You could believe that, but you have given no evidence whatsoever. I have plenty of historical evidence for a lot of the Bible's claims/history/background, etc.
He made perfect beings that had the will to choose. And they chose wrongly, fairly quickly apparently.
Equal to Himself? That would be interesting. For one thing, He "couldn't" do that, since one cannot create something with no beginning.
Question - ever actually read (in its entirety) what you so strongly disparage?
Credo" (latin for creed) is a prayer composed somewhere around the 4th century CE by various of what was then called "church councils".
The 4th century is the same time that Constantine decided to make "Christianity" the official religion of Holy Roman Empire, correct? Christianity had been around for 300 years by then.
It was composed to affirm and solidify the christian dogma so as to combat the various spin-offs from mainstream church (these spin-offs were and are still called heresies and were violently persecuted and mostly killed off).
Mostly killed off, not really. Persecuted and wahtnot, yes most definitely. Interestingly, according to the Roman Catholic Church and for most of "church history," the beliefs that I have were heretical. Martin Luther-ish ideas.
why there the once unified christian faith was divided into two (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy).
Major beef with that statement. There was a unified "Holy Roman Empire" type "Christian" faith. There was never a completely unified Christian faith. There have always been divisions, even back in the 1st century. I might add, at this point, that I am a Christian and, had I lived in 1300, would have been persecuted and killed for my Christian beliefs that you want to say were "unified."
Credo is currently used in Sunday mass by catholic, orthodox, lutheran, presbyteran, baptist, methodist and anglican christians, as well as many many others.
Many Baptists do not use the credo; some use creeds (like the Apostles' or the Nicene). Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists do not call their services "mass." That is a Roman Catholic thing, and the Protestant denominations wanted to get away from that for the most part.
In fact, if you believe that you do get a second (or third, forth, n-th) chance after death, then ressurection is even more unlikely than reincarnation because it needs the restoration (and according to christians the perfecting) of your identical physical body.
Are you referring to reincarnation with the n-th chance? Secondly, it's not the "identical" physical body, otherwise it wouldn't be any different (and thus not "restored" or "perfected" or, the theological term, glorified). Thirdly, if you believe in a God that created the universe and everything in it, "finding" bodies isn't too hard, is it?
Reincarnation just needs the body of a suitable (higher or lower) life-form, which is still absurd, but demands a lower degree of speculation and fairy-tales to believe in.
So either reincarnation is a more human-ish religion than Christianity, or Christianity's fairy-tale makers were much more imaginative, or Christianity wasn't just made up. I find it interesting that, according to most people, the more "normal" the religion, the more "believable" it is... just like the more "human"-ish God is (e.g., he can forget something, he has petty angers, he can't do anything, etc), the more people are willing to accept the belief. When you mention stuff like the Trinity and other "hard to believe" doctrines, people start asking how you can believe THAT about God, it doesn't make sense! (as though, in order for God to be true, He would have to fit into His creation's minds and be fully comprehended... which essentially makes him little more than a really smart human being).
Just a comment that for many, Christian != Roman Catholic. "Christian" is a much broader term, and not all "Christians" accept the Roman Catholic creed.
Also, it's not reincarnated in the traditional sense of the word. Resurrection and reincarnation are not synonyms.
No. But it so happens that TV has come up a lot, and rather than simply say "I don't watch CNN" it' easier and makes the point come across more strongly to say "I don't even own a TV."
I also don't have facial hair, for what it's worth.;)
Well, I don't watch any TV, let alone news. And most news is no better, as far as being opinionated, than talk radio (which, ironically, I do listen to).
That said, I think NPR (not sure if that is necessarily the same as PBS though) is decidedly biased as well. And I might add, NPR did cover the dog story on "All Things Considered." (Online here.)
This wasn't news when Bush was in office and he used a cell phone and a PDA too
Because a blackberry is so much harder to use than a PDA and cell phone;) Or maybe it's an issue of race.
Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news." It's not big news, Presidents have had communication devices for years and dogs for much longer.
I can see it now. Headline news back in the day was undoubtedly "President Washington to Choose Arabian or Quarterhorse?" Of course, news was a lot slower, so the horse would have likely already died by the time anyone heard about the decision.
That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?
My thoughts exactly. I grew up with computers and played video games... too much, most likely. But I also played outside, loved playing basketball, skated, went skiing (weird word.:P), etc. My house, growing up, never had anything other than TV coming in from the aerial, which where we lived, meant two to four channels. I occasionally watched cartoons Saturday morning and Spiderman at 4:30, if the channel came in. We watched football on Sunday/Monday, depending on who was playing.
As far as bypassing filters, by the time they can learn to do that, there are probalby other things they are learning to be able to do as well, so by then if I haven't done the whole parenting thing that well, it's probably too late.
Get your TV company to turn off these or those channels
Install this or that filter on computer
...
The novel idea of supervision does seem to escape most people. I guess it's the government's job to educate, supervise, instill morals, AND otherwise pay for their kids...
I find it interesting that they are willing to make This is offtopic, but it's interesting that they're willing to go into the which-caused-which with this, but not with things like depression, tempers, etc. (e.g., chemical imbalance came first or something else?)
More on topic, it's odd that we randomly believe a psychologist, where's the [citation needed] sign:) They didn't answer the question what cuased anger/aggression, all they did was say "It's not video games." I'd also like to mention that not only is this just a blog, but the study that he cites before giving his conclusion doesn't support his conclusion, it is a neutral "we cannot say" statement.
Apple and Microsoft and Unix were all small time operating systems "back in the day," right? So... what's the deal? Why didn't the ever-so-more-amazing Linux, Unix, or OS X become the monopoly? You can't argue that Apple doesn't do *cough* "weird" *cough* business practices. Many of the mainstream unix flavors (Solaris, AIX, HPUX) were never really consumer oriented but server oriented, and Linux is somewhat new as far as compatibility and consumer-usability goes, as far as I understand it (the earliest I started using it was around 2000).
So it came down, in the late 80s and 90s, to either Apple's OS or Microsoft's OS. Apparently, people liked Microsoft's.
Whether or not they have a monopoly now I guess is debatable, but even if they didn't do any of monopoly-ish business practices now, they STILL would have a large share of the market. It's not necessarily because "they are a monopoly" but because it is hard to break a large market share. Case in point: search engines and Google. Or for a while, search engines and Yahoo. A lot of search engines just plain died or never were popular. Usually only one or two survive and become the "giants," and the others get a few percentage of the fun.
The fact that Linux (and OS X) is growing is good, but I grow tired of the constant complaints that somehow, Microsoft is paying off all the old grandma's to stay with Windows... as if Dell could suddenly ship Linux on a desktop and not have TONS of technical support calls asking "Why can't I use iTunes?" or "Why doesn't [insert something] work?"
While undue stress and responsibility and scapegoating is bad, of course, I'm not sure most jobs have no responsibility or whatever. IT does seem to have more because people think computers shouldn't have any problems because it is a machine (on the other hand, their cars gets tons of problems and they don't seem to think it's too weird...)
Thta said, though, having worked with IT people, the annoying, snotty, you-are-so-stupid-because-you-can't-fix-your-own-computer attitude and cynicism that seems to be common is... well, annoying. Imagine what a great family doctor the person would make. "What? You don't know what to do about [insert disease]? *mumbles under breath*"
Not all IT people are like that, and a lot of people give IT people a hard time:) But the ones I've worked with can tend to be like that, it seems.
Doctors, especially with more and more nationalized medicine, don't always get "some serious compensation." Yeah, they make a fair amount, but so do senior software engineers.
And, coming from a family with two doctors and a nurse, I might add that 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, and X (up to 5 or 6) years of fellowship/residency is a lot of money (school, med school isn't cheap) and time. And you get worked quite hard as a resident... the first year especially.
All that to be said, if you're an IT guy and working a "crazy" job to begin with, that doesn't seem to be too far different from the parent post's mention about physicians. Residents do a lot of work, nurses do 12 hour night shifts or whatever, etc. It's not an IT-specific issue.
I have no statistics if that is what you mean. However, if it doesn't matter, and if my anecdotal evidence means nothing, then how can we criticize Google for choosing what they did for the page zoom feature? After all, they probably asked all their developers, so they have more statistics than either of us do.
Anyway, I was simply offering the suggestion that when I, or people I've been around for the most part, want to zoom in a page, it's because we want to see the text better. Occasionally an image, but not as often. Images don't change as much across browsers and operating systems as text styles, especially depending on how the CSS sutff is set up (if at all).
Great. Now I can use Chrome like I use Safari on my iPhone. Of course scaling should scale the whole page, not just the text. It shouldn't be that hard. An old technology like PDF (10 years old) knows that.
I'm not sure MOST people want to scale the entire page. Most of the time I use zooms I just want the text smaller, not picture and all that. Usually it's either because I want to read more text or I can't see the text well enough for whatever reason.
One note on profiles... if you install something for "all users," it doesn't change when you use it as a different user, does it? So manybe the profile thing is useful. Plus it may be that you want to have different profiles yourself, and not have to switch Windows users to change it.
I can see it being useful, for example, having a different profile at work than I do at school than I do at home.
Mmm, I meant specifically Cloud, not gOS. But thanks, it looks like people are mostly (except you, who actually did try gOS) going by the screenshots...
Joking aside, I assume (this isn't even based on wikipedia, talk about [citation needed] that rainforests also have a lot of rotting material. I actually know THAT part for a fact, even that Earth series that recently came out (BBC, I think? Forgot hte name of it now, heh) had that in there. Rotting stuff produces lots of CO2.
If it were just a volunteer program, that might be one thing. Giving money is another thing. I have heard that they like building rainforests with the money, too, which I have also heard are NOT the best thing for producing oxygen and eating CO2...
You're right. When I buy something, I don't want to be able to plug it in and use it. I want to have to sit for $X $unit_of_time before being able to put my files on it!
What's this with computers coming pre-built and even pre-installed with $operating_system_name, anyways? I don't want to plug it in and have it work, I want to have to spend $X $unit_of_time before I'm able to use it!
... your point remains true that people would think it's broken, but I'm not sure that "smart people" wnat to have to format it, either.
Slashdot Mirror
You could believe that, but you have given no evidence whatsoever. I have plenty of historical evidence for a lot of the Bible's claims/history/background, etc.
He made perfect beings that had the will to choose. And they chose wrongly, fairly quickly apparently.
Equal to Himself? That would be interesting. For one thing, He "couldn't" do that, since one cannot create something with no beginning.
Question - ever actually read (in its entirety) what you so strongly disparage?
Credo" (latin for creed) is a prayer composed somewhere around the 4th century CE by various of what was then called "church councils".
The 4th century is the same time that Constantine decided to make "Christianity" the official religion of Holy Roman Empire, correct? Christianity had been around for 300 years by then.
It was composed to affirm and solidify the christian dogma so as to combat the various spin-offs from mainstream church (these spin-offs were and are still called heresies and were violently persecuted and mostly killed off).
Mostly killed off, not really. Persecuted and wahtnot, yes most definitely. Interestingly, according to the Roman Catholic Church and for most of "church history," the beliefs that I have were heretical. Martin Luther-ish ideas.
why there the once unified christian faith was divided into two (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy).
Major beef with that statement. There was a unified "Holy Roman Empire" type "Christian" faith. There was never a completely unified Christian faith. There have always been divisions, even back in the 1st century. I might add, at this point, that I am a Christian and, had I lived in 1300, would have been persecuted and killed for my Christian beliefs that you want to say were "unified."
Credo is currently used in Sunday mass by catholic, orthodox, lutheran, presbyteran, baptist, methodist and anglican christians, as well as many many others.
Many Baptists do not use the credo; some use creeds (like the Apostles' or the Nicene). Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists do not call their services "mass." That is a Roman Catholic thing, and the Protestant denominations wanted to get away from that for the most part.
In fact, if you believe that you do get a second (or third, forth, n-th) chance after death, then ressurection is even more unlikely than reincarnation because it needs the restoration (and according to christians the perfecting) of your identical physical body.
Are you referring to reincarnation with the n-th chance? Secondly, it's not the "identical" physical body, otherwise it wouldn't be any different (and thus not "restored" or "perfected" or, the theological term, glorified). Thirdly, if you believe in a God that created the universe and everything in it, "finding" bodies isn't too hard, is it?
Reincarnation just needs the body of a suitable (higher or lower) life-form, which is still absurd, but demands a lower degree of speculation and fairy-tales to believe in.
So either reincarnation is a more human-ish religion than Christianity, or Christianity's fairy-tale makers were much more imaginative, or Christianity wasn't just made up. I find it interesting that, according to most people, the more "normal" the religion, the more "believable" it is... just like the more "human"-ish God is (e.g., he can forget something, he has petty angers, he can't do anything, etc), the more people are willing to accept the belief. When you mention stuff like the Trinity and other "hard to believe" doctrines, people start asking how you can believe THAT about God, it doesn't make sense! (as though, in order for God to be true, He would have to fit into His creation's minds and be fully comprehended... which essentially makes him little more than a really smart human being).
Just a comment that for many, Christian != Roman Catholic. "Christian" is a much broader term, and not all "Christians" accept the Roman Catholic creed.
Also, it's not reincarnated in the traditional sense of the word. Resurrection and reincarnation are not synonyms.
The abstract are available? Parenthetical statement doesn't count as a subject, I don't think.
That said, maybe all the coffee drinkers just think everyone else is stealing their coffee. :)
hehe...
No. But it so happens that TV has come up a lot, and rather than simply say "I don't watch CNN" it' easier and makes the point come across more strongly to say "I don't even own a TV."
I also don't have facial hair, for what it's worth. ;)
Well, I don't watch any TV, let alone news. And most news is no better, as far as being opinionated, than talk radio (which, ironically, I do listen to).
That said, I think NPR (not sure if that is necessarily the same as PBS though) is decidedly biased as well. And I might add, NPR did cover the dog story on "All Things Considered." (Online here.)
This wasn't news when Bush was in office and he used a cell phone and a PDA too
Because a blackberry is so much harder to use than a PDA and cell phone ;) Or maybe it's an issue of race.
Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news." It's not big news, Presidents have had communication devices for years and dogs for much longer.
I can see it now. Headline news back in the day was undoubtedly "President Washington to Choose Arabian or Quarterhorse?" Of course, news was a lot slower, so the horse would have likely already died by the time anyone heard about the decision.
That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?
My thoughts exactly. I grew up with computers and played video games... too much, most likely. But I also played outside, loved playing basketball, skated, went skiing (weird word. :P), etc. My house, growing up, never had anything other than TV coming in from the aerial, which where we lived, meant two to four channels. I occasionally watched cartoons Saturday morning and Spiderman at 4:30, if the channel came in. We watched football on Sunday/Monday, depending on who was playing.
As far as bypassing filters, by the time they can learn to do that, there are probalby other things they are learning to be able to do as well, so by then if I haven't done the whole parenting thing that well, it's probably too late.
Supervise and/or...
The novel idea of supervision does seem to escape most people. I guess it's the government's job to educate, supervise, instill morals, AND otherwise pay for their kids...
For those interested but too lazy to click a link:
The DSC-G3 costs about $500 in the U.S.
I believe he said 1MB limit and no attachments.
... which is limited to messages under a megabyte with no attachments.
Actually, no, had nothing to do with being easy or would have done it myself. Just pointing out that bats inspiring flying things is not very new.
Didn't the military look into cluster bombs using bats? Doesn't seem to be terribly new as far as inspiring flight sorts of ideas.
I find it interesting that they are willing to make This is offtopic, but it's interesting that they're willing to go into the which-caused-which with this, but not with things like depression, tempers, etc. (e.g., chemical imbalance came first or something else?)
More on topic, it's odd that we randomly believe a psychologist, where's the [citation needed] sign :) They didn't answer the question what cuased anger/aggression, all they did was say "It's not video games." I'd also like to mention that not only is this just a blog, but the study that he cites before giving his conclusion doesn't support his conclusion, it is a neutral "we cannot say" statement.
They have a monopoly or they gained a monopoly?
Apple and Microsoft and Unix were all small time operating systems "back in the day," right? So ... what's the deal? Why didn't the ever-so-more-amazing Linux, Unix, or OS X become the monopoly? You can't argue that Apple doesn't do *cough* "weird" *cough* business practices. Many of the mainstream unix flavors (Solaris, AIX, HPUX) were never really consumer oriented but server oriented, and Linux is somewhat new as far as compatibility and consumer-usability goes, as far as I understand it (the earliest I started using it was around 2000).
So it came down, in the late 80s and 90s, to either Apple's OS or Microsoft's OS. Apparently, people liked Microsoft's.
Whether or not they have a monopoly now I guess is debatable, but even if they didn't do any of monopoly-ish business practices now, they STILL would have a large share of the market. It's not necessarily because "they are a monopoly" but because it is hard to break a large market share. Case in point: search engines and Google. Or for a while, search engines and Yahoo. A lot of search engines just plain died or never were popular. Usually only one or two survive and become the "giants," and the others get a few percentage of the fun.
The fact that Linux (and OS X) is growing is good, but I grow tired of the constant complaints that somehow, Microsoft is paying off all the old grandma's to stay with Windows... as if Dell could suddenly ship Linux on a desktop and not have TONS of technical support calls asking "Why can't I use iTunes?" or "Why doesn't [insert something] work?"
While undue stress and responsibility and scapegoating is bad, of course, I'm not sure most jobs have no responsibility or whatever. IT does seem to have more because people think computers shouldn't have any problems because it is a machine (on the other hand, their cars gets tons of problems and they don't seem to think it's too weird...)
Thta said, though, having worked with IT people, the annoying, snotty, you-are-so-stupid-because-you-can't-fix-your-own-computer attitude and cynicism that seems to be common is ... well, annoying. Imagine what a great family doctor the person would make. "What? You don't know what to do about [insert disease]? *mumbles under breath*"
Not all IT people are like that, and a lot of people give IT people a hard time :) But the ones I've worked with can tend to be like that, it seems.
Doctors, especially with more and more nationalized medicine, don't always get "some serious compensation." Yeah, they make a fair amount, but so do senior software engineers.
And, coming from a family with two doctors and a nurse, I might add that 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, and X (up to 5 or 6) years of fellowship/residency is a lot of money (school, med school isn't cheap) and time. And you get worked quite hard as a resident... the first year especially.
All that to be said, if you're an IT guy and working a "crazy" job to begin with, that doesn't seem to be too far different from the parent post's mention about physicians. Residents do a lot of work, nurses do 12 hour night shifts or whatever, etc. It's not an IT-specific issue.
I have no statistics if that is what you mean. However, if it doesn't matter, and if my anecdotal evidence means nothing, then how can we criticize Google for choosing what they did for the page zoom feature? After all, they probably asked all their developers, so they have more statistics than either of us do.
Anyway, I was simply offering the suggestion that when I, or people I've been around for the most part, want to zoom in a page, it's because we want to see the text better. Occasionally an image, but not as often. Images don't change as much across browsers and operating systems as text styles, especially depending on how the CSS sutff is set up (if at all).
Great. Now I can use Chrome like I use Safari on my iPhone. Of course scaling should scale the whole page, not just the text. It shouldn't be that hard. An old technology like PDF (10 years old) knows that.
I'm not sure MOST people want to scale the entire page. Most of the time I use zooms I just want the text smaller, not picture and all that. Usually it's either because I want to read more text or I can't see the text well enough for whatever reason.
One note on profiles ... if you install something for "all users," it doesn't change when you use it as a different user, does it? So manybe the profile thing is useful. Plus it may be that you want to have different profiles yourself, and not have to switch Windows users to change it.
I can see it being useful, for example, having a different profile at work than I do at school than I do at home.
Pre-beta isn't particularly new. There's been alphas and pre-betas and betas for a while.
Mmm, I meant specifically Cloud, not gOS. But thanks, it looks like people are mostly (except you, who actually did try gOS) going by the screenshots...
Plants are carbon neutral perhaps, but rotting plants aren't, hence the whole rain forest thing not being a good idea...
Don't matches consume massive amounts of methane? ;)
Hehe...
Joking aside, I assume (this isn't even based on wikipedia, talk about [citation needed] that rainforests also have a lot of rotting material. I actually know THAT part for a fact, even that Earth series that recently came out (BBC, I think? Forgot hte name of it now, heh) had that in there. Rotting stuff produces lots of CO2.
If it were just a volunteer program, that might be one thing. Giving money is another thing. I have heard that they like building rainforests with the money, too, which I have also heard are NOT the best thing for producing oxygen and eating CO2...
You're right. When I buy something, I don't want to be able to plug it in and use it. I want to have to sit for $X $unit_of_time before being able to put my files on it!
What's this with computers coming pre-built and even pre-installed with $operating_system_name, anyways? I don't want to plug it in and have it work, I want to have to spend $X $unit_of_time before I'm able to use it!
... your point remains true that people would think it's broken, but I'm not sure that "smart people" wnat to have to format it, either.