Failure to detect a joke? But it was a mocking joke, after all.
It's pretty much well-known that Hitler was a Christian, it's what I was taught in history class, at the least. I was also that for some time the Catholic Church supported him. But I don't really study history in any way, and have no good source.
However, maybe the reason the Christians were killed hiding the Jews...is that Hitler is a Christian, and hence evil. (That was, again, a parody of arguments I've heard saying that atheists are evil. Not even intended to offend, just to be amusing. Hate the religion/belief system/lack thereof, not the members.)
Honestly, I've seen nothing in Longhorn to be impressed about, it's true.
But to understand the reasons, just look at your statements from a different point of view--from Gates' point of view. Yeah, Linux is still gonna be competition. He needs a way to beat it. That means new software, really. It works for MS, and whether Longhorn is revolutionary or not, it will make them money.
XP is fine for me, though, and with a dual boot with 98 and a DOS VM, I have no reason to switch. Unfortunately, few will realize this, or even care. They'll buy Longhorn.
Well, I was just talking about the numbers in johnnyb's post, on the number of new computers sold with Linux already installed. There are a large number of people who buy clean systems and install Linux then, and, proportionally speaking, I would expect that this is more of the Linux userbase than of the Windows one. So that bumps up the Linux numbers a bit. Then I'm sure that (again, proportionally speaking) we see more Windows users switching to Linux than the other way around.
I know I only mention Windows, and that's because WIndows is all I'm really making assumptions about. But as long as Windows still has a large majority of the market, my statements are still valid.
I'm not really sure about the number of undocumented installs, though. I really wouldn't expect vendors to adjust for sharing, myself. Nor do I think they would be counting your download. I could be wrong, and somebody probably knows the answer, but based on what I've seen, at least, Linux represents a much stronger force than the numbers would suggest. Though I know that my experience is nowhere near universal, I'd be pretty stunned
to see coclusive evidence to the contrary.
I'm really not sure how much those numbers mean. There's a lot of undocumented stuff going on. Of course, just about all of that undocumented stuff is pro-Linux.
Okay, so far, all tests are fairly inconclusive about which system is really, overall, THE BEST. Nobody's done a truly fair test, but maybe that's partially because there isn't one that can be done...
What this article says to me, though, is that it's okay to stick with AMD. They're doing fine. Which is good, since I can't afford to spend over about $750 on a computer. So I won't be getting any of this stuff for quite some time anyway.
If I DID have the money, it would still tell me to stick with AMD, because it does better with the stuff I use the computer for. That should be the basis of a buying decision.
Most of you people obviously aren't concerned with such silly details. You're concerned with keeping the war alive, the war against/for Macs! Honestly, is there any devout non-Mac-user on/. whose main reason for not switching to Mac is because it's not fast enough? And I would express the same doubts about the opposite camp.
But it's ridiculous to HAVE camps. Just get the computer that's best for you, let the other guy get the one that's best for him. When you argue, those of you that compare certain zealots to paid employees look a bit like you're waiting for your next paychecks, too.
Well, no. I've finally figured out how to best explain this point of view. I have no problem in the slightest with, say, religious imagery all over the outside of a church. I'd be only a little irked at a giant freestanding cross in a public area even, and really only because it's pretentious and ugly, not because it's a symbol that represesnts beliefs contrary to my own. Simple exposure to other religions is not a negative, and in fact I think it's a great idea to actually learn at least a little bit about many different religions--it was only after I did this that I settled firmly on strong atheism.
As I see it, the problems occur when people are in groups, especially when kids are in groups. It can be a group they have to be in (like kids in public schools--yes, many kids have no other option, let's not debate that) or, to a lesser degree, optional groups that meet for an unrelated purpose. When in one of these groups, there is an established procedure of any kind, particularly if a group is TOLD that it is an established procedure, rather than defining it through experience, members who for some reason are unable or unwilling to perform these procedures are alienated from this group. They are reminded that they are different. Note that the procedure doesn't have to be mandatory, it just has to be established from an outside source, and generally followed. In instances where they are not told, but determine it on their own through experience, then there is less of a feeling that that procedure is 'normal,' and the dissenters, if you'll excuse the term, are less likely to feel like they are NOT normal as a result.
Of course, if 'under God' is removed, many will still say it. It's not like removing the words solves my issue. The only thing that can do that is going back in time and preventing the change in the first place. But I think that if the 'under God' wasn't official, wasn't part of the real definition of 'normality,' it would be a much smaller problem. Note that this would be true even if the majority of people kept saying 'under God.' Society makes no sense, and besides 'normal' being a meaningless term, the meanings that are attatched to it are often meanings that only fit a minority.
I know of these true meanings. I've been....educated in the past. Harshly. But the definitions I use are the ones that have come to be accepted, by the greater part of society but more importantly by the greater part (almost all) of people weighing in on this topic.
That view on minorities may get you into trouble some day.
Why don't we pick an upopular opinion, and do stuff to piss 'em off? They're a minority! It's fine!
Even if they WERE clearly written there, I don't really think that would provide a moral, legal, factual or rational basis for...well, anything, I suppose.
If all truth and law were determined by the images on walls, we would have people blowing up movie theaters with posters for action movies and women stripping outside lingerie stores. Hmm....then again...
Actually, not quite right. An 'absence of belief' is agnosticism, buddy. Atheists quite definitely believe in no god at all.
The groundson which to call it a religion are just that. Just as a Christian believes that there is a god, an atheist believes that there isn't.
Of course, then it still depends on the definition of religion. Which, in turn, depends on the dictionary you're using, and which definition.
In any case, I certainly think it qualifies as a religion, in terms of freedom and rights. I don't think it matters at all in any other context.
I can respect that, but you shouldn't be practicing your religion where it alienates others.
And by what you've said, you'd have no objections if it were changed to 'under no god,' as unpoetic as that would be. After all, atheism and Christianity are equal, right?
That post is only worth a shrug, whether you're just trolling or not.
Though I think agnostic would be easier to call lazy. At least we athiests have made a choice.
I have an idea. I'll write the atheistic Book of Truth. It'll be out Bible. Then you can't really say anything about it. Can't prove that I'm any less reliable than the people who penned the originals of what is now included in the Bible.
Well, I applaud the open-mindedness, really, I do.
But I don't really know how well that works. Even putting it that way can alienate people. Many people don't really equate God and goodness. As an atheist, I don't believe in God, but, just like you, I may be wrong, But I do believe that if there is a God, he's anything but good.
Not to mention that it might not really be accurate to equate America and goodness, either.
Nothing better than helping people feel like they belong to something...anything, to help outcasts and misanthropes of this world.
How is it that by connecting God to this nation--the nation you want people to have pride in, as you say--we make those who don't believe in him feel connected?
Also, I actually think that some of the Big Ten Commandments are immoral, by my own moral standards. That last one is just one, I don't feel like discussing the others because of what trouble that tends to get me into. You can hate me all you want for that, but I think that I should have the right to walk into a courthouse that doesn't overtly tell me that my beliefs are not respected.
By your argument that we don't believe in God, so we should have no trouble mentioning him in this context...what if it were changed to, say, Zeus? Strange, sure. But if you thought about what you were saying, maybe you might care.
But then, maybe you wouldn't. Your circumstances aren't the same. It's easy to be different than somebody else--when you're in the majority.
That's not good enough. I don't think you should have to change the thing, to set yourself apart.
To some people, appearing different, and in that context, is...not desirable. I know that when I started thinking for myself, and settled on atheism, I actually got some flak for it. A lot of flak, really. MUCH more than I could have possibly expected. I was in 9th grade, so I was 14. A lot of my friends' families wouldn't have me over for dinner anymore, things like that. I only actually lost one friend, and only had three get much more distant.
This isn't the South, by the way, I'm talking about upstate New York here.
So sure, I never said 'under God.' But that set me apart. That made me different. And that hurt me. Note that I personally have no problem with just being different, but with the other effects it can have. Some people might not even want to be seen as different.
Slashdot Mirror
Failure to detect a joke? But it was a mocking joke, after all. It's pretty much well-known that Hitler was a Christian, it's what I was taught in history class, at the least. I was also that for some time the Catholic Church supported him. But I don't really study history in any way, and have no good source. However, maybe the reason the Christians were killed hiding the Jews...is that Hitler is a Christian, and hence evil. (That was, again, a parody of arguments I've heard saying that atheists are evil. Not even intended to offend, just to be amusing. Hate the religion/belief system/lack thereof, not the members.)
Trolloid!
Honestly, I've seen nothing in Longhorn to be impressed about, it's true. But to understand the reasons, just look at your statements from a different point of view--from Gates' point of view. Yeah, Linux is still gonna be competition. He needs a way to beat it. That means new software, really. It works for MS, and whether Longhorn is revolutionary or not, it will make them money. XP is fine for me, though, and with a dual boot with 98 and a DOS VM, I have no reason to switch. Unfortunately, few will realize this, or even care. They'll buy Longhorn.
I think large angular things are ugly. Just personal taste.
Okay, uh, what major league pitcher could throw a dictionary at 100mph anyway? Or could even come CLOSE?
Well, I was just talking about the numbers in johnnyb's post, on the number of new computers sold with Linux already installed. There are a large number of people who buy clean systems and install Linux then, and, proportionally speaking, I would expect that this is more of the Linux userbase than of the Windows one. So that bumps up the Linux numbers a bit. Then I'm sure that (again, proportionally speaking) we see more Windows users switching to Linux than the other way around. I know I only mention Windows, and that's because WIndows is all I'm really making assumptions about. But as long as Windows still has a large majority of the market, my statements are still valid. I'm not really sure about the number of undocumented installs, though. I really wouldn't expect vendors to adjust for sharing, myself. Nor do I think they would be counting your download. I could be wrong, and somebody probably knows the answer, but based on what I've seen, at least, Linux represents a much stronger force than the numbers would suggest. Though I know that my experience is nowhere near universal, I'd be pretty stunned to see coclusive evidence to the contrary.
Hehehe...
And next from Paradox Entertainment, it's Benchmark Wrestling: Don't Try this at Home! For PS2 and XBox.
I'm really not sure how much those numbers mean. There's a lot of undocumented stuff going on. Of course, just about all of that undocumented stuff is pro-Linux.
Huzzah for Object Desktop!!! My interface beats WinXP's arse. And it's prettier.
Okay, so far, all tests are fairly inconclusive about which system is really, overall, THE BEST. Nobody's done a truly fair test, but maybe that's partially because there isn't one that can be done...
/. whose main reason for not switching to Mac is because it's not fast enough? And I would express the same doubts about the opposite camp.
/Insignificant rant.
What this article says to me, though, is that it's okay to stick with AMD. They're doing fine. Which is good, since I can't afford to spend over about $750 on a computer. So I won't be getting any of this stuff for quite some time anyway.
If I DID have the money, it would still tell me to stick with AMD, because it does better with the stuff I use the computer for. That should be the basis of a buying decision.
Most of you people obviously aren't concerned with such silly details. You're concerned with keeping the war alive, the war against/for Macs! Honestly, is there any devout non-Mac-user on
But it's ridiculous to HAVE camps. Just get the computer that's best for you, let the other guy get the one that's best for him. When you argue, those of you that compare certain zealots to paid employees look a bit like you're waiting for your next paychecks, too.
End the silliness.
Yeah, wow. The numbers have almost half the bullshit value as the ones Apple releases! That's crazy!
So I need to hide in the closet then?
Well, no. I've finally figured out how to best explain this point of view. I have no problem in the slightest with, say, religious imagery all over the outside of a church. I'd be only a little irked at a giant freestanding cross in a public area even, and really only because it's pretentious and ugly, not because it's a symbol that represesnts beliefs contrary to my own. Simple exposure to other religions is not a negative, and in fact I think it's a great idea to actually learn at least a little bit about many different religions--it was only after I did this that I settled firmly on strong atheism.
As I see it, the problems occur when people are in groups, especially when kids are in groups. It can be a group they have to be in (like kids in public schools--yes, many kids have no other option, let's not debate that) or, to a lesser degree, optional groups that meet for an unrelated purpose. When in one of these groups, there is an established procedure of any kind, particularly if a group is TOLD that it is an established procedure, rather than defining it through experience, members who for some reason are unable or unwilling to perform these procedures are alienated from this group. They are reminded that they are different. Note that the procedure doesn't have to be mandatory, it just has to be established from an outside source, and generally followed. In instances where they are not told, but determine it on their own through experience, then there is less of a feeling that that procedure is 'normal,' and the dissenters, if you'll excuse the term, are less likely to feel like they are NOT normal as a result.
Of course, if 'under God' is removed, many will still say it. It's not like removing the words solves my issue. The only thing that can do that is going back in time and preventing the change in the first place. But I think that if the 'under God' wasn't official, wasn't part of the real definition of 'normality,' it would be a much smaller problem. Note that this would be true even if the majority of people kept saying 'under God.' Society makes no sense, and besides 'normal' being a meaningless term, the meanings that are attatched to it are often meanings that only fit a minority.
I hope that helped explain what I mean.
I know of these true meanings. I've been....educated in the past. Harshly. But the definitions I use are the ones that have come to be accepted, by the greater part of society but more importantly by the greater part (almost all) of people weighing in on this topic.
That view on minorities may get you into trouble some day. Why don't we pick an upopular opinion, and do stuff to piss 'em off? They're a minority! It's fine!
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the ol' Declaration was written in such a way to appeal to the rest of the world.
Would you use a theoretical situation to make a point? I think you would. THey just did the same thing.
Hitler was a Christian. Proof of Christianity's inherent evil!
Even if they WERE clearly written there, I don't really think that would provide a moral, legal, factual or rational basis for...well, anything, I suppose.
If all truth and law were determined by the images on walls, we would have people blowing up movie theaters with posters for action movies and women stripping outside lingerie stores. Hmm....then again...
Actually, not quite right. An 'absence of belief' is agnosticism, buddy. Atheists quite definitely believe in no god at all. The groundson which to call it a religion are just that. Just as a Christian believes that there is a god, an atheist believes that there isn't. Of course, then it still depends on the definition of religion. Which, in turn, depends on the dictionary you're using, and which definition. In any case, I certainly think it qualifies as a religion, in terms of freedom and rights. I don't think it matters at all in any other context.
I can respect that, but you shouldn't be practicing your religion where it alienates others. And by what you've said, you'd have no objections if it were changed to 'under no god,' as unpoetic as that would be. After all, atheism and Christianity are equal, right?
That post is only worth a shrug, whether you're just trolling or not. Though I think agnostic would be easier to call lazy. At least we athiests have made a choice. I have an idea. I'll write the atheistic Book of Truth. It'll be out Bible. Then you can't really say anything about it. Can't prove that I'm any less reliable than the people who penned the originals of what is now included in the Bible.
Well, I applaud the open-mindedness, really, I do.
But I don't really know how well that works. Even putting it that way can alienate people. Many people don't really equate God and goodness. As an atheist, I don't believe in God, but, just like you, I may be wrong, But I do believe that if there is a God, he's anything but good.
Not to mention that it might not really be accurate to equate America and goodness, either.
A fair point, despite my disagreement.
Probably because the Constitution is more comprehensible than most laws on the books.
You destroyed your own point here.
Nothing better than helping people feel like they belong to something...anything, to help outcasts and misanthropes of this world. How is it that by connecting God to this nation--the nation you want people to have pride in, as you say--we make those who don't believe in him feel connected? Also, I actually think that some of the Big Ten Commandments are immoral, by my own moral standards. That last one is just one, I don't feel like discussing the others because of what trouble that tends to get me into. You can hate me all you want for that, but I think that I should have the right to walk into a courthouse that doesn't overtly tell me that my beliefs are not respected. By your argument that we don't believe in God, so we should have no trouble mentioning him in this context...what if it were changed to, say, Zeus? Strange, sure. But if you thought about what you were saying, maybe you might care. But then, maybe you wouldn't. Your circumstances aren't the same. It's easy to be different than somebody else--when you're in the majority.
That's not good enough. I don't think you should have to change the thing, to set yourself apart. To some people, appearing different, and in that context, is...not desirable. I know that when I started thinking for myself, and settled on atheism, I actually got some flak for it. A lot of flak, really. MUCH more than I could have possibly expected. I was in 9th grade, so I was 14. A lot of my friends' families wouldn't have me over for dinner anymore, things like that. I only actually lost one friend, and only had three get much more distant. This isn't the South, by the way, I'm talking about upstate New York here. So sure, I never said 'under God.' But that set me apart. That made me different. And that hurt me. Note that I personally have no problem with just being different, but with the other effects it can have. Some people might not even want to be seen as different.
Be it God, Allah, or whatever name one chooses to use, it is ALL under a greater mind than ours.
I disagree. If my problem was just with the name, I wouldn't mind so much. To me, it's a completely untrue statement, not just a twisting of reality.
Just because it was routine for you doesn't mean I, for one, didn't hate it whenever I "voluntarily" recited that thing.