I was just going to mod your comment but there is no mod for "sociopath".
Instead I am just going to suggest you climb out of your bunker and get some air. Don't worry the bogeyman isn't going to get you.
As for your comments. First of all the military doesn't know shit. Governments and intelligence agencies do, well, at least they are supposed to. Second, pork projects don't save lives or else they wouldn't be pork projects. Finally the military, at least the US military, lost the right to use the word honor at Abu Ghraib, if not earlier.
I had a machine (AMD2000+) that became unstable. Tried RAM tests, CPU burn, 3Dmark loops, disk scans & defrags, voodoo and exorcism to no use, nothing revealed an actual problem except practical use.
I wish free software advocates had such buying power that they could affect Nvidia's bottom line, but they don't. In fact if Nvidia did release source or docs for older cards and they did become popular enough to hurt Nvidia isn't that telling you something? Doesn't that tell you that open sourcing would be a good way to gain customers?
What you've got here is two views on epistemology: philosophical skepticism, the position that knowledge does not exist; and logical positivism, the position that only empirically verifiable claims are meaningful.
Neither of these positions are generally held to be intellectually viable, despite your claim that they are the only two options. In fact, there are dozens of epistemologies, and -- here's the point -- a person's epistemology is by definition an unproven assumption, taken on faith.
What's wrong with positivism? It flourished for a while in the early part of the 20th century, but major problems were discovered quite rapidly, and it was discarded -- though not before much of it was embraced by the scientific establishment as unquestioned dogma.
Simply stated, there are a lot of things that are generally regarded as True, but are rejected by positivism. You cannot empirically verify that the universe exists (or: you cannot demonstrate that we don't live in the Matrix). You cannot empirically verify that logical reasoning is reliable. But the real heart of the problem is this: you cannot empirically verify positivism. Positivism therefore claims that positivism is meaningless.
The proper status of faith is of determining one's axioms. Christian faith takes God as an axiom alongside such things as logic and existence (rationalist axioms, incidentally).
Thanks for the epistemology lesson but I took that class five years ago. I don't think I really suggested that there only two epistemologies but I did suggest that when comparing faith to physical evidence that physical evidence wins. I also suggested that physical evidence can be used to determine reality. That is a very short and to be honest, almost meaningless summary of what I was getting at. If the reality we know is determined by physical evidence then the only way to grasp the only reality we can grasp is to determine reality based on physical evidence. It is entirely possible that our reality is not in fact reality but it is useless for us to attempt to analyze what we cannot analyze. If we don't accept that then there can be any number of explanations including God. This isn't very useful though. That's the problem. Philisophically it's fine to think about these things but scientifically it is not. Discussions about ID are great and I believe that philosophy should discuss these things, although I doubt you would get very far with it. ID doesn't belong in a science classroom though and trying to disprove evolution through the use of philosophy isn't science. It is philosophy. If you want science, evolution is what you get. If you want philosophy you can have anything you want.
Now before anyone gets upset, I want to point out that some people's definition of faith = believing in spite of evidence. That is called blind faith. I'm arguing that faith is believing something for which evidence exists but cannot be absolutely proven. E.g. Why do you set your alarm clock in the morning? Because you have faith that it will work, that the sun will rise, that your job will still exist, etc. You have no absolute proof of this, but you have pretty good evidence that these things will be so.
This is a terrible argument. If you want to be a complete skeptic and actually wonder if the sun will rise the next morning then you cannot know anything, including whether a God exists or not. People do not have faith that the sun will rise, they know it will based on observable evidence, which, by the way, is completely lacking in ID theory. That is why it is called faith, or by your definition, blind faith. I've heard this argument in various forms by every IDer or creationist out there. Scientific theories are not faith-based. They have a lot of evidence to back them up. If you want to debate whether or not we know anything based on evidence then you have to debate whether we know anything at all. That would make you a skepitc, and if you're a skeptic what the hell are you doing believing in a God anyway?
I think the reason most religous people are offended by it is that it makes their Bible, Koran etc look somewhat silly. The thing is that they regard the bible as 100% correct and as the word of God. One only has to find one inacurracy and then you have shown that the bible is not the word of God
Disproving the belief that the Bible is the word of god is even easier than that. I wouldn't even need to know one word of the Bible to tell you that. There is a major, glaring flaw with that belief. The Bible wasn't written in English, or German, or Latin for that matter. It had to be translated into those languages, which means two things.
The story passed through a human filter
The story passed through a language filter
The words have changed given the fact that they passed through translator bias and a language filter that could have easily distorted meaning. Languages do not have a one to one correlation with each other. Words in some languages may have several sublte differences in definition, while only having one word in another language that is a suitable translation for any of those words and vice versa. This is reason enough to read the Bible allegorically and not literally, as the WORD of GOD. After all how can the word of god change depending on a variable like language?
Then after four years of demonstrating his incompetence, with an increasing national deficit and a string of expensive and ineffective wars producing horrific casualties without doing very much at all to spread democracy or freedom, not only did he win another election, but he apparently won it fairly.
Where have you been? There is a lot of information that voter fraud was rampant in '04.
scare tactics to keep people from voting
spreading misinfomation about the date of the election
serious discrepancies between exit polls and votes
proof that voting machines can be hacked
disproportionately small amount of voting machines in large democratic cities
AT&T is a company, it's not a government. They can do what they want with their customers data barring that their customers actually have some sort of contract with them about that. You can piss and moan about it but that's how it is.
RTFA. This is about the GOVERNMENT. Just because ATT is giving them information doesn't make it legal. It is still illegal wiretapping.
I could still eat at all the fancy restaurants on a whim, make all the cool trips I want to etc. But there are charity projects I couldn't afford with "only" a few hundred millions that Mr. gates can, and do, afford.
WHAT? You could eat at all the fancy restaurants and take trips whenever you wanted but charity would cost too much money? How does that make any sense whatsoever? You don't have to be a billionaire to donate to charity or even start your own charity. Hell you don't even have to be a hundred millionaire.
Ubuntu doesn't have a chance. The ONLY option is Suse. They have four things going for them:
Huge corporate backing that could broker this kind of deal (Novell)
Commercial applications and proprietary codecs (realplayer, gstreamer proprietary codecs, etc)
Focus on interoperability with Microsoft (importing settings, attaching to windows networks, mono/.NET)
In house application development (Evolution, Hula, XGL, Mono, etc)
Number one and four are going to be the most important to OEMs and Number two and three are going to be most important to consumers. OEMs feel more comfortable licensing an OS from a corporation, rather than a free project. They will also appreciate the fact that Novell plays a large part in actually creating the software they license. That means they can be first to the market with things like XGL. If consumers are going to use a new operating system they are going to want professional support and tools that will make it easier for them to migrate.
say, best case scenario, a GeForce FX 5700LE 256MB 128bit: the "BEST PCI CARD" available, according to google.
You can pick up a GeForce 6200 256MB PCI card which I'm sure is better than a previous generation GeForce, considering the 5xxx series blew for the most part.
That's not really true. Maybe more libraries would help but more services? I can run photoshop on wine under windowmaker or icewm or any of the boxes without a problem. I can run large native programs like openoffice on the same setup. The problem with XP is that you only really have one GUI option. Sure you can turn of theming and things like that but there is so much other crud that can be stripped out for advanced users and it just isn't as easy with XP as it is with most linux distros. I guess my point is that the bloat of Vista isn't really making it easier to run photoshop or programs like it. Most of Vista's bloat is to make it shiny and easy for clueless users.
What a great comparison of the two...oh wait... you didn't compare them. You just want to be a lame BSD troll frothing at the mouth about OpenBSD. Why is it that no one even looks to alternatives anymore? It's not like OpenBSD will forever be the most secure OS. In fact security may be important but there are other factors involved like hardware compatibility, performance, and application compatibility.
As far as I know the NSA never released their own distribution. They have however released source to their SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux) project which is an ACL implementation that Redhat, Debian, Gentoo and perhaps a few others use.
You haven't had much experience with NT 4.0 if you never got it to bluescreen. Six service packs later it doesn't suck as much but who would want to use it anymore?
Re:Gnome Terminal speed improvements
on
Gnome 2.14 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The best burning program in the Linux world (K3B) is a KDE app. It's so good that I find it worth it to install QT and the KDE libs just for that one program.
Check out gnomebaker. It's easy to use and has all the features I use in a cd burning program.
But it might just be our own policies that are keeping them there. I know that is a certainty in Cuba -- the people continue to allow themselves to be controlled by a dictator, but they do so because they have no hope for the future.
That is not a certainty in Cuba. That is total and utter BS. There are a lot of people in Cuba who like Castro. It's similar to Iraq. There are people who like Hussein and most of them would rather have a dictator in place than the violence that is taking place right now. I'm sure a lot of people prefer the socialist government of Iraq previous to the war than the current government and a lot of people in Cuba would rather have communism than capitalism. Afterall wasn't it Castro who offered to help Americans in need of medical attention.
That's funny because I have several computers running linux and I haven't had a hard time balancing that with a social life and a girlfriend. Maybe you're just bad at time management, or maybe it's just that you don't have very good computer skills.
How about something more creative and relevant like "Linux: the choice of 30-year-old virgins."? Or "Linux: now with more unpronounceable applications!" Or, oh, I got it: "Why have a social life when you can spend time trying to get Linux to work?"
Let me guess, you're a gamer and there is no point for you to use anything other than XP because that is what your games require. That would be fine if you admitted it but please don't try to pass off WOW as a social life because it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever heard of lsh?
Fuck! I thought it sounded familiar but I haven't seen that movie in years.
Instead I am just going to suggest you climb out of your bunker and get some air. Don't worry the bogeyman isn't going to get you.
As for your comments. First of all the military doesn't know shit. Governments and intelligence agencies do, well, at least they are supposed to. Second, pork projects don't save lives or else they wouldn't be pork projects. Finally the military, at least the US military, lost the right to use the word honor at Abu Ghraib, if not earlier.
Sounds like a bad power supply to me.
I wish free software advocates had such buying power that they could affect Nvidia's bottom line, but they don't. In fact if Nvidia did release source or docs for older cards and they did become popular enough to hurt Nvidia isn't that telling you something? Doesn't that tell you that open sourcing would be a good way to gain customers?
Neither of these positions are generally held to be intellectually viable, despite your claim that they are the only two options. In fact, there are dozens of epistemologies, and -- here's the point -- a person's epistemology is by definition an unproven assumption, taken on faith.
What's wrong with positivism? It flourished for a while in the early part of the 20th century, but major problems were discovered quite rapidly, and it was discarded -- though not before much of it was embraced by the scientific establishment as unquestioned dogma.
Simply stated, there are a lot of things that are generally regarded as True, but are rejected by positivism. You cannot empirically verify that the universe exists (or: you cannot demonstrate that we don't live in the Matrix). You cannot empirically verify that logical reasoning is reliable. But the real heart of the problem is this: you cannot empirically verify positivism. Positivism therefore claims that positivism is meaningless.
The proper status of faith is of determining one's axioms. Christian faith takes God as an axiom alongside such things as logic and existence (rationalist axioms, incidentally).
Thanks for the epistemology lesson but I took that class five years ago. I don't think I really suggested that there only two epistemologies but I did suggest that when comparing faith to physical evidence that physical evidence wins. I also suggested that physical evidence can be used to determine reality. That is a very short and to be honest, almost meaningless summary of what I was getting at. If the reality we know is determined by physical evidence then the only way to grasp the only reality we can grasp is to determine reality based on physical evidence. It is entirely possible that our reality is not in fact reality but it is useless for us to attempt to analyze what we cannot analyze. If we don't accept that then there can be any number of explanations including God. This isn't very useful though. That's the problem. Philisophically it's fine to think about these things but scientifically it is not. Discussions about ID are great and I believe that philosophy should discuss these things, although I doubt you would get very far with it. ID doesn't belong in a science classroom though and trying to disprove evolution through the use of philosophy isn't science. It is philosophy. If you want science, evolution is what you get. If you want philosophy you can have anything you want.
Didn't he write Darwin's Black Box? I wouldn't take anything he says too seriously. After all he was disproven recently.
This is a terrible argument. If you want to be a complete skeptic and actually wonder if the sun will rise the next morning then you cannot know anything, including whether a God exists or not. People do not have faith that the sun will rise, they know it will based on observable evidence, which, by the way, is completely lacking in ID theory. That is why it is called faith, or by your definition, blind faith. I've heard this argument in various forms by every IDer or creationist out there. Scientific theories are not faith-based. They have a lot of evidence to back them up. If you want to debate whether or not we know anything based on evidence then you have to debate whether we know anything at all. That would make you a skepitc, and if you're a skeptic what the hell are you doing believing in a God anyway?
Disproving the belief that the Bible is the word of god is even easier than that. I wouldn't even need to know one word of the Bible to tell you that. There is a major, glaring flaw with that belief. The Bible wasn't written in English, or German, or Latin for that matter. It had to be translated into those languages, which means two things.
The words have changed given the fact that they passed through translator bias and a language filter that could have easily distorted meaning. Languages do not have a one to one correlation with each other. Words in some languages may have several sublte differences in definition, while only having one word in another language that is a suitable translation for any of those words and vice versa. This is reason enough to read the Bible allegorically and not literally, as the WORD of GOD. After all how can the word of god change depending on a variable like language?
Where have you been? There is a lot of information that voter fraud was rampant in '04.
RTFA. This is about the GOVERNMENT. Just because ATT is giving them information doesn't make it legal. It is still illegal wiretapping.
You don't even need AMANDA to do that. You can shell script it.
WHAT? You could eat at all the fancy restaurants and take trips whenever you wanted but charity would cost too much money? How does that make any sense whatsoever? You don't have to be a billionaire to donate to charity or even start your own charity. Hell you don't even have to be a hundred millionaire.
Number one and four are going to be the most important to OEMs and Number two and three are going to be most important to consumers. OEMs feel more comfortable licensing an OS from a corporation, rather than a free project. They will also appreciate the fact that Novell plays a large part in actually creating the software they license. That means they can be first to the market with things like XGL. If consumers are going to use a new operating system they are going to want professional support and tools that will make it easier for them to migrate.
say, best case scenario, a GeForce FX 5700LE 256MB 128bit: the "BEST PCI CARD" available, according to google.
You can pick up a GeForce 6200 256MB PCI card which I'm sure is better than a previous generation GeForce, considering the 5xxx series blew for the most part.
It's also capable of running XGL.
That's not really true. Maybe more libraries would help but more services? I can run photoshop on wine under windowmaker or icewm or any of the boxes without a problem. I can run large native programs like openoffice on the same setup. The problem with XP is that you only really have one GUI option. Sure you can turn of theming and things like that but there is so much other crud that can be stripped out for advanced users and it just isn't as easy with XP as it is with most linux distros. I guess my point is that the bloat of Vista isn't really making it easier to run photoshop or programs like it. Most of Vista's bloat is to make it shiny and easy for clueless users.
What a great comparison of the two...oh wait... you didn't compare them. You just want to be a lame BSD troll frothing at the mouth about OpenBSD. Why is it that no one even looks to alternatives anymore? It's not like OpenBSD will forever be the most secure OS. In fact security may be important but there are other factors involved like hardware compatibility, performance, and application compatibility.
As far as I know the NSA never released their own distribution. They have however released source to their SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux) project which is an ACL implementation that Redhat, Debian, Gentoo and perhaps a few others use.
You haven't had much experience with NT 4.0 if you never got it to bluescreen. Six service packs later it doesn't suck as much but who would want to use it anymore?
Check out gnomebaker. It's easy to use and has all the features I use in a cd burning program.
GnomeBaker
That is not a certainty in Cuba. That is total and utter BS. There are a lot of people in Cuba who like Castro. It's similar to Iraq. There are people who like Hussein and most of them would rather have a dictator in place than the violence that is taking place right now. I'm sure a lot of people prefer the socialist government of Iraq previous to the war than the current government and a lot of people in Cuba would rather have communism than capitalism. Afterall wasn't it Castro who offered to help Americans in need of medical attention.
It will probably be available within the next few days will be stable in about a month. That is my guess.
That's funny because I have several computers running linux and I haven't had a hard time balancing that with a social life and a girlfriend. Maybe you're just bad at time management, or maybe it's just that you don't have very good computer skills.
Let me guess, you're a gamer and there is no point for you to use anything other than XP because that is what your games require. That would be fine if you admitted it but please don't try to pass off WOW as a social life because it's not.