I'm curious as to how your experiences have been with 3d in other virtualization software.
Basically, I've used VMware and Parallels to run Windows, Solaris, and Linux for regular workstation use, work stuff, not games. They both seem fast enough and stable enough to make it through my normal work schedule, running some fairly heavy 3D apps, but not anything with a real time frame rate requirement.
I hope that they will soon be usable for casual games, but it's not a big deal for me.
On which facts do you base your assertion? I understand the 3D issue (by the way does Parallels do 3D?) but other than that?
Parallels and VMware seem pretty close with both having some rudimentary 3D, but not really fast enough for games and the like. Other criteria for me are general speed; ease of install, snapshots, and general use; support for consumer hardware; and stability. I've only played with VirtualBox but it really did not seem to be consumer ready or ready for everyday use for me.
Sun has consistently appeared to be one of the largest corporate supporters of OSS, and their hardware is rock solid, yet they seem to get bashed every time they come up... What does everybody have against Sun?
Personally, I appreciate Sun's OSS work. I do understand some of the sentiment though. Sun often seems to be a day late and a dollar short in their OSS ventures. They waited to release OpenSolaris under a reasonable OSS license until Linux had completely dominated that niche. Ditto with many other technologies. Even now, it is a real pain in the butt to actually get a copy of OpenSolaris and install it as a normal user. They make you install a proprietary download manager and give them a bunch of personal info. On almost all of their projects, developers not working at Sun complain about how hard it is to get changes and contributions added to those projects, because of all the red tape. Sun's OSS motto might be "we'll do OSS if we have no other option, and then we'll make it annoying". In this case they've made the binaries for this project unavailable for corporate users in a clear attempt to try to make things artificially hard so they can make money on unnecessary service contracts, instead of making it easy and concentrating on service contracts where they can provide real value (the former strategy often resulting in lesser adoption of their projects, to the detriment of said project).
I'd like to stress that I do appreciate their work. Unlike another person replying, I have no problem with their creating and profiting from both proprietary and OSS projects. They just are a big business that despite being a large OSS contributor, does not play very well with individuals or the OSS community as a whole. It leaves a lot of us personally frustrated with them when we expect them to behave like other big OSS contributors. Heck, even Apple is easier to collaborate with.
It looks like a viable candidate for a VM, but still a bit behind the leaders. VMWare and Parallels seem to be better choices if you can afford them, but hopefully being free as in beer and GPL will allow it to catch up rapidly and make the ongoing competition even better. If they can get 3D graphics card support running, I will be looking really hard at VirtualBox.
Until I can globally turn off spellcheck-as-you-type, I don't want Firefox using OS X services...
Right-click on any field, select "Spelling and Grammar", select "Check Spelling While Typing". Alternately, you can move the AppleSpell.service out of the global Services directory to disable it completely.
You can find out how to get the firefox source code here [mozilla.org] and the web kit/safari source code here [webkit.org].
You have a point, but I suspect the hardest part of allowing text fields o be resized is in the source for Safari (the front end whose source is not available) not in Webkit. Webkit allows text boxes to be style-able, but I'm not convinced that's really enough to make it easy to pull the feature in Firefox. Hopefully, however, Firefox developers see how useful it is and copy it.
For anyone curious how things compare, here are the numbers for Acid 3 compliance and sunspider javascript speed for Firefox and Safari on OS X on my laptop. For Acid 3, higher is better. For Sunspider, lower is better.
Agreed. Resizable text fields and support for OS X system services are the two biggest advantages of Safari over Firefox these days. Safari is a bit faster, but Firefox has plug-in functionality. Hopefully both Safari and Firefox will continue to copy useful features from one another.
Sadly, resizable text fields are not in Shiretoko, nor does it support OS X services or use the native spelling checker (which is a service).
On the plus side it manages an 83/100 on the Acid3 test (up from 67) and on my system scores 3426 on the Sunspider java speed test (faster than the 4330 score in Firefox 3.0 and 7516 on Safari 3.1.2).
Solar isn't competing against oil unless you a solar powered car.
To be clear, that is not unusual. Hybrid cars run on electricity until the battery runs out. Many plug in and get that electricity from the grid. This means, electricity dumped onto the grid is going to power cars in lieu of gas. As gas prices increase, there is more motivation to buy plug-in hybrids. There is a direct relationship and one growing with the changes in the auto industry.
For example, if the government hired 10,000 people to dig a giant ditch, and than hired another 10,000 people to fill in the ditch, jobs would be created, but would it help the economy?
Probably. You see, a larger percentage of tax dollars comes from the very top than the very bottom. This means such a program is basically taking money from the very rich and giving it to the very poor, who will have that money to spend on goods, stimulating the economy. The very wealthy can buy a limited amount of goods and for the rest, wealth is simply accumulating at the top while being drained by interest payments from the poor. Paying the poor from tax dollars combats wealth consolidation, which is currently runaway, much like it was before the great depression.
That is not to say paying people to perform useless tasks is ideal. Socialized healthcare (implemented remotely sanely, which may not be the reality) would provide greater benefit to the public while still redistributing wealth in a economically beneficial way.
Take for instance Time Machine. Pfft. It's just a backup and restore. We've had that for ages. Really all it is just:
#> tar -czvf back.tar.gz *.*
I think many people tend to oversimplify Apples innovations. Time Machine is a good example. It is more than just an easy to use back up. It is more than just an easy to use versioned backup. It is also an API that allows programs to access that data. Wrapping a GUI around tar for backup would be an accomplishment and useful, but designing a consistent way going forward for data to be granularly backed up and that data to be accessed by applications is real innovation. No other OS I know of allows you to use the "undo" command across any new application and which will undo farther than the last save, farther than the last session, but all the way through to the earliest version in your automagical versioning backup. Because Apple targets the home user and explains these features in simple terms, many who do not look closely tend to likewise oversimplify them in their own minds.
At Pixar, he started, once again, from nothing, and built a company he later sold for $7.4b.
I agree with your main point, but Jobs bought 1/3 of the existing Lucasfilm for $5 million, seven years after it was founded. So he didn't start from nothing in that case.
That's great! Now the police/government are in competition with the illegal drug dealers. Capitalistic competition solves yet another problem!
Okay, why don't you take a breath and think about this for a second. This isn't all illegal drugs, only marijuana and only for people who have a prescription from their doctor. Basically, it is allowing patients to get the same medication they could already get in pill form (drabinol or marinol) without paying the outrageous cost charged by drug companies. The police officers make no money off this and neither does the state. And anyone who has researched the issue at all or read the large quantity of medical literature the feds ignore has to admit that the federal prohibition on marijuana is both completely ineffective (half the population has used it including former presidents) and pointless. It is simply a money sink with no upside for the people. It exists for propaganda reasons and to try to prevent portions of our society from voting.
I may not agree with some anti-drug laws but using police -- people who are legally allowed to carry and use weapons against the populace -- to circumvent federal law seems ripe for abuse.
Technically, they're obeying federal law.
So perhaps there should be a whole branch of state law enforcement which is not entitled to carry weapons but is allowed to enforce any portion of state law that contradicts federal law.
You're conflating not enforcing federal laws, with enforcing state laws that contradict federal law. Those are two very different things.
I am by no means well versed in this area of law. However, it makes no sense to me whatsoever how under state law, the growing of pot is legal, but illegal under federal law. How can a state tell you that you are allowed to violate a federal law? And, what happens if the feds do raid? Would you be able to make an arguable case in court on the premise that the state in which you reside said it is ok to violate the federal law?
It works like this, if the state has no law against it and policies in place, the majority of law enforcement (state troopers, county sheriffs, city police, etc.) don't bother you. The only way to get "busted" is if the FBI, BATF, etc. discovers what you are doing and goes after you. There is little the state can do to prevent that, but it makes it highly unlikely you will be arrested because the feds don't have the manpower.
In at least one instance California was distributing medical marijuana through the state police, since state police are immune to federal prosecution for possession of illicit drugs in the course of their duty. Basically, it is just a way for a state to be as uncooperative with federal laws they disagree with.
Seriously. I hereby challenge a representative of the FSF foundation to speak up and tell us if any of the money donated to them has gone to this 'project'. I've donated money to them in the past, but if they think trying to block Apple's customers from getting tech support is helping... well they can do it without my contributions from now on. I donate so that they can help out with lawsuits regarding consumer freedom, not so they can create frustration and suffering among people who just want somebody to diagnose a problem with their laptop.
Congratulations guys. You'll be getting not a cent more from me until it is clear that the money won't be wasted on this kind of asshattery.
MS has a monopoly to abuse and is constantly taking actions to break interoperability with competitors. It doesn't matter if Linux is better than Windows, because that still won't allow it to gain market share.
What are you proposing Apple has a monopoly on and what actions on their part are abusing said monopoly to prevent competing free software from gaining market share?
Most people I have dealt with (both guys and girls) view a tech girl more negatively then they would a tech guy at first and then have no trouble treating them as an equal after they have proven them self.
My view from the computer science field is that social factors result in both positives and negatives for the probable competence of a woman who has trained herself for a career in CS. Generally, I think it is considered socially undesirable for women, which weeds out most candidates except those exposed to repeatedly by a pro-CS environment (a parent or relative or mentor who is an expert and gets them into it at a young age) or those who have natural gifts that give them an advantage. This, taken alone, would tend to mean there are fewer women in the field, but they would be more competent. Then, however, they go through a formal education which is weighted against them due to quotas which allow less competent ones to continue and preferential treatment from peers (I knew a girl who did not write any of her own code and had several CS boyfriends happy to help her with all of it). As a result, a significant number of the women who go into CS end up with an inferior education and inferior experience. This carries over into the workplace where the male-dominated culture tends to give them more leeway and hire them preferentially just to have a few women in the workplace.
Overall, It is hard to say what all this results in. From my personal experience, working with really, really smart people on the high end of the CS field, I'd say about 2/3 of the women programmers/architects we hire are below the average for the company. The remaining 1/3 are at the top of the game, better on average than the men. Not many tend to fall into the middle. That's just my perspective though. Statistically and across the field as a whole things could be quite different.
We think that since we discovered what DNA is and have a caveman's understanding of how genes work, we can be an omniscient god and figure out each individuals pre-determined fate. I think that, especially in the science crowd, the Nature aspect is way overblown compared to the Nurture part of it.
I don't know who would think that. I read a good met-analysis of double blind studies with separated twins that estimated the influence of genetics. It was about 20%, leaving 80% for environmental factors. I think most people who look at the data clearly see that genetics are a factor, but certainly not as important as environment. In fact, didn't they cover this in a chapter of "Freakonomics" as well?
Never in my life have I encountered a serious situation where the system favors girls or women over me. Not in school, not in business, not in anything beyond women getting to order first in restaurants.
I recall at the end of high school, when I was looking at scholarships to fund my higher education, that there were plenty of scholarships available that had a gender or racial requirement, making me ineligible. That is a situation where women had a real advantage over me. One of the universities I was applying for also had a quota for both races and genders, which meant women with lower test scores were admitted aver men with higher test scores. Again, that clearly favored women over me.
Now it is entirely possible that other social factors provided males an advantage over women, like math teachers who wrote recommendations that subconsciously took into account their prejudices about gender. Still, if you didn't see anything that did not clearly favor women, either times have changed or you were independently wealthy.
I'd also note that while participating in hiring a technical writer for a tech start-up I worked at, we hired on a woman who was clearly less qualified than one of the male candidates. This might be because all the other writers were women, but I also overheard comments from a higher up manager about our company "needing more women" as we were mostly men simply because the field we worked in is mostly dominated by men. We actually went out of our way several times to hire women when possible, but most of them ended up being less than competent and were eventually let go. Whatever the case, women were given preferential treatment in several cases.
When you compare the same jobs, same qualifications, same experience, same competency and same working hours, there is no meaningful difference between male and female salaries.
I don't think you are correct. I remember reading a study a year ago that compared men and women's salaries for the same jobs and levels of education and experience and the results were women paid 15% less overall (25% less when one only looked at the private sector).
I don't recall who the study was by and Google does not turn it up right away. Do you have a source for your claim?
I'd also like to note that even if there is reliable data showing men and women make the same amount for the same job (with the same qualifications, experience, hours, etc.) that does not necessarily indicate equality as it allows for it to be harder for women to get high paying jobs. For example, if you look at all the people who are CFO's for fortune 500 companies and determine that the men and women make about the same, but 90% of those CFO's are men, that could very easily be an indication that it is harder for women to get those jobs because of discrimination. Alternately, it could indicate that for social reasons women are less likely to go into a career track that would lead them to such a position. The point being, same pay for the same job is not conclusive evidence of no gender discrimination.
Actually it is both in Latin and in Greek, and arameic, and hebrew, and... The versions that were accepted as bible were initally spread with greek and latin versions of the same text on facing pages, or only the latin text.
As I recall, this is not true. Originally it was primarily in greek, with some documents including original translations into some other languages. The first bibles with greek and latin on facing pages were written much later, although still predating the vulgate.
Latin is certainly the language of the bible, despite the book being originally written in greek.
One could just as easily argue that English is the language of the bible, despite Latin having been the most popular for a long time.
Please elaborate. I was raised Christian, and while I don't believe in it, those 10 commandmenty thingies are pretty much the fundamental building blocks of the religion.
Around about 200 AD a church in Rome claimed that they were the only ones who could properly interpret the bible and that their interpretation and in fact their commandments were the will of christ. They went so far as to eventually decide which gospels and versions fo gospels were "true" and should be included in what is now the bible.
People have been justifying murder as compatible with christianity ever since by claiming the church can legitimize killing and disobedience to the church is a sin.
"It's too risky for anybody to translate that [The Bible] into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English."
Amusingly, this used to be that true Christians should only read the Bible in latin and earlier greek versions were junk. I remember one anecdote about the vatican selling hundreds of the earliest surviving copies of the gospels (in greek) as scrap parchment to be made into fireworks.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious as to how your experiences have been with 3d in other virtualization software.
Basically, I've used VMware and Parallels to run Windows, Solaris, and Linux for regular workstation use, work stuff, not games. They both seem fast enough and stable enough to make it through my normal work schedule, running some fairly heavy 3D apps, but not anything with a real time frame rate requirement.
I hope that they will soon be usable for casual games, but it's not a big deal for me.
On which facts do you base your assertion? I understand the 3D issue (by the way does Parallels do 3D?) but other than that?
Parallels and VMware seem pretty close with both having some rudimentary 3D, but not really fast enough for games and the like. Other criteria for me are general speed; ease of install, snapshots, and general use; support for consumer hardware; and stability. I've only played with VirtualBox but it really did not seem to be consumer ready or ready for everyday use for me.
Sun has consistently appeared to be one of the largest corporate supporters of OSS, and their hardware is rock solid, yet they seem to get bashed every time they come up... What does everybody have against Sun?
Personally, I appreciate Sun's OSS work. I do understand some of the sentiment though. Sun often seems to be a day late and a dollar short in their OSS ventures. They waited to release OpenSolaris under a reasonable OSS license until Linux had completely dominated that niche. Ditto with many other technologies. Even now, it is a real pain in the butt to actually get a copy of OpenSolaris and install it as a normal user. They make you install a proprietary download manager and give them a bunch of personal info. On almost all of their projects, developers not working at Sun complain about how hard it is to get changes and contributions added to those projects, because of all the red tape. Sun's OSS motto might be "we'll do OSS if we have no other option, and then we'll make it annoying". In this case they've made the binaries for this project unavailable for corporate users in a clear attempt to try to make things artificially hard so they can make money on unnecessary service contracts, instead of making it easy and concentrating on service contracts where they can provide real value (the former strategy often resulting in lesser adoption of their projects, to the detriment of said project).
I'd like to stress that I do appreciate their work. Unlike another person replying, I have no problem with their creating and profiting from both proprietary and OSS projects. They just are a big business that despite being a large OSS contributor, does not play very well with individuals or the OSS community as a whole. It leaves a lot of us personally frustrated with them when we expect them to behave like other big OSS contributors. Heck, even Apple is easier to collaborate with.
It looks like a viable candidate for a VM, but still a bit behind the leaders. VMWare and Parallels seem to be better choices if you can afford them, but hopefully being free as in beer and GPL will allow it to catch up rapidly and make the ongoing competition even better. If they can get 3D graphics card support running, I will be looking really hard at VirtualBox.
Well, to be fair, here are the numbers for the same machine (Sunspider results vary with the system used). Note, the OS in this case is WinXP.
IE 7
IE 8 beta
Until I can globally turn off spellcheck-as-you-type, I don't want Firefox using OS X services...
Right-click on any field, select "Spelling and Grammar", select "Check Spelling While Typing". Alternately, you can move the AppleSpell.service out of the global Services directory to disable it completely.
You can find out how to get the firefox source code here [mozilla.org] and the web kit/safari source code here [webkit.org].
You have a point, but I suspect the hardest part of allowing text fields o be resized is in the source for Safari (the front end whose source is not available) not in Webkit. Webkit allows text boxes to be style-able, but I'm not convinced that's really enough to make it easy to pull the feature in Firefox. Hopefully, however, Firefox developers see how useful it is and copy it.
For anyone curious how things compare, here are the numbers for Acid 3 compliance and sunspider javascript speed for Firefox and Safari on OS X on my laptop. For Acid 3, higher is better. For Sunspider, lower is better.
Firefox 3.0
Firefox 3.1 Alpha
Safari 3.1.2
Safari 3.1.2 with nightly Webkit
Agreed. Resizable text fields and support for OS X system services are the two biggest advantages of Safari over Firefox these days. Safari is a bit faster, but Firefox has plug-in functionality. Hopefully both Safari and Firefox will continue to copy useful features from one another.
Sadly, resizable text fields are not in Shiretoko, nor does it support OS X services or use the native spelling checker (which is a service).
On the plus side it manages an 83/100 on the Acid3 test (up from 67) and on my system scores 3426 on the Sunspider java speed test (faster than the 4330 score in Firefox 3.0 and 7516 on Safari 3.1.2).
Solar isn't competing against oil unless you a solar powered car.
To be clear, that is not unusual. Hybrid cars run on electricity until the battery runs out. Many plug in and get that electricity from the grid. This means, electricity dumped onto the grid is going to power cars in lieu of gas. As gas prices increase, there is more motivation to buy plug-in hybrids. There is a direct relationship and one growing with the changes in the auto industry.
For example, if the government hired 10,000 people to dig a giant ditch, and than hired another 10,000 people to fill in the ditch, jobs would be created, but would it help the economy?
Probably. You see, a larger percentage of tax dollars comes from the very top than the very bottom. This means such a program is basically taking money from the very rich and giving it to the very poor, who will have that money to spend on goods, stimulating the economy. The very wealthy can buy a limited amount of goods and for the rest, wealth is simply accumulating at the top while being drained by interest payments from the poor. Paying the poor from tax dollars combats wealth consolidation, which is currently runaway, much like it was before the great depression.
That is not to say paying people to perform useless tasks is ideal. Socialized healthcare (implemented remotely sanely, which may not be the reality) would provide greater benefit to the public while still redistributing wealth in a economically beneficial way.
Take for instance Time Machine. Pfft. It's just a backup and restore. We've had that for ages. Really all it is just: #> tar -czvf back.tar.gz *.*
I think many people tend to oversimplify Apples innovations. Time Machine is a good example. It is more than just an easy to use back up. It is more than just an easy to use versioned backup. It is also an API that allows programs to access that data. Wrapping a GUI around tar for backup would be an accomplishment and useful, but designing a consistent way going forward for data to be granularly backed up and that data to be accessed by applications is real innovation. No other OS I know of allows you to use the "undo" command across any new application and which will undo farther than the last save, farther than the last session, but all the way through to the earliest version in your automagical versioning backup. Because Apple targets the home user and explains these features in simple terms, many who do not look closely tend to likewise oversimplify them in their own minds.
At Pixar, he started, once again, from nothing, and built a company he later sold for $7.4b.
I agree with your main point, but Jobs bought 1/3 of the existing Lucasfilm for $5 million, seven years after it was founded. So he didn't start from nothing in that case.
That's great! Now the police/government are in competition with the illegal drug dealers. Capitalistic competition solves yet another problem!
Okay, why don't you take a breath and think about this for a second. This isn't all illegal drugs, only marijuana and only for people who have a prescription from their doctor. Basically, it is allowing patients to get the same medication they could already get in pill form (drabinol or marinol) without paying the outrageous cost charged by drug companies. The police officers make no money off this and neither does the state. And anyone who has researched the issue at all or read the large quantity of medical literature the feds ignore has to admit that the federal prohibition on marijuana is both completely ineffective (half the population has used it including former presidents) and pointless. It is simply a money sink with no upside for the people. It exists for propaganda reasons and to try to prevent portions of our society from voting.
I may not agree with some anti-drug laws but using police -- people who are legally allowed to carry and use weapons against the populace -- to circumvent federal law seems ripe for abuse.
Technically, they're obeying federal law.
So perhaps there should be a whole branch of state law enforcement which is not entitled to carry weapons but is allowed to enforce any portion of state law that contradicts federal law.
You're conflating not enforcing federal laws, with enforcing state laws that contradict federal law. Those are two very different things.
I am by no means well versed in this area of law. However, it makes no sense to me whatsoever how under state law, the growing of pot is legal, but illegal under federal law. How can a state tell you that you are allowed to violate a federal law? And, what happens if the feds do raid? Would you be able to make an arguable case in court on the premise that the state in which you reside said it is ok to violate the federal law?
It works like this, if the state has no law against it and policies in place, the majority of law enforcement (state troopers, county sheriffs, city police, etc.) don't bother you. The only way to get "busted" is if the FBI, BATF, etc. discovers what you are doing and goes after you. There is little the state can do to prevent that, but it makes it highly unlikely you will be arrested because the feds don't have the manpower.
In at least one instance California was distributing medical marijuana through the state police, since state police are immune to federal prosecution for possession of illicit drugs in the course of their duty. Basically, it is just a way for a state to be as uncooperative with federal laws they disagree with.
Seriously. I hereby challenge a representative of the FSF foundation to speak up and tell us if any of the money donated to them has gone to this 'project'. I've donated money to them in the past, but if they think trying to block Apple's customers from getting tech support is helping... well they can do it without my contributions from now on. I donate so that they can help out with lawsuits regarding consumer freedom, not so they can create frustration and suffering among people who just want somebody to diagnose a problem with their laptop.
Congratulations guys. You'll be getting not a cent more from me until it is clear that the money won't be wasted on this kind of asshattery.
MS has a monopoly to abuse and is constantly taking actions to break interoperability with competitors. It doesn't matter if Linux is better than Windows, because that still won't allow it to gain market share.
What are you proposing Apple has a monopoly on and what actions on their part are abusing said monopoly to prevent competing free software from gaining market share?
Most people I have dealt with (both guys and girls) view a tech girl more negatively then they would a tech guy at first and then have no trouble treating them as an equal after they have proven them self.
My view from the computer science field is that social factors result in both positives and negatives for the probable competence of a woman who has trained herself for a career in CS. Generally, I think it is considered socially undesirable for women, which weeds out most candidates except those exposed to repeatedly by a pro-CS environment (a parent or relative or mentor who is an expert and gets them into it at a young age) or those who have natural gifts that give them an advantage. This, taken alone, would tend to mean there are fewer women in the field, but they would be more competent. Then, however, they go through a formal education which is weighted against them due to quotas which allow less competent ones to continue and preferential treatment from peers (I knew a girl who did not write any of her own code and had several CS boyfriends happy to help her with all of it). As a result, a significant number of the women who go into CS end up with an inferior education and inferior experience. This carries over into the workplace where the male-dominated culture tends to give them more leeway and hire them preferentially just to have a few women in the workplace.
Overall, It is hard to say what all this results in. From my personal experience, working with really, really smart people on the high end of the CS field, I'd say about 2/3 of the women programmers/architects we hire are below the average for the company. The remaining 1/3 are at the top of the game, better on average than the men. Not many tend to fall into the middle. That's just my perspective though. Statistically and across the field as a whole things could be quite different.
We think that since we discovered what DNA is and have a caveman's understanding of how genes work, we can be an omniscient god and figure out each individuals pre-determined fate. I think that, especially in the science crowd, the Nature aspect is way overblown compared to the Nurture part of it.
I don't know who would think that. I read a good met-analysis of double blind studies with separated twins that estimated the influence of genetics. It was about 20%, leaving 80% for environmental factors. I think most people who look at the data clearly see that genetics are a factor, but certainly not as important as environment. In fact, didn't they cover this in a chapter of "Freakonomics" as well?
Never in my life have I encountered a serious situation where the system favors girls or women over me. Not in school, not in business, not in anything beyond women getting to order first in restaurants.
I recall at the end of high school, when I was looking at scholarships to fund my higher education, that there were plenty of scholarships available that had a gender or racial requirement, making me ineligible. That is a situation where women had a real advantage over me. One of the universities I was applying for also had a quota for both races and genders, which meant women with lower test scores were admitted aver men with higher test scores. Again, that clearly favored women over me.
Now it is entirely possible that other social factors provided males an advantage over women, like math teachers who wrote recommendations that subconsciously took into account their prejudices about gender. Still, if you didn't see anything that did not clearly favor women, either times have changed or you were independently wealthy.
I'd also note that while participating in hiring a technical writer for a tech start-up I worked at, we hired on a woman who was clearly less qualified than one of the male candidates. This might be because all the other writers were women, but I also overheard comments from a higher up manager about our company "needing more women" as we were mostly men simply because the field we worked in is mostly dominated by men. We actually went out of our way several times to hire women when possible, but most of them ended up being less than competent and were eventually let go. Whatever the case, women were given preferential treatment in several cases.
When you compare the same jobs, same qualifications, same experience, same competency and same working hours, there is no meaningful difference between male and female salaries.
I don't think you are correct. I remember reading a study a year ago that compared men and women's salaries for the same jobs and levels of education and experience and the results were women paid 15% less overall (25% less when one only looked at the private sector).
I don't recall who the study was by and Google does not turn it up right away. Do you have a source for your claim?
I'd also like to note that even if there is reliable data showing men and women make the same amount for the same job (with the same qualifications, experience, hours, etc.) that does not necessarily indicate equality as it allows for it to be harder for women to get high paying jobs. For example, if you look at all the people who are CFO's for fortune 500 companies and determine that the men and women make about the same, but 90% of those CFO's are men, that could very easily be an indication that it is harder for women to get those jobs because of discrimination. Alternately, it could indicate that for social reasons women are less likely to go into a career track that would lead them to such a position. The point being, same pay for the same job is not conclusive evidence of no gender discrimination.
The movie of Fight Club was arguably better than the novel, and even the author agrees.
...and there's talk of a musical, with Trent Reznor... no joke.
Actually it is both in Latin and in Greek, and arameic, and hebrew, and ... The versions that were accepted as bible were initally spread with greek and latin versions of the same text on facing pages, or only the latin text.
As I recall, this is not true. Originally it was primarily in greek, with some documents including original translations into some other languages. The first bibles with greek and latin on facing pages were written much later, although still predating the vulgate.
Latin is certainly the language of the bible, despite the book being originally written in greek.
One could just as easily argue that English is the language of the bible, despite Latin having been the most popular for a long time.
Killing is not incompatible with Christianity.
Please elaborate. I was raised Christian, and while I don't believe in it, those 10 commandmenty thingies are pretty much the fundamental building blocks of the religion.
Around about 200 AD a church in Rome claimed that they were the only ones who could properly interpret the bible and that their interpretation and in fact their commandments were the will of christ. They went so far as to eventually decide which gospels and versions fo gospels were "true" and should be included in what is now the bible.
People have been justifying murder as compatible with christianity ever since by claiming the church can legitimize killing and disobedience to the church is a sin.
"It's too risky for anybody to translate that [The Bible] into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English."
Amusingly, this used to be that true Christians should only read the Bible in latin and earlier greek versions were junk. I remember one anecdote about the vatican selling hundreds of the earliest surviving copies of the gospels (in greek) as scrap parchment to be made into fireworks.