As quite a few learned men have said in their own words: There was only ever one christian, and he died on the cross.
Christianity had evolved away from the teachings of its official founder, into a political tool, by people like Paulus, very quickly. In fact, what was written down about that Jesus guy should be viewed in the same light as Plato's writings about Socrates.
Few religions advocate violence against those who hold different beliefs.
Funny, all the three major monotheistic ones do. Islam explicitly, christianity and judaism in their long lists of people you should put to death, like witches, homosexuals, etc.
And no, Jesus never said that the old testament is wrong and should be abandoned. And you know that.
Ban religion? Don't be silly; that wouldn't solve anything. Generally speaking, people who commit violent acts in the name of religion are ignoring the teachings of the religion they claim to follow (e.g. the Crusades).
Only if you listen to the apologists. All the major religions have parts that say "kill the unbelievers" in them. But, of course, we are so much better today when we interpret those parts as figuratively speaking, while the really important parts about love and compassion are the ones that are really meant that way, right? I mean, it's not like the people who started the crusades did do the exact same thing, just with another set of choice quotes. Oh, wait...
Islam is simply the most explicit about the whole thing (it actually says to wage eternal war unto all unbelievers, until they've all been converted or killed). But the base idea is there in all the major religions except Buddhism (if you count that as a religion).
If religion were magically erased from existence, these people would just find some other excuse for violence.
Probably. But the funny thing is that with every excuse we remove, more and more people find alternatives. There is a statistical correlation between the power of religion and the amount of war and terror. Check for yourself. Then decide whether that's a coincidence, related to a third common variable, or if there just might be something about it.
It's especially relevant with regard to religions that teach against violence.
On the surface only. Christianity emerged as a slave religion, and as such any attempt at violence would've been utterly foolish. However, by the same rules that it passes to suppress violence, it creates more resentment. And resentment explodes in violence in a quite predictable manner.
We'd lose our minds. But they aren't doing this, are they?
No, and for two reasons. One is indeed that most terrorists aren't especially smart, and also remember that they aren't usually people well-integrated into western society. So they are blind to some of the "obvious" weaknesses, because they view it all from an outside perspective. They just aren't familiar with the ease of blowing up a McD because they don't eat at McD, to use a simple example.
The second reason is that while terrorism aims to terrorize, it also needs the big, visible thing. That's because its other main target is the home population. The 9/11 attacks were successful precisely because the TV images were shown again and again and around the world. It showed everyone that they had the biggest... err, explosion. Terrorism isn't just about terrorizing one population, it's also about demonstrating your power to another population - the one you're recruiting from.
large numbers of people accumulating before security checkpoints. Which means that a would-be terrorist suicide bomber doesn't need to get to the plane anymore - if he detonates an explosive in the crowd,
...then at least he didn't damage any of the expensive airplanes.
Oh, you thought they worry about dead consumers? Not likely, their money will still be spent, by their heirs.
None of this has any impact on security worth mentioning. So you raised the security value X from 96.567% to 96.571% for just a few million bucks? Good boy, here's a cookie.
The main impact is that terrorists now have access to these machines as well. If I were to plan a major terrorist attack (say, multiple planes), I'd buy a few of those machines and experiment with them until I found out how to bypass them.
The problem is that the idiots at the security checkpoints really are idiots, and rely almost 100% on the technology. So the game has changed from bypassing human security personal to bypassing security technology and a few fools who are challenged using it properly.
"We are confident that those costs will be a mere fraction of the stratospheric sums suggested by some ISPs, and negligibly small when set against their vast annual revenues."
This is from a recording industry spokesman.
Funny how they never talk about themselves in this way, even though it is vastly more true. Didn't they just have a record year, despite all the "we're all going to diiiieeee" whining?
These kind of religious wars should be justifiably condemned as actions that are ignoring the basic tenants of their religious founders and something of a misguided group of individuals.
Ridiculous. This is the old "but at heart, our religion is pure and good" argument. And it's bullocks. Religion is a tool of crowd control, power and politics and always has been. If religion makes people better, how came we see no difference? How come there are so many "abuses"?
Because these "accidents" aren't. Blaming the crusades, jihads, witch hunts, progroms, etc. etc. etc. on "accidents" and claiming that religion "per se" isn't evil is like claiming that fucking "per se" doesn't lead to children and all the ones that do happen are "accidents". Maybe in the twisted minds of stupid people, that's true. But it doesn't stand even a shallow test of facts.
There is simply no way of pleasing everyone, no matter where you draw the line.
No, but you could draw the line somewhere else than the whim of some random guys.
For example, since MediaWiki already keeps track of page views, etc. one could replace the entire "notability" concept by a review of "seldom viewed articles". That would let the readers decide, in a way, what is notable and what isn't.
But of course, that would put the nerdy pet articles of the main Wikipedia admins into the spotlight as well. Can't have that, can we?
There was a conference in Berlin not too long ago where the german Wikipedia admins pretty much blew what was left of their credibility out the window. Starting from insisting on providing their own live video streaming, which was totally unusable and crap, even though the CCC with 10 or so years of experience in doing that kind of stuff had offered to do it for them, for free. Then there was apparently a Wikipedia admin who "moderated" the discussion from outside the camera view, and not by accident. Some journalists they didn't like were not let in. And don't even get me started on the actual content of the discussion, I've not read one positive article on that (but several very, very critical ones).
In short, Wikipedia Germany has alienated itself from pretty much everyone else in Germany who is someone in the online world.
The difference is that if you are not collecting stamps, people usually don't go around telling you that you're "wrong", trying to convince (or force) you to start collecting stamps or receive support out of your tax dollars to feed their hobby.
I'm sure if that were the case, we would be seing Not Collecting Stamps clubs, books, etc. - simply as a self-defense mechanism.
Re:a game that tells the truth about religion
on
Religion in Video Games
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The Christians persecute others to spread their religion. Atheists persecute others for other reasons.
Atheists persecuted nobody, ever, in history.
However, Atheists can also be Nazis, Communists, Drug Lords or whatever else causes them to persecute someone. Surprise! So can christians, muslims, hindus, etc.
You're confusing one attribute of a many with his cause for action. You could just as well have said "blonde people persecute others" or "homosexuals persecute others" or "people with white shirts persecute others", because you will certainly examples of that. Except, of course, that anyone with half a brain will realize that the shirt colour, hair colour or sexual orientation had very little to do with the persecution, and it was (in I'd dare to guess at least 95% of the cases) the religious or politicial ideology that was the actual cause.
But, I do think it's high time to persecute these religious fanatics and put them in their place, once and for all. Attacks on people's minds should be viewed just as much a crime as attacks on people's bodies.
Even when groups like the Christian Game Developers Foundation put out a video encouraging developers to create wholesome titles for kids
There is nothing "wholesome" about religion, and least of all the monotheistic ones. They've caused more suffering, pain and death throughout history than any other singular source, and more than most other sources combined. They've held technological progress back more, more reliably, more consistently and much longer than Microsoft. And if you extend the reach to organized religion (i.e. the churches) - well, they're involved in more bribery, scamming, child abuse and a whole lot of other crimes than the Mafia.
We already have one abomination called "christian rock". Let's keep our games clear of this taint, please.
Because US courts regularily consider their area of jurisdiction to extend to every place they damn well please.
I was sued in California in the DeCSS case. I live in Germany, my webserver lives in Germany, and have never been to California in my life. Court doesn't care. Lawyer told me I'd have to make a "special appearance to challenge personal jurisdiction".
The really cool part is:
If you do anything to defend yourself - except the mentioned "special appearance, during which you absolutely need a lawyer, because you can't say anything in addition to jurisdiction or you fall into the trap - so if you do anything at all to defend yourself, you automatically accept the jurisdiction.
If you do nothing, the other side can ask for a default judgement against you.
Nice, isn't it?
That's how US courts routinely judge issues on persons who've never been to the US, know nobody in the US, have no other contacts into the US, simply because someone from the US could theoretically have accessed their website.
Addicts aren't looking for a "special state". They already are in the phase you describe. They want to get out of the "low state" that ordinary reality has become. It's like hunger or thirst.
Actually, I tend to allow others the same exclusions that I allow myself. For example, I don't consider/. signatures advertisement in the same sense that popups or banners are. They just don't have the same "distract me from the real content" quality.
Maybe because they're limited to text. I do mind the sometimes huge banners in web forums.
Totally seconded. I can't say how sick it makes me everytime management decides that overtime is "needed" in my company. First, the main reason is bad planning. Second, just what you said.
Problem is, it's almost always not for the lower management to decide. So overtime is pretty much his only option. Which is precisely how higher management wants it to be.
Yes, he should, but instead of "herding" perfectly adult people, he should spend his time making sure their time is spent as productive as possible. Or in other words: Do what managers are there for, before they became all overblown ego-trippers. Make sure there are no disturbances, give encouraging feedback if someone hands something in, order pizza or sort out the paperwork - whatever keeps them productive and happy.
Do not/b, under any circumstances, look over their shoulders or "herd" them.
The given example was a piece of software (Google Desktop) preventing another piece of software (Demigod) from running. You seem to want Microsoft to ensure that software doesn't get to interact like that.
Yes. The OS is supposed to give programs an environment to run in. If other programs can interfere with that beyond defined interfaces, then it's not doing its job.
Out of curiosity, how would Microsoft make sure that e.g. antivirus can't interfere with the execution of another program. In fact, that's precisely what antivirus is supposed to do.
As I said: Defined interfaces with specifications.
If you take into account the time aspect, Apple products have become quite affordable. My MacBook Pro certainly did cost more than a generic notebook and most brand products, but it has lasted me longer than most other machines I had. Since a computer is pretty much a constant in my life, "purchase price" really isn't the valid value. "Average cost per year" or something would be, and on that, I dare say the MBP was cheaper than most alternatives.
2. In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone.
You couldn't be more mistaken.
When the iPhone came out, the likes of Nokia laughed about it. They're not laughing anymore. There's a reason every second smartphone that's launched with marketing hype is labeled "iPhone killer".
The iPhone is a success that has surprised even Apple. Try to find the last time that anyone came into the mobile phone market from nowhere and went to even half the market share, and still growing.
Yes, it was a tricky decision. As an indy with zero advertising budget, it's one of the few ways to get word out, and get to Google where you can find me, if you care. And yes, I'm aware that it doesn't merge well with my words.
Because real life is in shades of grey. There actually is some advertisement that I find acceptable. But you can't say that to the ad people or what the hear is that you love ads, or at least their ads.
Of course the core assumption here is that people block ads because the ad content is a problem.
What they don't realize (and what people in marketing can not realize, or they would have to admit that their whole professions is being a parasite and a PITA) is that it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.
I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap. If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google. The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.
I'm in love with Trac, and one of the few things it lacks is the ability to use one trac installation for multiple projects (I have a number of cases where I have several small projects, each too small to justify creating a whole trac install).
On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run. Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app,
Good. Then software developers will finally put some pressure on the OS developers to stop fucking around with bullshit and pseudo-features and start making sure that the OS becomes a reliable environment for the software it's supposed to run.
Actually, it's not that straightforward, and I'm not certain there will be much prior art. The patent doesn't just say "call here to verify your registration number". First, it's from 1991. Remember that year? That's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stack. A network-based software activation was certainly a couple years ahead. Two, it isn't your "set a flag in config.ini" type of activation, either. The patent speaks about the construction of a tamperproof overlay program containing core parts of the actual application. In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it and they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.
That's pretty advanced for 1991, "software as a service" didn't become a buzzword until 10 years later.
Disclaimer: Doesn't mean I like software patents. I don't. But some are more obviously trivial nonsense than others.
Slashdot Mirror
but Christ's teachings (for example)
As quite a few learned men have said in their own words: There was only ever one christian, and he died on the cross.
Christianity had evolved away from the teachings of its official founder, into a political tool, by people like Paulus, very quickly. In fact, what was written down about that Jesus guy should be viewed in the same light as Plato's writings about Socrates.
Few religions advocate violence against those who hold different beliefs.
Funny, all the three major monotheistic ones do. Islam explicitly, christianity and judaism in their long lists of people you should put to death, like witches, homosexuals, etc.
And no, Jesus never said that the old testament is wrong and should be abandoned. And you know that.
Ban religion? Don't be silly; that wouldn't solve anything. Generally speaking, people who commit violent acts in the name of religion are ignoring the teachings of the religion they claim to follow (e.g. the Crusades).
Only if you listen to the apologists. All the major religions have parts that say "kill the unbelievers" in them. But, of course, we are so much better today when we interpret those parts as figuratively speaking, while the really important parts about love and compassion are the ones that are really meant that way, right? I mean, it's not like the people who started the crusades did do the exact same thing, just with another set of choice quotes. Oh, wait...
Islam is simply the most explicit about the whole thing (it actually says to wage eternal war unto all unbelievers, until they've all been converted or killed). But the base idea is there in all the major religions except Buddhism (if you count that as a religion).
If religion were magically erased from existence, these people would just find some other excuse for violence.
Probably. But the funny thing is that with every excuse we remove, more and more people find alternatives. There is a statistical correlation between the power of religion and the amount of war and terror. Check for yourself. Then decide whether that's a coincidence, related to a third common variable, or if there just might be something about it.
It's especially relevant with regard to religions that teach against violence.
On the surface only. Christianity emerged as a slave religion, and as such any attempt at violence would've been utterly foolish. However, by the same rules that it passes to suppress violence, it creates more resentment. And resentment explodes in violence in a quite predictable manner.
We'd lose our minds. But they aren't doing this, are they?
No, and for two reasons. One is indeed that most terrorists aren't especially smart, and also remember that they aren't usually people well-integrated into western society. So they are blind to some of the "obvious" weaknesses, because they view it all from an outside perspective. They just aren't familiar with the ease of blowing up a McD because they don't eat at McD, to use a simple example.
The second reason is that while terrorism aims to terrorize, it also needs the big, visible thing. That's because its other main target is the home population. The 9/11 attacks were successful precisely because the TV images were shown again and again and around the world. It showed everyone that they had the biggest... err, explosion. Terrorism isn't just about terrorizing one population, it's also about demonstrating your power to another population - the one you're recruiting from.
large numbers of people accumulating before security checkpoints. Which means that a would-be terrorist suicide bomber doesn't need to get to the plane anymore - if he detonates an explosive in the crowd,
...then at least he didn't damage any of the expensive airplanes.
Oh, you thought they worry about dead consumers? Not likely, their money will still be spent, by their heirs.
None of this has any impact on security worth mentioning. So you raised the security value X from 96.567% to 96.571% for just a few million bucks? Good boy, here's a cookie.
The main impact is that terrorists now have access to these machines as well. If I were to plan a major terrorist attack (say, multiple planes), I'd buy a few of those machines and experiment with them until I found out how to bypass them.
The problem is that the idiots at the security checkpoints really are idiots, and rely almost 100% on the technology. So the game has changed from bypassing human security personal to bypassing security technology and a few fools who are challenged using it properly.
"We are confident that those costs will be a mere fraction of the stratospheric sums suggested by some ISPs, and negligibly small when set against their vast annual revenues."
This is from a recording industry spokesman.
Funny how they never talk about themselves in this way, even though it is vastly more true. Didn't they just have a record year, despite all the "we're all going to diiiieeee" whining?
These kind of religious wars should be justifiably condemned as actions that are ignoring the basic tenants of their religious founders and something of a misguided group of individuals.
Ridiculous. This is the old "but at heart, our religion is pure and good" argument. And it's bullocks. Religion is a tool of crowd control, power and politics and always has been. If religion makes people better, how came we see no difference? How come there are so many "abuses"?
Because these "accidents" aren't. Blaming the crusades, jihads, witch hunts, progroms, etc. etc. etc. on "accidents" and claiming that religion "per se" isn't evil is like claiming that fucking "per se" doesn't lead to children and all the ones that do happen are "accidents". Maybe in the twisted minds of stupid people, that's true. But it doesn't stand even a shallow test of facts.
There is simply no way of pleasing everyone, no matter where you draw the line.
No, but you could draw the line somewhere else than the whim of some random guys.
For example, since MediaWiki already keeps track of page views, etc. one could replace the entire "notability" concept by a review of "seldom viewed articles". That would let the readers decide, in a way, what is notable and what isn't.
But of course, that would put the nerdy pet articles of the main Wikipedia admins into the spotlight as well. Can't have that, can we?
It's already busy going down in flames.
There was a conference in Berlin not too long ago where the german Wikipedia admins pretty much blew what was left of their credibility out the window. Starting from insisting on providing their own live video streaming, which was totally unusable and crap, even though the CCC with 10 or so years of experience in doing that kind of stuff had offered to do it for them, for free. Then there was apparently a Wikipedia admin who "moderated" the discussion from outside the camera view, and not by accident. Some journalists they didn't like were not let in. And don't even get me started on the actual content of the discussion, I've not read one positive article on that (but several very, very critical ones).
In short, Wikipedia Germany has alienated itself from pretty much everyone else in Germany who is someone in the online world.
The difference is that if you are not collecting stamps, people usually don't go around telling you that you're "wrong", trying to convince (or force) you to start collecting stamps or receive support out of your tax dollars to feed their hobby.
I'm sure if that were the case, we would be seing Not Collecting Stamps clubs, books, etc. - simply as a self-defense mechanism.
The Christians persecute others to spread their religion. Atheists persecute others for other reasons.
Atheists persecuted nobody, ever, in history.
However, Atheists can also be Nazis, Communists, Drug Lords or whatever else causes them to persecute someone. Surprise! So can christians, muslims, hindus, etc.
You're confusing one attribute of a many with his cause for action. You could just as well have said "blonde people persecute others" or "homosexuals persecute others" or "people with white shirts persecute others", because you will certainly examples of that. Except, of course, that anyone with half a brain will realize that the shirt colour, hair colour or sexual orientation had very little to do with the persecution, and it was (in I'd dare to guess at least 95% of the cases) the religious or politicial ideology that was the actual cause.
But, I do think it's high time to persecute these religious fanatics and put them in their place, once and for all. Attacks on people's minds should be viewed just as much a crime as attacks on people's bodies.
Even when groups like the Christian Game Developers Foundation put out a video encouraging developers to create wholesome titles for kids
There is nothing "wholesome" about religion, and least of all the monotheistic ones. They've caused more suffering, pain and death throughout history than any other singular source, and more than most other sources combined. They've held technological progress back more, more reliably, more consistently and much longer than Microsoft. And if you extend the reach to organized religion (i.e. the churches) - well, they're involved in more bribery, scamming, child abuse and a whole lot of other crimes than the Mafia.
We already have one abomination called "christian rock". Let's keep our games clear of this taint, please.
Because US courts regularily consider their area of jurisdiction to extend to every place they damn well please.
I was sued in California in the DeCSS case. I live in Germany, my webserver lives in Germany, and have never been to California in my life. Court doesn't care. Lawyer told me I'd have to make a "special appearance to challenge personal jurisdiction".
The really cool part is:
If you do anything to defend yourself - except the mentioned "special appearance, during which you absolutely need a lawyer, because you can't say anything in addition to jurisdiction or you fall into the trap - so if you do anything at all to defend yourself, you automatically accept the jurisdiction.
If you do nothing, the other side can ask for a default judgement against you.
Nice, isn't it?
That's how US courts routinely judge issues on persons who've never been to the US, know nobody in the US, have no other contacts into the US, simply because someone from the US could theoretically have accessed their website.
Addicts aren't looking for a "special state". They already are in the phase you describe. They want to get out of the "low state" that ordinary reality has become. It's like hunger or thirst.
Actually, I tend to allow others the same exclusions that I allow myself. For example, I don't consider /. signatures advertisement in the same sense that popups or banners are. They just don't have the same "distract me from the real content" quality.
Maybe because they're limited to text. I do mind the sometimes huge banners in web forums.
Totally seconded. I can't say how sick it makes me everytime management decides that overtime is "needed" in my company. First, the main reason is bad planning. Second, just what you said.
Problem is, it's almost always not for the lower management to decide. So overtime is pretty much his only option. Which is precisely how higher management wants it to be.
Yes, he should, but instead of "herding" perfectly adult people, he should spend his time making sure their time is spent as productive as possible. Or in other words: Do what managers are there for, before they became all overblown ego-trippers. Make sure there are no disturbances, give encouraging feedback if someone hands something in, order pizza or sort out the paperwork - whatever keeps them productive and happy.
Do not/b, under any circumstances, look over their shoulders or "herd" them.
The given example was a piece of software (Google Desktop) preventing another piece of software (Demigod) from running. You seem to want Microsoft to ensure that software doesn't get to interact like that.
Yes. The OS is supposed to give programs an environment to run in. If other programs can interfere with that beyond defined interfaces, then it's not doing its job.
Out of curiosity, how would Microsoft make sure that e.g. antivirus can't interfere with the execution of another program. In fact, that's precisely what antivirus is supposed to do.
As I said: Defined interfaces with specifications.
Not really, no.
If you take into account the time aspect, Apple products have become quite affordable. My MacBook Pro certainly did cost more than a generic notebook and most brand products, but it has lasted me longer than most other machines I had. Since a computer is pretty much a constant in my life, "purchase price" really isn't the valid value. "Average cost per year" or something would be, and on that, I dare say the MBP was cheaper than most alternatives.
2. In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone.
You couldn't be more mistaken.
When the iPhone came out, the likes of Nokia laughed about it. They're not laughing anymore. There's a reason every second smartphone that's launched with marketing hype is labeled "iPhone killer".
The iPhone is a success that has surprised even Apple. Try to find the last time that anyone came into the mobile phone market from nowhere and went to even half the market share, and still growing.
Excellent point.
Yes, it was a tricky decision. As an indy with zero advertising budget, it's one of the few ways to get word out, and get to Google where you can find me, if you care. And yes, I'm aware that it doesn't merge well with my words.
Because real life is in shades of grey. There actually is some advertisement that I find acceptable. But you can't say that to the ad people or what the hear is that you love ads, or at least their ads.
Of course the core assumption here is that people block ads because the ad content is a problem.
What they don't realize (and what people in marketing can not realize, or they would have to admit that their whole professions is being a parasite and a PITA) is that it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.
I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap. If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google. The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.
I'm in love with Trac, and one of the few things it lacks is the ability to use one trac installation for multiple projects (I have a number of cases where I have several small projects, each too small to justify creating a whole trac install).
On a PC, the vendor can't control the environment in which their software is run. Something else on the machine completely outwith their control could nobble their app,
Good. Then software developers will finally put some pressure on the OS developers to stop fucking around with bullshit and pseudo-features and start making sure that the OS becomes a reliable environment for the software it's supposed to run.
(read the fucking patent)
Actually, it's not that straightforward, and I'm not certain there will be much prior art. The patent doesn't just say "call here to verify your registration number".
First, it's from 1991. Remember that year? That's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stack. A network-based software activation was certainly a couple years ahead.
Two, it isn't your "set a flag in config.ini" type of activation, either. The patent speaks about the construction of a tamperproof overlay program containing core parts of the actual application. In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it and they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.
That's pretty advanced for 1991, "software as a service" didn't become a buzzword until 10 years later.
Disclaimer: Doesn't mean I like software patents. I don't. But some are more obviously trivial nonsense than others.