It is not written in the Bible - why would the Bible fail to mention such an important point when it is the true word of God ?
On the other hand, the Bible specifically mentioned to creation of the world in 7 days! A "fact" that cannot be explained by evolution theory.
Oh, just in case you would to bring some other contradiction in the Bible to argument that some part of the Bible should not be read literally.
Christian Deus Ex Machina comes to the rescue: That's because, your priest or whatever reads the Bible with the help of God, and thanks to that is able to properly interpret the Bible - you cannot unless you hear God in your heart.
You cannot fight blind faith with Science. I guess they have trouble accepting that their god is really all powerful and that he could plan something over billions years.
Not that I disagree with you on a general basis, but let's keep stuff in context: we are talking about Mac here... Do you really think there are many MacBook or iMac users that does not know there are "Windows computer" they could use instead? Even for the iPhone, how many iPhone user is not fully aware they could get a wider choice of smartphone from... well basically every carrier in every country.
They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications
Again, talking about Mac users - generally they have problem running stuff on their shinny Mac, not the other way around. The daily life of a Mac user is finding "Mac alternative" for stuff all their friend talk about or that they see advertised or that they use at work. (a few years ago when IE was the one browser they even needed to find alternative for bloody websites... )
No criticizing Apple product or anything, but Apple is in the same boat as Linux: you don't get a Mac or a Linux desktop by chance !
Well the good news is that if not seeing brutality to the level of beheading on a regular basis is being sheltered from the real world, society evolved to the point that the vast majority of the world is being sheltered from the real world. And that's good because brutality to that level is foreign to the human nature - even soldier that are supposed to be killing machine need constant training and tricks to break the subconscious barrier to inflicting death to another human being.
On a side note, if you think the world is so cold, brutal and cruel that watching a beheading is not unsettling you, you may be a bit depressive. The world is not all rosy, but not that bad - we would not have made it to 7 billions otherwise.
It would only restrict innovation for the current market. It would open other markets like laptop powerstrip, addon for car/home,...
That would not restrict innovation more than when they decided to normalize home voltage and frequency and electric plugs.
That's not "offended him", that's "affected him" if you read his comment literally.
Not liking Christians because all he sees from Christians is personal nuisance is logical. You can even be sympathetic, even if you are a Christian yourself.
However, considering that there is a billion christian and that he lives in a country where the vast majority is also christian, he is being irrational and his comment is intolerant. Now there is no way to know if he really is intolerant or just pissed off because of personal experience.
That's too easy to be tolerant of people that are not affecting you and then claim the moral high ground over people that need to live with their intolerance every day.
Marriage is a tax and legal affair. It is like creating a company or a trust with a business partner :
Both of you can stay independent self-employed and do the same job but you will not get the same benefits. (and constraints)
Marriage is the mechanism to subscribe to the benefits you feel discriminated against - just like filling you tax return. Marriage is not a declaration of Love or some blood pact before ${diety}, it is a legal contract and nothing more.
The only real discrimination was to restrict this legal contract to people of specific sexual orientation.
Seems weird to me that AT&T would only reach break even point now, while Apple is raking billion with the iPhone. I didn't picture them as such a good hearted company that they would bleed money for 4 years to please iPhone customers, and not even badmouth Apple a little bit. Well stranger thing have happened.
In any case, with the exception of the Visual VoiceMail, the rest of the changes benefit directly to Android phone, and would have been required to support the new generations of smartphone, so even if the iPhone deal only break even, that will be pure benefit in the Android lines of phone.
If you think all of this is somehow difficult or discouraged, I think you should take a closer look at the forums at xda-developers.com, or even at developer.android.com, where you can check out the entire OS source code with git and re-build it from scratch and re-flash your phone, if you want.
... and lose you warranty in the process. Also you can remove limitation introduced by Google, but removing limitation introduced by your mobile provider could end-up into a contract violation (like tethering).
On a practical point of view, Android has made jailbreaking easier than the iPhone. For a developer, that's great, for a joe user the main issues (warranty and contract) are still the same unfortunately.
We only have one half of what make Linux great on the PC. We have a OSS OS, but we lack the hardware.
This is not really a case of Google vs Apple this time. This is more Apple and Amazon vs Joe User.
Kindle app, for example, work the same on Android or IOS - if Amazon decides to delete your books, it deletes your books regardless the platform. And on both platforms you get alternative application for people that have "other sources" for their books.
So ok, Apple vs Android is not entirely off topic, but is just a part of a larger problem.
Anyway, upgrading Android still requires you to void your warranty if you do not install your phone provider customized solution. That is maybe closer to freedom than what Apple proposes but hardly something that should please the Slashdot crowd.
Well if all programs were optimised to the max, optimized Firefox would still seems bloated compared to its optimized competitor... because of course we would not buy quadri-core with tens of gig of ram. So the point of the GP is still valid - the developer pool is the same for all products.
Of course, that's fantasy, the current development projects could not be optimised to what was the norm before. It is just a question of scale: you can build a watch using milimetric pieces placed at micrometer precision. You cannot build your whole house assembling it from millimetric pieces and micrometer tooling. And the scale is about right, what was the whole purpose of program yesterday is just one of the hundreds functionalities required in a modern software.
"When God shows up in a burning bush,..."
Most likely you will run to your therapist and get some free pills. To see God in a burning bush, you need to belief before hand:-)
Stop drinking the kool aid... Flash perform badly because Adobe cannot be bothered to use the same exact API as everybody else and bitch for Apple to do it for them. Same happened with Photoshop CS3 - yeah big evil Apple didnt want to port the crappy obsolete carbon to 64bit - so they ignored 64bits editions until they started to look stupid with their own customers.
Adobe doesnt give a shit about Mac anymore, hasnt for years - they try to play hardball on Apple so that Apple do the difficult bits for them so they can focus solely on Windows.
The fact is - Apple has moved away from graphist crowd - Mac are regular joe products now - Apple has a lot less to lose than Adobe those days, so they went on some lame crusade to make Adobe life miserable. I cant say I sympathise with Apple - but Adobe is hardly a poor victim here - they had it coming.
Its citizens, on average have a significantly poorer standard of living.
Except when they get sick or have their kid sick, or run into any number of exceptional circumstances for which insurances are just prohibitive
If you are sure to be on the winner side all your life, any form of socialism sucks.
There is more chance that your kid will be crippled by the time he is 30 than on the cover of Fortune mag.
"Banning bundling would be harsh for users who "can't afford" to pay full price up front"
What happened to the concept of "saving before buying" and "living within your mean" ? Is that so old-fashioned ? We are talking about luxury items here, not el cheapo mobile.
Human being is not a mathematical beast. People take risk that will kill them and/or cripple their family every single day. Think about tobacco, drinking while driving,... or driving while talking on their phone.
All that matters is the perceived risk. If the risk is limited enough they will do it regardless of the gravity of the consequences.
To solve the problem, you need to increase the risk so that people think that the risk is real. After that you need to make sure that they think the consequences are bad enough to avoid it.
The remaining problem is education. Since the threat is artificial, people also need to be convinced that the fine is fair like they do for the safety belts or alcohol.
Otherwise, like with file sharing, instead of stopping the risky behavior, they will try to dissimulate it to avoid the fine...
Don't need to go that far.
I'm sure in lot of places, being gay, having the wrong faith, vote for the wrong party, read the wrong book,... would label you a "sick pervert".
Anyway under the same assumptions, why should voting be kept private ? After all you have nothing to hide - and there is really nothing you would do in the voting booth that could be considered illegal...
I agree with you, however to play devil advocate, the only problem is that the people negociating are human being.
The problem with negociating publicly is it will push some parties to do some public statement to their countries: for example, saying that they will never approve X or that they will fight for Y. Pure human psychology, it seems that when you declare publicly something it is kind of hard to publicly switch your position. It makes you look weak. So keeping stuff secret, especially at international level, is certainly helping - as it would help at every level.
The real problem is not that the negociations are done in secret, it shouldn't be: in theory you sent there people you trust, elected representative... the problem is that the people you sent there are people that, for good reason, you don't trust anymore. Also, strangely, people negociating are not accountable. When was the last time a politician career was stopped because he screwed people voting for him ? Well in the US, it seems the only real cause of politician early retirement is seeing prostitutes.
Unfortunatly, I guess that's what capitalism and free market is about.
The market is the playground where everybody can be as ruthless as it wants using abstract construct like companies. The theory is that, with the proper legislation and government safeguards the market should work in the best interest of the society in general.
The reality is that the power acquired in the playground gives you direct power over government and legislation, defeating the purpose.
If somehow the US manage to benefit from the global economic collapse... and then, the other economies will have to quickly adapt to a world without oil, in which case those vast domestic reserve will be worth nothing.
You need to use the domestic reserve at the right time to make sure that the rest of the world stays hooked to oil, maximizing the US reserve value.
Yeah - you can have in English *and* Chinese (you get to chose at install time) for cheaper than the English-only in the US... I wonder how much Microsoft would pay me to "buy" Windows in all languages. I don't mind the extra configuration step:-)
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, the Bible specifically mentioned to creation of the world in 7 days! A "fact" that cannot be explained by evolution theory.
Oh, just in case you would to bring some other contradiction in the Bible to argument that some part of the Bible should not be read literally.
Christian Deus Ex Machina comes to the rescue: That's because, your priest or whatever reads the Bible with the help of God, and thanks to that is able to properly interpret the Bible - you cannot unless you hear God in your heart.
You cannot fight blind faith with Science. I guess they have trouble accepting that their god is really all powerful and that he could plan something over billions years.
"They need to know there are alternatives"
Not that I disagree with you on a general basis, but let's keep stuff in context: we are talking about Mac here ... Do you really think there are many MacBook or iMac users that does not know there are "Windows computer" they could use instead? Even for the iPhone, how many iPhone user is not fully aware they could get a wider choice of smartphone from ... well basically every carrier in every country.
They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications
Again, talking about Mac users - generally they have problem running stuff on their shinny Mac, not the other way around. The daily life of a Mac user is finding "Mac alternative" for stuff all their friend talk about or that they see advertised or that they use at work. (a few years ago when IE was the one browser they even needed to find alternative for bloody websites ... )
No criticizing Apple product or anything, but Apple is in the same boat as Linux: you don't get a Mac or a Linux desktop by chance !
And that's good because brutality to that level is foreign to the human nature - even soldier that are supposed to be killing machine need constant training and tricks to break the subconscious barrier to inflicting death to another human being.
On a side note, if you think the world is so cold, brutal and cruel that watching a beheading is not unsettling you, you may be a bit depressive. The world is not all rosy, but not that bad - we would not have made it to 7 billions otherwise.
Restrict innovation ?
...
It would only restrict innovation for the current market. It would open other markets like laptop powerstrip, addon for car/home,
That would not restrict innovation more than when they decided to normalize home voltage and frequency and electric plugs.
Yeah a real bugger
On a similar note, it does not resist deep frying, not even with clean oil !
That's not "offended him", that's "affected him" if you read his comment literally.
Not liking Christians because all he sees from Christians is personal nuisance is logical. You can even be sympathetic, even if you are a Christian yourself.
However, considering that there is a billion christian and that he lives in a country where the vast majority is also christian, he is being irrational and his comment is intolerant. Now there is no way to know if he really is intolerant or just pissed off because of personal experience.
That's too easy to be tolerant of people that are not affecting you and then claim the moral high ground over people that need to live with their intolerance every day.
Marriage is a tax and legal affair. It is like creating a company or a trust with a business partner : Both of you can stay independent self-employed and do the same job but you will not get the same benefits. (and constraints)
Marriage is the mechanism to subscribe to the benefits you feel discriminated against - just like filling you tax return. Marriage is not a declaration of Love or some blood pact before ${diety}, it is a legal contract and nothing more.
The only real discrimination was to restrict this legal contract to people of specific sexual orientation.
In any case, with the exception of the Visual VoiceMail, the rest of the changes benefit directly to Android phone, and would have been required to support the new generations of smartphone, so even if the iPhone deal only break even, that will be pure benefit in the Android lines of phone.
If you think all of this is somehow difficult or discouraged, I think you should take a closer look at the forums at xda-developers.com, or even at developer.android.com, where you can check out the entire OS source code with git and re-build it from scratch and re-flash your phone, if you want.
On a practical point of view, Android has made jailbreaking easier than the iPhone. For a developer, that's great, for a joe user the main issues (warranty and contract) are still the same unfortunately.
We only have one half of what make Linux great on the PC. We have a OSS OS, but we lack the hardware.
This is not really a case of Google vs Apple this time. This is more Apple and Amazon vs Joe User.
Kindle app, for example, work the same on Android or IOS - if Amazon decides to delete your books, it deletes your books regardless the platform.
And on both platforms you get alternative application for people that have "other sources" for their books.
So ok, Apple vs Android is not entirely off topic, but is just a part of a larger problem.
Anyway, upgrading Android still requires you to void your warranty if you do not install your phone provider customized solution. That is maybe closer to freedom than what Apple proposes but hardly something that should please the Slashdot crowd.
Yeah - and soon there will be a memo from big telco how "Android makes pirate and other license abuser life easier than iPhone OS"
Well if all programs were optimised to the max, optimized Firefox would still seems bloated compared to its optimized competitor ... because of course we would not buy quadri-core with tens of gig of ram. So the point of the GP is still valid - the developer pool is the same for all products.
Of course, that's fantasy, the current development projects could not be optimised to what was the norm before. It is just a question of scale: you can build a watch using milimetric pieces placed at micrometer precision. You cannot build your whole house assembling it from millimetric pieces and micrometer tooling. And the scale is about right, what was the whole purpose of program yesterday is just one of the hundreds functionalities required in a modern software.
"When God shows up in a burning bush,..." :-)
Most likely you will run to your therapist and get some free pills. To see God in a burning bush, you need to belief before hand
Stop drinking the kool aid ... Flash perform badly because Adobe cannot be bothered to use the same exact API as everybody else and bitch for Apple to do it for them. Same happened with Photoshop CS3 - yeah big evil Apple didnt want to port the crappy obsolete carbon to 64bit - so they ignored 64bits editions until they started to look stupid with their own customers.
Adobe doesnt give a shit about Mac anymore, hasnt for years - they try to play hardball on Apple so that Apple do the difficult bits for them so they can focus solely on Windows.
The fact is - Apple has moved away from graphist crowd - Mac are regular joe products now - Apple has a lot less to lose than Adobe those days, so they went on some lame crusade to make Adobe life miserable. I cant say I sympathise with Apple - but Adobe is hardly a poor victim here - they had it coming.
Its citizens, on average have a significantly poorer standard of living.
Except when they get sick or have their kid sick, or run into any number of exceptional circumstances for which insurances are just prohibitive
If you are sure to be on the winner side all your life, any form of socialism sucks.
There is more chance that your kid will be crippled by the time he is 30 than on the cover of Fortune mag.
500$ per drone - $3 000 000 to destroy a drone ... smell like we could get a nice DOS type war
"Banning bundling would be harsh for users who "can't afford" to pay full price up front"
What happened to the concept of "saving before buying" and "living within your mean" ? Is that so old-fashioned ? We are talking about luxury items here, not el cheapo mobile.
Of course people will still risk it.
... or driving while talking on their phone.
All that matters is the perceived risk. If the risk is limited enough they will do it regardless of the gravity of the consequences.
...
Human being is not a mathematical beast. People take risk that will kill them and/or cripple their family every single day. Think about tobacco, drinking while driving,
To solve the problem, you need to increase the risk so that people think that the risk is real. After that you need to make sure that they think the consequences are bad enough to avoid it.
The remaining problem is education. Since the threat is artificial, people also need to be convinced that the fine is fair like they do for the safety belts or alcohol.
Otherwise, like with file sharing, instead of stopping the risky behavior, they will try to dissimulate it to avoid the fine
Don't need to go that far. ... would label you a "sick pervert".
...
I'm sure in lot of places, being gay, having the wrong faith, vote for the wrong party, read the wrong book,
Anyway under the same assumptions, why should voting be kept private ? After all you have nothing to hide - and there is really nothing you would do in the voting booth that could be considered illegal
I agree with you, however to play devil advocate, the only problem is that the people negociating are human being.
... the problem is that the people you sent there are people that, for good reason, you don't trust anymore. Also, strangely, people negociating are not accountable. When was the last time a politician career was stopped because he screwed people voting for him ? Well in the US, it seems the only real cause of politician early retirement is seeing prostitutes.
The problem with negociating publicly is it will push some parties to do some public statement to their countries: for example, saying that they will never approve X or that they will fight for Y. Pure human psychology, it seems that when you declare publicly something it is kind of hard to publicly switch your position. It makes you look weak. So keeping stuff secret, especially at international level, is certainly helping - as it would help at every level.
The real problem is not that the negociations are done in secret, it shouldn't be: in theory you sent there people you trust, elected representative
Unfortunatly, I guess that's what capitalism and free market is about.
The market is the playground where everybody can be as ruthless as it wants using abstract construct like companies. The theory is that, with the proper legislation and government safeguards the market should work in the best interest of the society in general.
The reality is that the power acquired in the playground gives you direct power over government and legislation, defeating the purpose.
If somehow the US manage to benefit from the global economic collapse ... and then, the other economies will have to quickly adapt to a world without oil, in which case those vast domestic reserve will be worth nothing.
You need to use the domestic reserve at the right time to make sure that the rest of the world stays hooked to oil, maximizing the US reserve value.
Yeah - you can have in English *and* Chinese (you get to chose at install time) for cheaper than the English-only in the US ... I wonder how much Microsoft would pay me to "buy" Windows in all languages. I don't mind the extra configuration step :-)
Indeed they are developed using vim, emac, visual studio, eclipse, notepad, ...
The content of the "game" is also provided by other players. So, not really that much different, money goes to people generating content.