I just don't see the point in buying their laptop/desktop machines unless you are an artist.
Because oil painting on canvas requires a Mac.
???:)
Seriously, the idea that "real artists use Macs" seems to pervade academia... even though there are tons of artists that barely use a computer for their art. It's a little annoying. hehe.
And the real issue is software. If the software I do my art on happens to be Windows, how does that make me less artsy? Or, if the software I use happens to be Mac-based, how does that make me more artsy?
Especially when a lot of the software works on both... e.g.: Photoshop, Sibelius, Finale, Logic...
IMO, it's a marketing and logo farce. Just like REAL athletes use [insert brand of shoe/cleat].
Perhaps now. But were PDF, Acrobat, Photoshop, Flash, (Premiere, etc., etc.) impressive when they were released?
It's hard to continually add-on to a product and not get "bloated" to most people. On the other hand, I don't know of that many just-as-good replacements for Photoshop, for example. Yes, I know, there's GIMP... but I don't actually think it is just as good. For me? Yes, GIMP is fine. For most average people, my guess is GIMP is probably overkill. For the people that really need Photoshop and all its bells and whistles, I have heard that GIMP is *not* as good.
And PDF is actually fairly nice for getting close-to-your-exact-desired formatting to another place. Flash? Seems to be quite popular and highly used. It was a big deal "back in the day," too, especially in comparison to Java applets.
Premiere... well, Final Cut Pro seems to be more to the taste of most video people I know, but Premiere vs. open-source stuff? I haven't found a Premiere replacement in OSS.
They are an ad agency because of revenue, not because of what they do. Were it not for ads, they would not be a profitable company and they would not be able to do as much as they do because they would have no money.
But home schooling pretty much fails to develop a kid's social skills. And I've always felt that one of the more important things that public schooling does is develop social skills.
This comes up every time.
Yes, there are socially inept homeschooled kids. I hate to break it to you, but there are socially inept publically schooled kids. In fact, there are lots of them. Haven't you read about all the psychiatrists/psychologists that have been complaining about all the problems kids are going through due to what they experience from their peers?
I was homeschooled. I played sports, I took private music lessons, I went to the park. I made friends. I had "other social outlets." I learned to talk with ADULTS as well as kids. I respected my teacher. I went to a community college right after high school and fit in fine... yes, I was a little bit shy and quiet, but I was that way around my friends, too. Even with my shyness and quietness, I made friends in community college. The difference between me and most of the community college students? I was there to get an education.
Incidentally, the idea that throwing kids into a giant group of other kids - with no expectation, apparently, that they learn to talk to adults, respect their teacher, etc. - is not the way to learn how to interact "socially" with anyone but their peers. If you think that developing socially is something that you do with only people your age, there's a problem with that:)
Some of the hardest people I've worked with were public schooled. They generally are not very smart, not well educated, care more about going out at night and having a good time/drinking/partying, and are completely unable to do anything in a timely manner or act responsibly. Of course, simply giving an anecdotal "some of..." statement really means nothing, and doing induction from that and assuming all public school kids are that way would be a big mistake...
I wish we could just get rid of the typical homeschoolers-are-socially-inept view. It's just not true. There are some, sure. And there are the same in public schools.
And if they are socially inept, I don't think it would have changed in public school. At least, not for the better. Personally, I think being socially naive is way better than being socially deceptive and whatever other behavior you learn in public school. At least if you are naive, you only have to learn, not un-learn.
Well, I'll go with those two things, too. As for hippies, I'm not much of a tie-die fan, so if you do succeed in your pot-smoking socialist worker's California paradise plan, please leave at least a few areas unpainted.;)
Well at least you are consistent. I have a feeling I likely disagree with just about everything else;) but consistency (or intellectual honesty, or integrity, or honesty, or whatever you really want to call it... I realize you can be consistently dishonest, but that's not quite what I mean, hehe) is what seems to primarily be lacking with both voters and politicians....
I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives.
Likewise. Except I would not limit it to conservatives, I would say "humans." I've heard some pretty ridiculous arguments made by liberals, too... but we tend to be more forgiving towards those that agree ideologically with us. Or we just automatically fill in the gaps with what we know, etc.
it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.
I don't think that is true... but it depends on what [conservative] positions you are referring to. However, your assertion (unless you're just joking?) that (1) most conservatives talk/think like another conservative that you have met and therefore (2) most Americans consider conservative positions to be silly... is... unfounded. In fact, while I realize it's a 2009 (but hey, that was post-Obama-election) poll, Gallup has reported that self-described conservatives are at ~40%, moderate at ~35-38%, and liberal at ~20%.
So either there are a bunch of self-described American moderates and conservatives that think their own positions are silly (or at least moderately silly), or I would contend that your assertion is false.
Please give at least one example of this behavior.
Please make sure said example is actually of a completely innocent person going to prison, not someone who did something that someone else thinks SHOULD be legal but isn't.:)
Even a dead guy's name can be dangerous. Or do you forget that some organizations are quite happy to go beat up a dead guy's family just to make sure said family does not act like the dead guy?
Window transparency is in Windows 7. I'm not sure if you can exactly turn it on and off or change it, but the functionality is there. They just figure most users don't want to configure it themselves, so they do it on certain actions.
Package manger? Windows has had a "package" manager for ages, what are you talking about? No, you can't INSTALL from it, but it keeps track of what you have installed and allows you to remove it. How well it works is, of course, a different discussion, though it seems to work a lot better in 7 than it has in some previous versions.
Multiple workspaces? You have me there. Then again, I have never heard most people wish for that.
I seriously doubt most Canadians even live near the lower portions of Alaska, as far as longitude goes. Of course, there aren't many Alaskans, hehe.
A lot of Canadians, if they live towards the southern part of their US-bordering province, could potentially be further south from the pole than north-eastern US states like Maine.
It's hard to really blame the politician when the people just plain don't care or aren't interested enough to really find out what someone really stands for (if anything).
Not that I'll defend said politician, of course. Wrong behavior is wrong:)
Peter isn't talking about creation, he's talking about the Second Coming; also, the term "a day" is different from in Genesis, where it is referred to with a specific number (the first day, second day, etc).
Peter talking about how God "views" time differently than humans (God being eternal, a day of actual time is pretty short, and a thousand years isn't very long...) is not the same at all as claiming that the creation account was not a literal/normal human day.
Peter was referring to a nebulous time period between the first coming of Christ (past) and the second coming of Christ (future). People were wondering why it had not happened yet, why is He taking so long... that sort of thing. Peter responded by saying that in the eternal scope of things, even a thousand years isn't really that long. He wasn't saying that God didn't know how long a "day" was.:)
Your link is not very convincing. It seems to be off the cuff/speculative and not exactly... scholarly interpretation of the usages of Hebrew and Greek idiomatic expressions, metaphors, hyperbole, etc. I am sure if you took what we are saying here, in 1000 years, many interpretations would abound due to interpreting our English differently and speculating what we meant.:)
Well, I'll go along with the extremists ignoring part.
I would argue that the "old book" is the Old Covenant, and the "second book" is the New Covenant... and Paul, in the NT, is very firm on the idea that those who follow Christ are not under the Old Covenant and do not have to go through the Old Covenant to get to Christ. So, commands in the OT may or may not still be "applicable"... e.g., it's still wrong to murder and steal, even though those are in the Old Covenant. Of course, they are reiterated in the New, as well.
Regarding creation taking a long time so world not being 6k years old - I'm confused, are you saying Paul said 6k years or Paul said long time?
You are making a jump from "rational disregard of claims" to what you originally said - "conclusive proof."
If you want to argue about rational conclusions about claims of the existence of God, fine. But logical conclusions are not conclusive proof. And you can have beautiful, completely rational logic and arrive at the wrong conclusion. It depends on your premises.
In a followup to someone else, you claim that we know who invented the idea of god, etc. That has been proven? Or is this just someone's interpretation of evidence that you are deciding to accept as proof of your presupposition/predisposition to what you want to think?
Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.
This is not much of an argument for anything except humanity. Pretty much everything humans have ever thought, beliefed, or held to - true or not - has caused suffering.
I would point you to atheistic countries. No religion there, right? And they cause some pretty good amounts of suffering. Especially against non-atheists. Unless you are wiling to admit that atheism is also "faith."...
There is no god, and just about everything that surrounds us is conclusive proof that there is no such thing as a god.
[belief in Jesus]... is to deny logic, science, and any kind of common sense.
To state that there is conclusive proof of the non-existence of something while at the same time claiming to be logical, scientific, and common sensical is... quite irrational.
Conclusive proof that something does not exist is pretty hard to come by.
I was asking for where it actually states it. I don't see the point in claiming "a true Christian would X, Y, and Z" if the Bible doesn't even mention X, Y, or Z... or principles that affect X/Y/Z.
There's a lot of misinformation about the Bible, such as the verse that says "God helps those that helps themselves." Which doesn't exist.
I am simply asking where this forbidding of charging interest is found so that we can actually see who it applies to. Is it actually a command to Christians under the New Covenant, or was this part of the law given to Israel?
I didn't give my opinion of the matter; I am asking for specifics about where it mentions it in the Bible. I don't care about the version, as long as it's not a dynamic equivalence version.
There's a lot of misinformation about what's in the Bible. Like the "commandment" that "God helps those who help themselves." If someone says something is in the Bible and Christians should do X, Y, and Z, then I want to know where it is.:)
I didn't say humans couldn't adapt. I'm not sure that your evidence suggests what is easier for humans... perhaps what is more economical?
Page margins make a big difference, too. And bindings. But I'm sure publishing companies certainly don't change those based in the money it costs to do them in certain ways;)
That is true. If you want to argue for changing the "rule" to three spaces, be my guest. I'm just arguing against one space. Furthermore, given the two options - one or two - I was arguing for two.:)
Where in the Bible does it say Christians cannot charge interest? I see many references to the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant. I do not see any in the New Covenant.
I see some principles like not being unfair, being gnerous, and lending without expecting anything in return, but I'm not sure where it says it's a sin?
Slashdot Mirror
I was more referring to editing video... so, we may be agreeing here... more fun to argue though. ;)
I just don't see the point in buying their laptop/desktop machines unless you are an artist.
Because oil painting on canvas requires a Mac.
??? :)
Seriously, the idea that "real artists use Macs" seems to pervade academia ... even though there are tons of artists that barely use a computer for their art. It's a little annoying. hehe.
And the real issue is software. If the software I do my art on happens to be Windows, how does that make me less artsy? Or, if the software I use happens to be Mac-based, how does that make me more artsy?
Especially when a lot of the software works on both ... e.g.: Photoshop, Sibelius, Finale, Logic...
IMO, it's a marketing and logo farce. Just like REAL athletes use [insert brand of shoe/cleat].
It's hard to continually add-on to a product and not get "bloated" to most people. On the other hand, I don't know of that many just-as-good replacements for Photoshop, for example. Yes, I know, there's GIMP... but I don't actually think it is just as good. For me? Yes, GIMP is fine. For most average people, my guess is GIMP is probably overkill. For the people that really need Photoshop and all its bells and whistles, I have heard that GIMP is *not* as good.
And PDF is actually fairly nice for getting close-to-your-exact-desired formatting to another place. Flash? Seems to be quite popular and highly used. It was a big deal "back in the day," too, especially in comparison to Java applets.
Premiere ... well, Final Cut Pro seems to be more to the taste of most video people I know, but Premiere vs. open-source stuff? I haven't found a Premiere replacement in OSS.
They are an ad agency because of revenue, not because of what they do. Were it not for ads, they would not be a profitable company and they would not be able to do as much as they do because they would have no money.
But home schooling pretty much fails to develop a kid's social skills. And I've always felt that one of the more important things that public schooling does is develop social skills.
This comes up every time.
Yes, there are socially inept homeschooled kids. I hate to break it to you, but there are socially inept publically schooled kids. In fact, there are lots of them. Haven't you read about all the psychiatrists/psychologists that have been complaining about all the problems kids are going through due to what they experience from their peers?
I was homeschooled. I played sports, I took private music lessons, I went to the park. I made friends. I had "other social outlets." I learned to talk with ADULTS as well as kids. I respected my teacher. I went to a community college right after high school and fit in fine... yes, I was a little bit shy and quiet, but I was that way around my friends, too. Even with my shyness and quietness, I made friends in community college. The difference between me and most of the community college students? I was there to get an education.
Incidentally, the idea that throwing kids into a giant group of other kids - with no expectation, apparently, that they learn to talk to adults, respect their teacher, etc. - is not the way to learn how to interact "socially" with anyone but their peers. If you think that developing socially is something that you do with only people your age, there's a problem with that :)
Some of the hardest people I've worked with were public schooled. They generally are not very smart, not well educated, care more about going out at night and having a good time/drinking/partying, and are completely unable to do anything in a timely manner or act responsibly. Of course, simply giving an anecdotal "some of..." statement really means nothing, and doing induction from that and assuming all public school kids are that way would be a big mistake...
I wish we could just get rid of the typical homeschoolers-are-socially-inept view. It's just not true. There are some, sure. And there are the same in public schools.
And if they are socially inept, I don't think it would have changed in public school. At least, not for the better. Personally, I think being socially naive is way better than being socially deceptive and whatever other behavior you learn in public school. At least if you are naive, you only have to learn, not un-learn.
Well, I'll go with those two things, too. As for hippies, I'm not much of a tie-die fan, so if you do succeed in your pot-smoking socialist worker's California paradise plan, please leave at least a few areas unpainted. ;)
Well at least you are consistent. I have a feeling I likely disagree with just about everything else ;) but consistency (or intellectual honesty, or integrity, or honesty, or whatever you really want to call it... I realize you can be consistently dishonest, but that's not quite what I mean, hehe) is what seems to primarily be lacking with both voters and politicians....
I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives.
Likewise. Except I would not limit it to conservatives, I would say "humans." I've heard some pretty ridiculous arguments made by liberals, too... but we tend to be more forgiving towards those that agree ideologically with us. Or we just automatically fill in the gaps with what we know, etc.
it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.
I don't think that is true... but it depends on what [conservative] positions you are referring to. However, your assertion (unless you're just joking?) that (1) most conservatives talk/think like another conservative that you have met and therefore (2) most Americans consider conservative positions to be silly ... is ... unfounded. In fact, while I realize it's a 2009 (but hey, that was post-Obama-election) poll, Gallup has reported that self-described conservatives are at ~40%, moderate at ~35-38%, and liberal at ~20%.
So either there are a bunch of self-described American moderates and conservatives that think their own positions are silly (or at least moderately silly), or I would contend that your assertion is false.
Please give at least one example of this behavior.
Please make sure said example is actually of a completely innocent person going to prison, not someone who did something that someone else thinks SHOULD be legal but isn't. :)
Even a dead guy's name can be dangerous. Or do you forget that some organizations are quite happy to go beat up a dead guy's family just to make sure said family does not act like the dead guy?
And that 610 year retirement package is becoming quite the burden on the taxpayer. ;)
Window transparency is in Windows 7. I'm not sure if you can exactly turn it on and off or change it, but the functionality is there. They just figure most users don't want to configure it themselves, so they do it on certain actions.
Package manger? Windows has had a "package" manager for ages, what are you talking about? No, you can't INSTALL from it, but it keeps track of what you have installed and allows you to remove it. How well it works is, of course, a different discussion, though it seems to work a lot better in 7 than it has in some previous versions.
Multiple workspaces? You have me there. Then again, I have never heard most people wish for that.
I seriously doubt most Canadians even live near the lower portions of Alaska, as far as longitude goes. Of course, there aren't many Alaskans, hehe.
A lot of Canadians, if they live towards the southern part of their US-bordering province, could potentially be further south from the pole than north-eastern US states like Maine.
And nobody cares!
And there is the real problem.
It's hard to really blame the politician when the people just plain don't care or aren't interested enough to really find out what someone really stands for (if anything).
Not that I'll defend said politician, of course. Wrong behavior is wrong :)
Peter isn't talking about creation, he's talking about the Second Coming; also, the term "a day" is different from in Genesis, where it is referred to with a specific number (the first day, second day, etc).
Peter talking about how God "views" time differently than humans (God being eternal, a day of actual time is pretty short, and a thousand years isn't very long...) is not the same at all as claiming that the creation account was not a literal/normal human day.
Peter was referring to a nebulous time period between the first coming of Christ (past) and the second coming of Christ (future). People were wondering why it had not happened yet, why is He taking so long ... that sort of thing. Peter responded by saying that in the eternal scope of things, even a thousand years isn't really that long. He wasn't saying that God didn't know how long a "day" was. :)
Your link is not very convincing. It seems to be off the cuff/speculative and not exactly ... scholarly interpretation of the usages of Hebrew and Greek idiomatic expressions, metaphors, hyperbole, etc. I am sure if you took what we are saying here, in 1000 years, many interpretations would abound due to interpreting our English differently and speculating what we meant. :)
Well, I'll go along with the extremists ignoring part.
I would argue that the "old book" is the Old Covenant, and the "second book" is the New Covenant... and Paul, in the NT, is very firm on the idea that those who follow Christ are not under the Old Covenant and do not have to go through the Old Covenant to get to Christ. So, commands in the OT may or may not still be "applicable" ... e.g., it's still wrong to murder and steal, even though those are in the Old Covenant. Of course, they are reiterated in the New, as well.
Regarding creation taking a long time so world not being 6k years old - I'm confused, are you saying Paul said 6k years or Paul said long time?
You are making a jump from "rational disregard of claims" to what you originally said - "conclusive proof."
If you want to argue about rational conclusions about claims of the existence of God, fine. But logical conclusions are not conclusive proof. And you can have beautiful, completely rational logic and arrive at the wrong conclusion. It depends on your premises.
In a followup to someone else, you claim that we know who invented the idea of god, etc. That has been proven? Or is this just someone's interpretation of evidence that you are deciding to accept as proof of your presupposition/predisposition to what you want to think?
Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.
This is not much of an argument for anything except humanity. Pretty much everything humans have ever thought, beliefed, or held to - true or not - has caused suffering.
I would point you to atheistic countries. No religion there, right? And they cause some pretty good amounts of suffering. Especially against non-atheists. Unless you are wiling to admit that atheism is also "faith." ...
There is no god, and just about everything that surrounds us is conclusive proof that there is no such thing as a god.
[belief in Jesus] ... is to deny logic, science, and any kind of common sense.
To state that there is conclusive proof of the non-existence of something while at the same time claiming to be logical, scientific, and common sensical is ... quite irrational.
Conclusive proof that something does not exist is pretty hard to come by.
I was asking for where it actually states it. I don't see the point in claiming "a true Christian would X, Y, and Z" if the Bible doesn't even mention X, Y, or Z ... or principles that affect X/Y/Z.
There's a lot of misinformation about the Bible, such as the verse that says "God helps those that helps themselves." Which doesn't exist.
I am simply asking where this forbidding of charging interest is found so that we can actually see who it applies to. Is it actually a command to Christians under the New Covenant, or was this part of the law given to Israel?
I didn't give my opinion of the matter; I am asking for specifics about where it mentions it in the Bible. I don't care about the version, as long as it's not a dynamic equivalence version.
There's a lot of misinformation about what's in the Bible. Like the "commandment" that "God helps those who help themselves." If someone says something is in the Bible and Christians should do X, Y, and Z, then I want to know where it is. :)
I didn't say humans couldn't adapt. I'm not sure that your evidence suggests what is easier for humans ... perhaps what is more economical?
Page margins make a big difference, too. And bindings. But I'm sure publishing companies certainly don't change those based in the money it costs to do them in certain ways ;)
That is true. If you want to argue for changing the "rule" to three spaces, be my guest. I'm just arguing against one space. Furthermore, given the two options - one or two - I was arguing for two. :)
Where in the Bible does it say Christians cannot charge interest? I see many references to the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant. I do not see any in the New Covenant.
I see some principles like not being unfair, being gnerous, and lending without expecting anything in return, but I'm not sure where it says it's a sin?
It's easier for a human to determine sentence structure when sentences are set apart by two spaces, too.