(Not to say they should predominate, but neither should they be ignored.)
With that statement, it sounds like you agree with me. Any person should have the same rights to be heard in a court of law as any other person.
I also agree with you that circumstances should way in, but only if it pertains to the case. The fact that Tanya Andersen was a single mother and had a disability does nothing for the case and has no bearing on the case. If Tanya Andersen had been a college grad with a high paying job, or a 90 year old, elderly grandmother, the case should have been the same.
That's where I'm going. I'm not saying *no* circumstances...I'm saying only where they matter.
There is nothing rational or systematic about ID it is clearly mysticism. It starts from a belief (god created man) and then tries to sell it using crap sciencism. It is nothing more than religion trying to imitate science. If ID "should be taught" what about flat-earth-ism? What about the many other very common religious beliefs? Should they all be taught as fact as well? Where should we stick them? P.E.? Home economics? If religious beliefs are to be taught in school the place they belong is in a comparative religion class. ID could be covered under the topic of "how contemporary Christianity interacts with public policy in the US.
You bring up some interesting points.
First - why should we teach ID at all? As another poster has pointed out, because NOT teaching it is bad because it doesn't allow people to make up their own minds. Critical thinking skills are key.
As for teaching other beliefs (such as flat-earth-ism), well...flat-earth-ism can be scientifically proven false. This is why it shows up in our history classes as "people used to believe this, but now we don't." If a student asks why, a teacher can scientifically show that student. ID, however, hasn't been proven or disproven. This is why it's a theory and not fact. (It's not even really a question about beliefs quite honestly.)
There is no debate and never was, only propaganda. Your comment and moderation shows the incredibly frightening state of ignorance about science and logic in America.
I don't see how. All I said (which is mathematically correct) is that "something not being supported by evidence doesn't necessarily make it invalid."
I never said anything about said "thing" (which I never specified) being a science or not. You're reading into it.
There seem to be a few people who don't think it should matter at all. Those aren't my kind of people. I think people should have a heart.
I agree that people should have a heart, but the legal system needs to be blind. It shouldn't matter whether Ms. Andersen was a disabled mother of 20, or a wealthy oil magnate who has a drinking problem.
Someone worked hard? No. Programming is what people do for a living when they don't want to work hard. And the really good coders do it under a sense of inspiration.
Heh. You, obviously, have never developed software in your life. Developing software is not hard work from a "I sweated while busting concrete for a road today," but, it can be mentally exhausting coming up with a good algorithm that solves a complex problem and can take some time to do.
Why is it not a product? Have you read a typical EULA?
Just because companies like Microsoft have completely messed up how software is viewed does not make it any less of a product. Again - you're just trying to justify getting something for free.
If a car had the problems software had... Do I really need to complete that? If a car had the guarantees that software comes with... Once again, no need to complete that. We have an unspoken, unexplainably low expectations for software. No returns, no refunds, on and on and on...
Yes. We do have low expectations for software. Here's the problem - creating GOOD software is difficult. It's extremely difficult. There are far too many people in the industry who should not be there. This is the real problem. There should be far more stringent requirements for software developers.
As for the no returns/refunds...well...unfortunately people who steal software have been the reason for that. It's so easy to make a copy of software, stores have no other choice but to not accept refunds. Maybe some sort of Lemon Law would be good (to take your car analogy) for software. I don't know.
Software as a product or as an industry is inappropriate. This is far from a cop out.
Um. Do you realize that pretty much everything you come in contact with in your daily life (banking, POS systems, your cell phone, etc) runs software that is supported by a software industry? Without that industry, you wouldn't even be able to start your car (or pump your gas to fill up your car). Of course, that wouldn't matter to begin with because you wouldn't be able to buy your car because your bank wouldn't have software to support the transaction in the first place.
In general software makes our lives easier. Yes, there are software systems that suck. Again - too many bad developers are part of the industry and should not be.
I haven't bought music in a very long while, but when I do, it's often as a gift for someone else or something along those lines. One thing about old music or old books is that they're often as good now as when they were written or performed. Can this really be said for software? Software is at best a temporary, disposable tool or distraction and should be priced and treated as such. In the grand scheme of things, software should remain as it started out and not as a "product."
Horrible analogy. Books and music do not have the same intent as software. Additionally, books and music have had the experience of millions of years of development. Software has really only been around for...oh...maybe 50 years. It's still very new and is constantly evolving.
Also, have you listened to every piece of music and read every book that has ever been written? Yes, there are some "classics" that are still very excellent today. But for every classic, there are thousands of pieces that were complete failures (and rightly so).
And, I honestly have no clue what you mean by your last statement.
I don't agree with your statement that the idea is junk.
Take religion, for example (well...faith). Having faith in God (or any other god) gets billions of people through their day and through some of the toughest times in their lives where, otherwise, they may have just given up.
While you may not necessarily agree with the ideas behind it, and while religion HAS caused problems (but what hasn't caused problems on this world?), there are too many good things to come out of believing in something that can't be proven to say it is complete junk.
And if you don't get that, turn in your geek card to the closest LUG.
Minor problem. If someone doesn't get the grandparent's joke, they SURE as heck won't get what a LUG is. And if you don't get that...well...I don't have anything witty to put in here.
But the same goes for other software that I have actually contributed my money to support. (I choose those words intentionally because I don't truly believe that software is a product in the sense that other products are.) I pay for software as a form of expression of my appreciation.
This is a total cop out.
Someone worked hard to develop an application. Why is it not a product? Because it's soft? That's the same line of thinking that people have when they say, "Oh...just throw a quick fix in...it's easy 'cause it's software!"
Face it. If you could get away of having free copies of electronics, food, etc that isn't "worth it" - you would. Why? Because you like free. Of course, this is much easier to get away with when it comes to software and you can justify it as, "I don't appreciate the software." If you really believed that, you wouldn't download and install free software in the first place. Anything else is just you justifying you getting something for nothing.
/software developer //buys all of his software, or uses FOSS ///buys all his music, too
(and floodgates in the sky and other patently incorrect things that even most Creationists ignore)
Mind if I ask how that would suggest the existance of a flat earth? I always took God opening the "flood gates" to mean, "He released a crapload of water onto the earth."
Doesn't make the earth flat. And, although I'm not a Biblical scholar or anything, I don't remember it anywhere suggesting the earth was flat, round or otherwise.
You may just be a cleverly disguised troll...it's hard to tell.
If I try to sell a shiny piece of rock for a stupidly high price and even put up a big sign saying "THIS DOES NOTHING USEFUL, ALL IT DOES IS SHOW YOU CAN AFFORD IT!"
...a nice, subtle reference to the diamond industry.
I am finding it starting to appear a bit after a story emerges from the firehose. My best guess means that the "signed" tag means that the staff reviewed (and possibly corrected) it.
You think the editors correct articles? You must be new here.
Buying an iPhone app does not result in life-and-death risks where driving with your grandma is a threat to someone's life. (Trust me, I know. Had a close relative die because he was hit by an elderly lady who should not have been driving.) These two situations are not the same thing, though.
Why must we always "protect" everybody all the time? People do stupid crap. They should learn from it...but we don't need to baby everybody all the time.
Three servers, two laptops and three workstations. None of them are pwned, rooted, infected, trojaned or otherwise compromised. And they've never been.
Prove it.
(Not that I don't believe you...but that's a pretty heavy statement to make.)
I absolutely agree. What Jesus knew (and everybody realizes) is that no person is perfect. We like to think we are. In fact, we compare ourselves to others all the time and say how great and good we are compared to that person, but the standard (at least for Christians) is not other people. It's Christ. One heckuva standard.
Jesus knew how people worked, hence Matthew 7:5. Hypocrisy is a huge turn-off to a lot of people. Jesus was addressing that.
Now, you threw Matthew 7:5 back at me and you are absolutely right. I do mess up...I freely admit it. I'm not a perfect person by any stretch of the imagination. (In fact, I can be quick to judge, so it's good to get reminders that I shouldn't be.) It is hard to demonstrate voice across the Internet medium, but, in this case, my intention was not to judge eldavojohn. I was instead trying to challenge him. So many people on Slashdot are quick to trash religions (many times for very good reasons), but how many of those people volunteer at a soup kitchen, or give money to a good cause or do so many other things to help?
It's easy to talk smack and doing so accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's so much harder to actually do something about a problem.
The funny thing is I could go on all day finding quotes from most major religions... Like Buddha or Gandhi, I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.
I'd love to see where you got your statistics.
I don't disagree with you. Christians have done quite a good job of messing up the world. Heck...Christians are people too - we mess up. But, then again, we are all part of this earth, so we all hold responsibility for its state...it's not just Christians (and people of other faiths) who are at fault. The problem as I see it is, and as you very nicely pointed out, religions tend to be caught in their hypocrisy which makes them look that much worse. (What's worse - someone who does something bad, or someone who says to do good and still does the bad thing?)
I am also not disagreeing with you that all of that capital could not be used to help millions (billions?) of people in this world, and it's not. I am with you 100% on that.
With all that said, what I find interesting is that you quote passage after passage in the Bible, condemning Christians (and religions) about not being perfect, yet you forget one passage...
Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
I challenge you that, instead of complaining about how others are not doing the right thing, go out and do the right thing yourself. How much better would that make the world?
So, I, for the life of me, cannot figure out what point an (essentially) "executable" image would have. To me, it seems like this mixing of concerns is a very bad idea. It's either data (an image) or an executable (application). Not both.
Can anybody explain the thought process behind this?
Slashdot Mirror
(Not to say they should predominate, but neither should they be ignored.)
With that statement, it sounds like you agree with me. Any person should have the same rights to be heard in a court of law as any other person.
I also agree with you that circumstances should way in, but only if it pertains to the case. The fact that Tanya Andersen was a single mother and had a disability does nothing for the case and has no bearing on the case. If Tanya Andersen had been a college grad with a high paying job, or a 90 year old, elderly grandmother, the case should have been the same.
That's where I'm going. I'm not saying *no* circumstances...I'm saying only where they matter.
There is nothing rational or systematic about ID it is clearly mysticism. It starts from a belief (god created man) and then tries to sell it using crap sciencism. It is nothing more than religion trying to imitate science. If ID "should be taught" what about flat-earth-ism? What about the many other very common religious beliefs? Should they all be taught as fact as well? Where should we stick them? P.E.? Home economics? If religious beliefs are to be taught in school the place they belong is in a comparative religion class. ID could be covered under the topic of "how contemporary Christianity interacts with public policy in the US.
You bring up some interesting points.
First - why should we teach ID at all? As another poster has pointed out, because NOT teaching it is bad because it doesn't allow people to make up their own minds. Critical thinking skills are key.
As for teaching other beliefs (such as flat-earth-ism), well...flat-earth-ism can be scientifically proven false. This is why it shows up in our history classes as "people used to believe this, but now we don't." If a student asks why, a teacher can scientifically show that student. ID, however, hasn't been proven or disproven. This is why it's a theory and not fact. (It's not even really a question about beliefs quite honestly.)
There is no debate and never was, only propaganda. Your comment and moderation shows the incredibly frightening state of ignorance about science and logic in America.
I don't see how. All I said (which is mathematically correct) is that "something not being supported by evidence doesn't necessarily make it invalid."
I never said anything about said "thing" (which I never specified) being a science or not. You're reading into it.
There seem to be a few people who don't think it should matter at all. Those aren't my kind of people. I think people should have a heart.
I agree that people should have a heart, but the legal system needs to be blind. It shouldn't matter whether Ms. Andersen was a disabled mother of 20, or a wealthy oil magnate who has a drinking problem.
Someone worked hard? No. Programming is what people do for a living when they don't want to work hard. And the really good coders do it under a sense of inspiration.
Heh. You, obviously, have never developed software in your life. Developing software is not hard work from a "I sweated while busting concrete for a road today," but, it can be mentally exhausting coming up with a good algorithm that solves a complex problem and can take some time to do.
Why is it not a product? Have you read a typical EULA?
Just because companies like Microsoft have completely messed up how software is viewed does not make it any less of a product. Again - you're just trying to justify getting something for free.
If a car had the problems software had... Do I really need to complete that? If a car had the guarantees that software comes with... Once again, no need to complete that. We have an unspoken, unexplainably low expectations for software. No returns, no refunds, on and on and on...
Yes. We do have low expectations for software. Here's the problem - creating GOOD software is difficult. It's extremely difficult. There are far too many people in the industry who should not be there. This is the real problem. There should be far more stringent requirements for software developers.
As for the no returns/refunds...well...unfortunately people who steal software have been the reason for that. It's so easy to make a copy of software, stores have no other choice but to not accept refunds. Maybe some sort of Lemon Law would be good (to take your car analogy) for software. I don't know.
Software as a product or as an industry is inappropriate. This is far from a cop out.
Um. Do you realize that pretty much everything you come in contact with in your daily life (banking, POS systems, your cell phone, etc) runs software that is supported by a software industry? Without that industry, you wouldn't even be able to start your car (or pump your gas to fill up your car). Of course, that wouldn't matter to begin with because you wouldn't be able to buy your car because your bank wouldn't have software to support the transaction in the first place.
In general software makes our lives easier. Yes, there are software systems that suck. Again - too many bad developers are part of the industry and should not be.
I haven't bought music in a very long while, but when I do, it's often as a gift for someone else or something along those lines. One thing about old music or old books is that they're often as good now as when they were written or performed. Can this really be said for software? Software is at best a temporary, disposable tool or distraction and should be priced and treated as such. In the grand scheme of things, software should remain as it started out and not as a "product."
Horrible analogy. Books and music do not have the same intent as software. Additionally, books and music have had the experience of millions of years of development. Software has really only been around for...oh...maybe 50 years. It's still very new and is constantly evolving.
Also, have you listened to every piece of music and read every book that has ever been written? Yes, there are some "classics" that are still very excellent today. But for every classic, there are thousands of pieces that were complete failures (and rightly so).
And, I honestly have no clue what you mean by your last statement.
I don't agree with your statement that the idea is junk.
Take religion, for example (well...faith). Having faith in God (or any other god) gets billions of people through their day and through some of the toughest times in their lives where, otherwise, they may have just given up.
While you may not necessarily agree with the ideas behind it, and while religion HAS caused problems (but what hasn't caused problems on this world?), there are too many good things to come out of believing in something that can't be proven to say it is complete junk.
Not being supported by scientific evidence doesn't necessarily make something invalid either.
No. You're doing it wrong.
And if you don't get that, turn in your geek card to the closest LUG.
Minor problem. If someone doesn't get the grandparent's joke, they SURE as heck won't get what a LUG is. And if you don't get that...well...I don't have anything witty to put in here.
Dang.
But the same goes for other software that I have actually contributed my money to support. (I choose those words intentionally because I don't truly believe that software is a product in the sense that other products are.) I pay for software as a form of expression of my appreciation.
This is a total cop out.
Someone worked hard to develop an application. Why is it not a product? Because it's soft? That's the same line of thinking that people have when they say, "Oh...just throw a quick fix in...it's easy 'cause it's software!"
Face it. If you could get away of having free copies of electronics, food, etc that isn't "worth it" - you would. Why? Because you like free. Of course, this is much easier to get away with when it comes to software and you can justify it as, "I don't appreciate the software." If you really believed that, you wouldn't download and install free software in the first place. Anything else is just you justifying you getting something for nothing.
(and floodgates in the sky and other patently incorrect things that even most Creationists ignore)
Mind if I ask how that would suggest the existance of a flat earth? I always took God opening the "flood gates" to mean, "He released a crapload of water onto the earth."
Doesn't make the earth flat. And, although I'm not a Biblical scholar or anything, I don't remember it anywhere suggesting the earth was flat, round or otherwise.
You may just be a cleverly disguised troll...it's hard to tell.
If I try to sell a shiny piece of rock for a stupidly high price and even put up a big sign saying "THIS DOES NOTHING USEFUL, ALL IT DOES IS SHOW YOU CAN AFFORD IT!"
...a nice, subtle reference to the diamond industry.
Nice.
Sure, if their password is lesbian.
Good thing none of us can see your password. Only you can. As long as you type in your Slashdot password into Slashdot, it will hide it from us.
(This would have worked so much better if you weren't posting as an Anonymous Coward.)
I am finding it starting to appear a bit after a story emerges from the firehose. My best guess means that the "signed" tag means that the staff reviewed (and possibly corrected) it.
You think the editors correct articles? You must be new here.
No. No, no and no.
Buying an iPhone app does not result in life-and-death risks where driving with your grandma is a threat to someone's life. (Trust me, I know. Had a close relative die because he was hit by an elderly lady who should not have been driving.) These two situations are not the same thing, though.
Why must we always "protect" everybody all the time? People do stupid crap. They should learn from it...but we don't need to baby everybody all the time.
No one goes to their daily job because they like to
Really? Are you sure about that?
No. iSpartacus.
Three servers, two laptops and three workstations. None of them are pwned, rooted, infected, trojaned or otherwise compromised. And they've never been.
Prove it.
(Not that I don't believe you...but that's a pretty heavy statement to make.)
I may now be a nerd "once removed" due to my current occupation
Slashdotters! We have a manager in our midst! Attack!
I absolutely agree. What Jesus knew (and everybody realizes) is that no person is perfect. We like to think we are. In fact, we compare ourselves to others all the time and say how great and good we are compared to that person, but the standard (at least for Christians) is not other people. It's Christ. One heckuva standard.
Jesus knew how people worked, hence Matthew 7:5. Hypocrisy is a huge turn-off to a lot of people. Jesus was addressing that.
Now, you threw Matthew 7:5 back at me and you are absolutely right. I do mess up...I freely admit it. I'm not a perfect person by any stretch of the imagination. (In fact, I can be quick to judge, so it's good to get reminders that I shouldn't be.) It is hard to demonstrate voice across the Internet medium, but, in this case, my intention was not to judge eldavojohn. I was instead trying to challenge him. So many people on Slashdot are quick to trash religions (many times for very good reasons), but how many of those people volunteer at a soup kitchen, or give money to a good cause or do so many other things to help?
It's easy to talk smack and doing so accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's so much harder to actually do something about a problem.
The funny thing is I could go on all day finding quotes from most major religions ... Like Buddha or Gandhi, I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.
I'd love to see where you got your statistics.
I don't disagree with you. Christians have done quite a good job of messing up the world. Heck...Christians are people too - we mess up. But, then again, we are all part of this earth, so we all hold responsibility for its state...it's not just Christians (and people of other faiths) who are at fault. The problem as I see it is, and as you very nicely pointed out, religions tend to be caught in their hypocrisy which makes them look that much worse. (What's worse - someone who does something bad, or someone who says to do good and still does the bad thing?)
I am also not disagreeing with you that all of that capital could not be used to help millions (billions?) of people in this world, and it's not. I am with you 100% on that.
With all that said, what I find interesting is that you quote passage after passage in the Bible, condemning Christians (and religions) about not being perfect, yet you forget one passage...
Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
I challenge you that, instead of complaining about how others are not doing the right thing, go out and do the right thing yourself. How much better would that make the world?
So, I, for the life of me, cannot figure out what point an (essentially) "executable" image would have. To me, it seems like this mixing of concerns is a very bad idea. It's either data (an image) or an executable (application). Not both.
Can anybody explain the thought process behind this?
I'm sure they already have.
You would turn into a sensitive new age kind of guy. You'd weep at 'Hello Kitty' movies. Women would flock to your side.
False. Despite what the media would have you think and what (some) women say - very few women are looking for a guy who is a girl.
They want a guy.
Don't start crying at movies. It won't help you.
Maybe it's just me, but it looks like there shouldn't be a comma between Grammar and usage...