Please point out where I've said I'm only debating a christian god. I have addressed all your points and yet you still redirect. I have no dog in the fight, I simply wanted to discuss the issue at hand. I mentioned situations covering every possible assumption of god I could come up with in the time I wrote that post.
Christian god, Absent god Fraudulent god A god that is really just my old truck etc
My point stands, either god doesn't exist, is interactive, and thus we have to pick a religion (and that is pointless because we have no way of knowing we picked the right one), or god is non-interactive (or fraudulent) and for all intents and purposes he simply doesn't matter. In which case we might discuss flying ponies. What other possibilities am I missing?
Not true at all. There very well could be a good god. I'm debating that if it is the established christian god, he's an evil asshole. If it is the absent god, there is no point in calling him god.
You worship a god purely for selfish reasons. You want a good life, you want a good afterlife. If your god isn't bothering to give you that, if he isn't affecting the world, why bother calling him god?
If there is a purely good god, and he simply hasn't laid down his religion or story to 'show it'. Then again, why call him god? He obviously doesn't want us to know he's there and obviously must not want our worship.
If god is a 97 chevy truck with 4 wheel drive, then why worship him if I don't have a couch to move?
If there is a good god, who wants us to worship a false god while he does the work on the backend, well then again. Why the fuck do we bother. We obviously can't win, and god can be anything I make up because god is unprovable.
So without knowing who and what to worship, does it even matter if god exists?
It is not a false dilemma. Even if god exists, if I am going to worship him he must be worthy of my affection. So far nothing the christian god has shown me makes him worthy of my attention.
And if he doesn't want my attention, isn't directly helping me or affect my life, why call him god?
In that case, he wants them to not just believe, but blindly believe like a fool. When I want someone to believe in something, I make sure I have some evidence to show them to make my case.
The whole belief thing doesn't make any sense anyway. What does god get out of people believing in him? Why would this even matter to all powerful being? Punishment for being rational and logical is his 'love'. "You don't believe I exist even though there is really no good reason to believe I exist...here's a world of endless torment for your efforts..."
This is the argument for a hateful, spiteful, self indulging, evil god. A god not worthy of my worship.
I don't think it is that end users don't like linux on the desktop. Rather, there is no compelling reason to try linux on the desktop. I am a huge linux fan. I use linux every single day and I have around 120 linux servers in my environment (compared to 6 windows servers). I ran linux for years on my home equipment. I've even ran LFS for 6 months once. I've used ubuntu, debian, fedora, centos, arch, and gentoo. When I was picking my notebook replacement, I didn't consider the cost of the OS. I considered what would be the smoothest easiest computer I could get out of the box that was compatible with my environment. With the lack of slick, fully supported notebooks that run linux, I personally bought a macbook pro (Due to recent changes in apples direction, I'm not sure I'd make the same decision today).
I don't want to work on my computer. I want to do work on my computer. I'm not going to install a desktop OS when I can buy a computer with a perfectly good computer with a desktop OS. People want a computer that works with the software their friends use. People want a computer that can play the games their friends play. People want a computer that is easy to get help and support on from their '13 year old kid who is "computer literate". People also want devices that give them social status (like iphones). People want sleek elegant and modern looking computers. Linux isn't advertised as these things, it doesn't have the traction yet as a gaming device, and most people are going to use their work or friends as a buying guide. These are hard, but not insurmountable problems to overcome.
Honestly, when it's time for my next computer I'll look at linux again, but I need to find a lightweight, powerful notebook that is fully supported by my linux distro of choice out of the box by the notebook vendor. I want the design of the macbook pro (large smooth touchpad, etc) with a fully supported and functional linux distro on top of it. Hell, I can't even find a decent Dell linux laptop on their website. So for now, I'll use linux in my datacenter and OSX on my client PC.
It really depends on the offering and how much you pay your employees and most importantly, their skill levels.
Let's look at building a nice log mining/collection server for linux systems. You could buy a solution which is costly up front with a decent yearly renewal and that will get the job done. You can use one of the cloud services out there that offers this and get the same quality for a few hundred a month (which is cheaper overall). Or you could roll your own with the nice open source tools that are out there.
If you are just looking at ease of use and money, you go with the cloud. If you are worried about hard costs, but your employees have the skill (and time) you could try to roll your own. But when that guy is setting up, patching, and maintaining that system, that's time he can't spend on other things, and that could be more painful then just shelling out the cash.
Personally, more exciting to me that public cloud services is virtual appliances. I love this model of just download, import, and use. We have about a half dozen of these things in our environment now including monitoring, vcenter, backup and even vdi provisioning and I couldn't be happier with the model. I'm totally onboard with the idea of the software defined datacenter. The added advantage is this is a trivial model to move to the cloud, you just need a cloud provider that supports your virtualization infrastructure. Hell, our firewall is up for replacement next year and we are looking at virtualizing that as an appliance.
Not to mention you can setup google app's mail to route a copy of all mail to your own server for archival purposes. We even did dual delivery during our migration.
You can even do forced carb even easier. Find a nice Carbonation chart ( such as http://www.kegoutlet.com/media/uploads_ckeditor/Carbonatin-Chart.jpg ) and set your pressure to the desired volumes of CO2 for the temp of your keggerator/keezer. Now wait 1-2 weeks (which is almost always a good idea with any beer) and you should have perfectly carbonated beer.
Sloshing will carb it up faster, but you still have to wait for the beer to clear and you risk foaming, but it's good for a hurry.
you mean voice turn by turn. Turn by turn was in the software from day 1.
And of course, the iphone 4 apparently doesn't have the ability to do voice turn by turn. You need a better phone than that if you want it to talk to you....
Oh it is alarming and imho un-American. But I honestly can't say any one else I elect is going to give those things up. I can't even think of a time in america's history where a president gave up powers from the previous one.
Really, that's the argument you are going to with, a fallacy of accident. It is reasonable to assume that someone who commits a crime is punished and that punishment labels them as a criminal. However, the law has shown that there are limits to punishment if they cause a undo burden on a person. These typically come in the form of unusual or extreme punishments.
For example, it is customary and reasonable to suspend a drivers license for habitual speeders and people with DUIs. But, if that suspension would cost them their livelihoods, it is also typically considered unreasonable to not give them a permit to drive to and from work. This prevents undo burden on the criminal and allows them the chance to actually become a healthy member of society given that they can work within that framework and follow the rule of law.
Likewise it would have been reasonable for the judge to order this lady to not post on facebook content relating to the crime or trial. It is unusual, and creates a undo burden to take away her access entirely and permanently (not to mention unconstitutionally depriving her of her speech) simple because he didn't like what she had to say. Therefore I would argue it is indeed unusual punishment, it puts a burden on her for a crime that is wholly and completely different than almost every other drunk driver (in fact I can't think of another case).
Honestly, I think even if they do delete your data (which I doubt). They would hold on to the email address explicitly to deny you service as a deterrent. "Don't delete your account, bad things will happen..."
Because being put in jail for a crime doesn't violate your freedom of speech. Being forced to delete your facebook posts/account does.
If it was facebook who deleted her account, that would be ok with me. It's up to them to decide what kind of speech they want on their servers. But the government has no right to moderate speech unless it is causing a immediate and local danger (fire in a theater). This is the same with the video causing all that trouble in the middle east. Yes, the government could take it down, but doing so violates the core principle of this country.
People look at idiots spewing hate as a bad thing. I look at it as a nice big poster that helps me separate out the idiots from the people worth spending my time with. In any case get a double dose of information. For example, with that anti-muslim video you learn that there are a few people in america who are douche bags and you learn that there are many many more 'muslims' in the middle east who are out of control, immoral, violent, murders just looking for excuses to bring their hate to the rest of the world. In the case of this ladies facebook post, you learn she is immature, immoral, and non-repentant. Basically, she's a horrible person. So if I was ever to meet her, I'd know to stay clear.
You can delete your account. Deactivate is the method facebook wants you to use. They keep all your data and can easily bring your account back to life when you 'change your mind'. If you go the delete route, they claim to delete your data, but more importantly, you can never use that email address again to open a facebook account.
Deletion is facebook suicide, and it's why I went that route when I deleted mine. I don't see myself getting a new email address in the near future, and I can never use my current one to open a facebook account.
They did this to Kevin Mitnick. He was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone. Mitnick fought this decision in court, eventually winning a ruling in his favor, allowing him to access the Internet.
Seems like a similar type punishment. I bet it won't be hard for a good lawyer to change the ruling as it falls under unusual punishment. You could claim facebook is a requirement for getting a job (which in some fields it is), that it would put a undo burden on you, or even that there is no basis for the punishment and the judge is violating her freedom of speech.
The lady involved in this case is a horrible person, but her rights to let everyone know she's a horrible person should not be infringed.
There are farmers out there that can make Foie Gras without force feeding the animals. I can't find the article right now, but I remember hearing it on NPR a year or so back.
I have yet to see a samsung phone that looked anything like my iPhone 3G or 4. Sure they had black phones, and rectangular phones. They had phones with a single button, and phones with rounded corners. But I can say without a doubt there is not a single samsung phone that anyone but a patent lawyer would call a rip off of the iphone.
Did they tailor their designs to consumer taste? Yes. Did consumers start to like sleek looks in phones without a ton of buttons? Yes. Did consumers start to like touch displays and a candybar form factor? Yes. But there is direct rip off. The closest I could get was this http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/120802021415-samsung-omnia-large-gallery-horizontal.jpg and only a fool would think that was a iPhone. In fact, using the same logic, all TV's must be ripping off each other's design. My 55 inch samsung is black and looks almost identical to my friends 55 inch LG. They even both watch the same TV service!
I've been a long time apple user. I've had 4 apple phones, 6 apple computers, and I have converted dozens of people to apple products. My contract is up with AT&T and I'm buying a Galaxy S3. I'm done with them, not just for the patent stuff, but for the general direction of the company.
I worked at many ISP's in the 90's. There were many cases of people calling us because they didn't have a web browser or our setup CD. We had no problems giving them the info to connect to our FTP site and download a browser.
I was recently at a convention. A lot of the vendors gave out these bouncy balls full of some strange liquid and glitter. I threw them in my backpack and forgot about them. I was able to pass though security with 11 of them in my bag. Yes, 11 baseball sized balls of liquid.
You could have at least tried to find jobs that were not useful. The TSA serves no functional or useful purpose except to drain tax payer money, create waits and radiation, and to make us think we are safer.
Without the TSA, airplanes would be just as safe, lines would be faster, and I wouldn't have to pay out the ass for a bottle of water.
Slashdot Mirror
Please point out where I've said I'm only debating a christian god. I have addressed all your points and yet you still redirect. I have no dog in the fight, I simply wanted to discuss the issue at hand. I mentioned situations covering every possible assumption of god I could come up with in the time I wrote that post.
Christian god,
Absent god
Fraudulent god
A god that is really just my old truck
etc
My point stands, either god doesn't exist, is interactive, and thus we have to pick a religion (and that is pointless because we have no way of knowing we picked the right one), or god is non-interactive (or fraudulent) and for all intents and purposes he simply doesn't matter. In which case we might discuss flying ponies. What other possibilities am I missing?
I can't see how I can be any more clear.
Not true at all. There very well could be a good god. I'm debating that if it is the established christian god, he's an evil asshole. If it is the absent god, there is no point in calling him god.
You worship a god purely for selfish reasons. You want a good life, you want a good afterlife. If your god isn't bothering to give you that, if he isn't affecting the world, why bother calling him god?
If there is a purely good god, and he simply hasn't laid down his religion or story to 'show it'. Then again, why call him god? He obviously doesn't want us to know he's there and obviously must not want our worship.
If god is a 97 chevy truck with 4 wheel drive, then why worship him if I don't have a couch to move?
If there is a good god, who wants us to worship a false god while he does the work on the backend, well then again. Why the fuck do we bother. We obviously can't win, and god can be anything I make up because god is unprovable.
So without knowing who and what to worship, does it even matter if god exists?
It is not a false dilemma. Even if god exists, if I am going to worship him he must be worthy of my affection. So far nothing the christian god has shown me makes him worthy of my attention.
And if he doesn't want my attention, isn't directly helping me or affect my life, why call him god?
In that case, he wants them to not just believe, but blindly believe like a fool. When I want someone to believe in something, I make sure I have some evidence to show them to make my case.
The whole belief thing doesn't make any sense anyway. What does god get out of people believing in him? Why would this even matter to all powerful being? Punishment for being rational and logical is his 'love'. "You don't believe I exist even though there is really no good reason to believe I exist...here's a world of endless torment for your efforts..."
This is the argument for a hateful, spiteful, self indulging, evil god. A god not worthy of my worship.
How so? We have a pretty large mysql install still that has gone from 8.04 to 10.04 an now is 12.04 without any issues.
I don't think it is that end users don't like linux on the desktop. Rather, there is no compelling reason to try linux on the desktop. I am a huge linux fan. I use linux every single day and I have around 120 linux servers in my environment (compared to 6 windows servers). I ran linux for years on my home equipment. I've even ran LFS for 6 months once. I've used ubuntu, debian, fedora, centos, arch, and gentoo. When I was picking my notebook replacement, I didn't consider the cost of the OS. I considered what would be the smoothest easiest computer I could get out of the box that was compatible with my environment. With the lack of slick, fully supported notebooks that run linux, I personally bought a macbook pro (Due to recent changes in apples direction, I'm not sure I'd make the same decision today).
I don't want to work on my computer. I want to do work on my computer. I'm not going to install a desktop OS when I can buy a computer with a perfectly good computer with a desktop OS. People want a computer that works with the software their friends use. People want a computer that can play the games their friends play. People want a computer that is easy to get help and support on from their '13 year old kid who is "computer literate". People also want devices that give them social status (like iphones). People want sleek elegant and modern looking computers. Linux isn't advertised as these things, it doesn't have the traction yet as a gaming device, and most people are going to use their work or friends as a buying guide. These are hard, but not insurmountable problems to overcome.
Honestly, when it's time for my next computer I'll look at linux again, but I need to find a lightweight, powerful notebook that is fully supported by my linux distro of choice out of the box by the notebook vendor. I want the design of the macbook pro (large smooth touchpad, etc) with a fully supported and functional linux distro on top of it. Hell, I can't even find a decent Dell linux laptop on their website. So for now, I'll use linux in my datacenter and OSX on my client PC.
Apparently, in the future we all live a life of complete isolation.. This guy went a whole day without speaking to anyone.
Mushrooms.
It really depends on the offering and how much you pay your employees and most importantly, their skill levels.
Let's look at building a nice log mining/collection server for linux systems. You could buy a solution which is costly up front with a decent yearly renewal and that will get the job done. You can use one of the cloud services out there that offers this and get the same quality for a few hundred a month (which is cheaper overall). Or you could roll your own with the nice open source tools that are out there.
If you are just looking at ease of use and money, you go with the cloud. If you are worried about hard costs, but your employees have the skill (and time) you could try to roll your own. But when that guy is setting up, patching, and maintaining that system, that's time he can't spend on other things, and that could be more painful then just shelling out the cash.
Personally, more exciting to me that public cloud services is virtual appliances. I love this model of just download, import, and use. We have about a half dozen of these things in our environment now including monitoring, vcenter, backup and even vdi provisioning and I couldn't be happier with the model. I'm totally onboard with the idea of the software defined datacenter. The added advantage is this is a trivial model to move to the cloud, you just need a cloud provider that supports your virtualization infrastructure. Hell, our firewall is up for replacement next year and we are looking at virtualizing that as an appliance.
Not to mention you can setup google app's mail to route a copy of all mail to your own server for archival purposes. We even did dual delivery during our migration.
You can even do forced carb even easier. Find a nice Carbonation chart ( such as http://www.kegoutlet.com/media/uploads_ckeditor/Carbonatin-Chart.jpg ) and set your pressure to the desired volumes of CO2 for the temp of your keggerator/keezer. Now wait 1-2 weeks (which is almost always a good idea with any beer) and you should have perfectly carbonated beer.
Sloshing will carb it up faster, but you still have to wait for the beer to clear and you risk foaming, but it's good for a hurry.
you mean voice turn by turn. Turn by turn was in the software from day 1.
And of course, the iphone 4 apparently doesn't have the ability to do voice turn by turn. You need a better phone than that if you want it to talk to you....
I have voted Libertarian for years. But I don't honestly think they will change the system either.
Oh it is alarming and imho un-American. But I honestly can't say any one else I elect is going to give those things up. I can't even think of a time in america's history where a president gave up powers from the previous one.
Really, that's the argument you are going to with, a fallacy of accident. It is reasonable to assume that someone who commits a crime is punished and that punishment labels them as a criminal. However, the law has shown that there are limits to punishment if they cause a undo burden on a person. These typically come in the form of unusual or extreme punishments.
For example, it is customary and reasonable to suspend a drivers license for habitual speeders and people with DUIs. But, if that suspension would cost them their livelihoods, it is also typically considered unreasonable to not give them a permit to drive to and from work. This prevents undo burden on the criminal and allows them the chance to actually become a healthy member of society given that they can work within that framework and follow the rule of law.
Likewise it would have been reasonable for the judge to order this lady to not post on facebook content relating to the crime or trial. It is unusual, and creates a undo burden to take away her access entirely and permanently (not to mention unconstitutionally depriving her of her speech) simple because he didn't like what she had to say. Therefore I would argue it is indeed unusual punishment, it puts a burden on her for a crime that is wholly and completely different than almost every other drunk driver (in fact I can't think of another case).
Honestly, I think even if they do delete your data (which I doubt). They would hold on to the email address explicitly to deny you service as a deterrent. "Don't delete your account, bad things will happen..."
Because being put in jail for a crime doesn't violate your freedom of speech. Being forced to delete your facebook posts/account does.
If it was facebook who deleted her account, that would be ok with me. It's up to them to decide what kind of speech they want on their servers. But the government has no right to moderate speech unless it is causing a immediate and local danger (fire in a theater). This is the same with the video causing all that trouble in the middle east. Yes, the government could take it down, but doing so violates the core principle of this country.
People look at idiots spewing hate as a bad thing. I look at it as a nice big poster that helps me separate out the idiots from the people worth spending my time with. In any case get a double dose of information. For example, with that anti-muslim video you learn that there are a few people in america who are douche bags and you learn that there are many many more 'muslims' in the middle east who are out of control, immoral, violent, murders just looking for excuses to bring their hate to the rest of the world. In the case of this ladies facebook post, you learn she is immature, immoral, and non-repentant. Basically, she's a horrible person. So if I was ever to meet her, I'd know to stay clear.
You can delete your account. Deactivate is the method facebook wants you to use. They keep all your data and can easily bring your account back to life when you 'change your mind'. If you go the delete route, they claim to delete your data, but more importantly, you can never use that email address again to open a facebook account.
Deletion is facebook suicide, and it's why I went that route when I deleted mine. I don't see myself getting a new email address in the near future, and I can never use my current one to open a facebook account.
They did this to Kevin Mitnick. He was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone. Mitnick fought this decision in court, eventually winning a ruling in his favor, allowing him to access the Internet.
Seems like a similar type punishment. I bet it won't be hard for a good lawyer to change the ruling as it falls under unusual punishment. You could claim facebook is a requirement for getting a job (which in some fields it is), that it would put a undo burden on you, or even that there is no basis for the punishment and the judge is violating her freedom of speech.
The lady involved in this case is a horrible person, but her rights to let everyone know she's a horrible person should not be infringed.
There are farmers out there that can make Foie Gras without force feeding the animals. I can't find the article right now, but I remember hearing it on NPR a year or so back.
I have yet to see a samsung phone that looked anything like my iPhone 3G or 4. Sure they had black phones, and rectangular phones. They had phones with a single button, and phones with rounded corners. But I can say without a doubt there is not a single samsung phone that anyone but a patent lawyer would call a rip off of the iphone.
Did they tailor their designs to consumer taste? Yes. Did consumers start to like sleek looks in phones without a ton of buttons? Yes. Did consumers start to like touch displays and a candybar form factor? Yes. But there is direct rip off. The closest I could get was this http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/120802021415-samsung-omnia-large-gallery-horizontal.jpg and only a fool would think that was a iPhone. In fact, using the same logic, all TV's must be ripping off each other's design. My 55 inch samsung is black and looks almost identical to my friends 55 inch LG. They even both watch the same TV service!
I've been a long time apple user. I've had 4 apple phones, 6 apple computers, and I have converted dozens of people to apple products. My contract is up with AT&T and I'm buying a Galaxy S3. I'm done with them, not just for the patent stuff, but for the general direction of the company.
I just watched the Life of Brian and I was offended as it's portral of the origins of christianity. I say we go protest England!
I worked at many ISP's in the 90's. There were many cases of people calling us because they didn't have a web browser or our setup CD. We had no problems giving them the info to connect to our FTP site and download a browser.
I was recently at a convention. A lot of the vendors gave out these bouncy balls full of some strange liquid and glitter. I threw them in my backpack and forgot about them. I was able to pass though security with 11 of them in my bag. Yes, 11 baseball sized balls of liquid.
You could have at least tried to find jobs that were not useful. The TSA serves no functional or useful purpose except to drain tax payer money, create waits and radiation, and to make us think we are safer.
Without the TSA, airplanes would be just as safe, lines would be faster, and I wouldn't have to pay out the ass for a bottle of water.