Of course you realize that you don't fit both descriptions and there is no irony.
In regards to agnosticism, you missed my point, the agnostic's views do not fall between atheist and christian. There is essentially no real difference between atheist and agnostic beliefs from the christian perspective. The assimilation is attempted because christians don't understand what agnosticism is. So, if you think that it's valid for christians to attempt this, then you are asserting that christians are unable to think about the definitions of the very ideas they are critical of.
The rest of what you have to say is meaningless. Beliefs that are without a clear path to making them knowledge are the waste dump of the human psyche.
Option B is something some people can assert, but again, it requires a fair amount of evidence to back it up. Evidence which, by the nature of the question, cannot or does not exist ("is there evidence for or against god?" "no, because we have no evidence of god").
Don't twist my words. I'm not coming down on the politically correct side of "every position is equal and one can't really know". I am criticising theist's, and primarily christian beliefs. The evidence that god exists or doesn't exist are not equivalent in terms of necessary evidence.
There is so much contradiction in the bible in regards to what are the attributes of god that one hardly knows where to begin.
My point was that christians DO assert god exists and must defend their position and yet christians can't successfully defend even the tiniest subset of their beliefs without resorting to the "f" word.
B) There is no god and humans are wasting their time searching for one.
Allow me to suggest an alternative. Suppose there is a god (this is a thought experiment, not a statement of position), what evidence do you have that requires people even spend any time thinking about him/it. I love how believers project an immature human psyche on god. Don't you think that if you could create something as fantastic as the universe that you could probably get along ok without the insipid worship of humans.
In other words, humans could be wasting their time even if god does exist. No religious belief system has any evidence that their view is right and others are wrong. What if all earthly religions are the work of satan? If you believe satan has the power to affect people's lives then you have to concede this as a possiblity. Then EVERY believer on the planet is doomed to a burn in hell for eternity.
If god is the most intelligent thing in existence, then don't you think god would respect critical thought, otherwise, why would he have given us the ability to think. It then follows that the people that god would choose would be those that think critically and choose not to accept him without evidence of his existence. Thus, heaven is full of atheists and agnostics.
I have NEVER met a christian who could successfully defend his beliefs without resorting to the "f" word. In all cases, defense comes down to faith or the casting of doubt. I can use those same arguments to prove the existence of anything, including santa claus, or that christian favorite, satan.
Insert the word only before the word see. Now, do you still hold that position? Then what are you praying to?
Christians frequently try to use that position to avoid the truth that they really believe god is an "actual being." I suspect you are also. Christians cannot deny that they believe in the supernatural by suggesting that their position is congruent with the agnostic one. If you pray then either you believe god is a being in some sense of the word and that he/she/it can hear you in some way, or, you are just praying to the trees.
If you are praying to the trees you either believe the trees can hear you, in which case you're a nutjob. Or, you recognize that prayer is nothing more than self programming, in which case you are an agnostic.
I think few atheists will deny that prayer has real affect on humans. But not in the way believers would like. The affects are merely psychological.
Of course when I say agnostic I mean someone that asserts no belief in god. Most christians would consider that person to hold the atheist position.
If you are an agnostic and then become a christian, I doubt you were ever agnostic. A true agnostic doesn't see any evidence FOR god. Since we haven't had any plagues of locusts or sweeping unexplainable deaths yada yada yada, there is no new "testable" evidence that god exists, thus no reason to change ones position from agnostic to believer. Evidence, must be testable, it isn't personal. One cannot claim they realized god exists without presenting evidence that can be tested. If that is your position, then you didn't have a stance on the issue that was intellectually defendable. You were, by definition, a believer when you were claiming the agnostic position if you think that all that is required to switch is faith.
I find it hilarious how so many christians can interpret the agnostic postition as one that just needs a little more coaxing.
To this I say, "Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't."
This is a logical fallacy often made by christians. While there are many "strong athiests" who would argue that god doesn't exist, Christians cannot avoid defending an assertion because others do. The vast majority of athiests might be called agnostic by some, but whichever word you use the result is essentiall the same.
One can make an assertion that god exists.
One can make an assertion that god doesn't exist.
One can make neither assertion.
The third choice is the only one that does not require defense. As a christian, of almost any sort, you cannot avoid the burden of proof that is on you. Christians cannot claim the third choice. If you claim to see god in the trees and the beauty of the world, you are making the agnostic argument and you are a nonbeliever. If you pray, you are a believer. If you believe in the supernatural, e.g. the soul, you are a believer.
Believers, make an assertion that god exists. Thus, they have an obligation to prove god exists. Many, if not most nonbelievers either make no such assertion, or make a more restricted version of the assertion. A more restricted assertion for example might be "there is no omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent being". More importantly if one says "I do not believe in god", it is fair to be claiming the third assertion. One can fairly rephrase that "I make no assertion that god exists." Therefore, there is no defense of this position necessary.
Finally, proof is a strong word, and something no believer has come close to developing. Perhaps try developing some evidence first. Or, perhaps even just a simple observable test. Perhaps instead of trying to defend such a large assertion, why not start with a smaller one like one of these:
Can god hear prayers?
Does he have ears to hear them?
Does he hear all of them, or just some?
Do saints talk to god?
If so, does god need saints to talk to him?
Where is heaven?
Can god make a triangle with four sides?
yada yada yada
The point of course, is that these are not the assertions of some fringe element of christianity, but rather, the mainstream. I assert none of the above, if you assert any of it, then the burden of proof is on you.
I don't find OS9 to be friendly at all, just annoying. I do like OS X. I find windows 9x or 2k much better than Classic OS. That is, of course, if I can't use linux.
As someone already pointed out, it isn't fun. Accounting software is almost always shit. Who wants to spend their time on that? Whether people "deserve" the freedom of open source is beside the point. Those people "have" the freedom to write it themselves, thus they already have the freedom they "deserve".
Open source POS will happen when somebody who values it gets involved with the open source community.
It sucks in that it's not going to produce software that meets the needs of anyone but the team working on it - unlike closed source software, and commercially supported software. Not a point you care about, but...
That doesn't necessarily follow. You are suggesting that open source won't meet the needs of someone not on the team. Why not, because they are thinking of their own needs first? It follows that if someone else has to solve the same problem then that person's needs might be met by the software that was written to meet those needs.
In other words, you are assuming that nobody else has the same needs as the developers. The obvious example to this is developer software. Usually written to meet the needs of the person writing it, think PERL, but others have the same need.
I think your reference to other developers is just a red herring. I see no evidence that developers take issue with how open source is managed.
Are you seriously suggesting that none of those open source zealots who think that it's the best development model, and that it will take over the world, are developers themselves? Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of them. I never said that open source is the best way of developing software - and in fact, I don't think it is. What I did say was that if it really is going to be taken seriously and be useful for real things, developers have to consider the users. And they don't want to.
I don't buy your strawman, that's not my argument. Of course people who believe in open source are developers. I was taking issue with your claim that open source isn't useful to developers. I think you're flat wrong and I bet the most signficant usage of open source tools outside of servers/browsers is development tools. Open source development tools ARE taken seriously and are used everywhere. The last development job I had we did embedded stuff and used GCC/Linux for a lot of it. I've never met a real devloper was afraid of a command line. Open source developers are clearly meeting the needs of other developers without having to provide clippy.
Just because I choose not to provide an alternative doesn't mean I cannot lamment that there are no alternatives. It doesn't mean I cannot criticize those who have the monoply.
Further, it doesn't mean I can't say that the open source model is better. It is primarily better for programmers becasue programmers participate. If artists, businessmen, and writers would also DONATE their time then it would be better for others as well. What open source developers are providing is the content driven purely by the desire to produce code that is right. It isn't code driven by marketing or false deadlines but code that is driven by genuine need or desire to create something worthwhile. That is enough. It could be more usable to end users if joe businessman comes along and pays to have it shrinkwrapped and delivered through whatever means end users want.
The point is that developers are one part of the process of creating products and they are doing their part by participating in the community and creating quality products.
Those developers CAN complain that others don't come to the community and do their part. If joe user wants easy to use software what does joe user give to the community? The easy answer is money. Joe user should pay for his open source software so that someone packages it for him.
I'm not suggesting that joe clicks on the paypal link, I'm suggesting that there is room for others to contribute to the process of building products and I can complain that they don't and say all day long that MS is evil and closed source sucks, just because it's closed.
Personally, I use very few closed source apps and the ones I do use must run on linux or freebsd. I haven't found a replacement for mathematica, for example. I don't use ANY ms software.
That said, I don't see myself as an evangelist. I don't tell people to erase their harddrives and install linux. In fact, I would actively discourage non-techies from it. I don't talk about open source as an alternative for end users because I don't think it is right now. It is becoming an alternative for businesses who have the money to hire support staff such that the end users don't have to worry about install scripts.
I think open source is the right choice for CS/science departments in state supported colleges. I think we should be pushing open source in government and business, primarily from the inside, from our positions, not from our role as developer. Again, there is support staff in these places and the end users don't have to know.
Until open source makes inroads in business and education, the home user market is a waste of time. A thankless expensive proposition that nets little for the developers. Software should no more be free to joe downloader than a hamburger is free to me at mcdonalds. I don't think providing alternatives for him is the point of open source. He'll pay $69 for the easy install version of major apps or use them if they come installed on his cheap new computer. It's still open source even though he has to pay for it. He has to support his needs for friendliness, or translated, his unwillingness to spend time figuruing things out. Why can't he figure things out? He has a mcdonalds to worry about or he sells cars, or works at a bank. He can't figure it out because he's too busy with his life. One cannot leverage joe user for the improvement of open source, and he isn't giving me a free car, or cheeseburger in return. I think redhat et al has it right, it's the server market, it's the browser market but it isn't worth dragging the users to you. Just keep developing good software and eventually users will come because they want to, because they use open office at work and need to be "compatible" at home. Work will use it becasue they aren't stuck in some expensive licensing agreement. It will take time, and time is on the open source developers side. Time creates better software, not marketing.
Bah, this is a book, and not a good one, so I'll just stop...
If this truly is what they want, then there is something that they will have to realize: telling users to "write it yourself or STFU" (as is a common response) is not going to help open source become accepted, and might even lead people to tell others to avoid it.
I disagree. I cite Munich. Clearly, in governments and businesses everywhere there is a movement towards the acceptance of open source because of the cost and the level of quality.
Open source is being used by businesses in embedded products all the time. These business sell software to the end user. There is a market, read not free, for end users who don't want to educate themselves.
People should do what they like, it's even better if you can make a living. But the worst of both is doing what you don't like for no reward.
Otherwise, it's all just a bunch of people programming for themselves. And that kind of self-serving geekiness, in my opinion, really sucks for software development.
In what way does it suck? Granted, a good team can be better than the sum of their parts, but, there is no shortage of team ethic in open source. What there is a shortage of, thankfully, is marketing drones who want a big bonus.
If people want open source to be used, the needs of the common user...will have to be addressed.
I see no evidence that people who aren't working on high profile projects (mozzilla, open office) care if the common guy uses his stuff. It's about sharing with other developers/techies. What all this bitching really highlights is how little nondevelopers contribute to software.
It's open, if the "common man" wants free software, perhaps he should become a part of the community and contribute something.
I think your reference to other developers is just a red herring. I see no evidence that developers take issue with how open source is managed. We just change it ourselves if it isn't exactly what we need. Futher, the one thing that os developers DO care about, reputation, is hurt when they don't address the needs of other developers.
Certainly that's why IT exists, but it is all too frequenly forgotten. In other words, he was surprised at the degree to which I focused on business driven technology.
Yeah some developers want to get open source into the workplace. However, I'll bet most don't give a rats ass. Keep thinking what you're thinking. So what. Who cares what "people at work" associate linux with, why does it "really have to change", because you want it to?
Nothing has to change as long as open source developers are happy with what they do and the way in which their software is being used, NOTHING!
Who cares if joe user is impressed? What's he going to add to open source?
This is what will happen over time:
1) Business will use open source because of the cost. This is already happening, there's no point trying to rabidly convince your boss, success and money will convince him.
2) As it is more successful it will become more widely adopted.
3) Business will have the money to PAY to have support people on staff to make sure it works. This is no different than how it is now for large organizations or how it was several years ago for even small organizations. The average joe businessguy couldn't install netware by himeself.
4) You and your coworkers will use open source software at work because you have to.
5) You and your coworkers will want to use it home becasue it's "compatible."
6) You and your coworkers will march down to compusa and pay $69.95 for the Easy Install version of OpenWhatever.
7) Whoever packages EasyOpenApp will have to PAY to make it easy, either by contracting the original developers, or more likely, simply doing it themselves, bundling it up, and selling it at outlets. Then, because it's open source, it's possible that they'll either have to contribute some source back to the community, or obtain a license from the developers. This is of course dependant on a lot of factors and I'm not trying to suggest it will always happen.
Open source is already successful in the eyes of developers. There's no need to both conform to what the rest of the world wants AND do it for free. If you can't figure it out, get out your wallet.
Separate issue. Open source developers pay the same price of MS and proprietary apps as does anyone else, thus, they have every bit as much right to complain about the quality. Non open source "non-developers" don't pay anything for open source apps and thus have no reason to complain.
MS writes software to make a profit, thus has customers, thus must please them. Open source developers write, primarily, for themselves, thus, they are their own customers and have only to please themselves.
Thus open source developers get to both whine about how much propietary stuff sucks AND criticize outsiders for whining.
Bah! The only motivation to write for endlusers is money. If the author want's to write software for her mom tell her to go right ahead. I could care less and prefer the more technical less marketing bullshit aspect of opensource.
That paper comes off like some sort of college term paper. The author states :
Concepts invented in the world of proprietary software are automatically rejected on the assumption that there's nothing that could possibly be learned from those who are competing with their movement.
Yet provides no evidence to support this is actually true. Frankly, the author seems to have her own bias and is trying to hide behind a pretense of openness. She quotes windows as an example and yet both KDE and Gnome look very similar to windows. Clearly, open source developers take ideas that are good them and use them. Perhaps what the author is complaining about is that noone takes her ideas. Let me be the first to point out to her, in case she doesn't realize it, "MANY OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS HAVE LICENSES THAT ALLOW YOU TO CREATE YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE PROJECT" There's no point in complaining about what other's aren't doing. Instead of writing a silly paper, write some open source documentation instead.
One of the most unrewarding aspects of software development is dealing with the lowest common denominator of users. That's what you have to do when you get paid to do it. She's quite right in pointing out that developers don't want to do this, but she fails to acknowledge that there is no reason for developers to do this. She fails to acknowledge that she isn't a part of the solution. I'm sure open source developers are either aware that there is a learning curve for there software or don't care that there's a learning curve. I'm all for good technical documentation. That is, documentation on the order of the C library reference manual. I could care less about the big foldout poster that depicts with diagrams how to install the sofware by matching up the pictures on the CD with the one on the poster.
People often cite increased manufacturer support as a motivator for increasing the presence of open source. I don't think it's necessary. There is already sufficient penetration that vendors are feeling the neeed to provide linux support. Further, as more businesses and government agencies turn to open source as a cost saving measure, the market share, and hence support will only increase. The point is free is its own reward. Easy comes at a cost. Vendors who make a profit on the sale of technology not only should be the ones to bear that cost, but will do so out of necessity. They can either PAY open source developers to do it, or they can do it themselves. For me, any whining that a free product doesn't suit ones uneducated needs falls on these quite deaf ears.
If you want your opensource product to be on the desk of every mom in the country, then you know what you need to do. Write it yourself, or PAY someone else to do what you need done. I, on the other hand, prefer the selfserving geekiness that is the current state of opensource.
That's not correct. A terminal was THEN around $600. About the same price as a cheapo PC today, but still cheaper than a cheap PC then. If you add the cost of maintaining the PC, the terminal was FAR cheaper.
However, you're missing the point. As I said, I wasn't suggesting that the hospital use terminals, I was questioning the wholesale upgrade of PCs to machines that far exceed the necessary power. In fact, I might suggeset thin clients in such an envrionment.
In regards to why we continued to use terminals I think your opinion is oversimplified and a typical of those that let cool technology drive business decisions. I find it interesting how so many tech-types use these sorts of "but if..." scenarios to drive there decision making when there is no evidence to assume such scenarios would come to fruition. This was seven years ago, they still aren't using "web clients" and I dont' expect they will for some time, if ever.
I have yet to observe that point of sale environments benefit from a gui unless it is a touch screen. The salesguys were fast on terminals and putting touch screens or a mouse in a location where one is frequently wiping gear oil off of the counter doesn't make sense.
Words from my replacement when I left "This is one of the most business centric IT installations I have ever seen."
To access the UNIX mainframe via Rhumba. That's it.
I confess I don't understand this aspect of corporate purchasing. I've worked as a sysadmin for a small local industrial supply company that ran most of their business on AIX. We had a bunch of dumb terminals in places and PCs in others and someone suggested replacing all of the terminals with PCs. I pointed out that the terminals never needed rebooting, seldom needed reconfiguring and were quiet, small, and energy efficient relative to a PC. Further, what exactly were the salesguys going to do with a PC that they couldn't do with a dumb terminal.
The owner agreed, he was old school, if the system was down for any reason that was a pencil and paper training opportunity.
I'm not suggesting that terminals are what's needed in ER. But why isn't more thought put into what technology is appropriate for a given circumstance. What I see is a systematic cyclic computer refresh that just gets whatever is the latest for every desktop. I suppose that it is more difficult, perhaps more costly, to look at every situation independantly. However, at what point is the impact on the environment worth that extra cost?
Some writers and directors consider their work to be art and not something to be trifled with by some right-wing Mormon zealot working for Clearplay in Salt Lake City, Utah. They don't want their movie to jarringly skip over important scenes. They don't want their movies stripped of all emotional impact, adult language, and human sexuality. They don't want the viewer being left confused as to the subtleties of the motivating factors (which were censored out) that drove the characters.
If you are an "artist" then don't give consumers control over how your material is displayed. i.e. don't put out a dvd. You cannot have it both ways, that is complete control over presentation and the revenue stream generated by a medium that is implicitly controlled by the consumer.
Your argument carries a fallacious implicit assumption that the directors/artists rights carry more weight than the person who views them. Once a work of art is purchased or "licensed" then how it is viewed is up to the consumer.
Frankly, I want MORE control. I want to skip the ads and the intros and just get right to the movie.
If you are still trying to learn how to add in calculus class then there are bigger problems.
It is one thing to deride the use of cacluators because they are crutches, it is another thing altogether to deride them because you are a technophobe.
Technology is extremely useful in aiding understanding and exploration of mathematics. If you eliminate calculators and computers in schools, even high schools, you may hurt the chances of your students to succeed in an increasingly technical world.
As usual, I think the correct response is a balanced response. Demonstrate how to use technology as a tool and provide assessment that requires demonstration of ability without the use of a calculator as a crutch.
In a calculus class, for example, divide the exams into two parts, or alternate between calculator allowed, and calculator disallowed exams.
Of course, this has little to nothing to do with the nytimes article but it always seems to come up in these discussions.
The best jobs are available to the best. Therefore, you will have the most choices when you are highly valued by your employer, ergo, the best time to leave your employer is exactly time that it hurts your employer the most.
Always look for new work, always prospect for a better job, and always take it at the moment you are essential to your current employer.
This generally won't happen right away so you don't have to worry about having too many jobs, but you should be planning this from day one of your hire on to any job.
Now you're on your way out, here's what to do:
First make sure your new employer knows that you absolutely cannot leave your current employer out on a limb. Now, take the normal range of notice given in your situation, let's say two weeks. Let your new employer know that you will be able to start at a date that is twice this interval, in this example one month. Further, let your new employer know that you might be able to start earlier if the transition goes well. This usually won't be a problem, the new employer wants you to get started solving his problems right away.
Now, you have two choices depending on how you expect your current employer will react:
1) Wait two weeks and give two weeks notice. If you are working for some seat of the pants operation they may react from emotion and tell you don't bother to come in on monday (see below). Start your new job tommorow.
2) If you are working in a somewhat more proffesional environment, give your employer two weeks notice but let them know you will do whatever it takes to train your replacement. They are now on the spot to hire someone quickly, trust me, it will take two weeks. Now every minute you give to them to train this guy is like a gift, you are doing them a favor, you are a great employeee. Make sure they know you are in transition and that staying this extra time is a compromise but that you are willing to go the extra mile because they have been such a great employer.
Bottom line, you control the situation, you leave on good terms, you have forced your employers hand.
Things to remember:
Employment is a two way street, if you aren't earning money for them (or earning indirectly by saving) then why are they hiring you? Thus, you don't owe your employer anything other than the services he contracted for. It's his problem if he can't make a profit. With that in mind, divorce emotions from your employment activity, if it looks better for you to move right now, then move right now, that's your employer's problem not yours.
Always give notice late on friday afternoon for the same reasons they always fire people late on friday afternoon. You want to give them time to think about any reaction and divorce themselves from any emotional response. Even if your "Employer" is not prone to such a reaction, your managers and coworkers, and you, might be. By giving notice on friday you will have a weekend to relax and reflect on your decision, as will they.
Not directly related, but remember at the exit interview, the correct answer to "Is there anything we cannot tell future employers" the correct response is "you may not tell them anything not allowed by law"
Exactly! In fact I would use this. I recently had a need to install fedora quickly and didn't want to spend the better part of the evening downloading isos and burning disks. I purchased one of those idiotic british linux mags that had fedora pasted to the front for $13 bucks. Most of the time, I'll just download what I want. But if I'm in a hurry, I'd stuff $5 in for a CD that saved me the effort.
Now, take this a bit further. Magazines like whatever that thing was that I purchased could make an arrangement with compusa to sell just the disks off of the front cover for something less than the magazine. After all, I can't be the only guy buying the magazine just for the CD's. Of course I realize that the only reason they put them there is to sell the magazines, however, there have been MANY occasions where I would have poppped a couple of bucks for one of those CDs but not $10 for the magazine. JDJ's every issue ever of JDJ comes to mind. Or past issues of Dr Dobbs.
For that matter, I'd rather have an electronic version of a programming magazine than a print issue if the articles are good and there are bonuses. For example, put 5 past issues of the magazine on the cd with every issue. These past issues should be related to the current issue in some way, not just the most recent issues. Since you are not guaranteed to get an entire collection by purchasing just one issue there would still be the incentive to buy each issue based soley on it's merits. This way, when you are reading an article you have instant and easy access to related past issues. Certainly a lot of this is on the web, but how much time do you want to spend googling versus reading.
Game manufactureres could put older versions of games in there instead of packaging them in a jewel case and putting them in a rack like they do now. Instead of just putting screen shots on the back each cd could have a streaming video demo which is played when you select the button for that choice. A large purchase button would have to be pushed after to actually purchase the product.
Anyone willing to go to the hassle of making a compilation of things that are free and related might serve a need that saves people time.
I think there is potential for such a device that serves a need not met by the internet. I don't want a subscription to magazines or even go through the hassle of filling out a credit card form just for an issue. However, if there's a machine there where I can purchase the current issue of Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar along with five other issues about sensors with all source code and an open source schematic capture sofware package for $5 or so, I might just do it. Especially if I can just stuff in a fiver while I'm waiting in the checkout line.
I don't mean to be a nit but "begging the question" refers to a specific logic fallacy where one assumes what they wish to prove.
For example, the following argument, taken from http://skepdic.com/begging.html, begs the question:
We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design.
I find it annoying that the phrase "begs the question" seems to have fallen into incorrect common use.
Of course I agree that the publishing of falicious information calls into question the credulity of the remainder of the text, however, no begging is happening here.
I've never had a positive experience with a family dominated business. In any job employess will sometimes disagree on how to solve a particular problem. In a family run business, more often than not, the boss will side with his or her family member. As an employee you will always be an outsider. This isn't as big a deal if management comes from outside, or the company is so large that non-family members outnumber family members. At any rate, as a rule, such an operation sets off a red flag with me when job hunting and I generally avoid them.
If you don't plan on growing, attracting outside talent may not be a big deal. However, you may find your family a handicap when you really need certain skilled labor. In general others may perceive your business as "less serious" than other businesses much in the same way people see "home based business" as less serious than those that operate from a true commercial location.
It has also been my experience that the office stress the parent speaks of is multiplied ten-fold in family businesses as all of the family politics are mixed in with normal office politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Fellowship with other Christians is half the Christian faith
/plurvert
And fairy tales are the other half.
Of course you realize that you don't fit both descriptions and there is no irony.
In regards to agnosticism, you missed my point, the agnostic's views do not fall between atheist and christian. There is essentially no real difference between atheist and agnostic beliefs from the christian perspective. The assimilation is attempted because christians don't understand what agnosticism is. So, if you think that it's valid for christians to attempt this, then you are asserting that christians are unable to think about the definitions of the very ideas they are critical of.
The rest of what you have to say is meaningless. Beliefs that are without a clear path to making them knowledge are the waste dump of the human psyche.
plurvert
There is so much contradiction in the bible in regards to what are the attributes of god that one hardly knows where to begin.
My point was that christians DO assert god exists and must defend their position and yet christians can't successfully defend even the tiniest subset of their beliefs without resorting to the "f" word. Allow me to suggest an alternative. Suppose there is a god (this is a thought experiment, not a statement of position), what evidence do you have that requires people even spend any time thinking about him/it. I love how believers project an immature human psyche on god. Don't you think that if you could create something as fantastic as the universe that you could probably get along ok without the insipid worship of humans.
In other words, humans could be wasting their time even if god does exist. No religious belief system has any evidence that their view is right and others are wrong. What if all earthly religions are the work of satan? If you believe satan has the power to affect people's lives then you have to concede this as a possiblity. Then EVERY believer on the planet is doomed to a burn in hell for eternity.
If god is the most intelligent thing in existence, then don't you think god would respect critical thought, otherwise, why would he have given us the ability to think. It then follows that the people that god would choose would be those that think critically and choose not to accept him without evidence of his existence. Thus, heaven is full of atheists and agnostics.
I have NEVER met a christian who could successfully defend his beliefs without resorting to the "f" word. In all cases, defense comes down to faith or the casting of doubt. I can use those same arguments to prove the existence of anything, including santa claus, or that christian favorite, satan.
plurvert
Insert the word only before the word see. Now, do you still hold that position? Then what are you praying to?
Christians frequently try to use that position to avoid the truth that they really believe god is an "actual being." I suspect you are also. Christians cannot deny that they believe in the supernatural by suggesting that their position is congruent with the agnostic one. If you pray then either you believe god is a being in some sense of the word and that he/she/it can hear you in some way, or, you are just praying to the trees.
If you are praying to the trees you either believe the trees can hear you, in which case you're a nutjob. Or, you recognize that prayer is nothing more than self programming, in which case you are an agnostic.
I think few atheists will deny that prayer has real affect on humans. But not in the way believers would like. The affects are merely psychological.
Of course when I say agnostic I mean someone that asserts no belief in god. Most christians would consider that person to hold the atheist position.
If you are an agnostic and then become a christian, I doubt you were ever agnostic. A true agnostic doesn't see any evidence FOR god. Since we haven't had any plagues of locusts or sweeping unexplainable deaths yada yada yada, there is no new "testable" evidence that god exists, thus no reason to change ones position from agnostic to believer. Evidence, must be testable, it isn't personal. One cannot claim they realized god exists without presenting evidence that can be tested. If that is your position, then you didn't have a stance on the issue that was intellectually defendable. You were, by definition, a believer when you were claiming the agnostic position if you think that all that is required to switch is faith.
I find it hilarious how so many christians can interpret the agnostic postition as one that just needs a little more coaxing.
plurvet
Of course I meant atheists.
One can make an assertion that god exists.
One can make an assertion that god doesn't exist.
One can make neither assertion.
The third choice is the only one that does not require defense. As a christian, of almost any sort, you cannot avoid the burden of proof that is on you. Christians cannot claim the third choice. If you claim to see god in the trees and the beauty of the world, you are making the agnostic argument and you are a nonbeliever. If you pray, you are a believer. If you believe in the supernatural, e.g. the soul, you are a believer.
Believers, make an assertion that god exists. Thus, they have an obligation to prove god exists. Many, if not most nonbelievers either make no such assertion, or make a more restricted version of the assertion. A more restricted assertion for example might be "there is no omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent being". More importantly if one says "I do not believe in god", it is fair to be claiming the third assertion. One can fairly rephrase that "I make no assertion that god exists." Therefore, there is no defense of this position necessary.
Finally, proof is a strong word, and something no believer has come close to developing. Perhaps try developing some evidence first. Or, perhaps even just a simple observable test. Perhaps instead of trying to defend such a large assertion, why not start with a smaller one like one of these:
Can god hear prayers?
Does he have ears to hear them?
Does he hear all of them, or just some?
Do saints talk to god?
If so, does god need saints to talk to him?
Where is heaven?
Can god make a triangle with four sides?
yada yada yada
The point of course, is that these are not the assertions of some fringe element of christianity, but rather, the mainstream. I assert none of the above, if you assert any of it, then the burden of proof is on you.
plurvert
I don't find OS9 to be friendly at all, just annoying. I do like OS X. I find windows 9x or 2k much better than Classic OS. That is, of course, if I can't use linux.
As someone already pointed out, it isn't fun. Accounting software is almost always shit. Who wants to spend their time on that? Whether people "deserve" the freedom of open source is beside the point. Those people "have" the freedom to write it themselves, thus they already have the freedom they "deserve".
Open source POS will happen when somebody who values it gets involved with the open source community.
That doesn't necessarily follow. You are suggesting that open source won't meet the needs of someone not on the team. Why not, because they are thinking of their own needs first? It follows that if someone else has to solve the same problem then that person's needs might be met by the software that was written to meet those needs.
In other words, you are assuming that nobody else has the same needs as the developers. The obvious example to this is developer software. Usually written to meet the needs of the person writing it, think PERL, but others have the same need.
I don't buy your strawman, that's not my argument. Of course people who believe in open source are developers. I was taking issue with your claim that open source isn't useful to developers. I think you're flat wrong and I bet the most signficant usage of open source tools outside of servers/browsers is development tools. Open source development tools ARE taken seriously and are used everywhere. The last development job I had we did embedded stuff and used GCC/Linux for a lot of it. I've never met a real devloper was afraid of a command line. Open source developers are clearly meeting the needs of other developers without having to provide clippy.
Just because I choose not to provide an alternative doesn't mean I cannot lamment that there are no alternatives. It doesn't mean I cannot criticize those who have the monoply.
Further, it doesn't mean I can't say that the open source model is better. It is primarily better for programmers becasue programmers participate. If artists, businessmen, and writers would also DONATE their time then it would be better for others as well. What open source developers are providing is the content driven purely by the desire to produce code that is right. It isn't code driven by marketing or false deadlines but code that is driven by genuine need or desire to create something worthwhile. That is enough. It could be more usable to end users if joe businessman comes along and pays to have it shrinkwrapped and delivered through whatever means end users want.
The point is that developers are one part of the process of creating products and they are doing their part by participating in the community and creating quality products.
Those developers CAN complain that others don't come to the community and do their part. If joe user wants easy to use software what does joe user give to the community? The easy answer is money. Joe user should pay for his open source software so that someone packages it for him.
I'm not suggesting that joe clicks on the paypal link, I'm suggesting that there is room for others to contribute to the process of building products and I can complain that they don't and say all day long that MS is evil and closed source sucks, just because it's closed.
Personally, I use very few closed source apps and the ones I do use must run on linux or freebsd. I haven't found a replacement for mathematica, for example. I don't use ANY ms software.
That said, I don't see myself as an evangelist. I don't tell people to erase their harddrives and install linux. In fact, I would actively discourage non-techies from it. I don't talk about open source as an alternative for end users because I don't think it is right now. It is becoming an alternative for businesses who have the money to hire support staff such that the end users don't have to worry about install scripts.
I think open source is the right choice for CS/science departments in state supported colleges. I think we should be pushing open source in government and business, primarily from the inside, from our positions, not from our role as developer. Again, there is support staff in these places and the end users don't have to know.
Until open source makes inroads in business and education, the home user market is a waste of time. A thankless expensive proposition that nets little for the developers. Software should no more be free to joe downloader than a hamburger is free to me at mcdonalds. I don't think providing alternatives for him is the point of open source. He'll pay $69 for the easy install version of major apps or use them if they come installed on his cheap new computer. It's still open source even though he has to pay for it. He has to support his needs for friendliness, or translated, his unwillingness to spend time figuruing things out. Why can't he figure things out? He has a mcdonalds to worry about or he sells cars, or works at a bank. He can't figure it out because he's too busy with his life. One cannot leverage joe user for the improvement of open source, and he isn't giving me a free car, or cheeseburger in return. I think redhat et al has it right, it's the server market, it's the browser market but it isn't worth dragging the users to you. Just keep developing good software and eventually users will come because they want to, because they use open office at work and need to be "compatible" at home. Work will use it becasue they aren't stuck in some expensive licensing agreement. It will take time, and time is on the open source developers side. Time creates better software, not marketing.
Bah, this is a book, and not a good one, so I'll just stop...
plurvert
I disagree. I cite Munich. Clearly, in governments and businesses everywhere there is a movement towards the acceptance of open source because of the cost and the level of quality.
Open source is being used by businesses in embedded products all the time. These business sell software to the end user. There is a market, read not free, for end users who don't want to educate themselves.
People should do what they like, it's even better if you can make a living. But the worst of both is doing what you don't like for no reward.
In what way does it suck? Granted, a good team can be better than the sum of their parts, but, there is no shortage of team ethic in open source. What there is a shortage of, thankfully, is marketing drones who want a big bonus.
I see no evidence that people who aren't working on high profile projects (mozzilla, open office) care if the common guy uses his stuff. It's about sharing with other developers/techies. What all this bitching really highlights is how little nondevelopers contribute to software.
It's open, if the "common man" wants free software, perhaps he should become a part of the community and contribute something.
I think your reference to other developers is just a red herring. I see no evidence that developers take issue with how open source is managed. We just change it ourselves if it isn't exactly what we need. Futher, the one thing that os developers DO care about, reputation, is hurt when they don't address the needs of other developers.
Certainly that's why IT exists, but it is all too frequenly forgotten. In other words, he was surprised at the degree to which I focused on business driven technology.
Man you don't get it.
Yeah some developers want to get open source into the workplace. However, I'll bet most don't give a rats ass. Keep thinking what you're thinking. So what. Who cares what "people at work" associate linux with, why does it "really have to change", because you want it to?
Nothing has to change as long as open source developers are happy with what they do and the way in which their software is being used, NOTHING!
Who cares if joe user is impressed? What's he going to add to open source?
This is what will happen over time:
1) Business will use open source because of the cost. This is already happening, there's no point trying to rabidly convince your boss, success and money will convince him.
2) As it is more successful it will become more widely adopted.
3) Business will have the money to PAY to have support people on staff to make sure it works. This is no different than how it is now for large organizations or how it was several years ago for even small organizations. The average joe businessguy couldn't install netware by himeself.
4) You and your coworkers will use open source software at work because you have to.
5) You and your coworkers will want to use it home becasue it's "compatible."
6) You and your coworkers will march down to compusa and pay $69.95 for the Easy Install version of OpenWhatever.
7) Whoever packages EasyOpenApp will have to PAY to make it easy, either by contracting the original developers, or more likely, simply doing it themselves, bundling it up, and selling it at outlets. Then, because it's open source, it's possible that they'll either have to contribute some source back to the community, or obtain a license from the developers. This is of course dependant on a lot of factors and I'm not trying to suggest it will always happen.
Open source is already successful in the eyes of developers. There's no need to both conform to what the rest of the world wants AND do it for free. If you can't figure it out, get out your wallet.
plurvert
Separate issue. Open source developers pay the same price of MS and proprietary apps as does anyone else, thus, they have every bit as much right to complain about the quality. Non open source "non-developers" don't pay anything for open source apps and thus have no reason to complain.
MS writes software to make a profit, thus has customers, thus must please them. Open source developers write, primarily, for themselves, thus, they are their own customers and have only to please themselves.
Thus open source developers get to both whine about how much propietary stuff sucks AND criticize outsiders for whining.
That paper comes off like some sort of college term paper. The author states : Yet provides no evidence to support this is actually true. Frankly, the author seems to have her own bias and is trying to hide behind a pretense of openness. She quotes windows as an example and yet both KDE and Gnome look very similar to windows. Clearly, open source developers take ideas that are good them and use them. Perhaps what the author is complaining about is that noone takes her ideas. Let me be the first to point out to her, in case she doesn't realize it, "MANY OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS HAVE LICENSES THAT ALLOW YOU TO CREATE YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE PROJECT" There's no point in complaining about what other's aren't doing. Instead of writing a silly paper, write some open source documentation instead.
One of the most unrewarding aspects of software development is dealing with the lowest common denominator of users. That's what you have to do when you get paid to do it. She's quite right in pointing out that developers don't want to do this, but she fails to acknowledge that there is no reason for developers to do this. She fails to acknowledge that she isn't a part of the solution. I'm sure open source developers are either aware that there is a learning curve for there software or don't care that there's a learning curve. I'm all for good technical documentation. That is, documentation on the order of the C library reference manual. I could care less about the big foldout poster that depicts with diagrams how to install the sofware by matching up the pictures on the CD with the one on the poster.
People often cite increased manufacturer support as a motivator for increasing the presence of open source. I don't think it's necessary. There is already sufficient penetration that vendors are feeling the neeed to provide linux support. Further, as more businesses and government agencies turn to open source as a cost saving measure, the market share, and hence support will only increase. The point is free is its own reward. Easy comes at a cost. Vendors who make a profit on the sale of technology not only should be the ones to bear that cost, but will do so out of necessity. They can either PAY open source developers to do it, or they can do it themselves. For me, any whining that a free product doesn't suit ones uneducated needs falls on these quite deaf ears.
If you want your opensource product to be on the desk of every mom in the country, then you know what you need to do. Write it yourself, or PAY someone else to do what you need done. I, on the other hand, prefer the selfserving geekiness that is the current state of opensource.
111 degrees of freedom? I'm thinking they need to partner with the good folks at realdoll.com.
That's not correct. A terminal was THEN around $600. About the same price as a cheapo PC today, but still cheaper than a cheap PC then. If you add the cost of maintaining the PC, the terminal was FAR cheaper.
..." scenarios to drive there decision making when there is no evidence to assume such scenarios would come to fruition. This was seven years ago, they still aren't using "web clients" and I dont' expect they will for some time, if ever.
However, you're missing the point. As I said, I wasn't suggesting that the hospital use terminals, I was questioning the wholesale upgrade of PCs to machines that far exceed the necessary power. In fact, I might suggeset thin clients in such an envrionment.
In regards to why we continued to use terminals I think your opinion is oversimplified and a typical of those that let cool technology drive business decisions. I find it interesting how so many tech-types use these sorts of "but if
I have yet to observe that point of sale environments benefit from a gui unless it is a touch screen. The salesguys were fast on terminals and putting touch screens or a mouse in a location where one is frequently wiping gear oil off of the counter doesn't make sense.
Words from my replacement when I left "This is one of the most business centric IT installations I have ever seen."
plurvert
To access the UNIX mainframe via Rhumba. That's it.
/plurvert
I confess I don't understand this aspect of corporate purchasing. I've worked as a sysadmin for a small local industrial supply company that ran most of their business on AIX. We had a bunch of dumb terminals in places and PCs in others and someone suggested replacing all of the terminals with PCs. I pointed out that the terminals never needed rebooting, seldom needed reconfiguring and were quiet, small, and energy efficient relative to a PC. Further, what exactly were the salesguys going to do with a PC that they couldn't do with a dumb terminal.
The owner agreed, he was old school, if the system was down for any reason that was a pencil and paper training opportunity.
I'm not suggesting that terminals are what's needed in ER. But why isn't more thought put into what technology is appropriate for a given circumstance. What I see is a systematic cyclic computer refresh that just gets whatever is the latest for every desktop. I suppose that it is more difficult, perhaps more costly, to look at every situation independantly. However, at what point is the impact on the environment worth that extra cost?
If you are an "artist" then don't give consumers control over how your material is displayed. i.e. don't put out a dvd. You cannot have it both ways, that is complete control over presentation and the revenue stream generated by a medium that is implicitly controlled by the consumer.
Your argument carries a fallacious implicit assumption that the directors/artists rights carry more weight than the person who views them. Once a work of art is purchased or "licensed" then how it is viewed is up to the consumer.
Frankly, I want MORE control. I want to skip the ads and the intros and just get right to the movie.
If you are still trying to learn how to add in calculus class then there are bigger problems.
It is one thing to deride the use of cacluators because they are crutches, it is another thing altogether to deride them because you are a technophobe.
Technology is extremely useful in aiding understanding and exploration of mathematics. If you eliminate calculators and computers in schools, even high schools, you may hurt the chances of your students to succeed in an increasingly technical world.
As usual, I think the correct response is a balanced response. Demonstrate how to use technology as a tool and provide assessment that requires demonstration of ability without the use of a calculator as a crutch.
In a calculus class, for example, divide the exams into two parts, or alternate between calculator allowed, and calculator disallowed exams.
Of course, this has little to nothing to do with the nytimes article but it always seems to come up in these discussions.
plurvert
The best jobs are available to the best. Therefore, you will have the most choices when you are highly valued by your employer, ergo, the best time to leave your employer is exactly time that it hurts your employer the most.
Always look for new work, always prospect for a better job, and always take it at the moment you are essential to your current employer.
This generally won't happen right away so you don't have to worry about having too many jobs, but you should be planning this from day one of your hire on to any job.
Now you're on your way out, here's what to do:
First make sure your new employer knows that you absolutely cannot leave your current employer out on a limb. Now, take the normal range of notice given in your situation, let's say two weeks. Let your new employer know that you will be able to start at a date that is twice this interval, in this example one month. Further, let your new employer know that you might be able to start earlier if the transition goes well. This usually won't be a problem, the new employer wants you to get started solving his problems right away.
Now, you have two choices depending on how you expect your current employer will react:
1) Wait two weeks and give two weeks notice. If you are working for some seat of the pants operation they may react from emotion and tell you don't bother to come in on monday (see below). Start your new job tommorow.
2) If you are working in a somewhat more proffesional environment, give your employer two weeks notice but let them know you will do whatever it takes to train your replacement. They are now on the spot to hire someone quickly, trust me, it will take two weeks. Now every minute you give to them to train this guy is like a gift, you are doing them a favor, you are a great employeee. Make sure they know you are in transition and that staying this extra time is a compromise but that you are willing to go the extra mile because they have been such a great employer.
Bottom line, you control the situation, you leave on good terms, you have forced your employers hand.
Things to remember:
Employment is a two way street, if you aren't earning money for them (or earning indirectly by saving) then why are they hiring you? Thus, you don't owe your employer anything other than the services he contracted for. It's his problem if he can't make a profit. With that in mind, divorce emotions from your employment activity, if it looks better for you to move right now, then move right now, that's your employer's problem not yours.
Always give notice late on friday afternoon for the same reasons they always fire people late on friday afternoon. You want to give them time to think about any reaction and divorce themselves from any emotional response. Even if your "Employer" is not prone to such a reaction, your managers and coworkers, and you, might be. By giving notice on friday you will have a weekend to relax and reflect on your decision, as will they.
Not directly related, but remember at the exit interview, the correct answer to "Is there anything we cannot tell future employers" the correct response is "you may not tell them anything not allowed by law"
happy job hunting
plurvert
Exactly! In fact I would use this. I recently had a need to install fedora quickly and didn't want to spend the better part of the evening downloading isos and burning disks. I purchased one of those idiotic british linux mags that had fedora pasted to the front for $13 bucks. Most of the time, I'll just download what I want. But if I'm in a hurry, I'd stuff $5 in for a CD that saved me the effort.
Now, take this a bit further. Magazines like whatever that thing was that I purchased could make an arrangement with compusa to sell just the disks off of the front cover for something less than the magazine. After all, I can't be the only guy buying the magazine just for the CD's. Of course I realize that the only reason they put them there is to sell the magazines, however, there have been MANY occasions where I would have poppped a couple of bucks for one of those CDs but not $10 for the magazine. JDJ's every issue ever of JDJ comes to mind. Or past issues of Dr Dobbs.
For that matter, I'd rather have an electronic version of a programming magazine than a print issue if the articles are good and there are bonuses. For example, put 5 past issues of the magazine on the cd with every issue. These past issues should be related to the current issue in some way, not just the most recent issues. Since you are not guaranteed to get an entire collection by purchasing just one issue there would still be the incentive to buy each issue based soley on it's merits. This way, when you are reading an article you have instant and easy access to related past issues. Certainly a lot of this is on the web, but how much time do you want to spend googling versus reading.
Game manufactureres could put older versions of games in there instead of packaging them in a jewel case and putting them in a rack like they do now. Instead of just putting screen shots on the back each cd could have a streaming video demo which is played when you select the button for that choice. A large purchase button would have to be pushed after to actually purchase the product.
Anyone willing to go to the hassle of making a compilation of things that are free and related might serve a need that saves people time.
I think there is potential for such a device that serves a need not met by the internet. I don't want a subscription to magazines or even go through the hassle of filling out a credit card form just for an issue. However, if there's a machine there where I can purchase the current issue of Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar along with five other issues about sensors with all source code and an open source schematic capture sofware package for $5 or so, I might just do it. Especially if I can just stuff in a fiver while I'm waiting in the checkout line.
plurvert
I don't mean to be a nit but "begging the question" refers to a specific logic fallacy where one assumes what they wish to prove.
For example, the following argument, taken from http://skepdic.com/begging.html, begs the question:
We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design.
I find it annoying that the phrase "begs the question" seems to have fallen into incorrect common use.
Of course I agree that the publishing of falicious information calls into question the credulity of the remainder of the text, however, no begging is happening here.
plurvert
256^4 = 2^8^4 = 2^(8*4) = 2^32
/plurvert
however
256^6 = 2^8^6 = 2^(8*6) = 2^48 != 2^128
but
65536^8 = 2^16^8 = 2^(16*8) = 2^128
Which explains everyhing...
Japan and china are ready to roll out ipv6 because there math skills are up to scratch....
I think we better just forget about ipv6 and focus on the metric system.
I've never had a positive experience with a family dominated business. In any job employess will sometimes disagree on how to solve a particular problem. In a family run business, more often than not, the boss will side with his or her family member. As an employee you will always be an outsider. This isn't as big a deal if management comes from outside, or the company is so large that non-family members outnumber family members. At any rate, as a rule, such an operation sets off a red flag with me when job hunting and I generally avoid them. If you don't plan on growing, attracting outside talent may not be a big deal. However, you may find your family a handicap when you really need certain skilled labor. In general others may perceive your business as "less serious" than other businesses much in the same way people see "home based business" as less serious than those that operate from a true commercial location. It has also been my experience that the office stress the parent speaks of is multiplied ten-fold in family businesses as all of the family politics are mixed in with normal office politics.