The fact that he has not yet chosen does not make him an atheist per se'
Correct, what makes someone an atheist is NOT believing in a higher power of any kind. If they may later believe, then they have gone from atheism to theism.
Someone who is "unsure" is best called an "agnostic" (although that itself can have various connotations ranging from "unsure" to "don't care enough to even think about it")
I, for reference, am most definitely an atheist. (AND I am a good person, with a sense of morals and ethics that are quite close to that of society at large).
Religion is not the reason for violence. Mankind is the reason for violence, religion is only his excuse for bad behavior.
I don't really disagree with the way you've phrased that... but... my view of religion is as a delusion - as such, it's a kind of mental illness. If someone has a more commonly accepted mental illness and it causes them to do something "bad", we generally say it wasn't their choice - their mental illness is to blame (simple example: A very mentally challenged person deciding to crap on your living room floor)
In the same way, I have to say that it's the "illness" of religion that is causing people to do these things. It's a LOT more complex and subtle, and so a lot of it can be mistaken for free choice, however I think witnessing those with the strongest form of the illness (many of the "lower order" of the extremists) it's quite clear they're not rational.
In fact, in the sentence above the one I just quoted, you said:
there are MANY people in the world that don't get to choose to be Muslim or not.
This is actually my point - they didn't make a choice. They were brainwashed from an early age and now suffer from the mental illness caused by the brainwashing.
After all, with that excuse comes a get out of jail free card for those that believe in invisible friends.
I do agree with that - but think it mostly applies to the "smart" ones... I don't actually think these people are all THAT religious in reality. They're using religion to control those below them. They MIGHT believe some of it, or maybe even all of it, but almost certainly not as "fervently" as those who follow them.
Apparently, you've forgotten about the Soviets and Chinese, who committed plenty of atrocities in the name of atheism over the past half century or so.
Sorry, "in the name of atheism"? I think some Soviet rhetoric was perhaps bordering on this ("Religion is the opiate of the masses" and all that), but I wouldn't really say the atrocities were done in the name of atheism. Just as when a Christian person goes and does something really nasty because he lost his job, his wife left him and his car got stolen all on the same day, I don't say blame Christianity. I only blame Christianity when the person really is doing the things they are doing because they truly believe it is the right thing to do according to their religious convictions. I can't think of any example in history where this has happened with atheism.
(although I can picture such a scenario, where a country that is strongly anti-religious decides to try to "rid the world of the disease of religion because it is destroying society" - but I'd call these people nutcases as well, and I as I've mentioned in another post, I don't know any atheists that think this way. Even myself, firmly considering religion to be a dangerous mental disorder well beyond simple delusion, wouldn't try to "rid the world" of it like that.)
Just to note, I'm not trying to defend the Islamic faith. I firmly believe that anyone who follows it has a mental health issue (delusion). However I believe the exact same thing about anyone who follows the Christian faith.
Now, THIS post will almost certainly be modded troll for saying that, but I ask the mods (and all other readers) to please take it in the context of my other posts. I'm not asking you to agree with me that religious people are deluded, I'm simply pointing out where I stand so that the context of my other comments can be better understood.
You're cherry picking the timeframe... if you'd asked those same questions 20 years ago, the answer would be resoundingly different.
And in regard to your "quizzes", MOST Islamic people did not riot or destroy property when these things happened - they were offended, hurt and dismayed, and then prayed to their God for the heathen unbelievers to become better people.
Yes there ARE Islamic extremists, and right at this exact point in history they're a bit more violent than the Christian extremists (although in some cases, not THAT much more), but the piece of text you quoted from my post was not about the PEOPLE, it was about the RELIGIONS. Let me quote it here again:
I don't consider Islam to be any more dangerous than Christianity.
Of course Christians believe the New Testament overrides the Old Testament
Really?
Matthew 5:17-18: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Oddly, I see this argument all the time from religious folk, but have never met another atheist that would agree with this. This really seems to be the "religious person's view of the atheist mind" rather than the actual "atheist mind".
I am an atheist, and I don't want to die. The fact that there's no "judgement" doesn't comfort me in the least! I fully intend to live as long as I possibly can, and have as happy a life as I can during that time.
I believe the argument about there being no "judgement" allowing an atheist to do whatever he wants (including be very evil) fails to account for the fact that there's also no GOOD REASON to be very evil. Religious folk can say, "I did it because my deity commanded it" or similar. Atheists don't have that. So, the only reason to do bad things is to gain power. And most of us are clever enough to realise that this generally doesn't work. (note: MOST, not all - there have been some pretty nasty atheists in history, but that's because they're nasty PEOPLE, not because they're atheists)
I'll forget for the moment that you just Godwin'd yourself there...
For a start, I said "LESS likely", not "can not". I'll grant that Stalin almost certainly was an atheist and did some horrific things, but Hitler? He was definitely a Christian.
When I started smoking, I was not fully aware of how harmful it is, no. I knew it was "harmful", but didn't have a clear idea of how much - in my view it was something along the same lines as "eating too many sweets" or "not getting enough sleep". I assumed it would probably make me unhealthier, but was completely ignorant of the fact that it's quite capable of (and has a non-trivial chance of) killing me in extra-ordinarily unpleasant, painful and torturous ways.
Note that I started smoking 16 years ago (when I was 12), and where I lived at the time, there was very minimal exposure to youth about the dangers of smoking.
As an atheist, I am a little disturbed how you said:
or even Atheists.
Is this supposed to imply you'd EXPECT such behaviour from those of us with no belief in a higher power?! Or even consider it to be more likely?
Atheists are, in general, far LESS likely to tend towards extreme terrorist acts than religious people, for the simple fact that we are pretty well convinced that when we die it's GAME OVER - no afterlife - NOTHING is worth dying for. Plus of course, we are in general a more intelligent bunch (on the average... there are smart religious people, and dumb atheists, but averaged out, we're smarter) and fully realise that any kind of behaviour like this is pretty likely to get us killed, even if it's not a suicide attack specifically.
Oh that that's right... those damn Catholics... no wait...
You weren't in Northern Ireland a decade or two back were you?
only the members of Islam can do that for them by changing the way they preach and practice their faith as a group.
I consider most religions to be very dangerous things that can lead people to doing horrible things, but I don't consider Islam to be any more dangerous than Christianity. The religious texts are very similar (in fact, a lot of the religious texts are the same) and the standard teachings of peace and love are also identical. If you go to an average Islamic religious service, you'll hear exactly the same things being preached to the people there as if you went to an average Christian one. You could cherry pick and find an extremist Islamic teacher, and the same could be done for Christianity.
I'd LOVE to see official documents made publicly available only in Cornish... more fun for those of us who can actually decipher some of it (I would never say I'm able to speak/understand it though - merely "decipher")
I used to live in Australia. The very day that I read that Australia surrendered an Australian citizen to the US Authorities for breaking a US crime (that is not a crime in Australia), I started looking for a job elsewhere. A short few months later, I was (and still am) living in Germany.
Packing up and moving country is very easy (I've done it 9 times now). So, Mr AC, I guess I'm agreeing with you - people should stop just talking about moving and bloody well do it. The GP thinking about Netherlands is a pretty good choice - I lived there about 10 years back, and while it's not as good as it once was, it's still a far better place to live than the UK.
Fair enough, but I'm going to have to just disagree and leave it at that then. If there's no reasoning you can explain satisfactorily, there's no points for discussion/debate.
It's a little unfortunate really, because I think it could actually be a really interesting discussion... anyone else reading that agrees with kmac06 and can take up his side of it?
I never said it was a suitable car for you, just pointed out an electric car that isn't "a plastic shoebox with low horsepower and shitty acceleration".
For many people (myself included), the price is quite reasonable, and 220 miles (354km) is far further than I normally drive, so is no problem. I'll be buying one in 2010 once they're available in Europe without being one of the special high priced "signature edition" models (which will be here in Europe in 2009).
Oh come on mods... parent is trying to be FUNNY, not trolling. He was clearly making a "stupid racist remark" as based on the comment he quoted.
Looking at his posting history, he's trolled before, and isn't the most model of Slashdot citizens, but I think in this case, he should be cut a little slack.
Those rights (life and liberty) have always existed, and always will. Just because they were not always granted does not mean they didn't exist. They exist outside of a system set up by people (unlike health care).
I'm sorry, I don't really understand your reasoning for this. I understand the intent, and even somewhat can see the "emotion" behind it, but what I don't see is any logical explanation for it.
WHY do you have a right to be alive? WHY is this right any different to a "right to be looked after when you're sick" (health care)? How are these two things not simply granted by others? (your "right to life" only exists because other's accept that it does)
Note that I DO think you have a right to life, and I abhor the idea of a society that doesn't grant this right, but it most certainly is a societal thing, and not some mystical state of the universe that grants you this right.
STARTING smoking is a lifestyle choice - one which is often made at an age where you're too young and headstrong to know better. Continuing to smoke is not always a lifestyle choice.
As someone who is a smoker and has tried many times to quit, I do NOT feel that I have control over it without medical aids. That effectively puts it in the "disease" category (as another poster has pointed out). I do not CHOOSE to continue smoking, I simply continue to do it because I can't not do it. I know that some people quit smoking very easily, and then go on at the rest of us about how you just "need to be strong" and so on. That's a load of crap - the addiction is different in different people, and many of us could much more easily give up FOOD and WATER than we could cigarettes. The most extreme hunger and the most dire thirst are NOTHING compared to the craving I have for a cigarette if I don't have one every few hours.
I will very soon be seeing a doctor to get something prescribed, since the "over the counter" stuff helps somewhat, but not enough. I am fearful for my life, and yet still I light up. Tobacco addiction is a disease, and I would never wish it on anyone.
(I do apologise for this rather "personal" rant here, but I can't let this little thread pass as is - I fully expect flames and derision for my comments here from those who couldn't possibly know what it's like. I will happily read and perhaps reply to any sensible replies, but will ignore the flames, so don't bother trying to get a rise out of me)
Will it force people who are either convinced, or even merely hopeful, about the existence of extraterrestrial life to rethink the possibility that earth is the only lifeform-sustaining planet that has ever existed in the history of the universe?
No, because there's a BIG difference between Mars being lifeless and the entire rest of the universe being lifeless!
We know that life in the universe does exist. Us. Now, unless we're extra-ordinarily special, we need to admit that life "could" evolve elsewhere (that's aside from whether it DID or not). After that, we can try to determine where and how, and then go find it (unless the "where" part turns out to be ONLY Earth, in which case we are pretty special, but I don't buy that for a second)
Speak for yourself... Happy to report that I'm as geeky as can be (my passions are network theory, linguistic history, medievalism, and string theory), and still manage to find plenty of lovely ladies that enjoy a no strings attached roll in the hay.
Now, long term relationships are another thing - I'm not so good at holding those, but it could just be that I haven't met the right girl yet, and in the meantime, I'm enjoying life anyway!
Re:something going mainstream does not become bad
on
The Rise of Geekdom
·
· Score: 1
Depends on the games and why you enjoy them. Personally, I can't stand most modern games since the majority are all just flashy graphics and sound with next to no playability. I miss the good old days when every game was something you really had to think about.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do think games like that are still being made, but the signal to noise ratio is making it more difficult to find them.
Just try finding something in your local store with the playability and staying power of the Kings Quest games, or Nethack, or their ilk. Even old side-scrollers like Project X on the Amiga were so fiendishly hard at later levels that it took many weeks of my life spent playing to become "good" at it. Games like this still do exist, but they're fewer and further between than they used to be.
Until the release of Starcraft 2, I'm pretty unlikely to buy any new game (and even that, I'll look at carefully - if it's not at LEAST as engaging as the original, no way).
Re:No, it is the age of the farmer and miner
on
The Rise of Geekdom
·
· Score: 1
But I can hardly see girls 'swooning' over a guy cause he's got root...
Actually, I hooked up with a girl at polytech (a kind of tertiary education) in New Zealand purely because I had access to the servers that I wasn't supposed to have. She spent a week or so begging me to show her how to do it, and I agreed on the condition that she'd go out to dinner with me (sort of half-joking/half-serious kind of thing - not like bribery/blackmail/whetever). She agreed and we were together for nearly a year.
Anyway, sounds like you found the right answer for curing poverty- whatever it is you did that let you dig yourself out from under a bride to living a "normal" life... that might be the answer for others.
Unfortunately, probably not. I only really managed it because I am a fairly decent with networks and software development. If I hadn't been, then I don't think I really had the opportunity to gain any useful skills at the time, and may well either still be homeless, or possibly dead. Without skills to help you get back to a "normal" life, homelessness is a pretty scary situation.
As a note: I was raised in a lower-middle class kind of household - not so wealthy, but certainly not "poor", and only ended up homeless through a series of really stupid mistakes on my behalf combined with a fair bit of bad luck. I was homeless for approximately 6 months, but other than some vivid memories of particular events/circumstances that happened, most of that time is a blur in my memory like a horrible nightmare that fades after it's over.
Hmmm... I think this could probably be argued in circles for quite a while unfortunately. You say that you don't think Samba should have a GUI config, but honestly Samba is one of the WORST things to configure with only the text config program as it's horribly (and quite needlessly) complex in places. GUI config programs for it generally only offer 20% or so of the functionality that it can provide, and that's what the vast majority of users want. So while I agree with you in general, I do think this was a bad example!
I think I might just have to leave this here though - please reply if you have any more insights, as I actually really enjoy reading your posts, but I don't have any more time right now to continue this myself (sorry!)
You do raise some very valid points, and I'm pretty much inclined to agree. I think there's just two things left that need to be addressed though.
1) How to effectively communicate that it is the "better" way? I think many people are likely to look at a text file as being "old" or "ugly", especially in this day and age of fancy GUIs (Compiz, Vista, MacOS X). This point is pretty much just "perception" though, and really I think probably "the proof is in the pudding", and once they try it, they'll become accustomed fairly quickly.
2) How to make it obvious where/how to configure it? One of the hurdles of editing a config file is FINDING the config file. If you just launched an app from your graphical menu, you may not know where the app even stores its config file (assuming you know that it even has one). Do you think it sounds reasonable to go for a "middle ground" between the GUI config program and the text file, by having a button or menu item (or whatever else makes sense) somewhere in the app that when activated will open the user's default text editor containing the config file in question?
Slashdot Mirror
Correct, what makes someone an atheist is NOT believing in a higher power of any kind. If they may later believe, then they have gone from atheism to theism.
Someone who is "unsure" is best called an "agnostic" (although that itself can have various connotations ranging from "unsure" to "don't care enough to even think about it")
I, for reference, am most definitely an atheist. (AND I am a good person, with a sense of morals and ethics that are quite close to that of society at large).
Religion is not the reason for violence. Mankind is the reason for violence, religion is only his excuse for bad behavior.I don't really disagree with the way you've phrased that... but... my view of religion is as a delusion - as such, it's a kind of mental illness. If someone has a more commonly accepted mental illness and it causes them to do something "bad", we generally say it wasn't their choice - their mental illness is to blame (simple example: A very mentally challenged person deciding to crap on your living room floor)
In the same way, I have to say that it's the "illness" of religion that is causing people to do these things. It's a LOT more complex and subtle, and so a lot of it can be mistaken for free choice, however I think witnessing those with the strongest form of the illness (many of the "lower order" of the extremists) it's quite clear they're not rational.
In fact, in the sentence above the one I just quoted, you said:
there are MANY people in the world that don't get to choose to be Muslim or not.This is actually my point - they didn't make a choice. They were brainwashed from an early age and now suffer from the mental illness caused by the brainwashing.
After all, with that excuse comes a get out of jail free card for those that believe in invisible friends.I do agree with that - but think it mostly applies to the "smart" ones... I don't actually think these people are all THAT religious in reality. They're using religion to control those below them. They MIGHT believe some of it, or maybe even all of it, but almost certainly not as "fervently" as those who follow them.
Sorry, "in the name of atheism"? I think some Soviet rhetoric was perhaps bordering on this ("Religion is the opiate of the masses" and all that), but I wouldn't really say the atrocities were done in the name of atheism. Just as when a Christian person goes and does something really nasty because he lost his job, his wife left him and his car got stolen all on the same day, I don't say blame Christianity. I only blame Christianity when the person really is doing the things they are doing because they truly believe it is the right thing to do according to their religious convictions. I can't think of any example in history where this has happened with atheism.
(although I can picture such a scenario, where a country that is strongly anti-religious decides to try to "rid the world of the disease of religion because it is destroying society" - but I'd call these people nutcases as well, and I as I've mentioned in another post, I don't know any atheists that think this way. Even myself, firmly considering religion to be a dangerous mental disorder well beyond simple delusion, wouldn't try to "rid the world" of it like that.)
Thanks for the info - I guess you do learn something new every day!
(replying to myself to add one point)
Just to note, I'm not trying to defend the Islamic faith. I firmly believe that anyone who follows it has a mental health issue (delusion). However I believe the exact same thing about anyone who follows the Christian faith.
Now, THIS post will almost certainly be modded troll for saying that, but I ask the mods (and all other readers) to please take it in the context of my other posts. I'm not asking you to agree with me that religious people are deluded, I'm simply pointing out where I stand so that the context of my other comments can be better understood.
You're cherry picking the timeframe... if you'd asked those same questions 20 years ago, the answer would be resoundingly different.
And in regard to your "quizzes", MOST Islamic people did not riot or destroy property when these things happened - they were offended, hurt and dismayed, and then prayed to their God for the heathen unbelievers to become better people.
Yes there ARE Islamic extremists, and right at this exact point in history they're a bit more violent than the Christian extremists (although in some cases, not THAT much more), but the piece of text you quoted from my post was not about the PEOPLE, it was about the RELIGIONS. Let me quote it here again:
I don't consider Islam to be any more dangerous than Christianity.Really?
Matthew 5:17-18: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Oddly, I see this argument all the time from religious folk, but have never met another atheist that would agree with this. This really seems to be the "religious person's view of the atheist mind" rather than the actual "atheist mind".
I am an atheist, and I don't want to die. The fact that there's no "judgement" doesn't comfort me in the least! I fully intend to live as long as I possibly can, and have as happy a life as I can during that time.
I believe the argument about there being no "judgement" allowing an atheist to do whatever he wants (including be very evil) fails to account for the fact that there's also no GOOD REASON to be very evil. Religious folk can say, "I did it because my deity commanded it" or similar. Atheists don't have that. So, the only reason to do bad things is to gain power. And most of us are clever enough to realise that this generally doesn't work. (note: MOST, not all - there have been some pretty nasty atheists in history, but that's because they're nasty PEOPLE, not because they're atheists)
I'll forget for the moment that you just Godwin'd yourself there...
For a start, I said "LESS likely", not "can not". I'll grant that Stalin almost certainly was an atheist and did some horrific things, but Hitler? He was definitely a Christian.
When I started smoking, I was not fully aware of how harmful it is, no. I knew it was "harmful", but didn't have a clear idea of how much - in my view it was something along the same lines as "eating too many sweets" or "not getting enough sleep". I assumed it would probably make me unhealthier, but was completely ignorant of the fact that it's quite capable of (and has a non-trivial chance of) killing me in extra-ordinarily unpleasant, painful and torturous ways.
Note that I started smoking 16 years ago (when I was 12), and where I lived at the time, there was very minimal exposure to youth about the dangers of smoking.
As an atheist, I am a little disturbed how you said:
or even Atheists.Is this supposed to imply you'd EXPECT such behaviour from those of us with no belief in a higher power?! Or even consider it to be more likely?
Atheists are, in general, far LESS likely to tend towards extreme terrorist acts than religious people, for the simple fact that we are pretty well convinced that when we die it's GAME OVER - no afterlife - NOTHING is worth dying for. Plus of course, we are in general a more intelligent bunch (on the average... there are smart religious people, and dumb atheists, but averaged out, we're smarter) and fully realise that any kind of behaviour like this is pretty likely to get us killed, even if it's not a suicide attack specifically.
Oh that that's right... those damn Catholics... no wait...You weren't in Northern Ireland a decade or two back were you?
only the members of Islam can do that for them by changing the way they preach and practice their faith as a group.I consider most religions to be very dangerous things that can lead people to doing horrible things, but I don't consider Islam to be any more dangerous than Christianity. The religious texts are very similar (in fact, a lot of the religious texts are the same) and the standard teachings of peace and love are also identical. If you go to an average Islamic religious service, you'll hear exactly the same things being preached to the people there as if you went to an average Christian one. You could cherry pick and find an extremist Islamic teacher, and the same could be done for Christianity.
I'd LOVE to see official documents made publicly available only in Cornish... more fun for those of us who can actually decipher some of it (I would never say I'm able to speak/understand it though - merely "decipher")
I used to live in Australia. The very day that I read that Australia surrendered an Australian citizen to the US Authorities for breaking a US crime (that is not a crime in Australia), I started looking for a job elsewhere. A short few months later, I was (and still am) living in Germany.
Packing up and moving country is very easy (I've done it 9 times now). So, Mr AC, I guess I'm agreeing with you - people should stop just talking about moving and bloody well do it. The GP thinking about Netherlands is a pretty good choice - I lived there about 10 years back, and while it's not as good as it once was, it's still a far better place to live than the UK.
Fair enough, but I'm going to have to just disagree and leave it at that then. If there's no reasoning you can explain satisfactorily, there's no points for discussion/debate.
It's a little unfortunate really, because I think it could actually be a really interesting discussion... anyone else reading that agrees with kmac06 and can take up his side of it?
I never said it was a suitable car for you, just pointed out an electric car that isn't "a plastic shoebox with low horsepower and shitty acceleration".
For many people (myself included), the price is quite reasonable, and 220 miles (354km) is far further than I normally drive, so is no problem. I'll be buying one in 2010 once they're available in Europe without being one of the special high priced "signature edition" models (which will be here in Europe in 2009).
Oh come on mods... parent is trying to be FUNNY, not trolling. He was clearly making a "stupid racist remark" as based on the comment he quoted.
Looking at his posting history, he's trolled before, and isn't the most model of Slashdot citizens, but I think in this case, he should be cut a little slack.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand your reasoning for this. I understand the intent, and even somewhat can see the "emotion" behind it, but what I don't see is any logical explanation for it.
WHY do you have a right to be alive? WHY is this right any different to a "right to be looked after when you're sick" (health care)? How are these two things not simply granted by others? (your "right to life" only exists because other's accept that it does)
Note that I DO think you have a right to life, and I abhor the idea of a society that doesn't grant this right, but it most certainly is a societal thing, and not some mystical state of the universe that grants you this right.
STARTING smoking is a lifestyle choice - one which is often made at an age where you're too young and headstrong to know better. Continuing to smoke is not always a lifestyle choice.
As someone who is a smoker and has tried many times to quit, I do NOT feel that I have control over it without medical aids. That effectively puts it in the "disease" category (as another poster has pointed out). I do not CHOOSE to continue smoking, I simply continue to do it because I can't not do it. I know that some people quit smoking very easily, and then go on at the rest of us about how you just "need to be strong" and so on. That's a load of crap - the addiction is different in different people, and many of us could much more easily give up FOOD and WATER than we could cigarettes. The most extreme hunger and the most dire thirst are NOTHING compared to the craving I have for a cigarette if I don't have one every few hours.
I will very soon be seeing a doctor to get something prescribed, since the "over the counter" stuff helps somewhat, but not enough. I am fearful for my life, and yet still I light up. Tobacco addiction is a disease, and I would never wish it on anyone.
(I do apologise for this rather "personal" rant here, but I can't let this little thread pass as is - I fully expect flames and derision for my comments here from those who couldn't possibly know what it's like. I will happily read and perhaps reply to any sensible replies, but will ignore the flames, so don't bother trying to get a rise out of me)
Like this one?
No, because there's a BIG difference between Mars being lifeless and the entire rest of the universe being lifeless!
We know that life in the universe does exist. Us. Now, unless we're extra-ordinarily special, we need to admit that life "could" evolve elsewhere (that's aside from whether it DID or not). After that, we can try to determine where and how, and then go find it (unless the "where" part turns out to be ONLY Earth, in which case we are pretty special, but I don't buy that for a second)
Speak for yourself... Happy to report that I'm as geeky as can be (my passions are network theory, linguistic history, medievalism, and string theory), and still manage to find plenty of lovely ladies that enjoy a no strings attached roll in the hay.
Now, long term relationships are another thing - I'm not so good at holding those, but it could just be that I haven't met the right girl yet, and in the meantime, I'm enjoying life anyway!
Depends on the games and why you enjoy them. Personally, I can't stand most modern games since the majority are all just flashy graphics and sound with next to no playability. I miss the good old days when every game was something you really had to think about.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do think games like that are still being made, but the signal to noise ratio is making it more difficult to find them.
Just try finding something in your local store with the playability and staying power of the Kings Quest games, or Nethack, or their ilk. Even old side-scrollers like Project X on the Amiga were so fiendishly hard at later levels that it took many weeks of my life spent playing to become "good" at it. Games like this still do exist, but they're fewer and further between than they used to be.
Until the release of Starcraft 2, I'm pretty unlikely to buy any new game (and even that, I'll look at carefully - if it's not at LEAST as engaging as the original, no way).
Actually, I hooked up with a girl at polytech (a kind of tertiary education) in New Zealand purely because I had access to the servers that I wasn't supposed to have. She spent a week or so begging me to show her how to do it, and I agreed on the condition that she'd go out to dinner with me (sort of half-joking/half-serious kind of thing - not like bribery/blackmail/whetever). She agreed and we were together for nearly a year.
Unfortunately, probably not. I only really managed it because I am a fairly decent with networks and software development. If I hadn't been, then I don't think I really had the opportunity to gain any useful skills at the time, and may well either still be homeless, or possibly dead. Without skills to help you get back to a "normal" life, homelessness is a pretty scary situation.
As a note: I was raised in a lower-middle class kind of household - not so wealthy, but certainly not "poor", and only ended up homeless through a series of really stupid mistakes on my behalf combined with a fair bit of bad luck. I was homeless for approximately 6 months, but other than some vivid memories of particular events/circumstances that happened, most of that time is a blur in my memory like a horrible nightmare that fades after it's over.
Hmmm... I think this could probably be argued in circles for quite a while unfortunately. You say that you don't think Samba should have a GUI config, but honestly Samba is one of the WORST things to configure with only the text config program as it's horribly (and quite needlessly) complex in places. GUI config programs for it generally only offer 20% or so of the functionality that it can provide, and that's what the vast majority of users want. So while I agree with you in general, I do think this was a bad example!
I think I might just have to leave this here though - please reply if you have any more insights, as I actually really enjoy reading your posts, but I don't have any more time right now to continue this myself (sorry!)
You do raise some very valid points, and I'm pretty much inclined to agree. I think there's just two things left that need to be addressed though.
1) How to effectively communicate that it is the "better" way? I think many people are likely to look at a text file as being "old" or "ugly", especially in this day and age of fancy GUIs (Compiz, Vista, MacOS X). This point is pretty much just "perception" though, and really I think probably "the proof is in the pudding", and once they try it, they'll become accustomed fairly quickly.
2) How to make it obvious where/how to configure it? One of the hurdles of editing a config file is FINDING the config file. If you just launched an app from your graphical menu, you may not know where the app even stores its config file (assuming you know that it even has one). Do you think it sounds reasonable to go for a "middle ground" between the GUI config program and the text file, by having a button or menu item (or whatever else makes sense) somewhere in the app that when activated will open the user's default text editor containing the config file in question?