It has everything to do with it, as neither of us has proven anything. We believe our respective position is the correct one, but neither of us has offered definitive proof.
Umm, no.
I've shown adequately that Pascal's wager is a nonsense. That's not a matter of belief.
I have made no judgement in this thread on whether belief or religion itself is valid, that's a separate argument. Pascal's wager, though, is not valid.
This is not even a religious argument. I've made no claim that Pascal's wager is invalid and therefore atheism, so I'm not really sure what your problem is here.
What I'm saying is that the question of "Does religion make us more moral" is not relevant to the wider question of "is religion correct/true/real/whatever", and that conflating the two (as these internet arguments often do) is not helpful.
It is the bizarre cry of a certain type of theist "but without god you can have no morals", I merely wish to express that I find the whole area of debate to be a nonsense, whether there is a god or no. Surely an individual believes or disbelieves due to an assessment of the truth of the matter, not the relative outcomes?
The premise remains. Sure, Pascal was speaking from a Christian POV, but the logic is still valid.
It really isn't.
I could come up with any number of alternative universes in which we might be having said conversation.
Which is exactly my point, that Pascal presents us with a false dichotomy.
Looking at the bigger picture: He presents us with the idea that one option has an outcome favorable over the other.
Yes, and his argument is demonstrably incorrect.
Of course, you can blind yourself with pedantic chicanery and conclude whatever you want to conclude.
You appear to be quite adept in this.
This is what I love about religious debates: No one can prove their position, so it all boils down to faith. Yes, even atheists profess a faith that there is no Supreme Being.
Which has exactly fuck all to do with Pascal's Wager, but thanks for sharing.
Hehe, while I agree with the sentiment, there are those that believe in them all.....
Some weird offshoots of paganism/wicca mostly, some believing in all gods as aspects of each other, some believing (in quite a pratchettesque way) that belief itself forms reality and has power.
Not that I buy into any of that nonsense of course, and you could argue that they break the exclusivity clauses of the major monotheisms and so don't follow them, and... well you get the idea anyway.
Pascals wager has a fallacy so huge I'm surprised you haven't tripped and fallen into it.
He misses the obvious -
What if the real god is Allah, Shiva, Zeus or Odin? What if the real god is judging us on how rationally we behave in a godless, toy universe he created? What if the real god hates worship and wants to be left alone? What if...? What if...?
Pascal presents the options that Christianity is right, or atheism is right. He misses an infinity of other possibilities, all as likely as christianity (i.e. unevidenced).
On top of which he also discards any idea that living under delusion in a godless universe may have downsides.
Pascal's wager is, to use the modern vernacular, a crock of shit.
No, it's the wrong question because we are, at that point, simply talking about states of mind. It may be beneficial to humanity to believe we are ruled by the invisible pink unicorn, and to follow Her diktats on how lovely we should be to one another.
That has no bearing on whether or not she exists. And if she doesn't, acting under delusion is irrational.
I'd rather live in harsh reality than delusional fantasy.
You think people that work on this stuff have anything in mind beyond personal enrichment?
Believe me, I know a guy that does some of this stuff. His opinions are that corporate morals are unnecessary, that we can't and shouldn't seek to blame or look negatively on companies for seeking profit without regard to the social, environmental or other costs, and that open source is basically hippie communism.
We used to argue about that sort of stuff quite a lot until I stopped speaking to him.
"I really wanted to find a binary or a DMG file on the internet somewhere"
Yeah, because looking for random binaries on the internet is *such* a clever idea!
Because my experience in Linux with downloading and compiling stuff usually (9 times out of 10) results in spending the better part of two hours trying to figure out dependencies and downloading and installing additional software, ad nauseum
Can do, can do. Unless you get the source and build it from your distro's repository. apt-get -b source gnuplot, which should take care of all that stuff for you.
Ok, so some variants of Linux are getting better at this, such as Opensuse's Yast, which is really just their answer to Apple's App Store.
This is where you overdid it I'm afraid, the troll becomes just too much to take seriously. Nice parody of a screaming fanboy though:)
I've used both. I don't see a need for a tablet (I have a netbook), but the e-reader (kindle touch 3g) is pretty great. It's the ultra-long battery life and e-ink display that do it.
The kernel developer rants are there because the kernel devs don't like the google additions, which are entirely open source. The android kernel is effectively a minor fork or patchset on the kernel.org kernel. Still very open source. The rants by kernel devs were not due to whether source was open or closed, but due to Google's attitude of "here's our stuff, merge it in, no it it's not up for discussion". That's not closed source. It may be behaving like an ass, but it's not closed.
The only non-open source version of the OS was 3.x, which Google did not release. I agree, that made the 3.x releases not open source, until they released the source recently, along with the source for 4.0
The only proprietary bits are the store and a couple of other pieces. Notice how some vendors (amazon) make perfectly useful versions of android without these.
I don't really understand why you have this idea that android isn't open. And I don't even own an android device so I have no horse in this race.
If it's caused by human emissions of CO2, then it would seem that stopping the emissions before it gets too bad would indeed be stopping it. Not stopping pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would be making it worse.
So, it doesn't matter whether we're the cause or simply incidental, you're an idiot either way.
Adblock Plus can be used for this sort of thing. I use it to block anything related to facebook, then add an exception for when I'm actually visiting facebook.
And Nokia are pushing the N9 pretty hard in Australia and some other markets right now. Not that I'm going to buy one, but to call FOSS dead in the mobile space is a bit silly.
KDE has never been my desktop of choice and they lost a lot of people with KDE 4 (many of who I think have now gone back as 4 is now mature. Whether KDE is the choice of power users or not I don't know.
I do know that Gnome has been the default desktop for Redhat, Ubuntu, debian and various others for a long time. Pretty sure these account for the largest part of the linux desktop market... of course those are only defaults. But I'm not sure the user base was tiny. Gnome was also the only sane desktop environment available on some Solaris releases too. I don't think this qualifies as tiny, unless you're talking about desktop users across all operating systems, in which case yes, the entire linux desktop segment is a tiny percentage.
I have a feeling you and I may differ on the definition of power user also. As a software developer I am a power user of computers in general, but all I want of a desktop environment is about what gnome 2 provides - some status info, some shortcuts and a menu, and a bottom bar with a button for each open application. AFAICT I can now get this with any desktop environment I choose *except* gnome.
Anyway, I lost the point of what I was trying to say, I think there are objective problems with the gnome 3 approach which (as you rightly point out, but condescendingly and in a very partisan way) they can be got around by abandoning gnome.
Fair enough. I didn't expect there wouldn't be power users and it sounds like she does need some of those features.
I still don't really agree with the idea that LO/OO are totally inadequate for the largest part of the MS Office user base, especially in a corporate setting. I work for a huge corp and we no longer use MS Office at all....
Those of our generation who will have power are already licking the boots of those in power, and their politics and policies will be the same.
The majority of people in our generation will continue to vote for the status quo also.
The older generation in power are the current manifestation of a problem which will not go away easily. It's a shame, but there is nothing magical about our generation (whichever that is, if we even share a generation you and I) that will change things when we get into power. The hippies in the 60s thought that too, when they failed to get much change with their actions, that when their generation took the reigns of power then at last everything would change. Just look how far things have come.
Well, that's certainly true. I don't often have to use the other parts.
The presentation editor thing (PP equivalent) in OO/LO is more than adequate for my needs, and I rarely use spreadsheets or any other features of an office suite, so I tend to overlook them.
That's indeed the choice that I made. When my debian (testing branch) system updated to GNOME Shell, I tried it, didn't like it, and went to XFCE. With a few minor tweaks I had an XFCE 4 desktop looking the way I wanted again.
The GNOME 3 discussion isn't just on slashdot. The change to GNOME shell even drove Linus away from GNOME.
The problem with GNOME Shell is that it takes away options. All of them. It promotes some specific programs to indelible places on the screen (e.g. empathy) while relegating all others (e.g. pidgin or other IM clients) to second class status. It also adds complexity. The problem with the GNOME devs is that any argument against any of the decisions they take are met with the same argument you just gave - people are stuck in their ways, we're changing things for the better, you have no vision etc etc. It's not helpful.
Sure, there are people who will resist change for the sake of it. There are also people who will resist change because it's a productivity hit to switch their way of working, one they're not prepared to take. There's also a third group who have genuine problems with the way things are going. Calling them luddites and putting them with group 1 is not helpful, and makes people (and interfaces!) come across as arrogant. In the case of GNOME they're going to be lucky if they don't lose the majority of their existing user base whilst they go on the search for a mythical new one.
It's a line with many variants that's used all over the place. Esp. in software departments IMHO. Any criticism of management can always be put down to developer negativity or obstructionism, regardless of actual merit of argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Really?
Because to me it looks like a pretty classic false dichotomy?
Either way, either it's a huge gaping fallacy or the presumptions are invalid/subjective.
Umm, no.
I've shown adequately that Pascal's wager is a nonsense. That's not a matter of belief.
I have made no judgement in this thread on whether belief or religion itself is valid, that's a separate argument. Pascal's wager, though, is not valid.
This is not even a religious argument. I've made no claim that Pascal's wager is invalid and therefore atheism, so I'm not really sure what your problem is here.
Not really.
What I'm saying is that the question of "Does religion make us more moral" is not relevant to the wider question of "is religion correct/true/real/whatever", and that conflating the two (as these internet arguments often do) is not helpful.
It is the bizarre cry of a certain type of theist "but without god you can have no morals", I merely wish to express that I find the whole area of debate to be a nonsense, whether there is a god or no. Surely an individual believes or disbelieves due to an assessment of the truth of the matter, not the relative outcomes?
It really isn't.
Which is exactly my point, that Pascal presents us with a false dichotomy.
Yes, and his argument is demonstrably incorrect.
You appear to be quite adept in this.
Which has exactly fuck all to do with Pascal's Wager, but thanks for sharing.
Hehe, while I agree with the sentiment, there are those that believe in them all.....
Some weird offshoots of paganism/wicca mostly, some believing in all gods as aspects of each other, some believing (in quite a pratchettesque way) that belief itself forms reality and has power.
Not that I buy into any of that nonsense of course, and you could argue that they break the exclusivity clauses of the major monotheisms and so don't follow them, and... well you get the idea anyway.
Good analysis, bar one consideration: god or gods that reward rationality/skepticism -
Non-Belief = The same "Salvation OR Damnation OR Nothing" as all the other options
Pascals wager has a fallacy so huge I'm surprised you haven't tripped and fallen into it.
He misses the obvious -
What if the real god is Allah, Shiva, Zeus or Odin?
What if the real god is judging us on how rationally we behave in a godless, toy universe he created?
What if the real god hates worship and wants to be left alone?
What if...?
What if...?
Pascal presents the options that Christianity is right, or atheism is right. He misses an infinity of other possibilities, all as likely as christianity (i.e. unevidenced).
On top of which he also discards any idea that living under delusion in a godless universe may have downsides.
Pascal's wager is, to use the modern vernacular, a crock of shit.
No, it's the wrong question because we are, at that point, simply talking about states of mind. It may be beneficial to humanity to believe we are ruled by the invisible pink unicorn, and to follow Her diktats on how lovely we should be to one another.
That has no bearing on whether or not she exists. And if she doesn't, acting under delusion is irrational.
I'd rather live in harsh reality than delusional fantasy.
You think people that work on this stuff have anything in mind beyond personal enrichment?
Believe me, I know a guy that does some of this stuff. His opinions are that corporate morals are unnecessary, that we can't and shouldn't seek to blame or look negatively on companies for seeking profit without regard to the social, environmental or other costs, and that open source is basically hippie communism.
We used to argue about that sort of stuff quite a lot until I stopped speaking to him.
LOL.
This is so full of fail/troll that it's funny.
Yeah, because looking for random binaries on the internet is *such* a clever idea!
Can do, can do. Unless you get the source and build it from your distro's repository. apt-get -b source gnuplot, which should take care of all that stuff for you.
This is where you overdid it I'm afraid, the troll becomes just too much to take seriously. Nice parody of a screaming fanboy though :)
"With a tablet I see no use for an e-reader."
I've used both. I don't see a need for a tablet (I have a netbook), but the e-reader (kindle touch 3g) is pretty great. It's the ultra-long battery life and e-ink display that do it.
Uh, you seem to have your wires crossed.
The kernel developer rants are there because the kernel devs don't like the google additions, which are entirely open source. The android kernel is effectively a minor fork or patchset on the kernel.org kernel. Still very open source. The rants by kernel devs were not due to whether source was open or closed, but due to Google's attitude of "here's our stuff, merge it in, no it it's not up for discussion". That's not closed source. It may be behaving like an ass, but it's not closed.
The only non-open source version of the OS was 3.x, which Google did not release. I agree, that made the 3.x releases not open source, until they released the source recently, along with the source for 4.0
The only proprietary bits are the store and a couple of other pieces. Notice how some vendors (amazon) make perfectly useful versions of android without these.
I don't really understand why you have this idea that android isn't open. And I don't even own an android device so I have no horse in this race.
How frickin dumb are you?
If it's caused by human emissions of CO2, then it would seem that stopping the emissions before it gets too bad would indeed be stopping it. Not stopping pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would be making it worse.
So, it doesn't matter whether we're the cause or simply incidental, you're an idiot either way.
Wait... you know that the US was never in the Kyoto Accord, right?
And that part of the reason Canada is pulling out is that the world's biggest CO2 outputting nations (US and China) weren't reducing their output?
Adblock Plus can be used for this sort of thing. I use it to block anything related to facebook, then add an exception for when I'm actually visiting facebook.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Nobody claims linux is a microkernel, least of all GNU (who are still working on Hurd, an actual microkernel).
And a kernel is not an entire OS, it's just a kernel. There's lots of GNU code, daemons and utilities in GNU/Linux, and not so much in Android/Linux.
Uh... Android? Kindle OS?
And Nokia are pushing the N9 pretty hard in Australia and some other markets right now. Not that I'm going to buy one, but to call FOSS dead in the mobile space is a bit silly.
"We'll break off and have control of the North Sea Oil Fields."
Is that what you think is it?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA .... *GASP* ... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
ROFL.
KDE has never been my desktop of choice and they lost a lot of people with KDE 4 (many of who I think have now gone back as 4 is now mature. Whether KDE is the choice of power users or not I don't know.
I do know that Gnome has been the default desktop for Redhat, Ubuntu, debian and various others for a long time. Pretty sure these account for the largest part of the linux desktop market... of course those are only defaults. But I'm not sure the user base was tiny. Gnome was also the only sane desktop environment available on some Solaris releases too. I don't think this qualifies as tiny, unless you're talking about desktop users across all operating systems, in which case yes, the entire linux desktop segment is a tiny percentage.
I have a feeling you and I may differ on the definition of power user also. As a software developer I am a power user of computers in general, but all I want of a desktop environment is about what gnome 2 provides - some status info, some shortcuts and a menu, and a bottom bar with a button for each open application. AFAICT I can now get this with any desktop environment I choose *except* gnome.
Anyway, I lost the point of what I was trying to say, I think there are objective problems with the gnome 3 approach which (as you rightly point out, but condescendingly and in a very partisan way) they can be got around by abandoning gnome.
Fair enough. I didn't expect there wouldn't be power users and it sounds like she does need some of those features.
I still don't really agree with the idea that LO/OO are totally inadequate for the largest part of the MS Office user base, especially in a corporate setting. I work for a huge corp and we no longer use MS Office at all....
Good luck.
Those of our generation who will have power are already licking the boots of those in power, and their politics and policies will be the same.
The majority of people in our generation will continue to vote for the status quo also.
The older generation in power are the current manifestation of a problem which will not go away easily. It's a shame, but there is nothing magical about our generation (whichever that is, if we even share a generation you and I) that will change things when we get into power. The hippies in the 60s thought that too, when they failed to get much change with their actions, that when their generation took the reigns of power then at last everything would change. Just look how far things have come.
Well, that's certainly true. I don't often have to use the other parts.
The presentation editor thing (PP equivalent) in OO/LO is more than adequate for my needs, and I rarely use spreadsheets or any other features of an office suite, so I tend to overlook them.
That's indeed the choice that I made. When my debian (testing branch) system updated to GNOME Shell, I tried it, didn't like it, and went to XFCE. With a few minor tweaks I had an XFCE 4 desktop looking the way I wanted again.
The GNOME 3 discussion isn't just on slashdot. The change to GNOME shell even drove Linus away from GNOME.
The problem with GNOME Shell is that it takes away options. All of them. It promotes some specific programs to indelible places on the screen (e.g. empathy) while relegating all others (e.g. pidgin or other IM clients) to second class status. It also adds complexity. The problem with the GNOME devs is that any argument against any of the decisions they take are met with the same argument you just gave - people are stuck in their ways, we're changing things for the better, you have no vision etc etc. It's not helpful.
Sure, there are people who will resist change for the sake of it. There are also people who will resist change because it's a productivity hit to switch their way of working, one they're not prepared to take. There's also a third group who have genuine problems with the way things are going. Calling them luddites and putting them with group 1 is not helpful, and makes people (and interfaces!) come across as arrogant. In the case of GNOME they're going to be lucky if they don't lose the majority of their existing user base whilst they go on the search for a mythical new one.
It's a line with many variants that's used all over the place. Esp. in software departments IMHO. Any criticism of management can always be put down to developer negativity or obstructionism, regardless of actual merit of argument.