I think the C64 had an "advanced" sound and possibly graphics system for its bracket when it was introduced. I believe that was the big deal about it. It was not well known for having fast disk drives though.
I remember back in the early 90s when Gateway was a "rebel" clone company against the IBM PC's. They were the underdog with mail order customizable computers and fair prices. Unless my memory fails me.
Then after a little success, in come the greedy execs that try to go for the lowest denominator in quality that can still pass for functional; now it's trash years later. Where do the execs go? They find another company to ruin.
The difference is (drumroll): One is a cult, the other is not. As a scientific community, you should not be wishy washy about your definitions.They should be clear and differences discernible.
So you say, what is the difference between a cult and a religion? I'm glad you asked that. Rule of thumb: Religion - You can leave it. Cults - You can't leave it. If you ever find you cannot leave a religion without some kind of threat, or repercussion (beyond the supernatural); then it is in fact a cult.
Another difference is the impetus. Religions will (in general) be concerned with your spiritual well being as their motivation for existing. While with cults they are only interested in how they can control you and grow in power from controlling people. There are varying degrees of borderline situations (jehovahs witness, mormons) where there is pressure not to leave and social consequences for doing so (though none that are illegal); there are sects like Waco that would qualify as a cult. But these are a small subset. Overall you simply cannot call Christianity a cult, because you can leave it.
Cults and religions share one thing in common, belief in supernatural things that cannot be validated scientifically. However, assuming slashdot is a scientific community, since when does one thing in common imply equality? Take my brother, an agnostic. We used to go to church growing up, Christian church. He does not go anymore. He has not received threatening phonecalls, nor has his image been "black balled", nor has anyone from the church ever said anything to him, at all. Therefore, the Christian church I went to growing up, was not in fact, a cult. Just using this single counter example, you cannot say that all Christians faiths are a cult. There is really only a small subset of them qualify as such, when you look at the types that compose the largest popular religions.
Muslims? They're on their own here, classify them as you may; as long as you consider the guidelines above. But you can't say Christians are, for the above reasons. If you require additional proof, I'll go to church one Sunday, and stop going for 6 months. Oh wait I've done this already.
Notice I did not say that Christianity is provable, I said it's not a cult. Please don't twist my words because I've made a good point. The debate lives on, but you no longer have the "cult" rhetoric to use.
The difference is (drumroll): One is a cult, the other is not.
As a scientific community, you should not be wishy washy about your definitions. They should be clear and differences discernible. So you say, what is the difference between a cult and a religion? I'm glad you asked that.
Rule of thumb:
Religion - You can leave it.
Cults - You can't leave it.
If you ever find you cannot leave a religion without some kind of threat, or repercussion (beyond the supernatural); then it is in fact a cult. Another difference is the impetus. Religions will (in general) be concerned with your spiritual well being as their motivation for existing.
While with cults they are only interested in how they can control you and grow in power from controlling people. There are varying degrees of borderline situations (jehovahs witness, mormons) where there is pressure not to leave and social consequences for doing so (though none that are illegal); there are sects like Waco that would qualify as a cult. But these are a small subset. Overall you simply cannot call Christianity a cult, because you can leave it.
Cults and religions share one thing in common, belief in supernatural things that cannot be validated scientifically. However, assuming slashdot is a scientific community, since when does one thing in common imply equality?
Take my brother, an agnostic. We used to go to church growing up, Christian church. He does not go anymore. He has not received threatening phonecalls, nor has his image been "black balled", nor has anyone from the church ever said anything to him, at all. Therefore, the Christian church I went to growing up, was not in fact, a cult. Just using this single counter example, you cannot say that all Christians faiths are a cult. There is really only a small subset of them qualify as such, when you look at the types that compose the largest popular religions.
Muslims? They're on their own, I don't care if you consider them a cult or not; not my problem, as long as you consider the guidelines above. But you can't say Christians are, for the above reasons.
In short, Christianity is not a cult. I can prove it, I'll go to church one Sunday, and stop going for 6 months (and I have done this in the past). QED.
Don't stop there. I'd say that the leaders of most mainstream religions don't believe in God
So then most of the problems with religion are due to Athiests.
Burn!
I think what he means is, the leaders of Scientology probably do not even believe what they are preaching themselves, but are merely basking in the control and power it gives them. This would make it a different motivation, to say the least, than someone who genuinely thought they were trying to save your soul.
China has never been particularly imperialistic outside its own borders. World-domination is not neccessarily their goal, as long as they are secure and strong within them.
Don't mistake "not able to at the moment", for "no interest in it."
I recall reading a news story a while back from a Chinese general or military high up saying that in order for China to grow they needed the resources of North America. I don't recall the exact wording, but it wasn't ambiguous. Admittedly, I do not have a link but I will search for it at work today. They have these tendencies, they just don't have the capability of fulfilling them, yet.
And you're dreaming if you think that if they had the same power the US has today that the world would not be absolutely upside down different.
As far as "painting" China as bad. They have done this themselves. Repeatedly threatening countries, including the United States, with war if they don't get their way in Tawain, etc. This is not the American imagination. People in Taiwan really do not want to be part of China. People in Tibet do not either, but it's a bit too late for them. I think you have to really turn a blind eye to the China situation to compare it to the US.
China is isolating its people from the Internet, so they cannot learn what the west is like, or how their country is viewed in the west. I'm sure you'll point to their useless Internet cafe's that have been firewalled off from information that could make their government look bad. Yawn. Their government is nurturing an "us vs them" mentality in their people, which is useful in maintaining their control. They will eventually think we are all the enemy (yes, even you do gooders in Europe and Canada). To an extent they already do.
While invading Iraq was completely unnecessary, and a disgusting waste of lives. It's not like we "own" their country, or have ambitions of doing so. While I will reiterate that the war in Iraq was a complete fraud, sold to the American people as a self defense mechanism, it's really apples and oranges when you consider what China wants to do. We have never said "Iraq is part of the US, any attempt to divert from that will result in an invasion."
Whatever they do inside in their gulags might be the downside, but change regarding that will have to come from among their own people anyway. You just can't bomb westernization into the hearts of 1.3 billion people.
I don't think anyone in the US with half a brain sees that as something that would be feasible.
What? No. They transfered it to another URL and dropped his friends. All myspace did was transfer his text to another account. He lost EVERYTHING of value.
Well it seems that Obama only took what was rightfully his, his name. If myspace has to destroy the site to let that happen, well that's not his problem. And it definitely doesn't look malicious since the guy was only promoting him.
I initially pictured Obama taking this guy's site and using his content to promote himself and was disgusted, now I've learned you guys are just using plays on words to imply this. "Your side" just lost a lot of credibility in my book in this argument.
If Obama indeed recooped his name, and the other individual kept all the content of his site (that could be done with myspace's technology) I see no issue. I see a failure on the part of myspace for being able to transfer site names without breaking shit. Much ado about noting. Better come up with something else quick.
What? No. They transfered it to another URL and dropped his friends. All myspace did was transfer his text to another account. He lost EVERYTHING of value.
Well it seems that Obama only took what was rightfully his, his name. If myspace has to destroy the site to let that happen, well that's not his problem. And it definitely doesn't look malicious since the guy was only promoting him.
I initially pictured Obama taking this guy's site and using his content to promote himself and was disgusted, now I've learned you guys are just using plays on words to imply this. "Your side" just lost a lot of credibility in my book in this argument.
If Obama indeed recooped his name, and the other individual kept all the content of his site (that could be done with myspace's technology) I see no issue. I see a failure on the part of myspace for being able to transfer site names without breaking shit.
Much ado about noting. Better come up with something else quick.
Yes, it seems ridiculous to arrest someone for making a video game map based on a physical place. They did it merely because other kids have shot up schools, and some of those other kids played video games, therefore every kid that makes a map is going to shoot up a school. Just a wee bit preemptive. I think everyone should start making maps of famous places, schools, office buildings, cities, etc. Let's see how many people they think they can arrest under... what law?
Yeah and last I heard the VT shooter did not even play videogames (or did they overturn that detail).
Eh, this seems to be a tinfoil fantasy that has not yet been fulfilled in the US. I'm not saying there hasn't been an erosion of rights, but I am saying that I have 0 fear of saying something political on myspace, and having repercussions from it. Now I bet you can split hairs and say that if I said something about a terrorist act I could draw unwanted attention to myself. Since I have no interest in such activity, I consider that 0 risk also. Bottom line, I simply do not have any fear of a political discussion, online. Whether pro or con of the government.
Can we stop trying to deflect the issue to some US parallel that doesn't really exist and focus on the significance of it for once? Yeah, there's a real problem over there. I'd worry about the one over here, when what I said above doesn't hold. But until that time, we should actually be concerned for people in other countries who do not have it so good and cannot speak up for themselves.
What can we do? I have no idea. It seems to be hard to get people to stop buying their goods, all we can do is make an effort on the personal level to do that.
I was a Verizon Wireless Customer for 5 years, and my phone bill was never the same month to month. Though they always had an excuse for it when I called. Most of the time it was not going over on minutes. Features I didn't remember getting added to the account, etc etc. That and you can't change your features without signing a new contract. It's a trap from hell, I'm glad to be out of it.
I switched to an inferior local service (cricket) just because they charge me the SAME amount every month. And that to me is more important than nationwide coverage.
In my opinion the obvious problem is Corporate greed and lack of ethics.
However, another problem (probably understated) are all the old judges, who did not grow up with any of this technology and have absolutely no clue what the hell the patent lawyers are saying.
To them, a database validating an account is like an Extraterrestrial space craft inter galactic warp drive. To most of us, this is as ridiculous as a company patenting putting up a sign that says "caution, wet floor."
And you can't be a judge unless you're 1,000,000 years old. So that pretty much excludes most of them from having any idea of the retardation of the cases put before them. Old law makers and new technology do not mix at all.
Well, on regular roads where I'm doing 40-45, I will slow down about 5-10 mph when going through intersections. Only because I know there are a handful of people out there that will run red lights for no apparent reason. But in this case it was bumper to bumper, speed never went past 20. I'm not going to slow down for one second with a green light, unless there's a pedestrian nearby.
Slashdot Mirror
Try a heads up between Firefox and IE after the average-joe user has had a few weeks to accumulate spyware.
I'd like to see those results.
I think the C64 had an "advanced" sound and possibly graphics system for its bracket when it was introduced. I believe that was the big deal about it. It was not well known for having fast disk drives though.
I remember back in the early 90s when Gateway was a "rebel" clone company against the IBM PC's. They were the underdog with mail order customizable computers and fair prices. Unless my memory fails me.
Then after a little success, in come the greedy execs that try to go for the lowest denominator in quality that can still pass for functional; now it's trash years later. Where do the execs go? They find another company to ruin.
My explanation is better (and invalidates yours)
d =19069487
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234217&ci
I'm very, very glad you asked this. I came prepared. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234217&cid =19069487
Readeth, and weepeth.
(Reposted due to horrible formatting)
The difference is (drumroll): One is a cult, the other is not. As a scientific community, you should not be wishy washy about your definitions.They should be clear and differences discernible.
So you say, what is the difference between a cult and a religion? I'm glad you asked that. Rule of thumb: Religion - You can leave it. Cults - You can't leave it. If you ever find you cannot leave a religion without some kind of threat, or repercussion (beyond the supernatural); then it is in fact a cult.
Another difference is the impetus. Religions will (in general) be concerned with your spiritual well being as their motivation for existing. While with cults they are only interested in how they can control you and grow in power from controlling people. There are varying degrees of borderline situations (jehovahs witness, mormons) where there is pressure not to leave and social consequences for doing so (though none that are illegal); there are sects like Waco that would qualify as a cult. But these are a small subset. Overall you simply cannot call Christianity a cult, because you can leave it.
Cults and religions share one thing in common, belief in supernatural things that cannot be validated scientifically. However, assuming slashdot is a scientific community, since when does one thing in common imply equality? Take my brother, an agnostic. We used to go to church growing up, Christian church. He does not go anymore. He has not received threatening phonecalls, nor has his image been "black balled", nor has anyone from the church ever said anything to him, at all. Therefore, the Christian church I went to growing up, was not in fact, a cult. Just using this single counter example, you cannot say that all Christians faiths are a cult. There is really only a small subset of them qualify as such, when you look at the types that compose the largest popular religions.
Muslims? They're on their own here, classify them as you may; as long as you consider the guidelines above. But you can't say Christians are, for the above reasons. If you require additional proof, I'll go to church one Sunday, and stop going for 6 months. Oh wait I've done this already.
Notice I did not say that Christianity is provable, I said it's not a cult. Please don't twist my words because I've made a good point. The debate lives on, but you no longer have the "cult" rhetoric to use.
The difference is (drumroll): One is a cult, the other is not. As a scientific community, you should not be wishy washy about your definitions. They should be clear and differences discernible. So you say, what is the difference between a cult and a religion? I'm glad you asked that. Rule of thumb: Religion - You can leave it. Cults - You can't leave it. If you ever find you cannot leave a religion without some kind of threat, or repercussion (beyond the supernatural); then it is in fact a cult. Another difference is the impetus. Religions will (in general) be concerned with your spiritual well being as their motivation for existing. While with cults they are only interested in how they can control you and grow in power from controlling people. There are varying degrees of borderline situations (jehovahs witness, mormons) where there is pressure not to leave and social consequences for doing so (though none that are illegal); there are sects like Waco that would qualify as a cult. But these are a small subset. Overall you simply cannot call Christianity a cult, because you can leave it. Cults and religions share one thing in common, belief in supernatural things that cannot be validated scientifically. However, assuming slashdot is a scientific community, since when does one thing in common imply equality? Take my brother, an agnostic. We used to go to church growing up, Christian church. He does not go anymore. He has not received threatening phonecalls, nor has his image been "black balled", nor has anyone from the church ever said anything to him, at all. Therefore, the Christian church I went to growing up, was not in fact, a cult. Just using this single counter example, you cannot say that all Christians faiths are a cult. There is really only a small subset of them qualify as such, when you look at the types that compose the largest popular religions. Muslims? They're on their own, I don't care if you consider them a cult or not; not my problem, as long as you consider the guidelines above. But you can't say Christians are, for the above reasons. In short, Christianity is not a cult. I can prove it, I'll go to church one Sunday, and stop going for 6 months (and I have done this in the past). QED.
Nah, according to Atheists, all Christians are bad.
I'm sure he believes it's wrong, but cannot stop his biological urges. So yeah, I'd say he does. hah!
Don't stop there. I'd say that the leaders of most mainstream religions don't believe in God So then most of the problems with religion are due to Athiests. Burn!
The difference is, one is a cult, and one is a religion.
Which are in fact, two different things. Playing ignorant to the differences doesn't give you a point to make.
I think what he means is, the leaders of Scientology probably do not even believe what they are preaching themselves, but are merely basking in the control and power it gives them. This would make it a different motivation, to say the least, than someone who genuinely thought they were trying to save your soul.
Let the Scientology --> Christianity bait and switch arguments, commence.
No one is going to kill you for not going to church? or leaving the church?
I didn't know Scientology believed in hell..
China has never been particularly imperialistic outside its own borders. World-domination is not neccessarily their goal, as long as they are secure and strong within them.
Don't mistake "not able to at the moment", for "no interest in it."
I recall reading a news story a while back from a Chinese general or military high up saying that in order for China to grow they needed the resources of North America. I don't recall the exact wording, but it wasn't ambiguous. Admittedly, I do not have a link but I will search for it at work today. They have these tendencies, they just don't have the capability of fulfilling them, yet.
And you're dreaming if you think that if they had the same power the US has today that the world would not be absolutely upside down different.
As far as "painting" China as bad. They have done this themselves. Repeatedly threatening countries, including the United States, with war if they don't get their way in Tawain, etc. This is not the American imagination. People in Taiwan really do not want to be part of China. People in Tibet do not either, but it's a bit too late for them. I think you have to really turn a blind eye to the China situation to compare it to the US.
China is isolating its people from the Internet, so they cannot learn what the west is like, or how their country is viewed in the west. I'm sure you'll point to their useless Internet cafe's that have been firewalled off from information that could make their government look bad. Yawn. Their government is nurturing an "us vs them" mentality in their people, which is useful in maintaining their control. They will eventually think we are all the enemy (yes, even you do gooders in Europe and Canada). To an extent they already do. While invading Iraq was completely unnecessary, and a disgusting waste of lives. It's not like we "own" their country, or have ambitions of doing so. While I will reiterate that the war in Iraq was a complete fraud, sold to the American people as a self defense mechanism, it's really apples and oranges when you consider what China wants to do. We have never said "Iraq is part of the US, any attempt to divert from that will result in an invasion." Whatever they do inside in their gulags might be the downside, but change regarding that will have to come from among their own people anyway. You just can't bomb westernization into the hearts of 1.3 billion people. I don't think anyone in the US with half a brain sees that as something that would be feasible.
What? No. They transfered it to another URL and dropped his friends. All myspace did was transfer his text to another account. He lost EVERYTHING of value.
Well it seems that Obama only took what was rightfully his, his name. If myspace has to destroy the site to let that happen, well that's not his problem. And it definitely doesn't look malicious since the guy was only promoting him.
I initially pictured Obama taking this guy's site and using his content to promote himself and was disgusted, now I've learned you guys are just using plays on words to imply this. "Your side" just lost a lot of credibility in my book in this argument.
If Obama indeed recooped his name, and the other individual kept all the content of his site (that could be done with myspace's technology) I see no issue. I see a failure on the part of myspace for being able to transfer site names without breaking shit. Much ado about noting. Better come up with something else quick.
What? No. They transfered it to another URL and dropped his friends. All myspace did was transfer his text to another account. He lost EVERYTHING of value. Well it seems that Obama only took what was rightfully his, his name. If myspace has to destroy the site to let that happen, well that's not his problem. And it definitely doesn't look malicious since the guy was only promoting him. I initially pictured Obama taking this guy's site and using his content to promote himself and was disgusted, now I've learned you guys are just using plays on words to imply this. "Your side" just lost a lot of credibility in my book in this argument. If Obama indeed recooped his name, and the other individual kept all the content of his site (that could be done with myspace's technology) I see no issue. I see a failure on the part of myspace for being able to transfer site names without breaking shit. Much ado about noting. Better come up with something else quick.
Yes, it seems ridiculous to arrest someone for making a video game map based on a physical place. They did it merely because other kids have shot up schools, and some of those other kids played video games, therefore every kid that makes a map is going to shoot up a school. Just a wee bit preemptive. I think everyone should start making maps of famous places, schools, office buildings, cities, etc. Let's see how many people they think they can arrest under... what law? Yeah and last I heard the VT shooter did not even play videogames (or did they overturn that detail).
Well it's a good thing they are happy, because if they weren't, they would certainly have no recourse to vent about it.
Eh, this seems to be a tinfoil fantasy that has not yet been fulfilled in the US. I'm not saying there hasn't been an erosion of rights, but I am saying that I have 0 fear of saying something political on myspace, and having repercussions from it. Now I bet you can split hairs and say that if I said something about a terrorist act I could draw unwanted attention to myself. Since I have no interest in such activity, I consider that 0 risk also. Bottom line, I simply do not have any fear of a political discussion, online. Whether pro or con of the government.
Can we stop trying to deflect the issue to some US parallel that doesn't really exist and focus on the significance of it for once? Yeah, there's a real problem over there. I'd worry about the one over here, when what I said above doesn't hold. But until that time, we should actually be concerned for people in other countries who do not have it so good and cannot speak up for themselves.
What can we do? I have no idea. It seems to be hard to get people to stop buying their goods, all we can do is make an effort on the personal level to do that.
I was a Verizon Wireless Customer for 5 years, and my phone bill was never the same month to month. Though they always had an excuse for it when I called. Most of the time it was not going over on minutes. Features I didn't remember getting added to the account, etc etc. That and you can't change your features without signing a new contract. It's a trap from hell, I'm glad to be out of it.
I switched to an inferior local service (cricket) just because they charge me the SAME amount every month. And that to me is more important than nationwide coverage.
In my opinion the obvious problem is Corporate greed and lack of ethics.
However, another problem (probably understated) are all the old judges, who did not grow up with any of this technology and have absolutely no clue what the hell the patent lawyers are saying.
To them, a database validating an account is like an Extraterrestrial space craft inter galactic warp drive. To most of us, this is as ridiculous as a company patenting putting up a sign that says "caution, wet floor."
And you can't be a judge unless you're 1,000,000 years old. So that pretty much excludes most of them from having any idea of the retardation of the cases put before them. Old law makers and new technology do not mix at all.
I would like to tell them about all the people that throw away perfectly good hard drives and buy replacements when "Winders" crashes.
\worked as tech support in the past.
Well, on regular roads where I'm doing 40-45, I will slow down about 5-10 mph when going through intersections. Only because I know there are a handful of people out there that will run red lights for no apparent reason. But in this case it was bumper to bumper, speed never went past 20. I'm not going to slow down for one second with a green light, unless there's a pedestrian nearby.