Yeah, what we need are more products that have nothing to do with each other and that don't work well together! And what's with Linux developers working on multiple projects? Not good!!
Allow me to ask... why can't a SOFTWARE company produce SOFTWARE that goes well with other SOFTWARE that it has produced? Just because a lot of people use it? Eh. I don't know if popularity should have that kind of downside:)
I don't think it matters. The EU is not in the business of quality assurance for the internet nor web browsers. And the cycle repeating until the company "becomes irrelevant" is precisely what is supposed to happen. Businesses make mistakes and lose the limelight. It should happen to most businesses. Google will make a mistake at some point, go in the wrong direction, and someone else will rise out of it, etc...
And now we will have a ton of posts that either bash or IE or stick up for IE. This isn't about IE and its merits. It wouldn't matter if Microsoft had THE best browser in the world. The EU doesn't care about that, do they? This isn't even about the consumer. This is just a political/corporate game.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered;)
Besides, so let's say they don't bundle IE... or say they have to bundle a competitor. Which competitor? Firefox? Why not K-Meleon? Safari? Opera? Seamonkey? And hey, what about all those other calculators out there? And what about bundling openoffice.org instead of an Office trial version? And what about...
It's stupid. I use Firefox and really don't like IE at all, and I still think its stupid...
I don't know that it "should" be that way, but most of the latest OS's these days are that way, aren't they?
I assume because not everyone likes the look of twm, fluxbox, etc. Some people like... KDE 4.2, Windows, or Mac OSX [insert latest version here, I don't recall.. 10.5?]. For those that don't care, Linux has some good options for you. Which I use on older hardware. But since I HAVE a big desktop computer for various tasks that require it, why not run one of those OS's and enjoy the candy?
Time consuming and very unnecessarily messy... almost any software I've ever used will typically recommend a clean install for any major jump (e.g., RedHat 4 to RedHat 5, SuSE 9 to SuSE 10, Firefox 2 to Firefox 3 even), not some upgrade process.
The article tried installing Windows 7 on a single hardware setup (a thinkpad) that failed, and that's where the "oh my goodness, how can Microsoft expect all these businesses to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, it's not going to work on pretty much ANY hardware" came from. (Yes, exaggerated).
If they tried, oh, I don't know, 10 other computers, I would be interested. But writing an article after trying a single computer? Especially annoying is the fact that they said they came to this conclusion after an "attempt at a sim "... nevermind, just read it for yourself.
The Test Center came to this conclusion after an attempt at a simulated enterprise upgrade and other evaluations of the process on different pieces of PC hardware.
The initial plan: Create a master image on a PC running Windows XP, then upgrade that PC from XP to Vista Service Pack 1 to Windows 7 beta. Then use an imaging utility like Acronis' Snap Deploy to push the image out to other XP clients (all on the same hardware as the imaged machine) and overwrite the XP operating system on them with the Windows 7 image.
Their plan: Let's do a mult-hardware test by deploying an imaged upgrade on same-hardware machines?
And, of course, after it failed, they tried another hardware configuration.
A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop, with newer components including an AMD (NYSE:AMD) quad-core Athlon and motherboard, went smoothly.
Yipee. So we have a total of two hardware configurations tested...
I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.
Indeed. When you look at all the successes of a group of people, and ignore the rest, they have a very good record...
Ah, did not catch the irony... but I still disagree that I don't think that's what a lot of Theists believe. I suppose some do. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, that believes in God. As far as what I think would happen, though... I already explained the rampage thing. I think a lot of 'religious' people do believe that morality and ethics will slowly degrade into very base and behavior. From a Biblical standpoint, this is essentially prophesied. From a more philosophical standpoint, when the only accountability is to yourself, the moral implications should be somewhat obvious.
What I can say, though, from a more conservative Christian viewpoint, is that those in evangelical Christianity are afraid for the - shall we say, eternal welfare - of the person... which is philosophically a more important question. Obviously, many worldviews answer the question rather shortly. And I personally think that many people have never really thought that part of their worldview out. It's not one of the more pleasant things in life...
Does it mean that if their faith falters, they will go on a rampage. No more than anyone else who has a breakdown in their worldview. And no more of a rampage than those who don't believe that God is watching or that they are accountable to God for what they do, right? If they suddenly decide they aren't accountable to God (that is not to say they actually are or aren't, they have just decided it in their own minds) and go on a rampage, then they will only be held back by what holds back all the other non-God-fearing people.
One distinct difference, though, is that most of western civilization's morality/ethics, or what's left of it, appears to come from religion (specifically, the cultural Judaic/Christian morality/ethics). It's a serious worldview-crash indeed that will cause someone to completely turn on everything they have been taught culturally AND everything they've been taught religiously AND everything they've been taught parentally/in their families. That's more than "faith faltering." That's more like a "normal nextdoor neighbor" turning into a serial killer. I've known plenty of poeple that have walked away from "the whole religion thing" or "Christianity" or "God" and they didn't go into a rampage. They turned into what you would likely consider "normal" and what I would consider, to use a Biblical term, "worldly."
Well, let's see here. Seems most parents get divorced these days, most kids pretty much hate their parents for ~20 years...
Hmmm. I'm not seeing much of a reason to leave the world a better place than I found it.
Realize, though, that I am arguing from an attempt at looking at the world without presuppositions. I have them. You have them. In fact, I would venture to say that most of American's presuppositions about morality, ethics, etc., actually come more from my worldview than their claimed worldview. In other words, from an atheistic evolutionary worldview, I don't see any particular reason for caring for my fellow human being. Rather, doing like the monkey in 2001: A Space Odyssey seems more natural - chase off the other monkeys and claim better land! Now, an atheistic evolutionary worldview that continues in ethics/morals that are more easily attributed to cultural roots that have their own roots in a Judaic/Christian morality and ethic? That's different. And that's where I think most of today's morality/ethics ends up finding its traces to. Yes, it's breaking down, but I think that's where it came from to begin with. Even according to philosophers like Freud, our actions are traceable to self-centered drives. So, if preserving the planet doesn't particularly perk my self-centered drive, then who cares?
And, I think this is starting to come out. People who live for money and sex probably aren't going to care too much about the environment, unless it directly affects their personal gain - e.g., more money and more sex.
Well, to expound a bit on the Biblical principle there... the actual idea is that yes, the earth's resources were put here by God for our use but we were put here to care for it... or, in Christian lingo, to be stewards of it. And, obviously, the idea is to be a good steward, not a bad steward.
It's not so much a mainstream Mormon position as a literal-Genesis position, whether that's in a mainstream Christian church, Mormon group, Catholic church, conservative church, evangelical Christian church, etc.
Actually, even non-literal-Genesis Christian groups hold to the idea, as long as they attribute some amount of weight/importance to the Adam and Eve account, story, or myth, whichever they believe.
That is presuming a fundamental and rather unfounded proposition: that I have a [moral?] obligation to do my best to let my descendants live. Why should I personally care if "evolutionary failure" occurs? I live, I die, and I'm gone from the world. If my descendants die and evolutionary failure occurs... well, that would imply a few things, at least to my mind/amount of education in evolutionary thinking. (1) I and my descendants were not fit to survive, and thus evolution didn't "fail" but rather succeeded in letting other humans, who were fit, survive. (2) If the entire human race, or even the entire planet has an evolutionary failure (I'm not entirely sure what that "really" means, as evolution is presumably a natural force/process and thus can't "fail," right?), what difference does it make? In the course of the X billion of years, it seems that many planets should have come and gone. So what if earth goes?
My obligation is to not screw it up - obligation to whom? My not-yet-born descendants? Their not-yet-born descendants? Well, not being born, and presuming there is no God and no overarching plan of some sort, they don't care and it doesn't matter if they aren't ever born. Obligation to humanity in general? Well, I don't see why I should worry myself about humanity, unless they're going to kill me if I don't (and that seems to be a rather akin to forcing morality, or ethics, or standards, or whatever, on individuals..)
Here's my bottom line again. I actually don't see any real obligation, if I were an atheistic evolutionist, to do anything about the earth. Or, for that matter, to do anything for humanity. Unless I see a distinct benefit in it for me AND I have a desire to reap said benefit. On the other hand, as a Theistic (not Deistic) Creationist, I would argue that I have actually more of an obligation to the earth/world, because I claim to serve its Creator.
(this is weird, I'm arguing for higher responsibility/obligation on slashdot. what am I thinking?!)
the creationists who believe that man cannot corrupt the Earth since it was created by a loving God
Automatic -5 Flamebait (or something) for me, but being a creationist, I can say that I have never heard of the position you just laid out. Incidentally, as a creationist, I think I actually have more of a reason to care about the earth, as most Christians that believe the book of Genesis will also believe that man was put on the earth as a caretaker of it. That definitely implies using it wisely and not destroying it.
On the other hand, I don't exactly know what obligation I have to do anything for the earth if there is no God and I'm a product of evolution.
This is a partial indictment against Christians, by the way, for not developing a better (for lack of a better phrase) environmental worldview. But I haven't actually heard of the position you mentioned.:)
Yeah, I'd say it's the government's job, to some extent, to stop those fights (which, incidentally, seem to often be gang related?).
But I guess "boys will be boys" and "kids will be kids" and we have to "let them grow up on their own" and "do what they want to do" and not "force morality on them." If they want to beat up some other kid, why should the State are? So what if it's public property?
Parental responsibility? I'm all for it. Public schools that teach something, even if that means teaching them that beating up another school kid is not the way to get even? I'm all for that, too. And if that means arresting the kid and kicking them out of the public schools, then that's fine with me. If the kid is old enough to wail on someone with "sporting goods" then he is old enough to go to jail and/or not get free lunch at school.
Also, I do find it interesting that you claim that there's no defense to a teenager armed with "sporting goods." I'm not a parent, but I'm guessing both of our views might change a bit if it was your kid that comes home (or goes to the hospital, either way) beaten with baseball bats on the school soccer field.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, what we need are more products that have nothing to do with each other and that don't work well together! And what's with Linux developers working on multiple projects? Not good!!
Allow me to ask ... why can't a SOFTWARE company produce SOFTWARE that goes well with other SOFTWARE that it has produced? Just because a lot of people use it? Eh. I don't know if popularity should have that kind of downside :)
I don't think it matters. The EU is not in the business of quality assurance for the internet nor web browsers. And the cycle repeating until the company "becomes irrelevant" is precisely what is supposed to happen. Businesses make mistakes and lose the limelight. It should happen to most businesses. Google will make a mistake at some point, go in the wrong direction, and someone else will rise out of it, etc...
And now we will have a ton of posts that either bash or IE or stick up for IE. This isn't about IE and its merits. It wouldn't matter if Microsoft had THE best browser in the world. The EU doesn't care about that, do they? This isn't even about the consumer. This is just a political/corporate game.
And frankly, letting the EU play it (and Google, now) simply because *we* don't like IE is ridiculous. Next thing we know, they'll have to start bundling Notepad++, too, because Notepad has the market cornered ;)
Besides, so let's say they don't bundle IE... or say they have to bundle a competitor. Which competitor? Firefox? Why not K-Meleon? Safari? Opera? Seamonkey? And hey, what about all those other calculators out there? And what about bundling openoffice.org instead of an Office trial version? And what about ...
It's stupid. I use Firefox and really don't like IE at all, and I still think its stupid...
One of the most insightful posts I've seen yet... but I don't have a mod point :)
I don't know that it "should" be that way, but most of the latest OS's these days are that way, aren't they?
I assume because not everyone likes the look of twm, fluxbox, etc. Some people like ... KDE 4.2, Windows, or Mac OSX [insert latest version here, I don't recall.. 10.5?]. For those that don't care, Linux has some good options for you. Which I use on older hardware. But since I HAVE a big desktop computer for various tasks that require it, why not run one of those OS's and enjoy the candy?
Facts? That's not fair.
Time consuming and very unnecessarily messy... almost any software I've ever used will typically recommend a clean install for any major jump (e.g., RedHat 4 to RedHat 5, SuSE 9 to SuSE 10, Firefox 2 to Firefox 3 even), not some upgrade process.
Oh. Whoosh :)
$2100? I have no clue where you pulled that number from. You can get quad core systems for under $500...
The article tried installing Windows 7 on a single hardware setup (a thinkpad) that failed, and that's where the "oh my goodness, how can Microsoft expect all these businesses to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, it's not going to work on pretty much ANY hardware" came from. (Yes, exaggerated).
If they tried, oh, I don't know, 10 other computers, I would be interested. But writing an article after trying a single computer? Especially annoying is the fact that they said they came to this conclusion after an "attempt at a sim " ... nevermind, just read it for yourself.
The Test Center came to this conclusion after an attempt at a simulated enterprise upgrade and other evaluations of the process on different pieces of PC hardware.
The initial plan: Create a master image on a PC running Windows XP, then upgrade that PC from XP to Vista Service Pack 1 to Windows 7 beta. Then use an imaging utility like Acronis' Snap Deploy to push the image out to other XP clients (all on the same hardware as the imaged machine) and overwrite the XP operating system on them with the Windows 7 image.
Their plan: Let's do a mult-hardware test by deploying an imaged upgrade on same-hardware machines?
And, of course, after it failed, they tried another hardware configuration.
A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop, with newer components including an AMD (NYSE:AMD) quad-core Athlon and motherboard, went smoothly.
Yipee. So we have a total of two hardware configurations tested...
maybe that was an effort to make it funny. :)
I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.
Indeed. When you look at all the successes of a group of people, and ignore the rest, they have a very good record...
Meh, "nice" conversations are better than mods :)
Heh... well you have a point, but that's a pop culture world, not a scientific world.
Ah, did not catch the irony... but I still disagree that I don't think that's what a lot of Theists believe. I suppose some do. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, that believes in God. As far as what I think would happen, though... I already explained the rampage thing. I think a lot of 'religious' people do believe that morality and ethics will slowly degrade into very base and behavior. From a Biblical standpoint, this is essentially prophesied. From a more philosophical standpoint, when the only accountability is to yourself, the moral implications should be somewhat obvious.
What I can say, though, from a more conservative Christian viewpoint, is that those in evangelical Christianity are afraid for the - shall we say, eternal welfare - of the person... which is philosophically a more important question. Obviously, many worldviews answer the question rather shortly. And I personally think that many people have never really thought that part of their worldview out. It's not one of the more pleasant things in life...
I found this quote rather comical.
"If you have one or two that cover the vast majority of isolates, I wouldn't be ashamed to call that a universal vaccine."
So, universal now means "vast majority." So I guess, to really refer to universal, we'll have to say "actually universal." Hm.
I'm cool with offtopic conversations... :D
Does it mean that if their faith falters, they will go on a rampage. No more than anyone else who has a breakdown in their worldview. And no more of a rampage than those who don't believe that God is watching or that they are accountable to God for what they do, right? If they suddenly decide they aren't accountable to God (that is not to say they actually are or aren't, they have just decided it in their own minds) and go on a rampage, then they will only be held back by what holds back all the other non-God-fearing people.
One distinct difference, though, is that most of western civilization's morality/ethics, or what's left of it, appears to come from religion (specifically, the cultural Judaic/Christian morality/ethics). It's a serious worldview-crash indeed that will cause someone to completely turn on everything they have been taught culturally AND everything they've been taught religiously AND everything they've been taught parentally/in their families. That's more than "faith faltering." That's more like a "normal nextdoor neighbor" turning into a serial killer. I've known plenty of poeple that have walked away from "the whole religion thing" or "Christianity" or "God" and they didn't go into a rampage. They turned into what you would likely consider "normal" and what I would consider, to use a Biblical term, "worldly."
Well, let's see here. Seems most parents get divorced these days, most kids pretty much hate their parents for ~20 years...
Hmmm. I'm not seeing much of a reason to leave the world a better place than I found it.
Realize, though, that I am arguing from an attempt at looking at the world without presuppositions. I have them. You have them. In fact, I would venture to say that most of American's presuppositions about morality, ethics, etc., actually come more from my worldview than their claimed worldview. In other words, from an atheistic evolutionary worldview, I don't see any particular reason for caring for my fellow human being. Rather, doing like the monkey in 2001: A Space Odyssey seems more natural - chase off the other monkeys and claim better land! Now, an atheistic evolutionary worldview that continues in ethics/morals that are more easily attributed to cultural roots that have their own roots in a Judaic/Christian morality and ethic? That's different. And that's where I think most of today's morality/ethics ends up finding its traces to. Yes, it's breaking down, but I think that's where it came from to begin with. Even according to philosophers like Freud, our actions are traceable to self-centered drives. So, if preserving the planet doesn't particularly perk my self-centered drive, then who cares?
And, I think this is starting to come out. People who live for money and sex probably aren't going to care too much about the environment, unless it directly affects their personal gain - e.g., more money and more sex.
Well, to expound a bit on the Biblical principle there... the actual idea is that yes, the earth's resources were put here by God for our use but we were put here to care for it... or, in Christian lingo, to be stewards of it. And, obviously, the idea is to be a good steward, not a bad steward.
It's not so much a mainstream Mormon position as a literal-Genesis position, whether that's in a mainstream Christian church, Mormon group, Catholic church, conservative church, evangelical Christian church, etc.
Actually, even non-literal-Genesis Christian groups hold to the idea, as long as they attribute some amount of weight/importance to the Adam and Eve account, story, or myth, whichever they believe.
That is presuming a fundamental and rather unfounded proposition: that I have a [moral?] obligation to do my best to let my descendants live. Why should I personally care if "evolutionary failure" occurs? I live, I die, and I'm gone from the world. If my descendants die and evolutionary failure occurs... well, that would imply a few things, at least to my mind/amount of education in evolutionary thinking. (1) I and my descendants were not fit to survive, and thus evolution didn't "fail" but rather succeeded in letting other humans, who were fit, survive. (2) If the entire human race, or even the entire planet has an evolutionary failure (I'm not entirely sure what that "really" means, as evolution is presumably a natural force/process and thus can't "fail," right?), what difference does it make? In the course of the X billion of years, it seems that many planets should have come and gone. So what if earth goes?
My obligation is to not screw it up - obligation to whom? My not-yet-born descendants? Their not-yet-born descendants? Well, not being born, and presuming there is no God and no overarching plan of some sort, they don't care and it doesn't matter if they aren't ever born. Obligation to humanity in general? Well, I don't see why I should worry myself about humanity, unless they're going to kill me if I don't (and that seems to be a rather akin to forcing morality, or ethics, or standards, or whatever, on individuals..)
Here's my bottom line again. I actually don't see any real obligation, if I were an atheistic evolutionist, to do anything about the earth. Or, for that matter, to do anything for humanity. Unless I see a distinct benefit in it for me AND I have a desire to reap said benefit. On the other hand, as a Theistic (not Deistic) Creationist, I would argue that I have actually more of an obligation to the earth/world, because I claim to serve its Creator.
(this is weird, I'm arguing for higher responsibility/obligation on slashdot. what am I thinking?!)
the creationists who believe that man cannot corrupt the Earth since it was created by a loving God
Automatic -5 Flamebait (or something) for me, but being a creationist, I can say that I have never heard of the position you just laid out. Incidentally, as a creationist, I think I actually have more of a reason to care about the earth, as most Christians that believe the book of Genesis will also believe that man was put on the earth as a caretaker of it. That definitely implies using it wisely and not destroying it.
On the other hand, I don't exactly know what obligation I have to do anything for the earth if there is no God and I'm a product of evolution.
This is a partial indictment against Christians, by the way, for not developing a better (for lack of a better phrase) environmental worldview. But I haven't actually heard of the position you mentioned. :)
Considering the fact that it is..
Yeah, I'd say it's the government's job, to some extent, to stop those fights (which, incidentally, seem to often be gang related?).
But I guess "boys will be boys" and "kids will be kids" and we have to "let them grow up on their own" and "do what they want to do" and not "force morality on them." If they want to beat up some other kid, why should the State are? So what if it's public property?
Parental responsibility? I'm all for it. Public schools that teach something, even if that means teaching them that beating up another school kid is not the way to get even? I'm all for that, too. And if that means arresting the kid and kicking them out of the public schools, then that's fine with me. If the kid is old enough to wail on someone with "sporting goods" then he is old enough to go to jail and/or not get free lunch at school.
Also, I do find it interesting that you claim that there's no defense to a teenager armed with "sporting goods." I'm not a parent, but I'm guessing both of our views might change a bit if it was your kid that comes home (or goes to the hospital, either way) beaten with baseball bats on the school soccer field.
Just wanted to let you know that "unleash the fyoorie" makes me laugh every time. I'm not sure why.
Sounds to me like it "created jobs" and thus "stimulated the economy" though... ;) :)
an easy federal health website
Because we all know that if the government is involved, bribes and money and bias don't have any affect anymore. :)