Can I ask you what makes you belive that you are entitled to take other peoples work and not give what they ask for in return? To me it sounds like many people that argue against the GPL apply doubble standards: they should get to use everything they want to use unrestricted, but other people should obey the restriction they add to their software.
It is simpeler to audit source code than binarys. Therefore it is more likely that someone has audited it already. Gentoo even has a team auditing code, see http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/security/audit.xml like OpenBSD.
Mutch of the so called stem cell research done today is is plain old murder. To get those cells they kill someone. That is why is should be outlawed. If you can get your stemcells a peacefull way (like some researchers are doing), I don't mind it. If you kill a fellow human beeing to get them (born or unborn), it should be criminal.
Re:The question is just: How do you know he's guil
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
You don't have to be a Christian to refert to the Bible as an authoriative document. If your audience belive in the Bible it is effective. (Even if you are all out wrong, you still can get some goodwill for at least trying, but you risk great anger if they suspect you twist The Scripture on purpose) Even if your audience don't belive in the Bible, but they have some respect for it, you can get some of that respect by refering to it.
He said "even the Bible". To me, that sounds like the last case. Not saying he is or is'nt a Christian, just saying there are other possibilityes.
Just guesing it was the last sentece that scared you, so I will try to explain it:
You have sinned[1]. Because you have sinned, you are doomed[2]. Since you are a sinner, nothing you can do can help you. No deed can help you, as everything you do are effected by your sin. Not you own suffering or death, as it only would be what you deserve and that can not repay you sin. No sacrifice you make, as it also is affected by sin.
Because God knew you don't have a chance, he sent His Son Jesus to die in your place. He took your punishment on the cross[3]. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3, 16 He sacrifised Himself for you.
Still you have a problem: You can not belive. It is not possible for you. God must create the faith in you[5] for you to belive. As you are, you can not even seek God[4]! He must first make you seek Him. You are 100% depending on His grace to get into heaven. The only things you can do are things that keeps your out of heaven, like resisting Him when He calls[6] you (that could be right now) or take the mark of the beast.
[1] "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3, 23
[2] "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6, 23
[3] "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5, 21
[4] "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." Romans 3, 11
[5] The faith is created like this: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10, 17
[6] When He gives you a chance to get in to heaven by doing in you what is impossible for you to do.
But what if now not is the time? How can we be sure? And do we know that the mark is the will of God, and not just something He will allow? There is a difference between what God will allow (His allowed will) and what God wants (His expressed will).
Example: [God] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1. Timothy 2, 4) This is His expressed will. But we do know that not all will be saved. That is His allowed will.
But yes, there is nothing to worry about for the redemed. God knows what is the best. But if now is not the time, we should fight it. I think we also should fight the real beast when he appears. (Rev 12, 11)
Emperor Nero of Rome, I think. (Personaly, I belive the beast is in the future, but in the past that wiev was common) And you are correct: the mark will be in your brown or right hand. One more thing: you will worship the image of the beast when you take the mark.
The mark will come when it will come, in God's own timeing. It is not a thing we can do anything about. It is not for me to want or not. To try the evil system now if it is not the time yet will only bring suffering, and even if now is the time we should fight it, just in case it is not. (What we can do to make the Kingdom of God come faster is to send out misionarys) We are not looking forvard to the mark. We are looking forward for what is to come after. The current world is evil. It will not be so then.
When it comes to Israel I suggest you read the profecyes yourself. (If you are thinking about Harmageddon that will he the beast vs. Israel, not the muslims vs Israel) And by the way: There is nothing you (or any other human) can do to get into heaven.
If you take the mark of the beast and worship his image, you will go to hell. (Already now you are on that road, but you might still repent. If you take the mark and worship the image of the beast repenting will not be possible for you. We do not want you to go to hell, so we do not want you (or anyone else) to take the mark and worship the image of the beast.
A simpler alternative would be for comersial users to start use Mysql under GPL. The GPL allows internal use. As log as you don't redistribute, there is no problem. Even if you redistribute, to license you code under GPL is not that bad.;) My guess is that many pays for commercial Mysql to get support or to make sure it will still be developed.
To prevent Oracle from exercising this control, we need to
(...)
(2) do a cleanroom reverse engineering of the client libraries and make them LGPL/whatever
IMHO, that would be backstabbing Mysql. Mysql is already available under a free (as in freedom) license, so free software can freely use it. The only problem here will be for the unfree software, and I don't think "we" (I guess you were refering to the FLOSS comunity, not those using Mysql in unfree software) don't "need" to do anything to help unfree software. I think it's only fair that developers of unfree software pays money to use Mysql like they do today. If they want to pay someone to clean room it, or someone starts to do it, I won't be in the way. (Even if I think a better solution would be to contact Mysql and pay them to release the librarys under LGPL) But we should remember that we do not owe anyone gratis work so their software can stay unfree.
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1. Thessalonians 4:16-17, KJV
To me, it seems like born again belivers will sleep in the grave until the event mentioned here. If a dead man is revived (like Lazarus), there is no problem: he was just like asleep, and would have stayed that way until the time was right.
How you could do it: 1. Have a free look and see if you like the library. 2. If you like it, send a mail to the devoloper(s)* asking if it is possible to buy a license for use in unfree software. Include how mutch you could be willing to pay if you deside to use it. I guess many would not mind some extra cash. Also mention why you want to use it, if you belive that would help. Some, like Mysql, Trolltech (QT) and Namesys (Reiser4) will name a price. Others, like FSF, will say no (exept in special cases). 3. If you recive a yes, see if it fits best for the job. (we are now at the "Try several"-stage) 4. If it is the best library, pay for a license and use it.
or, the easy way: 0. See if you can free your own program. If you can do it, do it. Save yourself the trubble and money, and do what many (including me) considers to be the most ethical thing.
* Remember that might also include librarys used by the library.
One book says the ground shook, an angel descended from heaven, moved the rock, and sat on top of it as the women got there, and another said the rock had already been moved and the angel was inside waiting for them. That's two different accounts of the same event.
Or two different accounts for two different events...
It wouldn't just be hard to design such a machine [that measures if someone is born again], it would be impossible, because that is indeed not measurable at all.
You can't know that it is not measurable for sure. All you can know is that you can't measure it at the moment. (I sure hope the technology won't appear, as it would be the perfect tool in the hands of a goverment that percecute christians. Just think what would happend if goverments like the one of China or even worse: Saudi Arabia and North Korea got their hands on this, not to think about the coming goverment of the Anticrist) However, I can't see how this relates to ID, as ID in itself don't care who the designer is. The designer in ID can be JHVH, Allah, Bob the alien, a mad robot scientist or anything else that is intelligent and capable of this advanced design.
Since you have told me your view on science, philosophy and religion, I will try to explain my wiev on faith vs. science: What the Bible says is The Truth. Since the Bible is the truth it can't be wrong, so it is a perfect decripion of the reality. Science's theorys are just models of the reality. If a model is wrong, sometimes it still is OK to use it as it is accurate enough for what we are doing. Today, we know Newtons laws for movement are wrong (when we are aproximating the speed of light), but we still use it on smaller speeds. (We should still try to seek to improve our models, to get closer to the truth) Sometimes theoryes should be trown away all together, as we see they are wrong. My view is that macroevolution belongs in the later category, as I clearly (from the Bible) can see it is wrong and I can't see that it does any good. (I only see the evil it has caused: ideologyes that has a horrible view on human beings, and peole following them doing horribe things. Not claiming you belong to sutch a ideology, of cource) I realise you don't agree here, and from my (Bible-based) view on politics I belive you should be allowed to disagree (eg. not arrested or loose rights because of your wievs).
When it comes to ID itself, I did said I did not remember the exact definition. So your protest on the way I formulate it might not apply to the real definition. Allow me to try again: "Nature is so complex so we theorice someone have designed it."
First is that it could be proven experimentally: if scientists make an experiment whereby they set up the conditions that allowed life to begin, and then life does form from non-living parts, then we've just confirmed the theory (at least partially).
In that case ID can be "proven" if scientists make an experiment whereby they design life, and then build it from dead parts. A good starting point for parts from my (creationist) point of wiev would be those found in dust.
(Personaly, I am not comfortable with any of those experiments before we think over the consequenses it might have. Don't get me wrong, I am no enviormentalist, but what if any sutch experiment goes wrong and ecapes? What if the life coming out of it would be a dangerus to us? Some belive that HIV and SARS are designed by humans. What if this would be equally dangerous?)
when a scientist tries to convince you of something, it always comes in two parts. He says "here is the empirical evidence I've found to back up my claim, which you can freely examine yourself," and "here is the sequence of logical reasoning I used to come to my conclusion." The key here is that both of these are independently verifiable by you, so you don't have to believe the scientist on faith.
If a scientist did that I would be able to check for myself, and try to find the flaw I know is there (if I cared enough). Sadly, this is not what happends in public schools (almost the only schools there is in Norway) and in most of popular science, were you learn that "This is how it is, and science has proven it". My guess based on the angry reactions from many slashdotters when someone dear to
To turn this into a scientific experiment, you'd first have to create heuristics to decide what "God calling on you" means
(as that is a subject were people hold different wievs, and I have not studyed it enough to be able to win a discussion against eather side on the subject, pleace don't take my attemt to explain it as accurate) My attemt: (A part of) You are truly (you know you can't fix it) sorry (not that type of regret that drives you to destruction like Judas regret) about your sins (what you have done against His commandments), you realise you are lost in the state you now are, and you care about it.
whether it's happening or not. You'd also need to be able to determine whether someone "genuinely accepts" him or not.
That would be harder to do. You have some objective criteria that proves it is not happening (like someone that does it to fit in, or to join the church, etc), but to have a more accurate posetive you would have to be able to test spirits/get a profecy conserning it. I think it would be hard to design a mashine that could detect it using current technology, if it is measureable at all. So for now, that experiment would have to be on a personal level. (but there are places there is a high probability for it to happend, like a place experiencing revival or more generally, where Gods Word is preached pure)
No, it would be impossible to do because you'd first have to be able to create demonic magic, and measure its effects and the effects that prayer might have on it.
You would not be able to create it when someone born again went against it. What you could do is to bring someone born again (and aware of the victory we have in Jesus, and prayer) to someone else's magic-experiment (after they had measured it's effect). (I hear it is happending today, that people bring inn someone psycic, medium or someone like that to measure magic)
Intelligent design has no scientific basis whatsoever (and I think we've agreed on this point)
I am suspecting you are mixing Inteligent design (from now ID) and creationisim. ID, at least as it is decribed from my sources is: "Nature is so complex that it must be designed. To assume it is created by chance would be like beleving a scaceship we find is created by chance. Many bodyparts are interdependent, in a way that if one part is missing it renders the other completly useless. Not to mention the genes needed to create those parts." (I don't remember exactly the definition) Note: it don't mention who/what the designer is. Creationalisim on the other hand do, as it claims that God is the creator.
whereas "humans evolving from apes" is an extrapolation from "microevolution,"
Well, you are adding benefittal mutations and lots of time to microevolution.
["humans evolving from apes"] has quite a lot of emperical evidence to back it up (fossils, etc.).
Well, we also have fosils of humans walking next to dinosaurs. And when many of those "missing links" are analysed, they turn out not to be "missing links". A (speacy off) fish until recently belived to be the missing link betwen sea and land were dicovered alive and well a wile ago. It was living on deep water, and died on its way to the surface. Also this article has some interesting points on human fosils.
Furthermore, the idea is still described as a theory, which means that it's subject to revision upon the finding of contradictory evidence.
Well, at least here in Norway, kids in public schools (pretty mutch every kid) teaches it as a fact. And the ne
Evolution is "about species adapting", as you say. Nothing more. Nothing else. You seem to think there is some theology there. Nope: there isn't.
In that case we have nothing more to dicuss on that matter. (I am happily suprised, and shold reconsider my assumtions of what people mean)
The sun moving: yes, it is moving, if you observe it from the place we stand, here on the surface of planet earth. Movement is relative to where you observe it from. Example: If I sit in a car on this rotating planet orbiting a sun, am I moving? I stand still observed from the car. Observed from the sun, I am moving.
Burning Gallileo: You shuold not be burned because of your theory, even if it goes against established science and don't fit observations.
your problem of "discuss intelligently with someone who regards the literal interpretation of the Bible as reasonable", you are not alone. At least you admitt it.:)
Your theological remarks: What Onan did was sinfull since it directly violated God's commandment. There will be one judgement of how people have used what God gave to them, I assume that includes intelligence.
I guessed darwinist did not mean atheist, but I became unsure becasue of the way you reacted when I said that "The Creator (of the Bible) is not the same creator that a [person that also is a] darwinist worships (if he is consistant)."
As a closing statement: as long as science don't interfere with the Bible, it has nothing to do with theology, and theology has nothing to do with it.
I probably would have modded you up if I hadn't posted here.:) Mutch of what you wrote was the point I was trying to make: atheisim is also based on faith. And yes, mutch of my data is unscientific. That said, here is a few experiments you can do on parts of what I belive, but under quite rear circumstances. Perhaps so rear that you won't call it scentific: When God is calling on you (something I personally belive he will do at least once in every persons lifetime), genuinly accept. Then you will know He is, and that He is good. You can also do probability-tests concerning prayer, but the one praying must be genuine born again belivers, and pray according to Gods will (it is expressed in the Bible). (Another interesting experimelt you could do is prayer that stops demonic magic, but it would be next to impossible to do as christians won't stand by and whatch the magic while it is beeing validated)
I completly agree with you on the Rea Sea example. I also agree that Inteligent Design is not Science, but the same applies to the belief that we evolved from the monkeys. Sice public school in USA teaches one, why not also mention the other? (in my country, that is unthinkable, the current goverment even tryes to forbid private schools criticising evolution)
Please explain, logically, exactly how evolution rules out "The Creator," because I can't figure it out.
Sorry, my fault. I should not have made assumptions about what people knows. "The Creator", or JHVH as the Name of Him I was refering to is, created man on the fifth day like this: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Macro)evolution teaches "man evolved from apes/apelike creatures over wery many years". If a creator "just thought up the rules that govern the universe, set the whole thing in motion, and then just sat back and whatched", he is not JHVH (of the Bible), because JHVH created man from dust. However, if sutch a think had been, he would have been a creator. (Someone belive that the creation is symbolic, but I find that highly unprobable as the rest of the Bible refers to a litteral creation, a litteral Adam, litteral sin, etc. Someone also belives that sice "day" also can mean a period of time, it must here refer to a period of time, but here the world "day" is defined in terms of light and darkness a little bit before, so to think "day" here means millions of years I find quite desperat)
The reason I used "The Creator" is that, at lest in some English texts, Capital letter of refering worlds means they refer to JHVH. It might not be in use anymore, or the rule may only have existed in some texts. Thanks for your English corrections, by the way.:) (hope I did not make you regret posting)
Evolution does not rule out a creator: any creator.
Evolution, as in "humans evolved form apes", rules out The Creator. If you use the world Evolution about speacies adapting (the other meaning of the word, something that actually is a scientific theory), than it is correct.
Evolution implies abnsolutely nothing about the existence of a god, any god, or, in case of its existance, of its methods, plans, intentions, or desires.
The statements "We were formed from dust that was made living, on one day" definatly comflicts with "We evolved from monkeys over millions of years". If you belive in a god that evolved us, it is not the same God as the Bible talk about.
The darwinist does not worship any creator. You said evolution don't rule out a creator. That is why I said that a darwinist (someone beliving in evolution) is not worshiping the creator of the Bible. (If Darwinist is defined as a atheist, sorry about my English)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had experienced the bible.
I did not claim to have witnessed the Bible. (But I have experienced it while reading it, if that was whar you asked) I have seen the profecys (from the Bible) come true in our history. I have experienced the supernatural. That is what I have experienced, and what I doubt you will belive me when I tell.
You don't care what science says.
You are correct that science is not my God. If science said the earth was flat, would you belive it? If science said some grop of people called races was above others, would you belive it? Remember, science is constantly changing, and not absolute truth. Back in the days, Newton got was critisized for his biblebased claim that in the future, we would have realy fast ways of transportation, because sciense said that any person traveling faster than a fixed limit (don't remember the limit) would choke. Who was right?
A belief you base on absolutely no data or evidence other than a bunch of dogma
That I base it on the Bible don't mean I don't have any evidence. I have the profecyes. And for my own part, I have what I have experienced, but I doubt my experiences can convince you.
written and composed by the church selectively.
(I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here, if I was wrong in doing it, pleace check real history before saying I was:) Well, the apostels and profets was a part of a body, refered by many today as "the church", and the Bible don't include Harry Potter, so in that manner it is selective.
There are a lot of people who believe in things another dude wrote. He liked to write quatraines. It's just a bunch of jibber jabber, but people interpret it to mean what they want it to mean and read devine things from it. But it's still just as silly as a book full of parables.
Allow me to help you correct some of the errors you had here:
The Holy Gost used many people to write the Bible, so it has sevral "autors", over a wery long period of time.
Most of the Bible is quite strait forward. Unless you want to get it wrong (to promote your wiev) its not hard to interpret at all.
There are not that many parables in the Bible.
May I suggest that you read th Bible yourself? Then you at least can critisice in a informed way. (I recomend starting in the gospel of Luke)
That I will have to explain my statement for you to understand it might be pointing at an explanation of some of your beliefs, but I will still try.
A: Evolution don't rule out a creator.
B: Some creators did not create by evolution, and therefore beliving in them and evolution comflicts.
Conclusion: Evolution does rule out some creators, but not all.
A: The Creator (of the Bible) did not create us by evolution, but formed us from dust.
B: Evolution does rule out some creators, but not all.
Conclusion: The Creator (of the Bible) is not the same creator that a darwinist worships (if he is consistant).
Slashdot Mirror
Can I ask you what makes you belive that you are entitled to take other peoples work and not give what they ask for in return? To me it sounds like many people that argue against the GPL apply doubble standards: they should get to use everything they want to use unrestricted, but other people should obey the restriction they add to their software.
It is simpeler to audit source code than binarys. Therefore it is more likely that someone has audited it already. Gentoo even has a team auditing code, see http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/security/audit.xml like OpenBSD.
Sure, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells#Embryonic_ stem_cells
As already said here: fertilization eggs = another person. (The time of fertilization is the only time that makes sence to claim a human life begins)
Mutch of the so called stem cell research done today is is plain old murder. To get those cells they kill someone. That is why is should be outlawed. If you can get your stemcells a peacefull way (like some researchers are doing), I don't mind it. If you kill a fellow human beeing to get them (born or unborn), it should be criminal.
You don't have to be a Christian to refert to the Bible as an authoriative document. If your audience belive in the Bible it is effective. (Even if you are all out wrong, you still can get some goodwill for at least trying, but you risk great anger if they suspect you twist The Scripture on purpose) Even if your audience don't belive in the Bible, but they have some respect for it, you can get some of that respect by refering to it.
He said "even the Bible". To me, that sounds like the last case. Not saying he is or is'nt a Christian, just saying there are other possibilityes.
Just guesing it was the last sentece that scared you, so I will try to explain it:
You have sinned[1]. Because you have sinned, you are doomed[2]. Since you are a sinner, nothing you can do can help you. No deed can help you, as everything you do are effected by your sin. Not you own suffering or death, as it only would be what you deserve and that can not repay you sin. No sacrifice you make, as it also is affected by sin.
Because God knew you don't have a chance, he sent His Son Jesus to die in your place. He took your punishment on the cross[3]. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3, 16 He sacrifised Himself for you.
Still you have a problem: You can not belive. It is not possible for you. God must create the faith in you[5] for you to belive. As you are, you can not even seek God[4]! He must first make you seek Him. You are 100% depending on His grace to get into heaven. The only things you can do are things that keeps your out of heaven, like resisting Him when He calls[6] you (that could be right now) or take the mark of the beast.
[1] "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3, 23
[2] "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6, 23
[3] "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5, 21
[4] "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." Romans 3, 11
[5] The faith is created like this: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10, 17
[6] When He gives you a chance to get in to heaven by doing in you what is impossible for you to do.
If what I say is wrong according to the Bible, pleace show me. I have been wrong before and I may be wrong again.
But what if now not is the time? How can we be sure? And do we know that the mark is the will of God, and not just something He will allow? There is a difference between what God will allow (His allowed will) and what God wants (His expressed will).
Example: [God] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1. Timothy 2, 4) This is His expressed will. But we do know that not all will be saved. That is His allowed will.
But yes, there is nothing to worry about for the redemed. God knows what is the best. But if now is not the time, we should fight it. I think we also should fight the real beast when he appears. (Rev 12, 11)
Emperor Nero of Rome, I think. (Personaly, I belive the beast is in the future, but in the past that wiev was common) And you are correct: the mark will be in your brown or right hand. One more thing: you will worship the image of the beast when you take the mark.
Mabe they will use it to make a statement. Remembet what type of goverment we are talking about here...
The mark will come when it will come, in God's own timeing. It is not a thing we can do anything about. It is not for me to want or not. To try the evil system now if it is not the time yet will only bring suffering, and even if now is the time we should fight it, just in case it is not. (What we can do to make the Kingdom of God come faster is to send out misionarys) We are not looking forvard to the mark. We are looking forward for what is to come after. The current world is evil. It will not be so then.
When it comes to Israel I suggest you read the profecyes yourself. (If you are thinking about Harmageddon that will he the beast vs. Israel, not the muslims vs Israel) And by the way: There is nothing you (or any other human) can do to get into heaven.
If you take the mark of the beast and worship his image, you will go to hell. (Already now you are on that road, but you might still repent. If you take the mark and worship the image of the beast repenting will not be possible for you. We do not want you to go to hell, so we do not want you (or anyone else) to take the mark and worship the image of the beast.
A simpler alternative would be for comersial users to start use Mysql under GPL. The GPL allows internal use. As log as you don't redistribute, there is no problem. Even if you redistribute, to license you code under GPL is not that bad. ;) My guess is that many pays for commercial Mysql to get support or to make sure it will still be developed.
IMHO, that would be backstabbing Mysql. Mysql is already available under a free (as in freedom) license, so free software can freely use it. The only problem here will be for the unfree software, and I don't think "we" (I guess you were refering to the FLOSS comunity, not those using Mysql in unfree software) don't "need" to do anything to help unfree software. I think it's only fair that developers of unfree software pays money to use Mysql like they do today. If they want to pay someone to clean room it, or someone starts to do it, I won't be in the way. (Even if I think a better solution would be to contact Mysql and pay them to release the librarys under LGPL) But we should remember that we do not owe anyone gratis work so their software can stay unfree."For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1. Thessalonians 4:16-17, KJV
To me, it seems like born again belivers will sleep in the grave until the event mentioned here. If a dead man is revived (like Lazarus), there is no problem: he was just like asleep, and would have stayed that way until the time was right.
How you could do it:
1. Have a free look and see if you like the library.
2. If you like it, send a mail to the devoloper(s)* asking if it is possible to buy a license for use in unfree software. Include how mutch you could be willing to pay if you deside to use it. I guess many would not mind some extra cash. Also mention why you want to use it, if you belive that would help. Some, like Mysql, Trolltech (QT) and Namesys (Reiser4) will name a price. Others, like FSF, will say no (exept in special cases).
3. If you recive a yes, see if it fits best for the job. (we are now at the "Try several"-stage)
4. If it is the best library, pay for a license and use it.
or, the easy way:
0. See if you can free your own program. If you can do it, do it. Save yourself the trubble and money, and do what many (including me) considers to be the most ethical thing.
* Remember that might also include librarys used by the library.
Not yet, but since the release of 1.0 hit slashdot, I guess it will come soon... ;)
You can't know that it is not measurable for sure. All you can know is that you can't measure it at the moment. (I sure hope the technology won't appear, as it would be the perfect tool in the hands of a goverment that percecute christians. Just think what would happend if goverments like the one of China or even worse: Saudi Arabia and North Korea got their hands on this, not to think about the coming goverment of the Anticrist) However, I can't see how this relates to ID, as ID in itself don't care who the designer is. The designer in ID can be JHVH, Allah, Bob the alien, a mad robot scientist or anything else that is intelligent and capable of this advanced design.
Since you have told me your view on science, philosophy and religion, I will try to explain my wiev on faith vs. science: What the Bible says is The Truth. Since the Bible is the truth it can't be wrong, so it is a perfect decripion of the reality. Science's theorys are just models of the reality. If a model is wrong, sometimes it still is OK to use it as it is accurate enough for what we are doing. Today, we know Newtons laws for movement are wrong (when we are aproximating the speed of light), but we still use it on smaller speeds. (We should still try to seek to improve our models, to get closer to the truth) Sometimes theoryes should be trown away all together, as we see they are wrong. My view is that macroevolution belongs in the later category, as I clearly (from the Bible) can see it is wrong and I can't see that it does any good. (I only see the evil it has caused: ideologyes that has a horrible view on human beings, and peole following them doing horribe things. Not claiming you belong to sutch a ideology, of cource) I realise you don't agree here, and from my (Bible-based) view on politics I belive you should be allowed to disagree (eg. not arrested or loose rights because of your wievs).
When it comes to ID itself, I did said I did not remember the exact definition. So your protest on the way I formulate it might not apply to the real definition. Allow me to try again: "Nature is so complex so we theorice someone have designed it."
In that case ID can be "proven" if scientists make an experiment whereby they design life, and then build it from dead parts. A good starting point for parts from my (creationist) point of wiev would be those found in dust.
(Personaly, I am not comfortable with any of those experiments before we think over the consequenses it might have. Don't get me wrong, I am no enviormentalist, but what if any sutch experiment goes wrong and ecapes? What if the life coming out of it would be a dangerus to us? Some belive that HIV and SARS are designed by humans. What if this would be equally dangerous?)
If a scientist did that I would be able to check for myself, and try to find the flaw I know is there (if I cared enough). Sadly, this is not what happends in public schools (almost the only schools there is in Norway) and in most of popular science, were you learn that "This is how it is, and science has proven it". My guess based on the angry reactions from many slashdotters when someone dear to
Something that don't happend were often.
(as that is a subject were people hold different wievs, and I have not studyed it enough to be able to win a discussion against eather side on the subject, pleace don't take my attemt to explain it as accurate) My attemt: (A part of) You are truly (you know you can't fix it) sorry (not that type of regret that drives you to destruction like Judas regret) about your sins (what you have done against His commandments), you realise you are lost in the state you now are, and you care about it.
That would be harder to do. You have some objective criteria that proves it is not happening (like someone that does it to fit in, or to join the church, etc), but to have a more accurate posetive you would have to be able to test spirits/get a profecy conserning it. I think it would be hard to design a mashine that could detect it using current technology, if it is measureable at all. So for now, that experiment would have to be on a personal level. (but there are places there is a high probability for it to happend, like a place experiencing revival or more generally, where Gods Word is preached pure)
You would not be able to create it when someone born again went against it. What you could do is to bring someone born again (and aware of the victory we have in Jesus, and prayer) to someone else's magic-experiment (after they had measured it's effect). (I hear it is happending today, that people bring inn someone psycic, medium or someone like that to measure magic)
I am suspecting you are mixing Inteligent design (from now ID) and creationisim. ID, at least as it is decribed from my sources is: "Nature is so complex that it must be designed. To assume it is created by chance would be like beleving a scaceship we find is created by chance. Many bodyparts are interdependent, in a way that if one part is missing it renders the other completly useless. Not to mention the genes needed to create those parts." (I don't remember exactly the definition) Note: it don't mention who/what the designer is. Creationalisim on the other hand do, as it claims that God is the creator.
Well, you are adding benefittal mutations and lots of time to microevolution.
Well, we also have fosils of humans walking next to dinosaurs. And when many of those "missing links" are analysed, they turn out not to be "missing links". A (speacy off) fish until recently belived to be the missing link betwen sea and land were dicovered alive and well a wile ago. It was living on deep water, and died on its way to the surface. Also this article has some interesting points on human fosils.
Well, at least here in Norway, kids in public schools (pretty mutch every kid) teaches it as a fact. And the ne
Evolution is "about species adapting", as you say. Nothing more. Nothing else. You seem to think there is some theology there. Nope: there isn't.
In that case we have nothing more to dicuss on that matter. (I am happily suprised, and shold reconsider my assumtions of what people mean)
The sun moving: yes, it is moving, if you observe it from the place we stand, here on the surface of planet earth. Movement is relative to where you observe it from. Example: If I sit in a car on this rotating planet orbiting a sun, am I moving? I stand still observed from the car. Observed from the sun, I am moving.
Burning Gallileo: You shuold not be burned because of your theory, even if it goes against established science and don't fit observations.
your problem of "discuss intelligently with someone who regards the literal interpretation of the Bible as reasonable", you are not alone. At least you admitt it. :)
Your theological remarks: What Onan did was sinfull since it directly violated God's commandment. There will be one judgement of how people have used what God gave to them, I assume that includes intelligence.
I guessed darwinist did not mean atheist, but I became unsure becasue of the way you reacted when I said that "The Creator (of the Bible) is not the same creator that a [person that also is a] darwinist worships (if he is consistant)."
As a closing statement: as long as science don't interfere with the Bible, it has nothing to do with theology, and theology has nothing to do with it.
I probably would have modded you up if I hadn't posted here. :) Mutch of what you wrote was the point I was trying to make: atheisim is also based on faith. And yes, mutch of my data is unscientific. That said, here is a few experiments you can do on parts of what I belive, but under quite rear circumstances. Perhaps so rear that you won't call it scentific: When God is calling on you (something I personally belive he will do at least once in every persons lifetime), genuinly accept. Then you will know He is, and that He is good. You can also do probability-tests concerning prayer, but the one praying must be genuine born again belivers, and pray according to Gods will (it is expressed in the Bible). (Another interesting experimelt you could do is prayer that stops demonic magic, but it would be next to impossible to do as christians won't stand by and whatch the magic while it is beeing validated)
I completly agree with you on the Rea Sea example. I also agree that Inteligent Design is not Science, but the same applies to the belief that we evolved from the monkeys. Sice public school in USA teaches one, why not also mention the other? (in my country, that is unthinkable, the current goverment even tryes to forbid private schools criticising evolution)
Please explain, logically, exactly how evolution rules out "The Creator," because I can't figure it out.
Sorry, my fault. I should not have made assumptions about what people knows. "The Creator", or JHVH as the Name of Him I was refering to is, created man on the fifth day like this: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Macro)evolution teaches "man evolved from apes/apelike creatures over wery many years". If a creator "just thought up the rules that govern the universe, set the whole thing in motion, and then just sat back and whatched", he is not JHVH (of the Bible), because JHVH created man from dust. However, if sutch a think had been, he would have been a creator.
(Someone belive that the creation is symbolic, but I find that highly unprobable as the rest of the Bible refers to a litteral creation, a litteral Adam, litteral sin, etc. Someone also belives that sice "day" also can mean a period of time, it must here refer to a period of time, but here the world "day" is defined in terms of light and darkness a little bit before, so to think "day" here means millions of years I find quite desperat)
The reason I used "The Creator" is that, at lest in some English texts, Capital letter of refering worlds means they refer to JHVH. It might not be in use anymore, or the rule may only have existed in some texts. Thanks for your English corrections, by the way. :) (hope I did not make you regret posting)
Evolution does not rule out a creator: any creator.
Evolution, as in "humans evolved form apes", rules out The Creator. If you use the world Evolution about speacies adapting (the other meaning of the word, something that actually is a scientific theory), than it is correct.
Evolution implies abnsolutely nothing about the existence of a god, any god, or, in case of its existance, of its methods, plans, intentions, or desires.
The statements "We were formed from dust that was made living, on one day" definatly comflicts with "We evolved from monkeys over millions of years". If you belive in a god that evolved us, it is not the same God as the Bible talk about.
The darwinist does not worship any creator.
You said evolution don't rule out a creator. That is why I said that a darwinist (someone beliving in evolution) is not worshiping the creator of the Bible. (If Darwinist is defined as a atheist, sorry about my English)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had experienced the bible.
I did not claim to have witnessed the Bible. (But I have experienced it while reading it, if that was whar you asked) I have seen the profecys (from the Bible) come true in our history. I have experienced the supernatural. That is what I have experienced, and what I doubt you will belive me when I tell.
You don't care what science says.
You are correct that science is not my God. If science said the earth was flat, would you belive it? If science said some grop of people called races was above others, would you belive it? Remember, science is constantly changing, and not absolute truth. Back in the days, Newton got was critisized for his biblebased claim that in the future, we would have realy fast ways of transportation, because sciense said that any person traveling faster than a fixed limit (don't remember the limit) would choke. Who was right?
A belief you base on absolutely no data or evidence other than a bunch of dogma
That I base it on the Bible don't mean I don't have any evidence. I have the profecyes. And for my own part, I have what I have experienced, but I doubt my experiences can convince you.
written and composed by the church selectively.
(I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here, if I was wrong in doing it, pleace check real history before saying I was:) Well, the apostels and profets was a part of a body, refered by many today as "the church", and the Bible don't include Harry Potter, so in that manner it is selective.
There are a lot of people who believe in things another dude wrote. He liked to write quatraines. It's just a bunch of jibber jabber, but people interpret it to mean what they want it to mean and read devine things from it. But it's still just as silly as a book full of parables.
Allow me to help you correct some of the errors you had here:
May I suggest that you read th Bible yourself? Then you at least can critisice in a informed way. (I recomend starting in the gospel of Luke)
That I will have to explain my statement for you to understand it might be pointing at an explanation of some of your beliefs, but I will still try.
A: Evolution don't rule out a creator.
B: Some creators did not create by evolution, and therefore beliving in them and evolution comflicts.
Conclusion: Evolution does rule out some creators, but not all.
A: The Creator (of the Bible) did not create us by evolution, but formed us from dust.
B: Evolution does rule out some creators, but not all.
Conclusion: The Creator (of the Bible) is not the same creator that a darwinist worships (if he is consistant).