--
Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.
Agnosticism is the absence of decisiveness.
When you have zero evidence, lack of decisiveness is by far and away the most sensible response. Completely correct, if a rather uncommon case. Anyway, the above was a joke. Well, I laughed anyway when I read it for the first few times:) The original was a bit longer, and somewhat clearer.
(Agnoscism is also a philosophical worldview, which is another matter altogether):)
Copyright infringement is a economic crime. So, the punishment should be of an economic nature --- a fine. No reason to put anything in his criminal record either. For downloading, I suggest 2*(price of movie at time)/(chance of discovery). For uploading, I'd suggest a very similar amount... the damagde to the "victim" is greater, yet his personal gain is less. So, same fine.
The DTD (or more recently schema) should define the allowable content and structure of the XML document for validation purposes. This is supposed to be one of the selling points of XML, being able to verify that a document is valid.
Sure, but no sane RSS reader is going to read the DTD, parse it and validate the served XML. Nor will a browser chew through the (humongous) XHTML DTD and then validate it against this DTD. Rather, such application will have the structure of the XHTML hardwired into the application, and ignore any unknown tags. The only check would be to check if the DTD is known, plus any structure tests that the application chooses to implement --- usually the free ones.
Authoring tools are, of course, another matter, but those would probably want the relevant DTDs locally installed anyway.
Or better yet why can't you just copy the blasted thing to your own site if your going to use it?
Is there some technical reason I'm not aware of that means it has to stay somewhere central?
There shouldn't be, yet I would be greatly surprised if some application didn't match on the entire DTD string, hostname and all.
I am equally baffled at what applications need the DTD for anyway. Except for generic XML applications, what use is a DTD? Most applications only handles a fixed few XML document types anyway.
Finally, if they really need that DTD... any distro have most major DTDs available. No reason why they couldn't carry a few extra. Should be easy to just search for them locally.
if you change "any of the viewers" to "any significant number of viewers"...sure.
If I assume that some viewers found out the falseness of the claims, why wouldn't they document their findings so as to help the entire world avoid such misguided beliefs, while the entire population at the time was actively hostile to such beliefs?
Have you ever watched Life of Brian? I think that movie shows how such things could happen well enough, if with more than a touch of sarcasm:) There are always some willing to believe - and defend their beliefs - any crackpot. At first the authorities will ignore those early fanatics. Usually such groups die out quickly, but occasionally the group grows numerous. When the authorities inevitable attempts to rein in or destroy the group, they sometimes fails. At this point, the group has an external enemy, which you know is the single best thing to keep the group together. When you get to the stage where people have believed some nonsense all their life, they are very unwilling to let go, and teach it to their children. Who was it who said "misery loves company"? Fooliness is another human trait that loves company, and spreads.
Jesus was one of the few persons that did miracles all over the place.
Lol. Jesus, if he existed, performed no miracles. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, and for the same reasons.
They could just document one single instance of false belief and everything would collapse.
Where is it? Or is it just that they didn't pay attention to Him? Then why did they crucify Him? Why do they claim that He was an impostor?
According to the bible, they crucified him for rioting, didn't they? I'm sorry, I am not well versed in this particular fable. The jewish priesthood had a lot of reason (centered around power) for killing him. A bad move anyway, probably. Then, it might just be a fictional story.
The had an agenda.
You may be aware that Jewish faith states that Jesus was an impostor. What's simpler than preserving the evidence that proves that? Why hasn't it happened? Did even foreign dogmas conspire to spread a lie that would undermine them?
No doubt they tried, and failed. Also, considering that the jewish were hard pressed by an occupation at the time, they might not have been terrible interested in what must have been a little oddball religion at the time.
Let me put this a different way: A big part of the civilized world has been tricked by those 13 people for 2000 years?
It wouldn't have been the first time, nor the last. Of course, they were helped by a lot of people. Even today, if I walk into a church, I will find a man who will swear that a bread and wine turns into human tissue and blood in a cannibalistic ritual. Do you believe that? Does he? Somehow I doubt he really does, deep down.
Today there is no lack of such evidence.
What evidence? Has there ever existed before a conspiracy that lasts for over 2000 years, with the only purpose of spreading "love each other"? This doesn't mean that it cannot exist, it just makes it extremely unlikely and stupid.
I haven't mentioned any conspiracy, nor do I believe there really is one. Religion is just gullibility, wishful thinking and self-delusion. No conspiracy necessary, though of course there are those who will see the power in religion an twist it to their own purpose. As religious people have no sound foundation on which to build their personal philosophy, I suspect that they are particulary volunerable to this sort of explotation.
Not the entire world. They tricked enough for long enough, then arms, thumbscrews and human gullibility did the rest.
Why did the early Christians sacrifice their lives for this faith? They were gullible or for
Can you seriously support that Jesus Christ and His students staged all the events known as "miracles"?
That is one of the possibilities. Most likely it is a combination of fraud, gullibility and wishful thinking.
Can you
seriously support that today 13 people can stage everything mentioned in the New Testament in public view without any of the viewers ever finding out the truth, all these in a actively hostile to the performers environment and outside a TV studio?
if you change "any of the viewers" to "any significant number of viewers"...sure.
You basically claim that they were the best magicians of all time, yet no one ever learned their tricks so as to reproduce them today?
That seems pretty standard for magician. But I still didn't say I really believe it was all magician's tricks. Most of it is probably made up.
Why didn't the Jewish scribes and priests preserve the evidence that proves the falseness of the New Testament?
Why would they? The had an agenda.
A big part of the civilised world has been tricked by those 13 people?
Yep. Not the first, nor the last time that has happended. Remember e.g. the corn circles? To quote: The human capacity to believe what it wants to believe, rather than what is likely, or even possible, has never ceased to astound me. "God has not been proven not to exist, ergo, he must exist".
Why did the entire world for 2000 years conspire to hide the evidence to the contrary?
Do you know the Spanish inquisition? Today there is no lack of such evidence.
Does your belief assume that Roman guards, some Jews, Jesus and a dozen of fishermen (among other professions) where able to conspire in order to trick the entire world for 2000 years?
Not the entire world. They tricked enough for long enough, then arms, thumbscrews and human gullibility did the rest.
What was the motive of their performance?
Fame? Greed? Wishful thinking? Desire to make people nice to each other? Wouldn't you lie if it would make men stop raping women? Would you lie for world peace?
Does their writings' spirit and line of thought match this expectation? They were the people to advocate "love each other" for the first time in history, yet they were trying to manipulate everyone else that Jesus is the God? Why? Why cannot I apply your logic to physical phenomena and treat everything as staged by a very clever magician?
You can, but a wall would still hurt you if you walk into it:)
If they appear to do the impossible, most likely the appearances are deceiving
That's not how science works. Science needs evidence and nothing is impossible, provided that it can be observed and reproduced.
What I wrote. But extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proofs, and it is not my job to dig that up for every mad claim out there. I could do little else, then.
the J-myth are backed by very dubious evidence.
Have you tried to see whether what Jesus was claiming is true? That's the essence of His teaching, that's the only way to prove that He was wrong. I know that He was right; so do lots of people around the world. I know it's not of much use to you, that's why I'm offering a way to check my facts.
Thanks, but I'll leave that to others. I am only one man, and I have no time for this particular silliness:) Not that am I against the idea of turning the other cheek and so far. I just don't believe this god silliness.
He was either non-existing, a charlatan or a tool.
What's the evidence that supports that He wasn't who He said He was? What makes that evidence more worthy than mine?
You're saying that people that were known to be blind since birth, were actually not? People who are missing a limb can be healed by modern magicians? A man who dies because of sickness and is in the grave for 4 days and begins to decompose can actually be alive? Can you seriously support this claim?
Appears to. A man, who apparently was blind since birth and so forth. Look, magicians are good, they could easily fake all of the above. I once saw two magician (apparently) shoot each other with bullets (marked on the scene by a volunteer), through 3 panes of glass. Both caught the other's bullet with his teeth. Apparently. Yet, though I have no idea how, I do not believe that they actually did this. Same with the Jesus myth: If he actually appeared to do any of the stuff he is attributed to doing, he was faking it. In other words, a charlatan.
As far as I'm aware, nothing about physical phenomena that appear in ordinary life on earth is missing an explanation, if you exclude the open questions of science. What I mean is that there is no scientist that could possibly claim with any degree of certainty that people can do today what Jesus did 2000 years ago. In trying to refute this truth, you reach irrational conclusions via irrational (and wrong) assumptions.
Little evidence have survived the 2000 year span. My assumptions is the same with Jesus as anyone else: If they appear to do the impossible, most likely the appearances are deceiving. Of course, giving enough hard evidence, I might revise my idea of impossible, but if anything, the J-myth are backed by very dubious evidence.
As for the historical evidence about the existence of Jesus, someone would think that we have at least 6 accounts for that by His students and one more by Josephus, a jewish historian. I'm really curious about who says otherwise and whether his claims are accepted by the scientific community.
Hmm. I forget the name, it was an entire book. Darn, I hate my poor memory. Ah, google to the rescue: Did Jesus exists?. I don't have the necessary feel with the historical community to know whether this is an accepted historical hypothesis. Myself, I am undecided. He was either non-existing, a charlatan or a tool.
People accept Jesus as God himself, because everything He said and did is true. Nothing more, nothing less.
Then people are delusional. There is no garden gnomes, no fairies, no flying ufos or any other wishful thinking. There is just you, me and everyone and everything else.
There are people all over the world who can show me "much more impressive feats at a moment's notice" than raising the dead, resurrecting themselves three days after a brutal execution and ascending to the heavens? Mind telling me who these people are?
(Note: I'm not saying that Jesus actually did any of these things. But I'm having trouble coming up with a neater trick for a human to perform than overcoming mortality.)
There are show magicians who saw their victims - or themselves - in half --- now, that's brutal! Then the victim gets up (smoke might be involved here), whole and sound. And this is not three days later, but a few minutes later. Really, that J-man is totally outclassed.
Why can't people accept that even if he existed (and some people make a good case that he didn't), he was most likely a charlatan?
I speak from experience about the buggy state of Vista. I installed it on 2 systems with all 'Vista certified' hardware and both systems have problems tangible, very visible problems.
I will probably be modded down for this, but until Windows get better hardware support, it just won't be ready for the mainstream;)
Meh. Even if there is an improper cast from a List<String> to List<Integer>, the JVM still won't break; it will just throw an error at access time instead of original cast time. Muddling up Java's clear and simple type system isn't worth it here.
Yeah, why have compile-time types at all? Let's throw all that away, who needs it? You'll get a stacktrace if you encounter the bug while running. And overloading? Who ever needs to overload on a List<float> vs. List<int>, say? No need for that, we can just sample the elements to see if they are of one type or the other.
Making it stop throwing away type information (generics) would be very, very nice. This is imho one of the greatest current flaws in Java. I fear it will mean changing the JVM, though.
Which is exactly why Sun opted to make generics a compiler constraint, so that generified code would still run on older VMs. I agree though, that since Java 6 introduced changes to the bytecode, they could have included generic type information at that point.
Exactly. Throwing away type info is a major flaw. Practically speaking, Java is no longer typesafe, though you get warnings if you perform an unsupported operation. But that is like warning you that the dog bites rather than train it not to bite...
Besides this, I could make a very, very long wishlist for Java. Though I suppose I'd just end up with C++, minus the old annoying baggage.
Isn't that an old saying? "Those who don't understand C are doomed to reinvent it"? Or maybe it was Lisp.
Perhaps Lisp, C is very simple (and a completely different game than C++). But perhaps you mean that it would be far better to work on a language that already have lots of the missing features implemented (like C++) or simply more advanced if yet somewhat incomplete (like Haskell). You might be right, then. It is just that I am forced to drag Java along like a block of concrete around my legs, and thus I hope (someone else) will fix some of the more glaring shortcomings.:)
Somehow I guess Bosnia in the 90's doesn't count as an EU war? Or the "police actions" for the USSR in the 50's and 60's? Oh, that's right. EU doesn't mean all of Europe.
EU doesn't mean all of Europe, just like US doesn't mean all of America. Just the member states. Both lists are on wikipedia:)
Making it stop throwing away type information (generics) would be very, very nice. This is imho one of the greatest current flaws in Java. I fear it will mean changing the JVM, though.
In case anyone wonders: From the perspective of the JVM, List<String> is the same as List. If you can't see why this is bad, take a breath and think again. Think casts. Think interfaces.
Besides this, I could make a very, very long wishlist for Java. Though I suppose I'd just end up with C++, minus the old annoying baggage.
"Lowlighting doesn't help with this problem. In fact, it makes it worse... why are all those icons monochrome?"
This is a problem with a particular Linux program, not the Mac, which as I have explained previously, highlights the icons that fit the search criteria. Linux is awash with examples of dreadful UI design (although both the Mac and Windows have their fair share of them too), and this sounds like yet another.
Highlighting doesn't work with a narrowing search as everything matches initially. So either the Mac doesn't do this in a narrowing search, or, more likely, it does indeed lowlight them. Hence, the problem remains. Thankfully, since it also provides a dropdown list with only the matching items, the problem is mitigated. The linux clone is, as I started out saying, horrible, and I suggest any Kubuntu user instantly removes it from the system. KConfig is far superior, and the default KDE config anyway.
"That argument is only relevant with something you do often. Configuring the system is hopefully not one of them, unless it is severely broken."
Unfortunately, it may well be one of the things that people who are new to KDE have to do, so bad design choices here can sour the initial experience. Huh? It has nothing to do with bad design. Once more, laying out something the same way every time only helps if you do the same thing several times --- like 100 of times. Unlikely to happen with configuration.
"But in a narrowing search, greying out is bonkers"
This does I think depend on what's being searched. It makes perfect sense in the Mac's System Preference dialogue, which has a relatively small number of fixed options displayed on a square grid of icons, all of which are visible whenever the dialogue is opened -- it would however be an extremely poor choice for files, which can exist in very large numbers, and are liable to change on a fairly regular basis. There is no single mechanism that is equally well suited to everything.
Ah. As I suspected, it works because Mac has fairly limited customisability. Fits with my Gnome extreme view of Macs.
There is no adequate heuristic for this, because so much depends on (a) how many items there are, (b) the way they're presented, and (c) whether they change on a regular basis.
My heuristic is perfectly fine for a heuristic. (a) is irrelevant, no sane person would make a narrowing search for 5 items. (b) and (c) is just lame, it doesn't matter how they are presented, not whether it is used often, it still have to be done in a userfriendly manner.
"I always view Mac OS as a sort of Gnome extreme --- very our-way-or-the-highway like"
This is a very valid criticism.
It wasn't meant as a criticism. It is good for certain people. One of the Gnome people formulated it as "get the hell out of my way" --- contrast this to KDEs "empowerment"... KDE wants to work for the user, Gnome wants to be invisible. I always tagged Mac in the Gnome way, just even more so.
However, the other side of the coin is that a disciplined and highly integrated system is much easier for newbs to learn than a more anarchic one that incorporates a whole bunch of distinct ideas, and the very lack of flexibility in the Mac GUI that irks experienced KDE users also means that there's a much higher chance of non-technical but otherwise experienced Mac people being able to walk up to an arbitrary Macintosh and start using it straight away. Thus, while I doubt that a person who really likes KDE would be happy with a Mac, it's also likely that one who loves the Apple way would profoundly unhappy with KDE, so we should celebrate the fact that there's still a choice despite Microsoft's attempts to establish a worldwide monoculture where every computing device of any description (general purpose or embedded) pays a royalty to them.
"I hate the lowlighting stuff: if something is irrelevant, removing it altogether (like KConfig does) is infinitely clearer and better."
The problem with your preferred method is twofold:
1) People who leave a search term in place (or accidentally type some rubbish in that the system "thinks" is a search term) may be presented with an incomplete list of options, and not know why, or how to get the full list back again.
Lowlighting doesn't help with this problem. In fact, it makes it worse... why are all those icons monochrome? They don't work, either. The correct solution to this problem is a clear marking (with text) that you are seeing a subset according to the search terms. Incidentially, removing the items altogether clears up space for this.
2) The whole desktop metaphor is based on spatial awareness, which is lost if items keep moving around, disappearing, etc. This is a major reason for so many users disliking the new UI in MS Office -- they'd learned _where_ things were on previous versions, and don't like the fact that they've not only moved, by keep doing so based on context. Rubbish:p That argument is only relevant with something you do often. Configuring the system is hopefully not one of them, unless it is severely broken.
"Anyway, good thing that part of Mac, at least, isn't screwy, even if it still have a way to come to be on par:)"
While I agree that some things in KDE that are better than their OS X equivalents (and it has things that OS X doesn't have, although the reverse is also true) , UI elements that appear and disappear isn't one of them.
I'm not talking about random UI elements... indeed, in a menu bar, leaving some items in greyed out might be better, if you make sure that hover (or similar) explains why they are greyed out. But in a narrowing search, greying out is bonkers. Think of a list with 100 items, and you have to hunt for the 2 that is not greyed out? That would be highly annoying.
I find that a good rule of the thumb is that if you are ever greying out more than 1/2, greying out is not the way to go.
About features either way, I really don't now. I have only ever used a Mac for a few minutes at the time, which was (as can only be expected) a highly annoying and frustrating experience. Time pressure and a new interfaces just doesn't mix:) I always view Mac OS as a sort of Gnome extreme --- very our-way-or-the-highway like:) But don't shoot me if I'm wrong, it's all second hand.
Actually, it may be better not to remove entirely, since this will make the UI jump about. Generally, if possible, the UI's positioning should remain constant. The true answer would need research... but don't assume that you are right because you have an opinion. My opinion is that the way Spotlight works is better than others I have tried on KDE and GNOME, but that doesn't make it universally true.
Of course it's just my opinion:) Having tried both in KDE (Kubuntus vs KDEs) I find the one where the irrelevant ones are removed entirely better. Firstly, because the list doesn't "jump about"... it contracts, which is not (as) confusing. Perhaps a touch of animation might make it even better. Secondly, because when I'm searching, I'm usually eliminating most (4 of 5 at least) entries. Having all those deactivated items in the list doesn't help me. Maybe it works on the Mac because it is less powerful optionwise (so fewer options). On KDE where the list is quite long, it breaks horribly.
Looking at again, I think maybe the best way would be to drop the category items list altogether, and instead add the icons in a small version after or before each listed "hit". Maybe something to code up and try, it should be easy enough.
" I hear it is a clone from the Mac; if so I pity the Mac people for yet another reason."
OS X's "System Preferences" dialogue has a search bar that works extremely well: it not only drops down a list of "hits", but highlights the applet(s) containing each term as one moves through them, and will take users to the correct page of the relevant applet when a term is selected. The Kubuntu configuration system you are describing is not therefore a clone of the Mac one, irrespective of what you may have heard. So it has a dropdown list --- Kubuntu's config doesn't. I suppose that makes the apple version tolerable. I hate the lowlighting stuff: if something is irrelevant, removing it altogether (like KConfig does) is infinitely clearer and better. I don't understand the bit about "taking users to the correct page"... how else could it work? Anyway, good thing that part of Mac, at least, isn't screwy, even if it still have a way to come to be on par:)
The option that always pisses me off is the one that allows you to change from 'single-click activate' to 'double-click activate'. I end up looking through all the various "Look & Feel" panels to no avail. (Yes, I know where the option is, but I have to hunt for it every time.)
It took me 10 seconds to find, even though I didn't know it was there. How? Open KControl. Type "double" in the search bar. Select the first suggestion.
Of course, this wouldn't work with the awful, awful configuration dialog that Kubuntu supplies. Deinstall it, it is not worth the bytes on your harddrive. I hear it is a clone from the Mac; if so I pity the Mac people for yet another reason.
The main problem, to me, is that KDE doesn't differentiate between per-user and system-wide System Settings, but the labels imply that it does. "Personal" and "Look & Feel" are obviously per-user, and "Computer Administration" implies to me that those are system-wide. In reality, it's a mish-mash of the two. This is an important distinction for me, as my wife and I both use the same computer with different profiles. That's a good point. Is there a bug report on this on the bug tracker? Of course, you can infer it from the question "does changing this setting require a password?", but I suppose it could be made clearer than that.
I rather think you lost the point 5 levels up:p We were discussing what was pre-installed with the OS, not the computer. Getting linux preinstalled on a computer is not exactly difficult anymore, but then I've never bought computers at "main, commercial outlets", whatever that is. Not Walmart, I presume.
As for the driver issue, the difference between having a driver included with an OS and requiring the user to stick a CD in their drive to install it is a hell of a lot less than the difference between having a driver and not having a driver at all.
Sure. If it works, which they often do, but far from always. If not, you can hunt for the webpage, if any, and maybe get to download a new driver, which may work, may not work, or may make you entire system unstable. That is my windows experience, which is admittedly back to the windows 2000 (?) version I think.
Nay, I prefer the linux way. Do a quick web search before buying (I never buy anything except at webshops anyway), verifying that this piece of hardware is supported, buy and plug it in... and it just works. No playing with drivers, bad CDs, crappy websites... it just works. But each to their own:) I , for one, was reaaalllly tired of fighting the OS to get the graphic card to work *and* the hard disk driver *and* the netcard. 2 out of 3 on windows was easy enough, but I never managed all 3. That was the last time I tried, I really don't see the point in fighting your computer anymore. Certainly not to the tune of 100 euro, which the license is around here.
fanatics might attack because they think the act will give them some other reward. For instance, if we take a purely hypothetical example, religious fanatics might be told by their Pastor to attack the web site of some godless politician
Right on. Richard Dawkins (noted Atheist) has a forum which was DoS not long ago (the DoS'er bragged about it too, on their own forum). Sad, really. The forum stayed up, but was slow, so it wasn't that bad. T
Linux has no pre-installed software for the simple reason that unless you go to some obscure vendor that the average person has probably never heard of Linux is never pre-installed itself.
Nonsense. A standard linux distro comes with at least a full office suite (openoffice or maybe koffice), a good paint program, vector program, movie player, firewall (frontends) and so on and so forth. Thousands of piece of software.
As for drivers, there may be a larger number of them for Linux, but there's still a significant chance that any given gadget that someone picks up off the store shelves will have not work in Linux at all, while it will always work in Windows. (whether or not it works well is, of course, another matter entirely.)
They will typically work in windows *less* often than they will just work in linux. However, the gadget will include a driver, which you can *post*install in windows to make it work. Get it? *Post*-install. When it comes to preinstalled software linux wins handsdown, and only fools dispute this. However, postinstall is much more dicey. Most gagdets comes with drivers that may or maybe not work on your particular flavor of windows, and there is a huge (and expensive!) array of software available to mostly to windows, and another huge (and free!) array of software available to mostly linux, but some are ported to windows as well.
The big problem with Linux distros is a lack of usable, pre-installed software and working drivers.
Wrong. Linux distros have far more drivers and preinstalled software than any flavor of windows and mac combined. In fact, it is exactly in the postinstalled market that windows (maybe mac, but I don't think so) stands stronger. Man, I am tired of *that* myth:)
Anything made under the CPL will be incompatible with so much good stuff, it really isn't worth it. I have a (probably vain) hope that CPL will be compatible with GPLv3, and thus resolve the whole mess. But until then, I try to stay clear of CPL code.
Slashdot Mirror
Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion.
Agnosticism is the absence of decisiveness.
When you have zero evidence, lack of decisiveness is by far and away the most sensible response. Completely correct, if a rather uncommon case. Anyway, the above was a joke. Well, I laughed anyway when I read it for the first few times
(Agnoscism is also a philosophical worldview, which is another matter altogether) :)
Copyright infringement is a economic crime. So, the punishment should be of an economic nature --- a fine. No reason to put anything in his criminal record either. For downloading, I suggest 2*(price of movie at time)/(chance of discovery). For uploading, I'd suggest a very similar amount... the damagde to the "victim" is greater, yet his personal gain is less. So, same fine.
Sure, but no sane RSS reader is going to read the DTD, parse it and validate the served XML. Nor will a browser chew through the (humongous) XHTML DTD and then validate it against this DTD. Rather, such application will have the structure of the XHTML hardwired into the application, and ignore any unknown tags. The only check would be to check if the DTD is known, plus any structure tests that the application chooses to implement --- usually the free ones.
Authoring tools are, of course, another matter, but those would probably want the relevant DTDs locally installed anyway.
Is there some technical reason I'm not aware of that means it has to stay somewhere central?
There shouldn't be, yet I would be greatly surprised if some application didn't match on the entire DTD string, hostname and all.
I am equally baffled at what applications need the DTD for anyway. Except for generic XML applications, what use is a DTD? Most applications only handles a fixed few XML document types anyway.
Finally, if they really need that DTD... any distro have most major DTDs available. No reason why they couldn't carry a few extra. Should be easy to just search for them locally.
if you change "any of the viewers" to "any significant number of viewers"...sure.
If I assume that some viewers found out the falseness of the claims, why wouldn't they document their findings so as to help the entire world avoid such misguided beliefs, while the entire population at the time was actively hostile to such beliefs?
Have you ever watched Life of Brian? I think that movie shows how such things could happen well enough, if with more than a touch of sarcasm :) There are always some willing to believe - and defend their beliefs - any crackpot. At first the authorities will ignore those early fanatics. Usually such groups die out quickly, but occasionally the group grows numerous. When the authorities inevitable attempts to rein in or destroy the group, they sometimes fails. At this point, the group has an external enemy, which you know is the single best thing to keep the group together. When you get to the stage where people have believed some nonsense all their life, they are very unwilling to let go, and teach it to their children. Who was it who said "misery loves company"? Fooliness is another human trait that loves company, and spreads.
Jesus was one of the few persons that did miracles all over the place.
Lol. Jesus, if he existed, performed no miracles. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, and for the same reasons.
They could just document one single instance of false belief and everything would collapse.
Where is it? Or is it just that they didn't pay attention to Him? Then why did they crucify Him? Why do they claim that He was an impostor?
According to the bible, they crucified him for rioting, didn't they? I'm sorry, I am not well versed in this particular fable. The jewish priesthood had a lot of reason (centered around power) for killing him. A bad move anyway, probably. Then, it might just be a fictional story.
The had an agenda.
You may be aware that Jewish faith states that Jesus was an impostor. What's simpler than preserving the evidence that proves that? Why hasn't it happened? Did even foreign dogmas conspire to spread a lie that would undermine them?
No doubt they tried, and failed. Also, considering that the jewish were hard pressed by an occupation at the time, they might not have been terrible interested in what must have been a little oddball religion at the time.
Let me put this a different way: A big part of the civilized world has been tricked by those 13 people for 2000 years?
It wouldn't have been the first time, nor the last. Of course, they were helped by a lot of people. Even today, if I walk into a church, I will find a man who will swear that a bread and wine turns into human tissue and blood in a cannibalistic ritual. Do you believe that? Does he? Somehow I doubt he really does, deep down.
Today there is no lack of such evidence.
What evidence? Has there ever existed before a conspiracy that lasts for over 2000 years, with the only purpose of spreading "love each other"? This doesn't mean that it cannot exist, it just makes it extremely unlikely and stupid.
I haven't mentioned any conspiracy, nor do I believe there really is one. Religion is just gullibility, wishful thinking and self-delusion. No conspiracy necessary, though of course there are those who will see the power in religion an twist it to their own purpose. As religious people have no sound foundation on which to build their personal philosophy, I suspect that they are particulary volunerable to this sort of explotation.
Not the entire world. They tricked enough for long enough, then arms, thumbscrews and human gullibility did the rest.
Why did the early Christians sacrifice their lives for this faith? They were gullible or for
Can you seriously support that Jesus Christ and His students staged all the events known as "miracles"?
That is one of the possibilities. Most likely it is a combination of fraud, gullibility and wishful thinking.
Can you seriously support that today 13 people can stage everything mentioned in the New Testament in public view without any of the viewers ever finding out the truth, all these in a actively hostile to the performers environment and outside a TV studio?
if you change "any of the viewers" to "any significant number of viewers"...sure.
You basically claim that they were the best magicians of all time, yet no one ever learned their tricks so as to reproduce them today?
That seems pretty standard for magician. But I still didn't say I really believe it was all magician's tricks. Most of it is probably made up.
Why didn't the Jewish scribes and priests preserve the evidence that proves the falseness of the New Testament?
Why would they? The had an agenda.
A big part of the civilised world has been tricked by those 13 people?
Yep. Not the first, nor the last time that has happended. Remember e.g. the corn circles? To quote: The human capacity to believe what it wants to believe, rather than what is likely, or even possible, has never ceased to astound me. "God has not been proven not to exist, ergo, he must exist".
Why did the entire world for 2000 years conspire to hide the evidence to the contrary?
Do you know the Spanish inquisition? Today there is no lack of such evidence.
Does your belief assume that Roman guards, some Jews, Jesus and a dozen of fishermen (among other professions) where able to conspire in order to trick the entire world for 2000 years?
Not the entire world. They tricked enough for long enough, then arms, thumbscrews and human gullibility did the rest.
What was the motive of their performance?
Fame? Greed? Wishful thinking? Desire to make people nice to each other? Wouldn't you lie if it would make men stop raping women? Would you lie for world peace?
Does their writings' spirit and line of thought match this expectation? They were the people to advocate "love each other" for the first time in history, yet they were trying to manipulate everyone else that Jesus is the God? Why? Why cannot I apply your logic to physical phenomena and treat everything as staged by a very clever magician?
You can, but a wall would still hurt you if you walk into it :)
If they appear to do the impossible, most likely the appearances are deceiving
That's not how science works. Science needs evidence and nothing is impossible, provided that it can be observed and reproduced.
What I wrote. But extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proofs, and it is not my job to dig that up for every mad claim out there. I could do little else, then.
the J-myth are backed by very dubious evidence.
Have you tried to see whether what Jesus was claiming is true? That's the essence of His teaching, that's the only way to prove that He was wrong. I know that He was right; so do lots of people around the world. I know it's not of much use to you, that's why I'm offering a way to check my facts.
Thanks, but I'll leave that to others. I am only one man, and I have no time for this particular silliness :) Not that am I against the idea of turning the other cheek and so far. I just don't believe this god silliness.
He was either non-existing, a charlatan or a tool.
What's the evidence that supports that He wasn't who He said He was? What makes that evidence more worthy than mine?
Appears to. A man, who apparently was blind since birth and so forth. Look, magicians are good, they could easily fake all of the above. I once saw two magician (apparently) shoot each other with bullets (marked on the scene by a volunteer), through 3 panes of glass. Both caught the other's bullet with his teeth. Apparently. Yet, though I have no idea how, I do not believe that they actually did this. Same with the Jesus myth: If he actually appeared to do any of the stuff he is attributed to doing, he was faking it. In other words, a charlatan.
As far as I'm aware, nothing about physical phenomena that appear in ordinary life on earth is missing an explanation, if you exclude the open questions of science. What I mean is that there is no scientist that could possibly claim with any degree of certainty that people can do today what Jesus did 2000 years ago. In trying to refute this truth, you reach irrational conclusions via irrational (and wrong) assumptions.Little evidence have survived the 2000 year span. My assumptions is the same with Jesus as anyone else: If they appear to do the impossible, most likely the appearances are deceiving. Of course, giving enough hard evidence, I might revise my idea of impossible, but if anything, the J-myth are backed by very dubious evidence.
As for the historical evidence about the existence of Jesus, someone would think that we have at least 6 accounts for that by His students and one more by Josephus, a jewish historian. I'm really curious about who says otherwise and whether his claims are accepted by the scientific community.Hmm. I forget the name, it was an entire book. Darn, I hate my poor memory. Ah, google to the rescue: Did Jesus exists?. I don't have the necessary feel with the historical community to know whether this is an accepted historical hypothesis. Myself, I am undecided. He was either non-existing, a charlatan or a tool.
People accept Jesus as God himself, because everything He said and did is true. Nothing more, nothing less.Then people are delusional. There is no garden gnomes, no fairies, no flying ufos or any other wishful thinking. There is just you, me and everyone and everything else.
(Note: I'm not saying that Jesus actually did any of these things. But I'm having trouble coming up with a neater trick for a human to perform than overcoming mortality.)
There are show magicians who saw their victims - or themselves - in half --- now, that's brutal! Then the victim gets up (smoke might be involved here), whole and sound. And this is not three days later, but a few minutes later. Really, that J-man is totally outclassed.
Why can't people accept that even if he existed (and some people make a good case that he didn't), he was most likely a charlatan?
I will probably be modded down for this, but until Windows get better hardware support, it just won't be ready for the mainstream ;)
Yeah, why have compile-time types at all? Let's throw all that away, who needs it? You'll get a stacktrace if you encounter the bug while running. And overloading? Who ever needs to overload on a List<float> vs. List<int>, say? No need for that, we can just sample the elements to see if they are of one type or the other.
EU doesn't mean all of Europe, just like US doesn't mean all of America. Just the member states. Both lists are on wikipedia :)
Making it stop throwing away type information (generics) would be very, very nice. This is imho one of the greatest current flaws in Java. I fear it will mean changing the JVM, though.
In case anyone wonders: From the perspective of the JVM, List<String> is the same as List. If you can't see why this is bad, take a breath and think again. Think casts. Think interfaces.
Besides this, I could make a very, very long wishlist for Java. Though I suppose I'd just end up with C++, minus the old annoying baggage.
This is a problem with a particular Linux program, not the Mac, which as I have explained previously, highlights the icons that fit the search criteria. Linux is awash with examples of dreadful UI design (although both the Mac and Windows have their fair share of them too), and this sounds like yet another.
Highlighting doesn't work with a narrowing search as everything matches initially. So either the Mac doesn't do this in a narrowing search, or, more likely, it does indeed lowlight them. Hence, the problem remains. Thankfully, since it also provides a dropdown list with only the matching items, the problem is mitigated. The linux clone is, as I started out saying, horrible, and I suggest any Kubuntu user instantly removes it from the system. KConfig is far superior, and the default KDE config anyway.
"That argument is only relevant with something you do often. Configuring the system is hopefully not one of them, unless it is severely broken."Unfortunately, it may well be one of the things that people who are new to KDE have to do, so bad design choices here can sour the initial experience. Huh? It has nothing to do with bad design. Once more, laying out something the same way every time only helps if you do the same thing several times --- like 100 of times. Unlikely to happen with configuration. "But in a narrowing search, greying out is bonkers"
This does I think depend on what's being searched. It makes perfect sense in the Mac's System Preference dialogue, which has a relatively small number of fixed options displayed on a square grid of icons, all of which are visible whenever the dialogue is opened -- it would however be an extremely poor choice for files, which can exist in very large numbers, and are liable to change on a fairly regular basis. There is no single mechanism that is equally well suited to everything.
Ah. As I suspected, it works because Mac has fairly limited customisability. Fits with my Gnome extreme view of Macs.
There is no adequate heuristic for this, because so much depends on (a) how many items there are, (b) the way they're presented, and (c) whether they change on a regular basis.My heuristic is perfectly fine for a heuristic. (a) is irrelevant, no sane person would make a narrowing search for 5 items. (b) and (c) is just lame, it doesn't matter how they are presented, not whether it is used often, it still have to be done in a userfriendly manner.
"I always view Mac OS as a sort of Gnome extreme --- very our-way-or-the-highway like"This is a very valid criticism.
It wasn't meant as a criticism. It is good for certain people. One of the Gnome people formulated it as "get the hell out of my way" --- contrast this to KDEs "empowerment"... KDE wants to work for the user, Gnome wants to be invisible. I always tagged Mac in the Gnome way, just even more so.
However, the other side of the coin is that a disciplined and highly integrated system is much easier for newbs to learn than a more anarchic one that incorporates a whole bunch of distinct ideas, and the very lack of flexibility in the Mac GUI that irks experienced KDE users also means that there's a much higher chance of non-technical but otherwise experienced Mac people being able to walk up to an arbitrary Macintosh and start using it straight away. Thus, while I doubt that a person who really likes KDE would be happy with a Mac, it's also likely that one who loves the Apple way would profoundly unhappy with KDE, so we should celebrate the fact that there's still a choice despite Microsoft's attempts to establish a worldwide monoculture where every computing device of any description (general purpose or embedded) pays a royalty to them.I agree 100% :)
"I hate the lowlighting stuff: if something is irrelevant, removing it altogether (like KConfig does) is infinitely clearer and better."
The problem with your preferred method is twofold:
1) People who leave a search term in place (or accidentally type some rubbish in that the system "thinks" is a search term) may be presented with an incomplete list of options, and not know why, or how to get the full list back again.
Lowlighting doesn't help with this problem. In fact, it makes it worse... why are all those icons monochrome? They don't work, either. The correct solution to this problem is a clear marking (with text) that you are seeing a subset according to the search terms. Incidentially, removing the items altogether clears up space for this.
2) The whole desktop metaphor is based on spatial awareness, which is lost if items keep moving around, disappearing, etc. This is a major reason for so many users disliking the new UI in MS Office -- they'd learned _where_ things were on previous versions, and don't like the fact that they've not only moved, by keep doing so based on context. RubbishWhile I agree that some things in KDE that are better than their OS X equivalents (and it has things that OS X doesn't have, although the reverse is also true) , UI elements that appear and disappear isn't one of them.
I'm not talking about random UI elements... indeed, in a menu bar, leaving some items in greyed out might be better, if you make sure that hover (or similar) explains why they are greyed out. But in a narrowing search, greying out is bonkers. Think of a list with 100 items, and you have to hunt for the 2 that is not greyed out? That would be highly annoying.
I find that a good rule of the thumb is that if you are ever greying out more than 1/2, greying out is not the way to go.
About features either way, I really don't now. I have only ever used a Mac for a few minutes at the time, which was (as can only be expected) a highly annoying and frustrating experience. Time pressure and a new interfaces just doesn't mix :) I always view Mac OS as a sort of Gnome extreme --- very our-way-or-the-highway like :) But don't shoot me if I'm wrong, it's all second hand.
Of course it's just my opinion :) Having tried both in KDE (Kubuntus vs KDEs) I find the one where the irrelevant ones are removed entirely better. Firstly, because the list doesn't "jump about"... it contracts, which is not (as) confusing. Perhaps a touch of animation might make it even better. Secondly, because when I'm searching, I'm usually eliminating most (4 of 5 at least) entries. Having all those deactivated items in the list doesn't help me. Maybe it works on the Mac because it is less powerful optionwise (so fewer options). On KDE where the list is quite long, it breaks horribly.
Looking at again, I think maybe the best way would be to drop the category items list altogether, and instead add the icons in a small version after or before each listed "hit". Maybe something to code up and try, it should be easy enough.
Ideas like this is why I love discussing stuff :)
OS X's "System Preferences" dialogue has a search bar that works extremely well: it not only drops down a list of "hits", but highlights the applet(s) containing each term as one moves through them, and will take users to the correct page of the relevant applet when a term is selected. The Kubuntu configuration system you are describing is not therefore a clone of the Mac one, irrespective of what you may have heard. So it has a dropdown list --- Kubuntu's config doesn't. I suppose that makes the apple version tolerable. I hate the lowlighting stuff: if something is irrelevant, removing it altogether (like KConfig does) is infinitely clearer and better. I don't understand the bit about "taking users to the correct page"... how else could it work? Anyway, good thing that part of Mac, at least, isn't screwy, even if it still have a way to come to be on par
It took me 10 seconds to find, even though I didn't know it was there. How? Open KControl. Type "double" in the search bar. Select the first suggestion.
Of course, this wouldn't work with the awful, awful configuration dialog that Kubuntu supplies. Deinstall it, it is not worth the bytes on your harddrive. I hear it is a clone from the Mac; if so I pity the Mac people for yet another reason.
The main problem, to me, is that KDE doesn't differentiate between per-user and system-wide System Settings, but the labels imply that it does. "Personal" and "Look & Feel" are obviously per-user, and "Computer Administration" implies to me that those are system-wide. In reality, it's a mish-mash of the two. This is an important distinction for me, as my wife and I both use the same computer with different profiles. That's a good point. Is there a bug report on this on the bug tracker? Of course, you can infer it from the question "does changing this setting require a password?", but I suppose it could be made clearer than that.Mark him as foe, and set those up to -6 in your preferences (and anonymous people too, if needed). Then browse at 0+. Not perfect, but it would work.
I rather think you lost the point 5 levels up :p We were discussing what was pre-installed with the OS, not the computer. Getting linux preinstalled on a computer is not exactly difficult anymore, but then I've never bought computers at "main, commercial outlets", whatever that is. Not Walmart, I presume.
As for the driver issue, the difference between having a driver included with an OS and requiring the user to stick a CD in their drive to install it is a hell of a lot less than the difference between having a driver and not having a driver at all.Sure. If it works, which they often do, but far from always. If not, you can hunt for the webpage, if any, and maybe get to download a new driver, which may work, may not work, or may make you entire system unstable. That is my windows experience, which is admittedly back to the windows 2000 (?) version I think.
Nay, I prefer the linux way. Do a quick web search before buying (I never buy anything except at webshops anyway), verifying that this piece of hardware is supported, buy and plug it in... and it just works. No playing with drivers, bad CDs, crappy websites... it just works. But each to their own :) I , for one, was reaaalllly tired of fighting the OS to get the graphic card to work *and* the hard disk driver *and* the netcard. 2 out of 3 on windows was easy enough, but I never managed all 3. That was the last time I tried, I really don't see the point in fighting your computer anymore. Certainly not to the tune of 100 euro, which the license is around here.
Right on. Richard Dawkins (noted Atheist) has a forum which was DoS not long ago (the DoS'er bragged about it too, on their own forum). Sad, really. The forum stayed up, but was slow, so it wasn't that bad. T
Nonsense. A standard linux distro comes with at least a full office suite (openoffice or maybe koffice), a good paint program, vector program, movie player, firewall (frontends) and so on and so forth. Thousands of piece of software.
As for drivers, there may be a larger number of them for Linux, but there's still a significant chance that any given gadget that someone picks up off the store shelves will have not work in Linux at all, while it will always work in Windows. (whether or not it works well is, of course, another matter entirely.)They will typically work in windows *less* often than they will just work in linux. However, the gadget will include a driver, which you can *post*install in windows to make it work. Get it? *Post*-install. When it comes to preinstalled software linux wins handsdown, and only fools dispute this. However, postinstall is much more dicey. Most gagdets comes with drivers that may or maybe not work on your particular flavor of windows, and there is a huge (and expensive!) array of software available to mostly to windows, and another huge (and free!) array of software available to mostly linux, but some are ported to windows as well.
Take heart then. KDE4 are looking to get excellent support for managing hardware with Solid. (using HAL and friends as backends, as I gather).
I'm going to miss all those K's. What would have been wrong with Kolid? ;)
Wrong. Linux distros have far more drivers and preinstalled software than any flavor of windows and mac combined. In fact, it is exactly in the postinstalled market that windows (maybe mac, but I don't think so) stands stronger. Man, I am tired of *that* myth :)
Anything made under the CPL will be incompatible with so much good stuff, it really isn't worth it. I have a (probably vain) hope that CPL will be compatible with GPLv3, and thus resolve the whole mess. But until then, I try to stay clear of CPL code.