There are answers in the Bible for some of your questions, but for others the answer is "we arent told". This isnt evasion, and its perfectly valid: once you accept the premise that "there is a God", the assertion that he is beholden to explain Himself becomes rather absurd. That he condescended to do so to such a degree already, and one would demand yet more, I think indicates clearly a flaw that all of us have: pride. It is, among many other behaviors and inclinations I see, a strong support for the Bible's claims about the character and nature of man.
I percieve this to be a strawman. There simply is no assertion that He is beholden to explain anything at all. Such a thing does not enter into the relm of my reality. Therefore, your perception of my pride is based on a false premise. Perhaps I have pride, but this would not be a source in any way. I wager that the Bible's claims about the nature of man come from the men which penned it. Word of God, or not.
This is generally regarded as a difficult question; and I dont intend to say my answer will satisfy everyone. But at the core of it, the problem is that your question is wrong: There are no good people. I would assert that there are far more people than would like to admit it that in the right situation could be as brutal as Stalin, and feel fully justified in doing so. I would challenge anyone who thinks otherwise of themselves to reflect on whether their deeds, thoughts, and motivations are truly without blame. And I would assert that anyone who thinks they are is practicing self-deception, and that a single day watching that person could show the lie.
This is simply the question I hear tackled. You are asserting that man's nature is what we see throughout history. I do not disagree, survival is a strong instinct. But then you assert that there are no people practicing self-revelation, and no one conciously training their own will to never fall into such traps. On this point you are flat out wrong. Not that there are many.
I think there are many good evidences of that, and for me the biggest is how often the Bible gets it right-- it is to me a credible source. When raw secularism will try to say that communism can work and that there is nothing wrong with man, I can judge its credibility based on how often it has gotten it right. When the Bible says that all men are wicked, and even their best deeds are filled with flawed motivations, I can look and see ample evidence of that. Between the two, the Bible is thus established as much more credible as regards the human state.
The Bible is not a book of evidence. It getting it right or wrong has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what your comment regarding secularism and communism is about, or how they are connected to this argument. That communism was attempted? What is your point here? That the Bible reflects man's self centerdness is not a point in your favour. The Bible is Word of God, written by Man.
There are other examples, but what is convincing for me would perhaps not be convincing for you; if this were truly something important to you (which you say it is not) you could find out whether the bible is credible by reading it.
I never said it was unimportant. I said it is irrelevant. I picked that word carefully. I'm about half way through. Cover to cover. Not missing a beat.
I think you are-- forgive me if this is offensive-- deceiving yourself. You have already acknowledged that if God does exist, then is the most important thing in the world; the only way you can feel it irrelevant is by wagering that he does not exist at all.
I have a similar sentiment towards you, but to me that is not an issue. You're missing the point. I'm not wagering. To wager is to through the die, if you will. I'm not throwing any. I see no point. The days are simp
I would challenge you to consider on what grounds you consider the question "irrelevant"
Your first paragraph really highlights what it is I'm trying to get across. The "if" and the other "if". Yes, "if" He does in fact exist... we don't even have an answer to that question. We do know that we exist, however, so what changes? We exist either way. So lets start asking the "big question".... why? We asked. We still exist, and nothing changed. We asked again, and again and again, and nothing changes. For christians... it's been what 2000 years now? I sit through church, and the question is still the same. Same doubts. Same questions over and over and over. "Why do bad things happen to good people?" "How do we know God is real?" etc, etc... Is this not chaising your own tail? Because I don't really see it gets people any actual answers that they seek.
And what is it about the stance that feels "easy" to you? I didn't arrive at it just out of the blue. I arrived at this by wrestling with the question and ultimately finding no significance for it in my life. That does not mean I am without humility. When my *prayers are answered I make concious note of it. I say thank you. It is enough for me to know I have done so. The existence of a God or lack there of is irrelevant in that thought process.
*Prayers... or wishes or desires of my mind, whatever you wanna call it.
Interesting that you take this as a personal insult when I don't even know who you are.
A mistake on my part. As slashdot's crowd contains pretty much every single type of asshole on the spectrum, I think the back of my mind I gravitate towards a harsher stance than I intend. My appologies for jumping the gun, it's obvious that you are neither unimaginative nor ignorant. Let me put to bed the notion that my self worth is somehow involved. My foot is squarely in my mouth, my friend:)
After several months of effort I dug in quite deeply, but didn't make it to the point of realizing that there were 100 joins occurring, because I realized that drupal was a piece of shit before I had to figure that out. Seems like an idiotic way to implement it in any case. Any insight into that design decision?
Yes, I have some insight. It would probably warrant a very lengthy discussion. The TL;DR version is basically that it's meant for being a generic building block. One the one hand you can have a table per node type, on the other one table with joins to the auxhillery data. From a system maintanance perspective, the trade off is for the most common use case -- a content type with a number of fields, potentially. With this in mind, fields are not the right tool for a 100 columns, but, as you've noted, there's still a way provided by Drupal to tie in another table into the mix. So you could have had your 100 fields without all the overhead of custom fields. That, my friend, is why the lot of them tell you that actually can do this. Figuring out how is a whole different story.
At any rate, I will deny that Drupal is an "obtuse" CMS. It hardly functions as one, I find working with it is closer to working with a framework. We never dropped the system on a client without taking the time to create a simplified admin interface.
I will not argue whether "everything" can be done in Drupal... Honestly I don't know what kinds of things you're building. But I will say that if you can do it in PHP, you can do it in Drupal. The whole module system it has is actually quite flexible in this regard. You yank out everything but the core (or even the core -- as some distributions have), and apply a number of lean modules that do only what you need them to do (no extra queries, nothing behind the scenes, just the hooks system). You can completely do away with practically all of the stock modules. Chances are you would still find a few useful ones though.
I hope this puts some perspective on what I'm trying to get across. By no means do I come from a 'fanboy' position. I used to hate the bloody thing too. I stopped once I saw what I could do with it. Now, with a number of completed projects under my belt, I get things going pretty quickly these days so that the rest of my team has something to style.
Depends on the 'atheist'. Though I wouldn't call myself that. For that I have to hold the notion that God does not exist. Instead, I hold the notion that it does not matter. That it is a completly irrelevant question to ask to begin with. Does that mean I'm an athiest? I don't know, perhaps. So, in my case, all I do is reply with "why is this relevant"? I wouldn't say I redicule. I just see them chaising their own tails like dogs and it just saddens me.
If you want to build something in Drupal, you gotta do it from scratch, and you gotta do everything the Drupal way. And there's a lot of shit you can't do in Drupal.
I'm very curious about this... honestly this does not describe any experience I've ever had. Once the design of the site was completed, thus far I've only encountered minor obsticles. What couldn't you do?
I have node types on my site that support 100 fields. Do you know how much memory Drupal takes when you load up a CCK form with 100 fields?
If you had bothered to note, a 'field' within drupal translate to an entire table. It's a rather important implementation detail. You modeled something to contain 100 joins, so what is so surprising about the performance hit?
And how does drupal support multiple languages? Instead of supporting multiple languages per node, you have some hacked up shit where multiple nodes are tied together (At least when I was working with 6). And if you want to edit two languages at once, you have to dig into the heart of the mostly undocumented form engine and load two nodes at once. Which didn't work because it maxed out my PHP install's memory. Why the fuck is Drupal taking several tens of megabytes for only 100 fields?
Perhaps you should have realized you were using the wrong tool for the task? Seriously. Drupal had been built with a veriety of use cases in mind. There are plenty, but they hardly cover every single case. Quite obiously nodes did not fit the data model you needed. Frankly neither was Drupal. I sincerely appologize that you had to discover it the hard way, the failure was yours, however.
Ok, if you are a CMS jockey and every $3k site you build is pretty much the same with a different skin, then yes, Drupal is great. But if you are an actual developer, and need to do a lot of custom things, then try a real framework like Zend, or Codeigniter, or Laravel, or Yii, or even another CMS, like ModX or TomatoCMS or Pimcore. But for god's sake don't waste your short life by dipping into the cesspool that is Drupal.
Now you're just insulting. I'm no jokey. And it doesn't take much to make something interesting. You simply lack imagination, and probably, education.
That one issue you had, I would say is the hardest one to resolve. There are a number of them that I like to call my "go to" modules. They are exclusively of the building block type. Panels and Views, for instance (there are a number of others). They tend to offer the right tools to replace effectively all the other niche modules that are out there. It takes time, but it has definately been more rewarding than annoying.
What aspects are 'over engeneered'? What aspects are 'so complicated'? You haven't pointed anything out. You have made general, blanket statements without actually discussing what, concretely, you mean. I find a lot of the 'complicated' tools to be extremely powerful in what they do, so I'm not sure what makes you justify that point. Therefore, I have asked.
To be honest, I find all of these tools to be extremely expert oriented. That, in of itself isn't a bad thing. These systems are big. Real big. And the main thing to remember that it's not just unpack it and go. Frankly, I don't know where that idea comes from. It's knowing how other people are already using it. There are best practices, idoms, and other, invaluable lessons that come with experience and education. At this point, if I were to take Drupal (I only deal with 7), and my standard, go to modules, I find it hard to imagine a type of site that a client would want that couldn't be built. The main obsticle is coming up with a good design for the site to begin with, but that isn't really what Drupal is used for. There are a TON of special purpose modules out there that make things confusing, but I almost never use them. The modules to use are the ones that give you general tools to build things with. I suggest, if you're still interested to investigate these: Rules, Views (and Views Slideshow, Draggable Views), Panels, CTools (page manager), Display Suite, Context, Heartbeat, Flag, *all of the desired fields*, and Commerce (with it's extensions). Yes. I realize this sounds like a commercial, for that, I appologize. I mention these for only one reason. I hardly ever have to code. Sometimes, yes, it happens, rarely. You yourself are hand-coding, and have only your eyes, perhaps a couple of others, checking things over. Long story short, the wheel has been already invented. There's almost nothing that you'll need to do that hasn't been already done and provided by these frameworks. The difference is your education.
Insightful?! Hardly, more like hateful and without anything to back the strawmen. Sounds like this man failed to use Drupal. Disclaimer: I do work for a small print/web media shop, and for web, we consistantly choose (that's right, we have options) Drupal (7 for every new site). A small number of sites are of other systems (Wordpress, CakePHP, custom,...). Since we can't afford to dick around (time is money) we use the tools that are within our reach and that deliver. Now, I don't exactly know where he's coming from, but I'll admit that I had that attitude towards Drupal. I didn't like (and still don't, but can respect) Drupal 6 and below. It didn't take long to actually appreciate it for what it is: The right tool for a great many tasks.
If you genuinely dissagree, perhaps you should point out an actual deficiency so that, I don't know, it could be improved or something... just a thought.
To which the appropriate response is: "I think God sent you here to test *MY* faith, dude". Pretend that you're strapped into something and are trying to get him for effect.
Mods... I am asking a legitimate question. Who are these "peers?" The only ones currently mentioned are in the same pockets as the author. If you think I'm flamebaiting, that's just sad.
Not sure where I went infantile... but sure I may have been overly emotional for no reason, and I will take a hit on that. I will readily admit that I *can't* provide you with a quality, peer-reviewed article on the subject. There are none in circulation that bear the proper markings. But... allow me to appeal to your common sense for a minute; are we that fucking batshit insane to actually think this stuff is any more dangerous than what we already know? Right. Frankly, the number of papers thrown in my face has no bearing on the outcome of my opinion. The papers have to make *sense*. It doesn't help that *most* papers are funded by an agenda either.
Slashdot Mirror
I percieve this to be a strawman. There simply is no assertion that He is beholden to explain anything at all. Such a thing does not enter into the relm of my reality. Therefore, your perception of my pride is based on a false premise. Perhaps I have pride, but this would not be a source in any way. I wager that the Bible's claims about the nature of man come from the men which penned it. Word of God, or not.
This is simply the question I hear tackled. You are asserting that man's nature is what we see throughout history. I do not disagree, survival is a strong instinct. But then you assert that there are no people practicing self-revelation, and no one conciously training their own will to never fall into such traps. On this point you are flat out wrong. Not that there are many.
The Bible is not a book of evidence. It getting it right or wrong has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what your comment regarding secularism and communism is about, or how they are connected to this argument. That communism was attempted? What is your point here? That the Bible reflects man's self centerdness is not a point in your favour. The Bible is Word of God, written by Man.
I never said it was unimportant. I said it is irrelevant. I picked that word carefully. I'm about half way through. Cover to cover. Not missing a beat.
I have a similar sentiment towards you, but to me that is not an issue. You're missing the point. I'm not wagering. To wager is to through the die, if you will. I'm not throwing any. I see no point. The days are simp
Your first paragraph really highlights what it is I'm trying to get across. The "if" and the other "if". Yes, "if" He does in fact exist... we don't even have an answer to that question. We do know that we exist, however, so what changes? We exist either way. So lets start asking the "big question".... why? We asked. We still exist, and nothing changed. We asked again, and again and again, and nothing changes. For christians... it's been what 2000 years now? I sit through church, and the question is still the same. Same doubts. Same questions over and over and over. "Why do bad things happen to good people?" "How do we know God is real?" etc, etc... Is this not chaising your own tail? Because I don't really see it gets people any actual answers that they seek.
And what is it about the stance that feels "easy" to you? I didn't arrive at it just out of the blue. I arrived at this by wrestling with the question and ultimately finding no significance for it in my life. That does not mean I am without humility. When my *prayers are answered I make concious note of it. I say thank you. It is enough for me to know I have done so. The existence of a God or lack there of is irrelevant in that thought process.
*Prayers... or wishes or desires of my mind, whatever you wanna call it.
A mistake on my part. As slashdot's crowd contains pretty much every single type of asshole on the spectrum, I think the back of my mind I gravitate towards a harsher stance than I intend. My appologies for jumping the gun, it's obvious that you are neither unimaginative nor ignorant. Let me put to bed the notion that my self worth is somehow involved. My foot is squarely in my mouth, my friend :)
Yes, I have some insight. It would probably warrant a very lengthy discussion. The TL;DR version is basically that it's meant for being a generic building block. One the one hand you can have a table per node type, on the other one table with joins to the auxhillery data. From a system maintanance perspective, the trade off is for the most common use case -- a content type with a number of fields, potentially. With this in mind, fields are not the right tool for a 100 columns, but, as you've noted, there's still a way provided by Drupal to tie in another table into the mix. So you could have had your 100 fields without all the overhead of custom fields. That, my friend, is why the lot of them tell you that actually can do this. Figuring out how is a whole different story.
At any rate, I will deny that Drupal is an "obtuse" CMS. It hardly functions as one, I find working with it is closer to working with a framework. We never dropped the system on a client without taking the time to create a simplified admin interface.
I will not argue whether "everything" can be done in Drupal... Honestly I don't know what kinds of things you're building. But I will say that if you can do it in PHP, you can do it in Drupal. The whole module system it has is actually quite flexible in this regard. You yank out everything but the core (or even the core -- as some distributions have), and apply a number of lean modules that do only what you need them to do (no extra queries, nothing behind the scenes, just the hooks system). You can completely do away with practically all of the stock modules. Chances are you would still find a few useful ones though.
I hope this puts some perspective on what I'm trying to get across. By no means do I come from a 'fanboy' position. I used to hate the bloody thing too. I stopped once I saw what I could do with it. Now, with a number of completed projects under my belt, I get things going pretty quickly these days so that the rest of my team has something to style.
Cheers
You're not even a new kind of stupid.
And you're not?
And this is helpful to the topic at hand how?
Depends on the 'atheist'. Though I wouldn't call myself that. For that I have to hold the notion that God does not exist. Instead, I hold the notion that it does not matter. That it is a completly irrelevant question to ask to begin with. Does that mean I'm an athiest? I don't know, perhaps. So, in my case, all I do is reply with "why is this relevant"? I wouldn't say I redicule. I just see them chaising their own tails like dogs and it just saddens me.
I'm very curious about this... honestly this does not describe any experience I've ever had. Once the design of the site was completed, thus far I've only encountered minor obsticles. What couldn't you do?
If you had bothered to note, a 'field' within drupal translate to an entire table. It's a rather important implementation detail. You modeled something to contain 100 joins, so what is so surprising about the performance hit?
Perhaps you should have realized you were using the wrong tool for the task? Seriously. Drupal had been built with a veriety of use cases in mind. There are plenty, but they hardly cover every single case. Quite obiously nodes did not fit the data model you needed. Frankly neither was Drupal. I sincerely appologize that you had to discover it the hard way, the failure was yours, however.
Now you're just insulting. I'm no jokey. And it doesn't take much to make something interesting. You simply lack imagination, and probably, education.
That one issue you had, I would say is the hardest one to resolve. There are a number of them that I like to call my "go to" modules. They are exclusively of the building block type. Panels and Views, for instance (there are a number of others). They tend to offer the right tools to replace effectively all the other niche modules that are out there. It takes time, but it has definately been more rewarding than annoying.
How frigging informative of you. Good job. Go pat yourself on the back now.
What aspects are 'over engeneered'? What aspects are 'so complicated'? You haven't pointed anything out. You have made general, blanket statements without actually discussing what, concretely, you mean. I find a lot of the 'complicated' tools to be extremely powerful in what they do, so I'm not sure what makes you justify that point. Therefore, I have asked.
It's a fish.
To be honest, I find all of these tools to be extremely expert oriented. That, in of itself isn't a bad thing. These systems are big. Real big. And the main thing to remember that it's not just unpack it and go. Frankly, I don't know where that idea comes from. It's knowing how other people are already using it. There are best practices, idoms, and other, invaluable lessons that come with experience and education. At this point, if I were to take Drupal (I only deal with 7), and my standard, go to modules, I find it hard to imagine a type of site that a client would want that couldn't be built. The main obsticle is coming up with a good design for the site to begin with, but that isn't really what Drupal is used for. There are a TON of special purpose modules out there that make things confusing, but I almost never use them. The modules to use are the ones that give you general tools to build things with. I suggest, if you're still interested to investigate these: Rules, Views (and Views Slideshow, Draggable Views), Panels, CTools (page manager), Display Suite, Context, Heartbeat, Flag, *all of the desired fields*, and Commerce (with it's extensions). Yes. I realize this sounds like a commercial, for that, I appologize. I mention these for only one reason. I hardly ever have to code. Sometimes, yes, it happens, rarely. You yourself are hand-coding, and have only your eyes, perhaps a couple of others, checking things over. Long story short, the wheel has been already invented. There's almost nothing that you'll need to do that hasn't been already done and provided by these frameworks. The difference is your education.
I support. Nicely put.
Insightful?! Hardly, more like hateful and without anything to back the strawmen. Sounds like this man failed to use Drupal. Disclaimer: I do work for a small print/web media shop, and for web, we consistantly choose (that's right, we have options) Drupal (7 for every new site). A small number of sites are of other systems (Wordpress, CakePHP, custom, ...). Since we can't afford to dick around (time is money) we use the tools that are within our reach and that deliver. Now, I don't exactly know where he's coming from, but I'll admit that I had that attitude towards Drupal. I didn't like (and still don't, but can respect) Drupal 6 and below. It didn't take long to actually appreciate it for what it is: The right tool for a great many tasks.
If you genuinely dissagree, perhaps you should point out an actual deficiency so that, I don't know, it could be improved or something... just a thought.
It's delusional.
Thank you.
Indeed.
Perhaps that's another swing and a miss...
Don't bother... you're using logic. You will only alienate him further. Hope he won't go too crazy.
To which the appropriate response is: "I think God sent you here to test *MY* faith, dude". Pretend that you're strapped into something and are trying to get him for effect.
Mods... I am asking a legitimate question. Who are these "peers?" The only ones currently mentioned are in the same pockets as the author. If you think I'm flamebaiting, that's just sad.
Not sure where I went infantile... but sure I may have been overly emotional for no reason, and I will take a hit on that. I will readily admit that I *can't* provide you with a quality, peer-reviewed article on the subject. There are none in circulation that bear the proper markings. But... allow me to appeal to your common sense for a minute; are we that fucking batshit insane to actually think this stuff is any more dangerous than what we already know? Right. Frankly, the number of papers thrown in my face has no bearing on the outcome of my opinion. The papers have to make *sense*. It doesn't help that *most* papers are funded by an agenda either.
Never have I ever said anything about a conspiracy theory. I just linked the government to itself. Yes please tell us more about this "rape" case.
Peer reviewed? Seriously?