If I could play SC2 reliably on a MacBook with a GMA 950, with no slowdowns, even if it takes degrading the graphics significantly to remove superfluous animations, I'd bite. I hope Blizzard's Mac support can go that far. And yes, I realize I'm trying to do gaming on a Mac...
If I'm not mistaken, deleting pieces of spyware in Ad-Aware requires clicking each element. Want to select all of them at once? The interface isn't even there. You have to right click to bring up "Select All Objects." Why aren't the most obvious elements of the interface exposed or highlighted (update, scan, delete)?
It's not that Apple doesn't use the contextual menu, because it obviously does. It's because it FORCES developers to think about their interface and the way they design the look and feel of their programs, to make the most used or needed features exposed and ready. Can you ALWAYS design everything so that someone can only use one button? No, because some programs are more complex than others. People pointed out Shake requires three mouse buttons. Now I assume Shake is easy to use, but Apple's not assuming you're going to make Joe User use Shake; Apple's going to assume that a professional video editor is gonna need several functions right where their mouse is at. Compare this to iMovie - I use it regularly with a one button mouse and it works fine. See the difference?
Someone else brought up a question: how do you create a new folder on the Desktop without using the right mouse button or keyboard? Easier or harder than doing it on a Mac?
I have a MS mouse at home for my Mac, but here at work I have a one button mouse and the difference is not extremely surprising. Also, it really doesn't take five clicks in most Apple applications... can you name a task in an Apple app that's extremely more complex than Windows? (seriously curious.)
Also, others have pointed out how difficult it is to teach many computer users the meaning of the right click button. In my opinion a modifier key (that's what they're called) is much easier to explain to a novice than the right click button, and after they gain some experience, they're more than welcome to switch to a multi-button mouse - Apple has always included support for it.
Looks like the 3G series has reached its end-of-life as far as support goes.
No, 4G functions like deleting/saving from On-The-Go playlists and the Audiobooks feature were added to the 3G iPod not too long ago, albeit much later than the 4G received them. This leads me to believe that podcast support will come eventually. Since 3G iPods don't have color screens, I'm guessing Apple is retooling the current functionality to work on older iPods.
Re:DivX 6 is Out...for Windows 2000/XP.
on
DivX 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
Sure, but most universities won't have the experience to do it. Smalley won the Nobel Prize for his work with buckyballs (carbon-60, buckminsterfullerene, fullerene); carbon nanotubes are rods with essentially the same structure as buckyballs (the capped ends are two halves of a fullerene, iirc). Rice is obviously a leading pioneer in the field, nanotubes are Rice's specialty, and there's no reason to have a bounty when you have a Nobel Prize winner working on it.
There's a lot of weird stuff in the conclusions part where he compares the Cell against x86 and PowerPC 970 chips. Look at the Apple blurb for example. He's trying to paint this rosy picture about how Apple can sell a bunch of cloned Macs with Cell processors... that's just foolish. Apple has stuck with the PowerPC architecture for a long, long time now; there's no way they would rewrite OS X (and force everyone to rewrite their apps) just to make a bunch of cheap clones. Not just that, but Apple is now well known for outstanding hardware design. No way they're going to license anything to a cheap, beige-box manufacturer.
So from my standpoint, his last page was a big load of BS...
There's nothing about Christians taking over the world and ruling it. There IS something about God taking over the world. If this bothers you, consider that God made the world to begin with.
Even though the iTMS is not making money, the whole point of the iTMS is brand recognition and iPod sales. Apple appears to be in the digital music business for the long haul. The only thing they can do to stay viable is to make sure that their music store and their devices are forever linked.
If Harmony is accepted, then iPod sales may go up slightly (which is Real's feint), but brand recognition decreases because you don't have to buy from iTMS and use iTunes to use your iPod - you can use Harmony and Real instead. You can even buy from other music stores, and lookie lookie, they'll all work because Harmony is there.
That means increased brand recognition for Real, which is what it needs since everyone hates Real (with good reason, I might add).
If Real takes away from the brand recognition that the iTMS and the iPod enjoy... Apple will be at a disadvantage. At that point in time, other makers of MP3 player hardware can step up (having had some time to play catch up) and hawk lower prices and better battery life and such. I'd be willing to bet that iTMS music files will someday be able play on other music players.
There's an upper ceiling to how much Apple can innovate; it's not like the new 4G iPod had everyone slack-jawed. If they intend to keep going, they're going to have to establish a dominant market share early and quickly and then keep it there. Real's not going to help them stay dominant.
Click Wheel iPod
iPod mini Updater v1.1 iPod Software 1.1
iPod mini
iPod Updater v2.2 iPod Software 2.2
iPod with dock connector
iPod Updater v1.4 iPod Software 1.4
Touch Wheel iPod
Scroll Wheel iPod
They didn't change anything. All they're providing is all the old software coupled with the new iPod 3.0 Software for the new click wheel iPod.
Or you could just use Firefox's excellent userContent.css file. I've never had a problem using this, and someone takes care to update it every once in a while with new rules. Most likely your version is an older copy.
With Safari, I just tell Safari to Camino's userContent.css file as its style sheet and ads are gone on Safari as well.
I cannot believe that you would go so far as to replace the programs that users most popularly use with your own competing ones. LaunchBar and Konfabulator are now replaced by Spotlight and Dashboard.
You are killing innovation on the Mac. You are not helping innovation by encouraging developers to make cool and awesome applications; what you're doing is completely the opposite. You stifle innovation by granting your own programmers increased access to Mac OS X APIs (SystemUIServer elements anyone?), barely managing to avoid patent/copyright infringement by creating duplicates of everything you see that you think is awesome (reminds me of a Redmond based company) and crushing the very developers that make people switch to the Mac because of the cool things that shareware developers do. What's next?
You've already tried to kill Watson with Sherlock 3, you're destroying the reseller community by giving your Apple Stores increased favor, and I guarantee you're going to hear from Objective Development and Arlo Rose / Perry Clarke (Konfabulator inventors, cause I figure you don't know them) in the next few weeks.
I do appreciate what you've written. Thanks. I'd ask for examples of contradictions, but that's not a big deal. I just wish others would do the same for themselves.
Sorry, I did mean to put line breaks in. Here's the real deal, though I guess it's too late already.
This is definitely my second or third post on Slashdot. After not commenting for a long time, I think I'll step in for a bit.
So what is this tolerance stuff that I keep hearing about? As in, tolerate gay marriage. Tolerate all religions. Tolerate points of view that are different from your own. And yet when I come on Slashdot and read this article, and all the (I read at +4) comments, my face turns sour because of the horrendous amount of crap that I see from people here.
Look, you don't believe Christianity, fine. You think the ark idea is crap, and that science proves yadda yadda yadda, fine. At least have the guts to refrain from bashing those who do. It takes a mature individual to let people have their say without exploding in anger or cracking up in laughter. You have to understand that most people have developed for themselves a framework for how they view life. Most/. readers, I'm guessing, are scientifically minded. So they believe in all the things that science has accomplished. Good work. Hooray for you. Then there are those who believe that a God exists and has made everything we see, and created laws that science is discovering and utilizing. Good work, hooray for you. If you were really tolerant, and if you were really following what you believe you should be doing, then you'd have a solid discussion with them based on the facts, based on what you've seen, etc. etc. But NOOO, all we see are lousy jokes and other definitive statements - "the Bible is crap," "the Bible has contradictions," etc. etc.
I just don't understand how some/. readers can force Christians onto a pedestal ("You have to be perfect, you Christian moron, and aren't you supposed to LOVE everybody?!") and cannot subject themselves to any sort of standards.
If you're going to argue that the Bible has bad teachings, or that it has contradictions, read the Bible yourself before you make a decision. Actually, don't do just that - be a real student and go and find commentaries from Christian writers. Find commentaries from non-Christian writers. (Why commentaries? Have you ever really been able to explore a book without seeing what lots of people thought about it?) Read it with an unbiased eye. If you think you've found a contradiction, then see what the other side has to say. Read it for yourself. If you end up unconvinced the Bible is true, then great. If you don't find contradictions, then great too. Decide for yourself what you want to believe.
What astounds me is how FEW people actually take that offer. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has. Why? Because they're lazy. Too lazy to go and find out things for themselves. In the meantime, they (non-Christians AND Christians) rely on a few lousy articles and information (which are debunked by different people, depending on who you ask), and then post knowingly uninformed, uneducated entries on/. to the approval (and subsequent positive moderation) of their knowingly uninformed, uneducated peers.
Watch people read this comment and ask, "Is the author of this comment a Christian?" If the answer is yes, they immediately go and trash it because suddenly none of my arguments and comments make any sense. "Those moronic Christians, what a bunch of idiots, they must not believe in science..." right?
So maybe I am, or maybe I'm not. I will say that I've taken up my own challenge. That should be enough for you.
There is no tolerating intolerance.
Dude, that makes no sense whatsoever. Tolerant people should tolerate intolerant people. Ain't that what it's all about? Allowing other belief systems not in agreement with your own to exist alongside yours peacefully?
The bible and Christianity as a whole is the most intolerant system of beliefs in history.
Awesome. Ever read it for yourself? Oh wait, no.
I've never met someone who's read the entire Bible, is not a Christian, and make the statements you're saying. They show respect, something you don't communicate in your post.
If you'd read the Bible for yourself, you'd know it doesn't promote needless war for personal gain or conquest. The Bible in no way justifies the Crusades, the Holocaust, et cetera, et cetera. Show me a quote from the Bible that says "Feel free to always take stuff for yourself." Right, you'll pull out the example of Israel conquering land for itself from other countries. Then figure out what the Christians say about that. I'll leave that conclusion to you. Don't feel like doing it? Then don't make broad statements like that.
It's also been proven repeatedly over centuries to be B.S.
Awesome. Would you like to prove it for me now using your choice of scientific papers?
idiots and morons still flock to it like the little lost sheep that they are.
How about that for respect and tolerance. "nyah nyah you suck" doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Excuse the rest of us for not buying into it and giving it the scrutiny it so rightly deserves. You SHOULD not buy into it. You SHOULD give it scrutiny. But from your post, you haven't shown any evidence that you've looked at things for yourself.
>> My problems start when your beliefs intersect with my lifestyle.
Dude, we're all in the same world. Our beliefs will intersect whether I want it to or not.
"Can one set of beliefs really claim that another set is incorrect?" is the real question. Your answer appears to be "no," because that's what Christianity would claim.
If people say "yes," then you have to tolerate that belief, even if it means that people can tell you you're wrong. But no one likes to hear they're wrong, Christian or non-Christian.
>> you have a demonstrated flaw in your ability to make rational decisions
Are all Christians mentally retarded? Dude, I think you just offended all the Christians out there who went to med school, or who are professors right now, etc. etc. Contrary to popular belief, I know Christians who are actually intelligent.
>> Anyone who will let some book, or even worse, some guy who has read some book, tell them how to think or feel shouldn't be allowed to vote
We've all been influenced by something. Regardless of what you want to believe, you've been influenced by a lot of things. You've let a lot of things tell you how to think or feel.
>> We don't want Christians to be perfect and further down: >> hypocritical morals
If you've ever looked at Christianity at all, you'd know that no one is perfect. Still, Christians work towards an admirable goal (loving everyone) that they will probably never reach in this lifetime. Meanwhile, you work for money, or for whatever reason, something that you will probably never get this lifetime either (money never satisfies. you always want more. I know.).
What I pointed out in my other post is that I don't think people should bash Christians for trying to be good people or trying to reach perfection. They're doing a better job than most people are (at least the people I know).
If you want to go back and drag out some Southern Baptist woman who probably has no idea what her religion really means, feel free to do that.
>> let us get on with our lives Some Christians actually try to do that. It's called aid. You know, like, homeless shelters, afterschool programs, etc. Or working in third-world countries. Give them the respect they deserve.
It means that comments like "morons" and "fable" and "f-off" have no place in these discussions. Unless you can say for yourself that you've seen everything from both sides, your opinion means absolutely nothing.
Yes, most people's opinions about the world (check "Simple Life," for example) are partly based on a lack of complete information. I just wish that people would actually realize that and tone their comments in a more respectful manner.
This is definitely my second or third post on Slashdot. After not commenting for a long time, I think I'll step in for a bit.
So what is this tolerance stuff that I keep hearing about? As in, tolerate gay marriage. Tolerate all religions. Tolerate points of view that are different from your own. And yet when I come on Slashdot and read this article, and all the (I read at +4) comments, my face turns sour because of the horrendous amount of crap that I see from people here.
Look, you don't believe Christianity, fine. You think the ark idea is crap, and that science proves yadda yadda yadda, fine. At least have the guts to refrain from bashing those who do. It takes a mature individual to let people have their say without exploding in anger or cracking up in laughter. You have to understand that most people have developed for themselves a framework for how they view life. Most/. readers, I'm guessing, are scientifically minded. So they believe in all the things that science has accomplished. Good work. Hooray for you. Then there are those who believe that a God exists and has made everything we see, and created laws that science is discovering and utilizing. Good work, hooray for you. If you were really tolerant, and if you were really following what you believe you should be doing, then you'd have a solid discussion with them based on the facts, based on what you've seen, etc. etc. But... no. All we see are lousy jokes and other definitive statements - "the Bible is crap," "the Bible has contradictions," etc. etc.
I just don't understand how some/. readers can force Christians onto a pedestal ("You have to be perfect, you Christian moron, and aren't you supposed to LOVE everybody?!") and cannot subject themselves to any sort of standards.
If you're going to argue that the Bible has bad teachings, or that it has contradictions, read the Bible yourself before you make a decision. Actually, don't do just that - be a real student and go and find commentaries from Christian writers. Find commentaries from non-Christian writers. (Why commentaries? Have you ever really been able to explore a book without seeing what lots of people thought about it?) Read it with an unbiased eye. If you think you've found a contradiction, then see what the other side has to say. Read it for yourself. If you end up unconvinced the Bible is true, then great. If you don't find contradictions, then great too. Decide for yourself what you want to believe.
What astounds me is how FEW people actually take that offer. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has. Why? Because they're lazy. Too lazy to go and find out things for themselves. In the meantime, they (non-Christians AND Christians) rely on a few lousy articles and information (which are debunked by different people, depending on who you ask), and then post knowingly uninformed, uneducated entries on/. to the approval (and subsequent positive moderation) of their knowingly uninformed, uneducated peers.
Watch people read this comment and ask, "Is the author of this comment a Christian?" If the answer is yes, they immediately go and trash it because suddenly none of my arguments and comments make any sense. "Those moronic Christians, what a bunch of idiots, they must not believe in science..." right?
So maybe I am, or maybe I'm not. I will say that I HAVE taken up my own challenge. That should be enough for you.
Slashdot Mirror
If I could play SC2 reliably on a MacBook with a GMA 950, with no slowdowns, even if it takes degrading the graphics significantly to remove superfluous animations, I'd bite. I hope Blizzard's Mac support can go that far. And yes, I realize I'm trying to do gaming on a Mac...
Bleh, oops. Next time, I should actually CTFL. Well, mod away....
Seriously, the whole summary is lifted straight from the original article at ComputerWorld:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1914870647;fp;16;fpid;1
Of course, this same article has been repeated across tons of blogs and other news sites. But come on.
It's available in the Canadian press release:
http://www.apple.com/ca/press/2008_06/snow_leopard.html
If I'm not mistaken, deleting pieces of spyware in Ad-Aware requires clicking each element. Want to select all of them at once? The interface isn't even there. You have to right click to bring up "Select All Objects." Why aren't the most obvious elements of the interface exposed or highlighted (update, scan, delete)?
It's not that Apple doesn't use the contextual menu, because it obviously does. It's because it FORCES developers to think about their interface and the way they design the look and feel of their programs, to make the most used or needed features exposed and ready. Can you ALWAYS design everything so that someone can only use one button? No, because some programs are more complex than others. People pointed out Shake requires three mouse buttons. Now I assume Shake is easy to use, but Apple's not assuming you're going to make Joe User use Shake; Apple's going to assume that a professional video editor is gonna need several functions right where their mouse is at. Compare this to iMovie - I use it regularly with a one button mouse and it works fine. See the difference?
Someone else brought up a question: how do you create a new folder on the Desktop without using the right mouse button or keyboard? Easier or harder than doing it on a Mac?
I have a MS mouse at home for my Mac, but here at work I have a one button mouse and the difference is not extremely surprising. Also, it really doesn't take five clicks in most Apple applications... can you name a task in an Apple app that's extremely more complex than Windows? (seriously curious.)
Also, others have pointed out how difficult it is to teach many computer users the meaning of the right click button. In my opinion a modifier key (that's what they're called) is much easier to explain to a novice than the right click button, and after they gain some experience, they're more than welcome to switch to a multi-button mouse - Apple has always included support for it.
Looks like the 3G series has reached its end-of-life as far as support goes.
No, 4G functions like deleting/saving from On-The-Go playlists and the Audiobooks feature were added to the 3G iPod not too long ago, albeit much later than the 4G received them. This leads me to believe that podcast support will come eventually. Since 3G iPods don't have color screens, I'm guessing Apple is retooling the current functionality to work on older iPods.
Googled H.264:
://www.apple.com/macosx/features/h264/w .apple.com/mpeg4/h264faq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264
http
http://ww
Basically it's a supposedly superior video standard (and is, by what I've read).
Sure, but most universities won't have the experience to do it. Smalley won the Nobel Prize for his work with buckyballs (carbon-60, buckminsterfullerene, fullerene); carbon nanotubes are rods with essentially the same structure as buckyballs (the capped ends are two halves of a fullerene, iirc). Rice is obviously a leading pioneer in the field, nanotubes are Rice's specialty, and there's no reason to have a bounty when you have a Nobel Prize winner working on it.
There's a lot of weird stuff in the conclusions part where he compares the Cell against x86 and PowerPC 970 chips. Look at the Apple blurb for example. He's trying to paint this rosy picture about how Apple can sell a bunch of cloned Macs with Cell processors... that's just foolish. Apple has stuck with the PowerPC architecture for a long, long time now; there's no way they would rewrite OS X (and force everyone to rewrite their apps) just to make a bunch of cheap clones. Not just that, but Apple is now well known for outstanding hardware design. No way they're going to license anything to a cheap, beige-box manufacturer. So from my standpoint, his last page was a big load of BS...
Type Command-Shift-G when you're at the dialog. Problem solved.
There's nothing about Christians taking over the world and ruling it. There IS something about God taking over the world. If this bothers you, consider that God made the world to begin with.
Even though the iTMS is not making money, the whole point of the iTMS is brand recognition and iPod sales. Apple appears to be in the digital music business for the long haul. The only thing they can do to stay viable is to make sure that their music store and their devices are forever linked.
If Harmony is accepted, then iPod sales may go up slightly (which is Real's feint), but brand recognition decreases because you don't have to buy from iTMS and use iTunes to use your iPod - you can use Harmony and Real instead. You can even buy from other music stores, and lookie lookie, they'll all work because Harmony is there.
That means increased brand recognition for Real, which is what it needs since everyone hates Real (with good reason, I might add).
If Real takes away from the brand recognition that the iTMS and the iPod enjoy... Apple will be at a disadvantage. At that point in time, other makers of MP3 player hardware can step up (having had some time to play catch up) and hawk lower prices and better battery life and such. I'd be willing to bet that iTMS music files will someday be able play on other music players.
There's an upper ceiling to how much Apple can innovate; it's not like the new 4G iPod had everyone slack-jawed. If they intend to keep going, they're going to have to establish a dominant market share early and quickly and then keep it there. Real's not going to help them stay dominant.
Click Wheel iPod iPod mini Updater v1.1 iPod Software 1.1
iPod mini iPod Updater v2.2 iPod Software 2.2
iPod with dock connector iPod Updater v1.4 iPod Software 1.4
Touch Wheel iPod
Scroll Wheel iPod
They didn't change anything. All they're providing is all the old software coupled with the new iPod 3.0 Software for the new click wheel iPod.
Is it really worth it to have 35 new phone models?
I refer you to my other post in this thread:
c id=9592916
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=113155&
Or you could just use Firefox's excellent userContent.css file. I've never had a problem using this, and someone takes care to update it every once in a while with new rules. Most likely your version is an older copy.
With Safari, I just tell Safari to Camino's userContent.css file as its style sheet and ads are gone on Safari as well.
Dear Apple:
I cannot believe that you would go so far as to replace the programs that users most popularly use with your own competing ones. LaunchBar and Konfabulator are now replaced by Spotlight and Dashboard.
You are killing innovation on the Mac. You are not helping innovation by encouraging developers to make cool and awesome applications; what you're doing is completely the opposite. You stifle innovation by granting your own programmers increased access to Mac OS X APIs (SystemUIServer elements anyone?), barely managing to avoid patent/copyright infringement by creating duplicates of everything you see that you think is awesome (reminds me of a Redmond based company) and crushing the very developers that make people switch to the Mac because of the cool things that shareware developers do. What's next?
You've already tried to kill Watson with Sherlock 3, you're destroying the reseller community by giving your Apple Stores increased favor, and I guarantee you're going to hear from Objective Development and Arlo Rose / Perry Clarke (Konfabulator inventors, cause I figure you don't know them) in the next few weeks.
Tread carefully.
I'm sure everyone else has seen this by now...
go to www.xvid.com:
XviD owned ?? oohhhh yeahhh BloodBR ownz XviD - sorry admin leak@hackermail.com
I do appreciate what you've written. Thanks. I'd ask for examples of contradictions, but that's not a big deal. I just wish others would do the same for themselves.
Sorry, I did mean to put line breaks in. Here's the real deal, though I guess it's too late already.
/. readers, I'm guessing, are scientifically minded. So they believe in all the things that science has accomplished. Good work. Hooray for you. Then there are those who believe that a God exists and has made everything we see, and created laws that science is discovering and utilizing. Good work, hooray for you. If you were really tolerant, and if you were really following what you believe you should be doing, then you'd have a solid discussion with them based on the facts, based on what you've seen, etc. etc. But NOOO, all we see are lousy jokes and other definitive statements - "the Bible is crap," "the Bible has contradictions," etc. etc.
/. readers can force Christians onto a pedestal ("You have to be perfect, you Christian moron, and aren't you supposed to LOVE everybody?!") and cannot subject themselves to any sort of standards.
/. to the approval (and subsequent positive moderation) of their knowingly uninformed, uneducated peers.
This is definitely my second or third post on Slashdot. After not commenting for a long time, I think I'll step in for a bit.
So what is this tolerance stuff that I keep hearing about? As in, tolerate gay marriage. Tolerate all religions. Tolerate points of view that are different from your own. And yet when I come on Slashdot and read this article, and all the (I read at +4) comments, my face turns sour because of the horrendous amount of crap that I see from people here.
Look, you don't believe Christianity, fine. You think the ark idea is crap, and that science proves yadda yadda yadda, fine. At least have the guts to refrain from bashing those who do. It takes a mature individual to let people have their say without exploding in anger or cracking up in laughter. You have to understand that most people have developed for themselves a framework for how they view life. Most
I just don't understand how some
If you're going to argue that the Bible has bad teachings, or that it has contradictions, read the Bible yourself before you make a decision. Actually, don't do just that - be a real student and go and find commentaries from Christian writers. Find commentaries from non-Christian writers. (Why commentaries? Have you ever really been able to explore a book without seeing what lots of people thought about it?) Read it with an unbiased eye. If you think you've found a contradiction, then see what the other side has to say. Read it for yourself. If you end up unconvinced the Bible is true, then great. If you don't find contradictions, then great too. Decide for yourself what you want to believe.
What astounds me is how FEW people actually take that offer. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has. Why? Because they're lazy. Too lazy to go and find out things for themselves. In the meantime, they (non-Christians AND Christians) rely on a few lousy articles and information (which are debunked by different people, depending on who you ask), and then post knowingly uninformed, uneducated entries on
Watch people read this comment and ask, "Is the author of this comment a Christian?" If the answer is yes, they immediately go and trash it because suddenly none of my arguments and comments make any sense. "Those moronic Christians, what a bunch of idiots, they must not believe in science..." right?
So maybe I am, or maybe I'm not. I will say that I've taken up my own challenge. That should be enough for you.
There is no tolerating intolerance.
Dude, that makes no sense whatsoever. Tolerant people should tolerate intolerant people. Ain't that what it's all about? Allowing other belief systems not in agreement with your own to exist alongside yours peacefully?
The bible and Christianity as a whole is the most intolerant system of beliefs in history.
Awesome. Ever read it for yourself? Oh wait, no.
I've never met someone who's read the entire Bible, is not a Christian, and make the statements you're saying. They show respect, something you don't communicate in your post.
If you'd read the Bible for yourself, you'd know it doesn't promote needless war for personal gain or conquest. The Bible in no way justifies the Crusades, the Holocaust, et cetera, et cetera. Show me a quote from the Bible that says "Feel free to always take stuff for yourself." Right, you'll pull out the example of Israel conquering land for itself from other countries. Then figure out what the Christians say about that. I'll leave that conclusion to you. Don't feel like doing it? Then don't make broad statements like that.
It's also been proven repeatedly over centuries to be B.S.
Awesome. Would you like to prove it for me now using your choice of scientific papers?
idiots and morons still flock to it like the little lost sheep that they are.
How about that for respect and tolerance. "nyah nyah you suck" doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Excuse the rest of us for not buying into it and giving it the scrutiny it so rightly deserves.
You SHOULD not buy into it. You SHOULD give it scrutiny. But from your post, you haven't shown any evidence that you've looked at things for yourself.
>> My problems start when your beliefs intersect with my lifestyle.
Dude, we're all in the same world. Our beliefs will intersect whether I want it to or not.
"Can one set of beliefs really claim that another set is incorrect?" is the real question. Your answer appears to be "no," because that's what Christianity would claim.
If people say "yes," then you have to tolerate that belief, even if it means that people can tell you you're wrong. But no one likes to hear they're wrong, Christian or non-Christian.
>> you have a demonstrated flaw in your ability to make rational decisions
Are all Christians mentally retarded? Dude, I think you just offended all the Christians out there who went to med school, or who are professors right now, etc. etc. Contrary to popular belief, I know Christians who are actually intelligent.
>> Anyone who will let some book, or even worse, some guy who has read some book, tell them how to think or feel shouldn't be allowed to vote
We've all been influenced by something. Regardless of what you want to believe, you've been influenced by a lot of things. You've let a lot of things tell you how to think or feel.
>> We don't want Christians to be perfect
and further down:
>> hypocritical morals
If you've ever looked at Christianity at all, you'd know that no one is perfect. Still, Christians work towards an admirable goal (loving everyone) that they will probably never reach in this lifetime. Meanwhile, you work for money, or for whatever reason, something that you will probably never get this lifetime either (money never satisfies. you always want more. I know.).
What I pointed out in my other post is that I don't think people should bash Christians for trying to be good people or trying to reach perfection. They're doing a better job than most people are (at least the people I know).
If you want to go back and drag out some Southern Baptist woman who probably has no idea what her religion really means, feel free to do that.
>> let us get on with our lives
Some Christians actually try to do that. It's called aid. You know, like, homeless shelters, afterschool programs, etc. Or working in third-world countries. Give them the respect they deserve.
It means that comments like "morons" and "fable" and "f-off" have no place in these discussions. Unless you can say for yourself that you've seen everything from both sides, your opinion means absolutely nothing.
Yes, most people's opinions about the world (check "Simple Life," for example) are partly based on a lack of complete information. I just wish that people would actually realize that and tone their comments in a more respectful manner.
Yeah, I messed up. I added line breaks and put it in as another comment but it was modded Offtopic.
This is definitely my second or third post on Slashdot. After not commenting for a long time, I think I'll step in for a bit.
/. readers, I'm guessing, are scientifically minded. So they believe in all the things that science has accomplished. Good work. Hooray for you. Then there are those who believe that a God exists and has made everything we see, and created laws that science is discovering and utilizing. Good work, hooray for you. If you were really tolerant, and if you were really following what you believe you should be doing, then you'd have a solid discussion with them based on the facts, based on what you've seen, etc. etc. But... no. All we see are lousy jokes and other definitive statements - "the Bible is crap," "the Bible has contradictions," etc. etc.
/. readers can force Christians onto a pedestal ("You have to be perfect, you Christian moron, and aren't you supposed to LOVE everybody?!") and cannot subject themselves to any sort of standards.
/. to the approval (and subsequent positive moderation) of their knowingly uninformed, uneducated peers.
So what is this tolerance stuff that I keep hearing about? As in, tolerate gay marriage. Tolerate all religions. Tolerate points of view that are different from your own. And yet when I come on Slashdot and read this article, and all the (I read at +4) comments, my face turns sour because of the horrendous amount of crap that I see from people here.
Look, you don't believe Christianity, fine. You think the ark idea is crap, and that science proves yadda yadda yadda, fine. At least have the guts to refrain from bashing those who do. It takes a mature individual to let people have their say without exploding in anger or cracking up in laughter. You have to understand that most people have developed for themselves a framework for how they view life. Most
I just don't understand how some
If you're going to argue that the Bible has bad teachings, or that it has contradictions, read the Bible yourself before you make a decision. Actually, don't do just that - be a real student and go and find commentaries from Christian writers. Find commentaries from non-Christian writers. (Why commentaries? Have you ever really been able to explore a book without seeing what lots of people thought about it?) Read it with an unbiased eye. If you think you've found a contradiction, then see what the other side has to say. Read it for yourself. If you end up unconvinced the Bible is true, then great. If you don't find contradictions, then great too. Decide for yourself what you want to believe.
What astounds me is how FEW people actually take that offer. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has. Why? Because they're lazy. Too lazy to go and find out things for themselves. In the meantime, they (non-Christians AND Christians) rely on a few lousy articles and information (which are debunked by different people, depending on who you ask), and then post knowingly uninformed, uneducated entries on
Watch people read this comment and ask, "Is the author of this comment a Christian?" If the answer is yes, they immediately go and trash it because suddenly none of my arguments and comments make any sense. "Those moronic Christians, what a bunch of idiots, they must not believe in science..." right?
So maybe I am, or maybe I'm not. I will say that I HAVE taken up my own challenge. That should be enough for you.