting someone's right to hold a stupid belief and not respecting the belief itself. See, I can respect people's right to believe whatever religious tripe they want. But the religion would have to be pretty damn, well, I don't know what word would describe it, but pretty damn not-stupid before I could respect the belief itself. Somewhere along the lines people started saying that the right to believe whatever stupid thing they wanted meant we had to respect it, too, and that's just not true. We have to respect the right, but not the belief.
Aha! I knew Jesus was a commie! I knew-it knew-it knew-it! He must be destroyed, now! Totalitarian communistic heir to the throne o' God! DESTROY HIM!;)
Though, I've run across a few scientific people who are actually religious. They're always such killjoys, though, since they are always like "Yeah, don't bug me about it." You'd think such people would understand the benefits of cognitive dissonance.
As both scientists and Christians, I'm sure they're weighing the benefits of cognitive dissonance against the drawbacks of persecution. That's what I'd be doing if I were them.;)
Things all changed when the Roman Empire collapsed
Um, looks to me like your portrayal of history is quite skewed. The Roman Empire never really collapsed, it morphed into the Roman Catholic Church, and still lays claim to the Vatican as its territory. It did suffer a few pitfalls, but as a government with a leader it survived for something close to 2000 years. Even in the 1600s the Holy Roman Empire was still a powerful nation in Europe. Rome adopted Christianity such that by the time a few centuries had passed, Christianity was the religion of the Roman Empire.
That's funny, when I read that story I distinctly remember reading that Onan was feeling guilty for screwing his brother's wife, because he knew she loved his brother, and that his brother loved her, and that she felt really bad for not bearing a child by the man she loved, so out of respect for their love, he pulled out (therefore Onan invented Mexican Roulette).
You know what I just haven't managed to get over, yet? THe basic premise that I want to go to heaven. Why should I? What's so special about heaven that I should want to go there? We already know it's a fascist totalitarian monarchy, and that the last kid that tried to overthrow it got cast out. So why should I want to go there?
This passage is similarly troubling to me, but I believe that everything God does is done for a purpose. I obviously have no way of knowing the true purpose of his event, but one that I could envision is that perhaps His goal in this event was to teach a lesson to the parents of these youth.
The way I was raised, which I questioned as an adult and determined that I agreed with it, if your ruler does shitty things, you overthrow him, whoever he is. You don't just say "Oh, well, I don't understand why he slaughtered 6 million jews, but I'll continue to follow him because I'm not smart enough to understand." You say "slaughtering 6 million jews is pure unadulterated evil" and throw out the ruler.
Why is it so hard to apply this simple rule to God? Either there are two Gods represented in the Christian bible, or there's one schizophrenic fucker that needs to be overthrown.
You might have more luck converting me if God had promised at least a Republic, better a democracy. But not a fucking kingdom. He hasn't proven himself to be properly compassionate. Quite the contrary, He's a mass murderer, and I won't serve him.
Luckily, this same creator provided us with a natural ally, in that case. That would be the Devil.;) So if there really is this creator who's fed us full of FUD, what's the logical way to counter his FUD? The enemy of my enemy and so forth.;) (gotta love these Jesus stories, gives me great opportunity to get on my devil-worshipping platform)
i don't want my tax dollars going to research somethign that could produce somethign that would kill us all or bread a life just to kill it so we can make another life more comfortable.
So, what about our military, then? Their purpose is to kill, kill well, kill in large numbers, so that we can be independent.
How about the possibilities that stem cell research offers? Such as a cure for cancer, alzheimer's, and a number of other diseases. All things that you probably want your tax-paying dollars working on, but they're not. Instead, your tax-paying dollars are funding more middle east oppression. (Note I'm not assuming that you support all of Bush's policies just because you agree with one, but I think the one you agree with is still fundamentally flawed. Cloning technology and stem cell research holds great potential medical benefits to us without putting at risk any life of any sort, either man-made-in-a-lab or not)
i also see the abortion as wrong because it is a like your killing and it shouldn't be used as an after thought of birth control.
If only that were the only time abortion was used. Yes, I agree that abortion is not an alternative to being responsible when you're fucking, but Bush's educational policies aren't exactly going to solve that problem. Either allow abortion so people can learn their mistake, or provide for education so people can make better decisions. This whole "abortion is wrong but we won't talk about sex" thing is the root of the problems. Can't have both, you'll have to pick one. Bush will, too, if he ever gets his head out of his ass.
Um, "who" is a question that answers itself, since it assumes that some sort of sentient agent must have caused it. You shouldn't assume, you'll only wind up making an ass out of yourself.
I really just meant that we should exercise the most Christian virtues of compassion, charity, etc.
So we can't exercise Buddhist virtues of compassion, charity, etc? Or Islamic virtues of same? Or Jewish virtues of same? How about Hindu virtues of, well, the same? Native American? Celtic? Pagan? Wiccan? Even the Satanic bible says that if compassion and charity make you feel good, then do it. Jesus fucking Christ has no monopoly on being nice. Believe it or not, being nice is just part of human nature.
And who are you to say it is a doctrine of lies? How do you know my friend is imaginary? It is certainly not obviously so.
Um, actually, right now, all the evidence points to your friend being imaginary. Can you show him to us, in the flesh? No? Ever get an email from him? Anything? See, an imaginary friend is like, "dude, I've got this friend, he's here with me now, and he--". "Um, where, did you say?" "he's here, right now" "Where? I don't see him..." "Oh, that's because he's invisible."
The burden of proof of his existence is on you, if you intend for the rest of us to either believe or respect your belief. I'm not buying this "Proof will come to those who wait" crap, or whatever. That'd be like Hitler offering democracy after awhile, if you just did what he told you until then. I've got as much evidence that the Devil was a real nice guy as you have that Jesus was. And I can even use the same texts to prove it.;) Woo satan!
Dude, you forgot something. Jesus showed up at some point and said "Sorry, my Dad fucked up. My perfect, omnipotent and omniscient father made a mistake, and now I'm going to die for it, and I'm happy about it."
Nothing like religion to keep changing the rules because as long as you can't hit a moving target, your mind is the slave of, well, whoever wants it, I suppose.
There'll be religious nuts, and it's time for a religious nut sequel about now anyway. Can we get Moses ripping hearts out of living people and then tossing them into the fires? You know he did that, right?;)
What I didn't like about atlantis was that people were constantly saying "Yousa shouldn't be here. Yousa no belongen."
A shitty place, if you ask me. People eat with their tongues there, like frogs, man! Frogs! Then they tried to convince me that the "speediest way to your home is through the planet core". I said "But the core is molten rock, with lots of uranium and fission and crap going on! I'd never survive!" But the king or chief or whatever that fat guy was was insistent. "Out with you," he said. "Yousa no bother, wesa going to speeds yous away." I ran like hell and got out of there.
On a more serious note, Atlantis is actually proven true, to an extent. Plato's writings indicate that a volcanic eruption caused the island to split into three parts, and geologic evidence points to an island in the Aegean that suffered a volcanic eruption and split into three parts, with two of them falling into the sea. The third, iirc, was found to contain ruins of an advanced civilization, complete with plumbing and crap. Advanced compared to the greeks, of course. Interesting stuff.
Of course, it's not as fun as thinking there might be an entire continent sunk beneath the ocean where the people have adapted to underwater living and so forth. That's just pure fun, and there's no other justification needed for the belief.:) The nice thing about believing stupid things just for fun is that there's no reason to take the belief seriously and try to demand respect for it. Try it, it's well worth it.
I don't think that everybody should be so closed-minded about such things, just because a religious text mentions it.
*sigh* We're not being closeminded about it. We just know the truth, that's all. The truth is really very simple.
God came to Noah and said "I want you to build an ark, and in this ark I want you to put... (lists criteria). This will be the B-ark, and I'm going to flood the world and destroy everyone and then you're going to get to have the world all to yourself. *snicker*"
I think we can probably take a pretty good guess at where Noah's Ark actually went...
Slashdot Mirror
Well there must be something stopping all those companies who are based on selling Open Source products from making big bucks - Red Hat is the only one who is even close to making money. They have revenue, sure, but they don't have big profits...
The other guy is right, but he's left out some important parts of the argument. Support and services are one way to make money off the software, and they're big, don't get me wrong.
But why should someone buy software you've produced and offered as GPL? First, presumably you've trademarked the name. So now nobody can take the same exact software under the same name and sell it using your trademark (not sure if that violates the GPL or not, actually). That causes them to have to build up the software under a new name. Second, you don't just make it freely available. You sell it to people either with the source code bundled or with a written offer to give them the source code, either one of which will satisfy the GPL. Yes they can copy it for their friends, and yes they can post it for download on the internet. But only the copy they bought from you, for the latest version, well, they'd have to buy it again, wouldn't they?
Last, at least as far as making money up front off the software, is value. How much value is in the package? The question is never "Why should I buy it from you when I can download it for free?" It's always "Why should I buy it from you? What's in it for me?" IF they can download it for free, that's a complication to the question, but you have to wipe it away. What value is in your package? Any? Is there a manual on disc in PDF format? Is there an installer that works with 5 different package managers? Is there a dead tree manual? Is there example content, tutorials, movies, etc, to help the user to learn quicker? Is there an update service?
Hey, here's some value. You get the software under the GPL. So you get the source code. You can modify it yourself. You can pay me to modify it for you. You can pay someone else if I won't do it, and I might be willing to accept their changes into my source tree.
Yeah, to a large extent the GPL makes it much harder to write a piece of software once and spend the rest of your life enjoying the royalties off of it and living like a fat, lazy slob. Yes, you do have to think more and make better business decisions when your business revolves around GPL code. It's a free market, after all, and we're changing the rules because we can, and because we should. ;)
Don't change your story and expect to defeat me. The post to which I responded made no mention of any specific license you use or anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, you were writing in support of proprietary software.
I'll gladly concede that proprietary software has its place, so long as one simple condition is applied: no copyright on the binary distribution. Copyright on the source, fine. Patent the binary but not the source, also fine, provided the source is provided. Keep your source locked up? Fine, but no copyright protections on the binary. That is the only solution I've been able to find/come up with that properly satisfies the social reasons for copyright and other intellectual property law. Proprietary software as it stands today takes much from society and offers very little benefit in return.
A government-granted monopoly on a product is not a right, and is in fact antithetical to the concept of a free market. So I'm throwing the fascist label right back at you, who supports proprietary software, which can only exist in its current state with a government-granted monopoly.
Hey, no problem dude, I just wanted to see what shit really sounded like. I'll just stop, 'cause I didn't want to hear shit anyway. Or maybe I did. Er...
Hmm, wait a minute. I wasn't doing anything commercial! You can't sue me! I'll represent myself. Wait till I drop a load on the bench and say "I played this on my computer and those asshole that made it say I stole it from them". Move for immediate dismissal with prejudice. ;)
Whine whine whine, piss and moan. Look, if you really want to get paid, go open up a charity or something. Here in the US, and in many parts of the world, we have a free market, and you're gonna have to compete on it against our free code. Got a problem with it? Go to cuba, I hear they're still communist, and they'll gladly pay you to keep working.
Free Software is not communist in any way, but neither is it capitalist. It is Free of any economic system and is focused completely on the rights of the end-user. You want to steal my rights from me? Fascist. You can have my rights when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.
You programmers who don't have rich parents and don't want to live in your parent's basement that need to get paid for your work must know that something like 90% of all development is in-house stuff that never sees the light of day. Probably less than 1% of all development is actually products that reach market, and most of those are games!
Quit whining, fucker. If Free Software causes software to no longer be sold as product, it's effect on the marketplace will be minimal at worst, completely unnoticeable at best.
Really, the time of DVD on desktop computers for anything other than loading software and (if it's a burner) burning DVDs is gone, gone, gone. Long live the cheapo "hacked by Chinese" DVD player.
What are you smoking? For the price you're talking, sure you could buy two hacked by Chinese DVD players, and all those two devices can do is play dvds and take up space. A computer can do a whole helluva lot more, and is well worth the extra money it costs to get it going. Not to mention that you can get a computer that can play dvds for that same price nowadays and a Free OS to boot! So, should I spend $X on a machine that I only use once a week, or should I spend $X on a machine that I'll use everyday and still does what that other box does that I'll use once a week?
It's a no-brainer. There's a reason everything's getting l'il computers in it and Linux is getting embedded all over the place (TiVo, anyone?). The flexibility is well worth it, and the reduction in R&D brings the products to market both faster and cheaper.
I just tested his hypothesis with predictable results. I heard "Oops I did it again". Based on this observation, I think that if I use dog poop I'll get some Outta Sync stuff. Who needs peer to peer when you've got toilet paper?
the fact is that what we say is no less important than what we do.
The fact also remains that what I said is no more harmful than the guilt doctrines of Christianity, and the hell-fire and brimstone that frequently accompany it.
Some time ago I decided not to take any more crap from Christianity, and sometime after that I decided to start dealing back. Enough turning the other cheek, I'm confronting this menace face-to-face. You don't have to like it, nor do you have to like my methods, but it's pretty easy to see that with my attitude these days I get less heckling from fanatics. ;)
If there really is a God, heaven and hell and so forth, I'm going straight to hell, and I couldn't be happier about it.
The wording of the story, and most of the replies i've read have shown me that while most of us want everyone to have free software (as in freedom) we still dont respect people's right to be free to believe what they want, no matter how much we might disagree.
Sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference between respecting someone's right to hold a stupid belief and not respecting the belief itself. See, I can respect people's right to believe whatever religious tripe they want. But the religion would have to be pretty damn, well, I don't know what word would describe it, but pretty damn not-stupid before I could respect the belief itself. Somewhere along the lines people started saying that the right to believe whatever stupid thing they wanted meant we had to respect it, too, and that's just not true. We have to respect the right, but not the belief.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, Jesus saves YOU!
Aha! I knew Jesus was a commie! I knew-it knew-it knew-it! He must be destroyed, now! Totalitarian communistic heir to the throne o' God! DESTROY HIM! ;)
Though, I've run across a few scientific people who are actually religious. They're always such killjoys, though, since they are always like "Yeah, don't bug me about it." You'd think such people would understand the benefits of cognitive dissonance.
As both scientists and Christians, I'm sure they're weighing the benefits of cognitive dissonance against the drawbacks of persecution. That's what I'd be doing if I were them. ;)
Things all changed when the Roman Empire collapsed
Um, looks to me like your portrayal of history is quite skewed. The Roman Empire never really collapsed, it morphed into the Roman Catholic Church, and still lays claim to the Vatican as its territory. It did suffer a few pitfalls, but as a government with a leader it survived for something close to 2000 years. Even in the 1600s the Holy Roman Empire was still a powerful nation in Europe. Rome adopted Christianity such that by the time a few centuries had passed, Christianity was the religion of the Roman Empire.
That's funny, when I read that story I distinctly remember reading that Onan was feeling guilty for screwing his brother's wife, because he knew she loved his brother, and that his brother loved her, and that she felt really bad for not bearing a child by the man she loved, so out of respect for their love, he pulled out (therefore Onan invented Mexican Roulette).
meaning the way to heaven is through Him.
You know what I just haven't managed to get over, yet? THe basic premise that I want to go to heaven. Why should I? What's so special about heaven that I should want to go there? We already know it's a fascist totalitarian monarchy, and that the last kid that tried to overthrow it got cast out. So why should I want to go there?
This passage is similarly troubling to me, but I believe that everything God does is done for a purpose. I obviously have no way of knowing the true purpose of his event, but one that I could envision is that perhaps His goal in this event was to teach a lesson to the parents of these youth.
The way I was raised, which I questioned as an adult and determined that I agreed with it, if your ruler does shitty things, you overthrow him, whoever he is. You don't just say "Oh, well, I don't understand why he slaughtered 6 million jews, but I'll continue to follow him because I'm not smart enough to understand." You say "slaughtering 6 million jews is pure unadulterated evil" and throw out the ruler.
Why is it so hard to apply this simple rule to God? Either there are two Gods represented in the Christian bible, or there's one schizophrenic fucker that needs to be overthrown.
You might have more luck converting me if God had promised at least a Republic, better a democracy. But not a fucking kingdom. He hasn't proven himself to be properly compassionate. Quite the contrary, He's a mass murderer, and I won't serve him.
Luckily, this same creator provided us with a natural ally, in that case. That would be the Devil. ;) So if there really is this creator who's fed us full of FUD, what's the logical way to counter his FUD? The enemy of my enemy and so forth. ;) (gotta love these Jesus stories, gives me great opportunity to get on my devil-worshipping platform)
i don't want my tax dollars going to research somethign that could produce somethign that would kill us all or bread a life just to kill it so we can make another life more comfortable.
So, what about our military, then? Their purpose is to kill, kill well, kill in large numbers, so that we can be independent.
How about the possibilities that stem cell research offers? Such as a cure for cancer, alzheimer's, and a number of other diseases. All things that you probably want your tax-paying dollars working on, but they're not. Instead, your tax-paying dollars are funding more middle east oppression. (Note I'm not assuming that you support all of Bush's policies just because you agree with one, but I think the one you agree with is still fundamentally flawed. Cloning technology and stem cell research holds great potential medical benefits to us without putting at risk any life of any sort, either man-made-in-a-lab or not)
i also see the abortion as wrong because it is a like your killing and it shouldn't be used as an after thought of birth control.
If only that were the only time abortion was used. Yes, I agree that abortion is not an alternative to being responsible when you're fucking, but Bush's educational policies aren't exactly going to solve that problem. Either allow abortion so people can learn their mistake, or provide for education so people can make better decisions. This whole "abortion is wrong but we won't talk about sex" thing is the root of the problems. Can't have both, you'll have to pick one. Bush will, too, if he ever gets his head out of his ass.
Um, "who" is a question that answers itself, since it assumes that some sort of sentient agent must have caused it. You shouldn't assume, you'll only wind up making an ass out of yourself.
I really just meant that we should exercise the most Christian virtues of compassion, charity, etc.
So we can't exercise Buddhist virtues of compassion, charity, etc? Or Islamic virtues of same? Or Jewish virtues of same? How about Hindu virtues of, well, the same? Native American? Celtic? Pagan? Wiccan? Even the Satanic bible says that if compassion and charity make you feel good, then do it. Jesus fucking Christ has no monopoly on being nice. Believe it or not, being nice is just part of human nature.
And who are you to say it is a doctrine of lies? How do you know my friend is imaginary? It is certainly not obviously so.
Um, actually, right now, all the evidence points to your friend being imaginary. Can you show him to us, in the flesh? No? Ever get an email from him? Anything? See, an imaginary friend is like, "dude, I've got this friend, he's here with me now, and he--". "Um, where, did you say?" "he's here, right now" "Where? I don't see him..." "Oh, that's because he's invisible."
The burden of proof of his existence is on you, if you intend for the rest of us to either believe or respect your belief. I'm not buying this "Proof will come to those who wait" crap, or whatever. That'd be like Hitler offering democracy after awhile, if you just did what he told you until then. I've got as much evidence that the Devil was a real nice guy as you have that Jesus was. And I can even use the same texts to prove it. ;) Woo satan!
Dude, you forgot something. Jesus showed up at some point and said "Sorry, my Dad fucked up. My perfect, omnipotent and omniscient father made a mistake, and now I'm going to die for it, and I'm happy about it."
Nothing like religion to keep changing the rules because as long as you can't hit a moving target, your mind is the slave of, well, whoever wants it, I suppose.
:)
Fuckin' idiots didn't even click the link. Can I get a +1 Troll mod for trolling the moderators? ;)
There'll be religious nuts, and it's time for a religious nut sequel about now anyway. Can we get Moses ripping hearts out of living people and then tossing them into the fires? You know he did that, right? ;)
I'm sane...
Catch-22 for you. Can't ever admit to sanity, that just means you have to fly more missions, even though they're driving you nuts.
Daddy always told me not to trust anybody who swears to their own sanity. ;)
What I didn't like about atlantis was that people were constantly saying "Yousa shouldn't be here. Yousa no belongen."
A shitty place, if you ask me. People eat with their tongues there, like frogs, man! Frogs! Then they tried to convince me that the "speediest way to your home is through the planet core". I said "But the core is molten rock, with lots of uranium and fission and crap going on! I'd never survive!" But the king or chief or whatever that fat guy was was insistent. "Out with you," he said. "Yousa no bother, wesa going to speeds yous away." I ran like hell and got out of there.
On a more serious note, Atlantis is actually proven true, to an extent. Plato's writings indicate that a volcanic eruption caused the island to split into three parts, and geologic evidence points to an island in the Aegean that suffered a volcanic eruption and split into three parts, with two of them falling into the sea. The third, iirc, was found to contain ruins of an advanced civilization, complete with plumbing and crap. Advanced compared to the greeks, of course. Interesting stuff.
Of course, it's not as fun as thinking there might be an entire continent sunk beneath the ocean where the people have adapted to underwater living and so forth. That's just pure fun, and there's no other justification needed for the belief. :) The nice thing about believing stupid things just for fun is that there's no reason to take the belief seriously and try to demand respect for it. Try it, it's well worth it.
First, when I was a kid I learned that "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me".
Second, you're talking about real people, I was talking about fictional people.
Third, what does it matter? Go let your heart bleed on someone else, I just took a shower.
I don't think that everybody should be so closed-minded about such things, just because a religious text mentions it.
*sigh* We're not being closeminded about it. We just know the truth, that's all. The truth is really very simple.
God came to Noah and said "I want you to build an ark, and in this ark I want you to put ... (lists criteria). This will be the B-ark, and I'm going to flood the world and destroy everyone and then you're going to get to have the world all to yourself. *snicker*"
I think we can probably take a pretty good guess at where Noah's Ark actually went...