I use Linux and Windows both. They're suited best for different tasks, different people. But I'm definitely not so much a Windows guy. Here's why:
Linux can be very stripped-down if you want it to be (word to the Gentoo-ers -- yeah!). I can arrange my personal directories exactly how I want them, and I can get to everything I need very quickly, thanks to the omnipotence of the command line. Basically, Linux has the feel of a complex math equation that has been totally factored down to its optimal simplicity.
But Windows seeks to acheive a similar feeling of simplicity not through elegant design, but through showmanship: a veneer of simplicity acheived through even more underlying complexity. It throws all these abstraction layers over your files and your tasks, so that you have to rely on more software to do your stuff.
If there's one thing programming has taught me, it's that software is one of the most unreliable things humans have ever made. If the same task can be accomplished with less code, then you have better code -- always (unless less code results in horrible machine efficiency or lack of modularity).
If I want to get to all my stuff on my Linux partition, I just click up/garage.
If I want my stuff on Windows, I click into D:\. Not too bad, but wait -- all those abstraction layers in Windows constantly insist that I keep my files in C:\Documents and Settings\alucinor\My Documents. But what if I don't want to keep my music files in C:\Documents and Settings\alucinor\My Documents\My Music? Just set an option, right?
Heh... I do that, and it ~would~ normally work. But since there's so many abstractions, so much software, I often will find crap getting stuck in the My Music folder yet again later, sometimes by the same program.
What I don't like about the Windows design philosophy is that they want to take your computer use into their hands, and they do it acting as though those hands of theirs are perfect. But when they're less than perfect, it just gets annoying, and their hands get in your way.
"Quit auto-archiving my media files, Media Player! Just show me a directory structure instead of artist/album breakdowns of what's in the My Music folder! I just want to burn a cd, dammit!"
Yeah. Looks like WinFS is just going to throw even more sediments of imperfect software in the way of what I want to do. "They're features!"
Advice to OS makers: let the OS stay in the background. Too bad that's impossible for a company that ~has~ to make the OS seem important.
When I use Linux I don't think about using Linux. I just use it.
When I use Windows I'm constantly reminded that I'm using Windows. That's bad design. But I suppose it's necessary when your business is the OS.
Firefox needs an ActiveX extension or plugin of some sort. Not built in by default, of course, but available for intranet applications in enterprises. Probably this kind of plugin would be a good candidate for a service (that's what open source is about, right?) to ease companies in migrating off browser-dependent software.
I'm not opposed to companies, just monopolies. I think more variety to detract from the Microsoft monoculture is good. I have no special attachments to open source other than the fact that its a better development model.
... and yet we observe it happening. Do you know that the evolution of life and stars are the only two situations in which chaos produces higher organization?
Miraculous.
I wasn't trying to say the Bible never condemned homosexual acts; just that this sin as connected with Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't receive the emphasis that Christians today give it.
Besides, that is Jewish law, which focused on a physical reflection of spiritual holiness. One prime example of this reflection pattern being that anyone with a physical defect wasn't allowed to worship God in the temple, which indirectly is a form of condemnation, as it wouldn't allow a Jew to have their sins forgiven.
I'm glad Christians don't attempt to disallow people with physical "defects" to worship God. They shouldn't, considering Jesus had compassion on the crippled.
This "physical reflection" pattern is common in throughout the Old Testament, but you can always see in this book a move towards transcendental spiritual truths. In the Old Testament, the "kingdom of God" is the physical nation of Israel, but in the New, it is a spiritual kingdom. This transition from the physical to the spiritual is prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and it in turn is a reflection of the spiritual reality to come after Christ returns.
As far as homosexuality goes, it is always condemned in the New Testament in the context of excess. Just read its defintion of what constitutes these kind of homosexual acts near the beginning of the book of Romans. The confusion today results from the fact that back then, "homosexuality" wasn't even a term. Basically, I'm arguing that it's wrong for heterosexuals to commit homosexual acts.
Today we understand that there is a "physical defect" that people are born homosexuals. But just as we shouldn't bar cripples from worshipping God, we shouldn't bar homosexuals. And just as it is insulting to view a crippled person as "defective" instead of just different, so it is to view homosexual people as such.
However, there is much in the homosexual movement today that has more to do with excess and "jumping on the bandwagon", so to speak, than true genetic differences. But it's not my place to judge who's a genuine homosexual and who's someone who has been absorbed into that mindset because of sexual obsessions and lust. We can just warn against that trap.
The Bible condemns specific homosexual (as well as sexual) acts. Both kinds fall equally under the categories of sexual immortality, and both are condemned.
The Old Testament is a reflection of physical holiness, and in terms of what "nature intended", homosexuality is an abnormal genetic "defect". In a paradigm of physical holiness, indeed, this would be an abomination.
But compassion teaches us that defects are not defects, only differences.
Unless it's software, of course;)
An example of what should be fundamental to a Christian is as follows:
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against these things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and wants. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." (Galatians)
The problem with Bible-thumping Christians is that they love to get fired up over the Bible's condemnations of evil, such as
"Every morning I will put to silence all the wicked in the land; I will cut off every evildoer from the city of the Lord" (Psalms)
without studying the Bible to understand how it defines evil. They'll cling to a verse like that, and go fight against not the true evils of the world, like greed and imcompassion, but they war against some superficial "evils" that are usually just cultural impasses.
A great example of Christians missing the point: you know that the Bible doesn't feature the sin of Sodom and Gommorah as having anything to do with homosexuality? Here's what it says:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did destable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekial 16)
If Christians believe in the Bible, then maybe they should read all of it, and think on it, instead of lingering all their life on John 3:16 and the 10 Commandments.
So you're just confirming that the true God is GodX, as X -> infinity. Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that really just restating what "God" is, anyway? Surely you don't think the Omnipotent would be constrained to a finite line of logic, such as this?
God probably both exists and doesn't exist, depending on your point of view.
Really, God has no place in textbooks because how can anyone really learn anything about God in that manner? I believe God exists only because I've embraced a form of proof that cannot be quantified, that goes with my instincts. This kind of proof has no place in textbooks. While it's certainly not a personal truth, as many many people can affirm, trying to "teach" this kind of knowledge in the conventional sense is very ridiculous, and is self-defeating.
Just a bunch of right-wing nonsense. And die-hard athiests who spend all the time ~not~ thinking about God (how silly) just get the fuel they need from this kind of stuff.
The book of Genesis, while saying that God created living creatures, also indicates that he created them indirectly, by telling the land to create creatures. Some have interpreted this as the Bible's endorsement of evolution.
Gen. 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds..."
Evolution is marvelous, anyway, and is shared by only two things in the universe: galaxies and life. Galaxies have been arranging themselves in ever-more complex configurations, and life has been doing the same -- both against the grain of every other physical phenomenon in the universe.
It's also worth noting that evolution is driven by mutation, and mutation by radiation, which is light -- another connection between life and galaxies.
Just drink a glass of "special" kool-aid, and you'll see.
Seriously, though. God ~isn't~ provable because no one can agree on what "God" is. To the Evolutionist, God is Time, since by this theory, enough time can seemingly create anything.
It's also worth mentioning that Nothingness has never been proven to exist, either. So this whole argument over origins (what came from Nothing?) might be a moot point anyway. Even though we can prove the absence of particular something(s), we cannot prove the absence of anything and everything.
And a final point: science is the study of the natural world; it has no concern of the supernatural. So unless the natural world/universe is self-regurgitating, not the product of a super-nature, then science will never be able to prove our origins.
But does proof have only to do with science? Are there other forms of objective proof besides scientific proof? In the future, could there be "supernatural science"?
Fun ideas. For now, best stick with what we have, and try to love each other. After all, God is Love.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that when scientists can't explain something spontaneous (miraculous?), they call it an explosion?
To parallel this, "Let there be Light!" = Big Bang.
I use Linux and Windows both. They're suited best for different tasks, different people. But I'm definitely not so much a Windows guy. Here's why:
Linux can be very stripped-down if you want it to be (word to the Gentoo-ers -- yeah!). I can arrange my personal directories exactly how I want them, and I can get to everything I need very quickly, thanks to the omnipotence of the command line. Basically, Linux has the feel of a complex math equation that has been totally factored down to its optimal simplicity.
But Windows seeks to acheive a similar feeling of simplicity not through elegant design, but through showmanship: a veneer of simplicity acheived through even more underlying complexity. It throws all these abstraction layers over your files and your tasks, so that you have to rely on more software to do your stuff.
If there's one thing programming has taught me, it's that software is one of the most unreliable things humans have ever made. If the same task can be accomplished with less code, then you have better code -- always (unless less code results in horrible machine efficiency or lack of modularity).
If I want to get to all my stuff on my Linux partition, I just click up /garage.
If I want my stuff on Windows, I click into D:\. Not too bad, but wait -- all those abstraction layers in Windows constantly insist that I keep my files in C:\Documents and Settings\alucinor\My Documents. But what if I don't want to keep my music files in C:\Documents and Settings\alucinor\My Documents\My Music? Just set an option, right?
Heh ... I do that, and it ~would~ normally work. But since there's so many abstractions, so much software, I often will find crap getting stuck in the My Music folder yet again later, sometimes by the same program.
What I don't like about the Windows design philosophy is that they want to take your computer use into their hands, and they do it acting as though those hands of theirs are perfect. But when they're less than perfect, it just gets annoying, and their hands get in your way.
"Quit auto-archiving my media files, Media Player! Just show me a directory structure instead of artist/album breakdowns of what's in the My Music folder! I just want to burn a cd, dammit!"
Yeah. Looks like WinFS is just going to throw even more sediments of imperfect software in the way of what I want to do. "They're features!"
Advice to OS makers: let the OS stay in the background. Too bad that's impossible for a company that ~has~ to make the OS seem important.
When I use Linux I don't think about using Linux. I just use it.
When I use Windows I'm constantly reminded that I'm using Windows. That's bad design. But I suppose it's necessary when your business is the OS.
Firefox needs an ActiveX extension or plugin of some sort. Not built in by default, of course, but available for intranet applications in enterprises. Probably this kind of plugin would be a good candidate for a service (that's what open source is about, right?) to ease companies in migrating off browser-dependent software.
I'm not opposed to companies, just monopolies. I think more variety to detract from the Microsoft monoculture is good. I have no special attachments to open source other than the fact that its a better development model.
It's just that the most rigid and obnoxious ones get all the air-time on TV.
... and yet we observe it happening. Do you know that the evolution of life and stars are the only two situations in which chaos produces higher organization? Miraculous.
Maybe while Linux eats up some market share in the corporate space, Apple can eat up some of the consumer space.
I wasn't trying to say the Bible never condemned homosexual acts; just that this sin as connected with Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't receive the emphasis that Christians today give it. Besides, that is Jewish law, which focused on a physical reflection of spiritual holiness. One prime example of this reflection pattern being that anyone with a physical defect wasn't allowed to worship God in the temple, which indirectly is a form of condemnation, as it wouldn't allow a Jew to have their sins forgiven. I'm glad Christians don't attempt to disallow people with physical "defects" to worship God. They shouldn't, considering Jesus had compassion on the crippled. This "physical reflection" pattern is common in throughout the Old Testament, but you can always see in this book a move towards transcendental spiritual truths. In the Old Testament, the "kingdom of God" is the physical nation of Israel, but in the New, it is a spiritual kingdom. This transition from the physical to the spiritual is prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and it in turn is a reflection of the spiritual reality to come after Christ returns. As far as homosexuality goes, it is always condemned in the New Testament in the context of excess. Just read its defintion of what constitutes these kind of homosexual acts near the beginning of the book of Romans. The confusion today results from the fact that back then, "homosexuality" wasn't even a term. Basically, I'm arguing that it's wrong for heterosexuals to commit homosexual acts. Today we understand that there is a "physical defect" that people are born homosexuals. But just as we shouldn't bar cripples from worshipping God, we shouldn't bar homosexuals. And just as it is insulting to view a crippled person as "defective" instead of just different, so it is to view homosexual people as such. However, there is much in the homosexual movement today that has more to do with excess and "jumping on the bandwagon", so to speak, than true genetic differences. But it's not my place to judge who's a genuine homosexual and who's someone who has been absorbed into that mindset because of sexual obsessions and lust. We can just warn against that trap. The Bible condemns specific homosexual (as well as sexual) acts. Both kinds fall equally under the categories of sexual immortality, and both are condemned. The Old Testament is a reflection of physical holiness, and in terms of what "nature intended", homosexuality is an abnormal genetic "defect". In a paradigm of physical holiness, indeed, this would be an abomination. But compassion teaches us that defects are not defects, only differences. Unless it's software, of course ;)
... if you have the right fundamentals.
An example of what should be fundamental to a Christian is as follows:
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against these things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and wants. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." (Galatians)
The problem with Bible-thumping Christians is that they love to get fired up over the Bible's condemnations of evil, such as
"Every morning I will put to silence all the wicked in the land; I will cut off every evildoer from the city of the Lord" (Psalms)
without studying the Bible to understand how it defines evil. They'll cling to a verse like that, and go fight against not the true evils of the world, like greed and imcompassion, but they war against some superficial "evils" that are usually just cultural impasses.
A great example of Christians missing the point: you know that the Bible doesn't feature the sin of Sodom and Gommorah as having anything to do with homosexuality? Here's what it says:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did destable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekial 16)
If Christians believe in the Bible, then maybe they should read all of it, and think on it, instead of lingering all their life on John 3:16 and the 10 Commandments.
... would be IBM's fork of Java. There would be enterprises that would adopt that, even if it was no longer called "Java".
IBM would soon "Eclipse" the Sun.
So you're just confirming that the true God is GodX, as X -> infinity. Umm ... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that really just restating what "God" is, anyway? Surely you don't think the Omnipotent would be constrained to a finite line of logic, such as this?
or because it wants to?
Really, God has no place in textbooks because how can anyone really learn anything about God in that manner? I believe God exists only because I've embraced a form of proof that cannot be quantified, that goes with my instincts. This kind of proof has no place in textbooks. While it's certainly not a personal truth, as many many people can affirm, trying to "teach" this kind of knowledge in the conventional sense is very ridiculous, and is self-defeating.
Just a bunch of right-wing nonsense. And die-hard athiests who spend all the time ~not~ thinking about God (how silly) just get the fuel they need from this kind of stuff.
Gen. 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds ..."
Evolution is marvelous, anyway, and is shared by only two things in the universe: galaxies and life. Galaxies have been arranging themselves in ever-more complex configurations, and life has been doing the same -- both against the grain of every other physical phenomenon in the universe.
It's also worth noting that evolution is driven by mutation, and mutation by radiation, which is light -- another connection between life and galaxies.
What's my point? That "God" is light.
Just drink a glass of "special" kool-aid, and you'll see. Seriously, though. God ~isn't~ provable because no one can agree on what "God" is. To the Evolutionist, God is Time, since by this theory, enough time can seemingly create anything. It's also worth mentioning that Nothingness has never been proven to exist, either. So this whole argument over origins (what came from Nothing?) might be a moot point anyway. Even though we can prove the absence of particular something(s), we cannot prove the absence of anything and everything. And a final point: science is the study of the natural world; it has no concern of the supernatural. So unless the natural world/universe is self-regurgitating, not the product of a super-nature, then science will never be able to prove our origins. But does proof have only to do with science? Are there other forms of objective proof besides scientific proof? In the future, could there be "supernatural science"? Fun ideas. For now, best stick with what we have, and try to love each other. After all, God is Love.