They say: "the most gracious has betaken a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it in the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they attributed a son to the Most Gracious, for it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son. (The Qur'an, 5:88-92).
I think you just proven the parents point, the person the quote is quoting quite clearly believes that the Christians are claiming that Jesus is the son of Allah, and as far as I remember the Christians generally claim that Jesus is the son of there own god. That shows clearly that the quoted person believes that the Christian god and his own are the same.
I'm quite aware of what I posted, but I don't consider it to prove the parents point for this reason: although the Koran (in this passage) essentially claims that they are the same god, the god described in the Koran is diffent from the god described in the bible to the point that it is not possible that they are the same.
From an Islamic point of view, as I understand it: that is because the Jewish and Christian texts have been corrupted, and therefore have incorrect descriptions of god, that is, they say it's the same god, but that Christians and Jews do not know what they worship. That's really just another way of saying that the god described in the bible does not exist, the god described in the koran exists and is the god the Jews and Christians used to worship before they became corrupted, that is, the god Jews and Christians used to worship is Allah but the god they actually worship now is different (not existing).
From a Christian point of view: the god described in the koran is not the same god described in the bible. Not acknowledging that Jesus is the son of god eliminates any possiblility that the koran is a revelation from god. The possibilities would seem to be that the revelation is either an invention of Muhammed or a revelation from a different being.
A way you could think of it is to imagine if I started to claim that burnetd's father is also my father. You might perhaps start to wonder if your dad had some things he hadn't told you. Then I started to talk about how I am proud of the chinese heritage I have through my father (assuming for the sake of this point that your father is not chinese). Then I talked about how he accomplished so much with his life despite having lost his legs in his 20's, and your father has both his legs. You see, it doesn't matter if I claim they are the same man. It doesn't matter that I call him by the same name. If the man I describe is different in ways that make it impossible for it to be the same man, it's not the same man.
The attempt to promote peace by claiming things are the same when they are not is doomed to failure. Christian teaching can be taken as insulting to Islam (and all non-christians). Islamic teaching can be taken as insulting to Christians (and all non-muslims). Atheist beliefs can be taken as insulting to people who believe in god etc, etc, ad infinitum. The answer isn't to pretend that beliefs are the same, it's to tolerate beliefs that are different. It's to understand that you can be accepting of a person without accepting their beliefs as true. You can be tolerant of someone without approving of their beliefs. Just because something can be taken as offensive doesn't mean you have to take offense. Because I refuse to take offense, I can accept that people have different beliefs.
So to suggest that parental motives have nothing to do with the decision to have children (and the total number of children) is inaccurate
I didn't suggest any such thing. dangitman made a specific claim, ie:
Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle.
Of course parents have motives. Duh! I asked if dangitman could verify his claim that having children is "most often a selfish indulgence of the parents." What percentage of parents make the decision selfishly? How was it determined that the reason was to satisfy their egos? Cultural norms do not necessarily mean selfish indulgence. Your post, while accurate, misses the point I was making, which is to say the dangitman was posting opinion as fact.
First, I was raised Catholic (but I'm feeling much better now) and know a fair bit about the god worshipped by Christians, thank you.
Spent some time as a Muslim too, have you? If not, it doesn't change my point. If you have, and then left, normal teaching of both Catholicism and Islam as I understand it would assert that you had failed to understand correctly about god. Certainly that was Jesus teaching. You can check it out in Matthew 13:18-23 .
Second, the question of what's considered important about Jewish/Christian/Islamic teachings about god to those faiths, is irrelevant to the question of whether those faiths historically emerge from worship of the "same" god.
Not when those teachings are about who god is. In any case, Islam did not "emerge" from anything. As I said in my previous post, it is considered that the Koran was a revelation to Mohammed in it's entirety. The fact that they have common ancestry is not relevant. The relevant point is this: the god written of in the bible and the god written of in the koran are so different in character and nature that they cannot be the same god. History is irrelevant if they are not worshipping the same god today, because we are in today.
If you're going to agree that all Christians worship the "same" god... you have to admit Muslims into that club also. To do otherwise is simple bigotry.
bigotry: -noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
You don't seem to understand what that word means. I'm not being intolerant, I'm just acknowledging that they are different. I don't think even a single Muslim I've known would claim that I've been intolerant of them. If two things were the same and I called them different, I'm not sure what word would describe that, but bigotry isn't it.
First, the "problems as to where you draw the line" are so big as to be impossible to overcome.
Not really, you make an arbitrary judgement. You then see whose arbitrary judgement is most popular. Then you have it signed into law. If you want more people to agree with your arbitrary judgement, you utilise your right to free speech.
And if you see any spelling errors in my post, don't be a spelling nartzy with me. If you can't spell a wird more than wun way, that's your problem.
So, the question remains, is it better to have complicated issues resolved by a select few who know something about the subject matter, or do we let "the masses" decide in whatever manner Oprah, Micheal Moore, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly instructed them to?
Remember "of the people, by the people". The system we have says it's the masses. Free speech is so you can influence the masses. Don't tear down that system just because the masses listened to someone who disagreed with you.
The word "child" has a specific meaning, and an embryo is not a child.
pregnant: -adjective
1. having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.
You are using neither the dictionary definition nor historical common use of the word. You are using a narrowly defined meaning which has the only purpose of justifying the killing of embryos.
Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle.
What scientific method did you use to determine the motives of parents? What was the size of the sample used in the research? What peer reviewed journal is this study published in?
Doctrinal and dogmatic differences don't mean you all don't worship the same god. The rest of us wish...
Your assumption that you know more about the gods worshipped by others than they do displays arrogance. You seem to have the idea that you can pick out what's important about Jewish/Christian/Islamic teaching about god and what is just "Doctrinal and dogmatic differences" but the billions of Jews/Christians/Muslims can't. Your idea that you know who/what we believe in better that we do is utter nonsense.
The arabs are indeed the decsendents of Ishmael. However, Islam is not a religion held continually (or even intermittently) by those people from the time of Ishmael. The Koran (according to Islam) was given as a complete revelation. It is not a derived work from other texts, according to Islam. The Islamic claim is that Jewish and Christian texts had been corrupted and are not at all on the same level as the Koran.
The fact that Moses and Jesus are mentioned in the Koran has no bearing on whether those three religions worship the same god. Jesus is specifically called the "Son of God" in the bible. This claim is blasphemy to Allah, yet is a central claim of Christianity, to the extent that the bible claims: "He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who doesn't believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning his Son." So that the Bible says that anyone who deny that Jesus is God's son is a liar, and Mohammed denied that Jesus is God's son. The Koran teaches:
They say: "the most gracious has betaken a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it in the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they attributed a son to the Most Gracious, for it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son. (The Qur'an, 5:88-92).
So a teaching regarded as central to their religion and concept of God to the christians is "montrous" according to the Koran. The Koran denies the Son of God according to the Christian bible. These are not minor points of doctrine. They are simply not the same god. There are also other major concepts of god's character and nature that are fundamentally different between Christianity and Islam.
The point though is this: I don't want you to reinterpret my religion for me, and the Muslims I know aren't looking for someone to reinterpret theirs for them either.
I'm Christian, I've worked and done business with Muslims. They (Allah and Yahweh) are not the same. It is not divisive to say "We are different" or "we have different ideas". It is divisive to say "you must have my ideas to be tolerated by me". To say gods/religions/ideas are the same when they are not isn't unity, it's delusion.
Islam and Christianity both have fundamental concepts of god that are incompatible.
I think in this case it's the intermediate computer user who's least likely to use FOSS, not the absolute beginner or the wiz kid.
Yes, I agree. I focus on giving F/OSS for windows to new computer users. That way, their helpful freind doesn't wipe the linux install to give them windows and they get used to Free applications. Openoffice.org, scribus, firefox, thunderbird, pdfcreator, audacity and the like. If they also decide to use linux later, their learning curve is less.
What's so different about that also being true in public?
Reasonable expectation. You have the reasonable expectation that things you do in private are private. You do not have the reasonable expectation that things you do in public are private. That's the difference between public and private you see. Things that happen in public are *drum roll* PUBLIC.
But I hope you respect other people enough to understand that for some, it *would* be deeply embarrassing and they *would* want it kept private.
As far as I'm aware, there are no laws protecting you from embarrassment. Nor should there be. Slander and libel laws protect your reputation, that's the closest, but not by a long way do they protect you from embarrassment. As you say "It is not for others to live by your reactions."
Well, how likely is anyone to even want to support OOXML fully except for Microsoft?
Well, it depends on if any governments and corporations require conformance to the standard for their software purchases. If it is a requirement of selling software, I guess a few people might be a bit interested in being able to claim full compliance.
How many people are actually using these programs? Maintaining documents in the old format? I defy any of you out there in Linux-land to say you wouldn't take the same approach under the same set of circumstances.
It's ok to take this approach writing an application. It's not ok in writing a standard. The difference is that no-one other than MS can now write an application that is "OpenXML" compatible, which makes a mockery of having it as a standard. Your application can have any features you want, but a standard (by definition) must be able to be implemented by others.
Actually, Linux people would probably just say "it may not open old documents properly, but that's OK because you have the source".
Here is the focus of your misunderstanding. You are obviously refering to an application, as file format specifications do not open documents. The article is refering to a file format specification published by MS, making the point that it is not adequate to be used as a standard. It is saying nothing about the quality/adequacy of MS software products.
What he implied was that the kids were living in cultures where 'all the education is vocational.' Which is quite offensive.
What's offensive about it? When you have limited budgets to educate your children it makes sense to educate them in something that will enable them to earn money. Then they can afford better education. If you find it offensive that people live in such conditions I understand, but if you find it offensive to say that people live in such conditions you're just ignoring reality.
And yes, I'm involved in helping with education for poorer Africans. Many would like to have any education at all, even vocational.
I understand that these tags will be needed when converting legacy documents, but how many people are going meet all the following conditions to even be effected by this:
If it gets adopted as a standard (ISO or similar, not defacto standard) then everyone. The point is not whether people need the features, the point is that MS is trying to get this accepted as a standard. It still can only be implemented by MS, and therefore should not be accepted as a standard. If a government body had as part of a software procurement requirement "Complies with ISO XXXX (MS OpenXML)" Then by default only MS office could fill that requirement. As opposed to ODF which can be supported by any company that chooses to to so.
MS can have any features it likes in it's file format, that's not the issue. How well it works or if people need it are also not the issues. The issue is that for it to be considered a standard, it should be able to be implemented by anyone and that the format as currently documented is practically impossible to implement for anyone but MS. Therefore it should not be considered a standard by bodies such as ISO.
No problem. As you mentioned "Politicians feel the need to fake religion". Politicians do that for one reason only: votes.
This is exactly my point. They are paying lip service and nothing more.
Try to stay with me on this: Polititians have a reason to fake religion. Votes. They only fake religion because they know that many people take religion seriously enough to swing their vote. People do not vote in secret ballots according to what other people might think. Therefore, your assertion that polititians fake religion is evidence that a significant number of people take their religion seriously.
Slow down, take a deep breath, read the previous paragraph again. Twice if you need to. Meditate or something. Try to focus. Why would a polititian fake religion for no benefit? It's because they know it gets them votes. There are more voters than polititians. There are many voters who take religion seriously enought to vote accordingly.
People like that still have a strong moral compass, but one based on life and not on god.
Like Buddha. Buddha did not teach to follow a god, now people pray to him. If your philosophy becomes predominant, it won't be long before people attach a god to it. Maybe it'll be Nietzsche. Maybe it'll be entrigant. But the people will demand to have a god, even contrary to the teaching of the appointed "god". You can count on it.
I have a similar method for my workstation, but one that gives me more time to get things right. Partitions/home/boot / and a spare partition. I use the spare partition to try out different distos. When I want to upgrade, I install to the spare parition. When I have it how I want it, I copy the necessary files to/boot , mount/home on the new system instead of the old and change the default grub entry. Easy, safe.
Give me a break. Find a PC that didn't actually ship with Windows. Then try stating that again... if computers actually came without an OS, that might be a viable argument. But you can't argue that Windows is expensive when it's a cost incorporated into 99.9% of consumer PC's.
Most of my computers have been second hand. Only one second hand box came with a licenced windows. Many people have computers without a valid windows licence.
we are taught to value this right and it *is* a crime not to vote - well, you get a small fine anyway.
No, you get a fine for not attending a poll on election day (unless you postal vote). It is legal to register an informal (invalid) vote. So "compulory voting" makes sure that apathy doesn't keep people from voting, or that people aren't intimidated to not vote, but if you really don't want to vote, you can legally turn up, have your name marked off and put your ballot paper in blank.
For lots of small businesses there needs to be an accounting package that their accountant accepts. This means quicken or myob compatible output necessary.
You are of course correct, but I hardly consider polls to be either.
No problem. As you mentioned "Politicians feel the need to fake religion". Politicians do that for one reason only: votes. And people don't vote according to their religion unless they want to. Regards polls however you like, but when people will elect their government representative based on it, then it's time to acknowledge they're taking it seriously. They may not be living out their religion very well, they may not attend services often enough to convince you of their devotion, but it's definitely important to them.
Going on instincts are we?
No. You compared the information age to the idustrial age, presumably to strengthen your arguement. I merely pointed out that the comparison does nothing to say that the information age will result in a decline in religion. Now you're talking about the differences between the industrial age and information age. You seem to be confused as to whether the similarities or differences are making your point.
So, if it has this liberal bias compared to the real world, perhaps it is because the internet is the great facilitator of the information age, and as people who use the internet become more well informed their views change?
Or perhaps it's because the conservatives are not posting on the net so much because they're busy owning and running the companies that provide your internet service. Maybe they're just as involved in the net, but they've positioned themselves on the money collecting side rather than the money spending side. What's the golden rule again?
Have you ever watched the mental state of an in the closet gay church goer deteriorate as he is forced to face what he is?
I've seen men's personal struggles and weaknesses used against them to attack the validity of their faith. It is, IMO, one of the worst things to be found in religion, and also seems to be what you're doing actually.
One way or the other I wouldn't exactly call them religious.
They may not be interested in your opinion of their religious faith. I propose that they may not be holding to that faith in an effort to please you.
Nietzsche's famous statement. However, over time it has turned out that Nietzsche is dead and religion is still kicking along. As they say, history repeats itself.
One lesson to be gleaned from his works and the various studies on it are the dangers of a society that does not realize this.
As opposed to the societies which to realise "God is Dead" and become utopian paradises. Oh wait, hang on that hasn't happened yet, they tend to become brutal totalitarian dictatorships so far. Let me know how that goes.
Oh, and I agree 100% But I do believe it. I feel it.
Feelings are not valuable tools for determining objective reality.
The information age is as unstoppable as the industrial age, and its effects will be just as profound.
Yes, possibly even more profound effects, but the industrial age did not remove religion and it doesn't seem likely to me that the information age will either. There are plenty of religious people using the internet.
Even if the polls show otherwise currently, I explained my reasons for not taking them too seriously.
You said there is a huge pressure on people to put on a front because of the worry that their views are not shared. In a poll taken anonymously, I don't think this is likely to have a large effect. Sounds more like wishful thinking. You also said something to the effect of "I meet a lot of liberals". Speak to a homosexual, they likely meet a lot of homosexuals, speak to a Christian, they likely meet a lot of Christians, speak to a Muslim, they likely meet a lot of Muslims, speak to a pot smoker, they likely meet a lot of pot smokers. Your impression that most of the people you meet share your views probably has a lot more to do with what you're tuned into and where you sociallize than anything else. Buy a different model of car, you'll be surprised how many of them you start to see.
The gaining popularity of willfull and selective public living facilitated by cheap and easy global communication will slowly erode the global social facade that anyone who is paying attention sees every day they interact with the world.
Joh Bjelke Petersen, is that you?
we cannot seem to figure out that it isn't wanted anymore.
If people haven't figured out that religion isn't wanted, that would mean it still is wanted. Unless of course people think they want religion, but you know they really don't. People don't really know what they want, they need YOU to tell them! I can see why this appeals to you, but no thanks.
"God is dead"
Nietzsche's famous statement. However, over time it has turned out that Nietzsche is dead and religion is still kicking along. As they say, history repeats itself.
Slashdot Mirror
From an Islamic point of view, as I understand it: that is because the Jewish and Christian texts have been corrupted, and therefore have incorrect descriptions of god, that is, they say it's the same god, but that Christians and Jews do not know what they worship. That's really just another way of saying that the god described in the bible does not exist, the god described in the koran exists and is the god the Jews and Christians used to worship before they became corrupted, that is, the god Jews and Christians used to worship is Allah but the god they actually worship now is different (not existing).
From a Christian point of view: the god described in the koran is not the same god described in the bible. Not acknowledging that Jesus is the son of god eliminates any possiblility that the koran is a revelation from god. The possibilities would seem to be that the revelation is either an invention of Muhammed or a revelation from a different being.
A way you could think of it is to imagine if I started to claim that burnetd's father is also my father. You might perhaps start to wonder if your dad had some things he hadn't told you. Then I started to talk about how I am proud of the chinese heritage I have through my father (assuming for the sake of this point that your father is not chinese). Then I talked about how he accomplished so much with his life despite having lost his legs in his 20's, and your father has both his legs. You see, it doesn't matter if I claim they are the same man. It doesn't matter that I call him by the same name. If the man I describe is different in ways that make it impossible for it to be the same man, it's not the same man.
The attempt to promote peace by claiming things are the same when they are not is doomed to failure. Christian teaching can be taken as insulting to Islam (and all non-christians). Islamic teaching can be taken as insulting to Christians (and all non-muslims). Atheist beliefs can be taken as insulting to people who believe in god etc, etc, ad infinitum. The answer isn't to pretend that beliefs are the same, it's to tolerate beliefs that are different. It's to understand that you can be accepting of a person without accepting their beliefs as true. You can be tolerant of someone without approving of their beliefs. Just because something can be taken as offensive doesn't mean you have to take offense. Because I refuse to take offense, I can accept that people have different beliefs.
So to suggest that parental motives have nothing to do with the decision to have children (and the total number of children) is inaccurate
I didn't suggest any such thing. dangitman made a specific claim, ie:
Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle.
Of course parents have motives. Duh! I asked if dangitman could verify his claim that having children is "most often a selfish indulgence of the parents." What percentage of parents make the decision selfishly? How was it determined that the reason was to satisfy their egos? Cultural norms do not necessarily mean selfish indulgence. Your post, while accurate, misses the point I was making, which is to say the dangitman was posting opinion as fact.
First, I was raised Catholic (but I'm feeling much better now) and know a fair bit about the god worshipped by Christians, thank you.
... you have to admit Muslims into that club also. To do otherwise is simple bigotry.
Spent some time as a Muslim too, have you? If not, it doesn't change my point. If you have, and then left, normal teaching of both Catholicism and Islam as I understand it would assert that you had failed to understand correctly about god. Certainly that was Jesus teaching. You can check it out in Matthew 13:18-23 .
Second, the question of what's considered important about Jewish/Christian/Islamic teachings about god to those faiths, is irrelevant to the question of whether those faiths historically emerge from worship of the "same" god.
Not when those teachings are about who god is. In any case, Islam did not "emerge" from anything. As I said in my previous post, it is considered that the Koran was a revelation to Mohammed in it's entirety. The fact that they have common ancestry is not relevant. The relevant point is this: the god written of in the bible and the god written of in the koran are so different in character and nature that they cannot be the same god. History is irrelevant if they are not worshipping the same god today, because we are in today.
If you're going to agree that all Christians worship the "same" god
bigotry: -noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
You don't seem to understand what that word means. I'm not being intolerant, I'm just acknowledging that they are different. I don't think even a single Muslim I've known would claim that I've been intolerant of them. If two things were the same and I called them different, I'm not sure what word would describe that, but bigotry isn't it.
First, the "problems as to where you draw the line" are so big as to be impossible to overcome.
Not really, you make an arbitrary judgement. You then see whose arbitrary judgement is most popular. Then you have it signed into law. If you want more people to agree with your arbitrary judgement, you utilise your right to free speech.
And if you see any spelling errors in my post, don't be a spelling nartzy with me. If you can't spell a wird more than wun way, that's your problem.
So, the question remains, is it better to have complicated issues resolved by a select few who know something about the subject matter, or do we let "the masses" decide in whatever manner Oprah, Micheal Moore, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly instructed them to?
Remember "of the people, by the people". The system we have says it's the masses. Free speech is so you can influence the masses. Don't tear down that system just because the masses listened to someone who disagreed with you.
The word "child" has a specific meaning, and an embryo is not a child.
pregnant: -adjective
1. having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.
You are using neither the dictionary definition nor historical common use of the word. You are using a narrowly defined meaning which has the only purpose of justifying the killing of embryos.
Having children is most often a selfish indulgence of the parents. They have children to satisfy their own egos and lifestyle.
What scientific method did you use to determine the motives of parents? What was the size of the sample used in the research? What peer reviewed journal is this study published in?
Doctrinal and dogmatic differences don't mean you all don't worship the same god. The rest of us wish ...
Your assumption that you know more about the gods worshipped by others than they do displays arrogance. You seem to have the idea that you can pick out what's important about Jewish/Christian/Islamic teaching about god and what is just "Doctrinal and dogmatic differences" but the billions of Jews/Christians/Muslims can't. Your idea that you know who/what we believe in better that we do is utter nonsense.
The arabs are indeed the decsendents of Ishmael. However, Islam is not a religion held continually (or even intermittently) by those people from the time of Ishmael. The Koran (according to Islam) was given as a complete revelation. It is not a derived work from other texts, according to Islam. The Islamic claim is that Jewish and Christian texts had been corrupted and are not at all on the same level as the Koran.
The fact that Moses and Jesus are mentioned in the Koran has no bearing on whether those three religions worship the same god. Jesus is specifically called the "Son of God" in the bible. This claim is blasphemy to Allah, yet is a central claim of Christianity, to the extent that the bible claims: "He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who doesn't believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning his Son." So that the Bible says that anyone who deny that Jesus is God's son is a liar, and Mohammed denied that Jesus is God's son. The Koran teaches:
They say: "the most gracious has betaken a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it in the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they attributed a son to the Most Gracious, for it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son. (The Qur'an, 5:88-92).
So a teaching regarded as central to their religion and concept of God to the christians is "montrous" according to the Koran. The Koran denies the Son of God according to the Christian bible. These are not minor points of doctrine. They are simply not the same god. There are also other major concepts of god's character and nature that are fundamentally different between Christianity and Islam.
The point though is this: I don't want you to reinterpret my religion for me, and the Muslims I know aren't looking for someone to reinterpret theirs for them either.
I'm Christian, I've worked and done business with Muslims. They (Allah and Yahweh) are not the same. It is not divisive to say "We are different" or "we have different ideas". It is divisive to say "you must have my ideas to be tolerated by me". To say gods/religions/ideas are the same when they are not isn't unity, it's delusion.
Islam and Christianity both have fundamental concepts of god that are incompatible.
I think in this case it's the intermediate computer user who's least likely to use FOSS, not the absolute beginner or the wiz kid.
Yes, I agree. I focus on giving F/OSS for windows to new computer users. That way, their helpful freind doesn't wipe the linux install to give them windows and they get used to Free applications. Openoffice.org, scribus, firefox, thunderbird, pdfcreator, audacity and the like. If they also decide to use linux later, their learning curve is less.
Australia has just passed laws that contradict it.[DMCA]
I'm an Australian, I must not have been paying attention, can you give me some more info please?
Reasonable expectation. You have the reasonable expectation that things you do in private are private. You do not have the reasonable expectation that things you do in public are private. That's the difference between public and private you see. Things that happen in public are *drum roll* PUBLIC.
But I hope you respect other people enough to understand that for some, it *would* be deeply embarrassing and they *would* want it kept private.
As far as I'm aware, there are no laws protecting you from embarrassment. Nor should there be. Slander and libel laws protect your reputation, that's the closest, but not by a long way do they protect you from embarrassment. As you say "It is not for others to live by your reactions."
Well, how likely is anyone to even want to support OOXML fully except for Microsoft?
Well, it depends on if any governments and corporations require conformance to the standard for their software purchases. If it is a requirement of selling software, I guess a few people might be a bit interested in being able to claim full compliance.
How many people are actually using these programs? Maintaining documents in the old format? I defy any of you out there in Linux-land to say you wouldn't take the same approach under the same set of circumstances.
It's ok to take this approach writing an application. It's not ok in writing a standard. The difference is that no-one other than MS can now write an application that is "OpenXML" compatible, which makes a mockery of having it as a standard. Your application can have any features you want, but a standard (by definition) must be able to be implemented by others.
Actually, Linux people would probably just say "it may not open old documents properly, but that's OK because you have the source".
Here is the focus of your misunderstanding. You are obviously refering to an application, as file format specifications do not open documents. The article is refering to a file format specification published by MS, making the point that it is not adequate to be used as a standard. It is saying nothing about the quality/adequacy of MS software products.
What he implied was that the kids were living in cultures where 'all the education is vocational.' Which is quite offensive.
What's offensive about it? When you have limited budgets to educate your children it makes sense to educate them in something that will enable them to earn money. Then they can afford better education. If you find it offensive that people live in such conditions I understand, but if you find it offensive to say that people live in such conditions you're just ignoring reality.
And yes, I'm involved in helping with education for poorer Africans. Many would like to have any education at all, even vocational.
I understand that these tags will be needed when converting legacy documents, but how many people are going meet all the following conditions to even be effected by this:
If it gets adopted as a standard (ISO or similar, not defacto standard) then everyone. The point is not whether people need the features, the point is that MS is trying to get this accepted as a standard. It still can only be implemented by MS, and therefore should not be accepted as a standard. If a government body had as part of a software procurement requirement "Complies with ISO XXXX (MS OpenXML)" Then by default only MS office could fill that requirement. As opposed to ODF which can be supported by any company that chooses to to so.
MS can have any features it likes in it's file format, that's not the issue. How well it works or if people need it are also not the issues. The issue is that for it to be considered a standard, it should be able to be implemented by anyone and that the format as currently documented is practically impossible to implement for anyone but MS. Therefore it should not be considered a standard by bodies such as ISO.
Try to stay with me on this: Polititians have a reason to fake religion. Votes. They only fake religion because they know that many people take religion seriously enough to swing their vote. People do not vote in secret ballots according to what other people might think. Therefore, your assertion that polititians fake religion is evidence that a significant number of people take their religion seriously.
Slow down, take a deep breath, read the previous paragraph again. Twice if you need to. Meditate or something. Try to focus. Why would a polititian fake religion for no benefit? It's because they know it gets them votes. There are more voters than polititians. There are many voters who take religion seriously enought to vote accordingly.
People like that still have a strong moral compass, but one based on life and not on god.
Like Buddha. Buddha did not teach to follow a god, now people pray to him. If your philosophy becomes predominant, it won't be long before people attach a god to it. Maybe it'll be Nietzsche. Maybe it'll be entrigant. But the people will demand to have a god, even contrary to the teaching of the appointed "god". You can count on it.
Why should one care if they migrate to OSS.
Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers.....
I have a similar method for my workstation, but one that gives me more time to get things right. Partitions /home /boot / and a spare partition. I use the spare partition to try out different distos. When I want to upgrade, I install to the spare parition. When I have it how I want it, I copy the necessary files to /boot , mount /home on the new system instead of the old and change the default grub entry. Easy, safe.
Give me a break. Find a PC that didn't actually ship with Windows. Then try stating that again... if computers actually came without an OS, that might be a viable argument. But you can't argue that Windows is expensive when it's a cost incorporated into 99.9% of consumer PC's.
Most of my computers have been second hand. Only one second hand box came with a licenced windows. Many people have computers without a valid windows licence.
we are taught to value this right and it *is* a crime not to vote - well, you get a small fine anyway.
No, you get a fine for not attending a poll on election day (unless you postal vote). It is legal to register an informal (invalid) vote. So "compulory voting" makes sure that apathy doesn't keep people from voting, or that people aren't intimidated to not vote, but if you really don't want to vote, you can legally turn up, have your name marked off and put your ballot paper in blank.
For lots of small businesses there needs to be an accounting package that their accountant accepts. This means quicken or myob compatible output necessary.
No problem. As you mentioned "Politicians feel the need to fake religion". Politicians do that for one reason only: votes. And people don't vote according to their religion unless they want to. Regards polls however you like, but when people will elect their government representative based on it, then it's time to acknowledge they're taking it seriously. They may not be living out their religion very well, they may not attend services often enough to convince you of their devotion, but it's definitely important to them.
Going on instincts are we?
No. You compared the information age to the idustrial age, presumably to strengthen your arguement. I merely pointed out that the comparison does nothing to say that the information age will result in a decline in religion. Now you're talking about the differences between the industrial age and information age. You seem to be confused as to whether the similarities or differences are making your point.
So, if it has this liberal bias compared to the real world, perhaps it is because the internet is the great facilitator of the information age, and as people who use the internet become more well informed their views change?
Or perhaps it's because the conservatives are not posting on the net so much because they're busy owning and running the companies that provide your internet service. Maybe they're just as involved in the net, but they've positioned themselves on the money collecting side rather than the money spending side. What's the golden rule again?
Have you ever watched the mental state of an in the closet gay church goer deteriorate as he is forced to face what he is?
I've seen men's personal struggles and weaknesses used against them to attack the validity of their faith. It is, IMO, one of the worst things to be found in religion, and also seems to be what you're doing actually.
One way or the other I wouldn't exactly call them religious.
They may not be interested in your opinion of their religious faith. I propose that they may not be holding to that faith in an effort to please you.
As opposed to the societies which to realise "God is Dead" and become utopian paradises. Oh wait, hang on that hasn't happened yet, they tend to become brutal totalitarian dictatorships so far. Let me know how that goes.
Don't pey attention to grammar nahtzees, if they can't spell a wird moor than wun whey, that's thair problem.
Oh, and I agree 100% But I do believe it. I feel it.
Feelings are not valuable tools for determining objective reality.
The information age is as unstoppable as the industrial age, and its effects will be just as profound.
Yes, possibly even more profound effects, but the industrial age did not remove religion and it doesn't seem likely to me that the information age will either. There are plenty of religious people using the internet.
Even if the polls show otherwise currently, I explained my reasons for not taking them too seriously.
You said there is a huge pressure on people to put on a front because of the worry that their views are not shared. In a poll taken anonymously, I don't think this is likely to have a large effect. Sounds more like wishful thinking. You also said something to the effect of "I meet a lot of liberals". Speak to a homosexual, they likely meet a lot of homosexuals, speak to a Christian, they likely meet a lot of Christians, speak to a Muslim, they likely meet a lot of Muslims, speak to a pot smoker, they likely meet a lot of pot smokers. Your impression that most of the people you meet share your views probably has a lot more to do with what you're tuned into and where you sociallize than anything else. Buy a different model of car, you'll be surprised how many of them you start to see.
The gaining popularity of willfull and selective public living facilitated by cheap and easy global communication will slowly erode the global social facade that anyone who is paying attention sees every day they interact with the world.
Joh Bjelke Petersen, is that you?
we cannot seem to figure out that it isn't wanted anymore.
If people haven't figured out that religion isn't wanted, that would mean it still is wanted. Unless of course people think they want religion, but you know they really don't. People don't really know what they want, they need YOU to tell them! I can see why this appeals to you, but no thanks.
"God is dead"
Nietzsche's famous statement. However, over time it has turned out that Nietzsche is dead and religion is still kicking along. As they say, history repeats itself.