About your first point: I know that, but I am not the one that wrote "thou shalt not kill".
About your second point: he also told them to not use them.
About your third point: they get the authority from Wikipedia?;) Seriously, I know that people think about such stuff. The question as why human thinking suddenly overrules the word of god.
Sorry, I have to be curt because actually I gotta run to work. Anyway, we could argue about the contradictions in the bible all year without exhausting them. It all just proves my point that one cannot derive moral authority from the bible.
This is ridiculous. Up to today, the German-language catholic church teaches "du sollst nicht töten". töten == kill. If they mean something else, well SAY SO!
Further, if I were to find out all the contradictions in the bible, I'd die before being done. I just disregard it as being the word of god and am happy with that. This is why I am clueless about all the finer points. In my view, people investing their lives and their religious belief in a book that was written collectively by hundreds of people, over more than a thousand years, by an organization that is well-known for blatant lying if in its interest (look up the Donation of Constantine for an exammple), are insane.
I didn't put a too fine point on the versions, translations, and so on. It is very obvious that this book fails on being "the word of god" when there are significant differences depending on which on you read.
I realize that scholarship is different now, but let's be honest, the religion as taught by the churches to their common followers has very little to do with the fine points of theological scholarship. Regarding the choice of the term "kill", I don't see how it matters what the Greek or whatever version really says. I judge the church on what they use officially today. And, for example, the official German bible of the catholic church uses "du sollst nicht tÃten", with tÃten == kill. So, that's the commandment for its German followers. If they mean something else, well, they should use a different term.
Thanks a lot. One wonders, though, what else the translations (and the first bible itself) gets wrong, when it even fails horribly at one of its central parts. And that's not any central part, it's the part that is supposed to capture the essence in 10 simple sentences. I mean sheesh, how hard would it have been to make it clear and write "murder"?
Thou shalt not kill REQUIRES some sort of qualifier.
Ok, point conceded. But since one usually does not talk about killing in regards to plants, I would wager that we are talking about humans here (insert disclaimer re common usage in King James' time).
Except that the catholic church is well known to not have maintained strict records wherever it pleased them. The best-known example is probably the Donation of Constantine. (Yeah, it's Wikipedia, but anyone doubting it can do his/her own research.)
Did you intend this as satire? In case you didn't:
Killing is not incompatible with Christianity.
Ok, so please explain to me why the commandment states simply "thou shalt not kill" without andding qualifiers?
Yeah, at least if you're an excessively naive and suicidal Christian.
My limited reading of the bible showed that apostles and others told Jesus that his stance was naive and suicidal, but he stuck to it nevertheless. So where does current christianity get the authority to overrule him?
I started with Cryptonomicon and have read most of the other stuff since, and I must say that I liked most of it very much. But maybe Snow Crash the most.
What's wrong with the ending of Snow Crash? Do you really need spelled out what happened after that, like in a fairy tale? And if you do, I figure you find little enjoyment in most novels that were written after, say, 1870.
Exactly. We do this for an internal app in the company, too. What you absolutely need (and why it works well for internal stuff, IMHO) is someone from the dev team who is there for the users. Someone who knows their jobs, talks to them, helps them with bugs (absolutely critical: if you do quick incremental updates, you need to take the occasional pain of bugs off the users shoulders quickly), explains to them what this is all about, and so on. A gardener for users, so to speak. It works fantastic for us.
I see. FWIW, I agree that the features you list would be nice to have. But I also agree with the Gnome guys that there is a need to provide to the admin the option to disallow certain configs. But to repeat, nobody seems to care enough to actually contribute to these goals, and I personally don't care at all.
As far as the attitude goes, I think that there is unanimous agreement (probably including himself) that his initial reaction was wrong and stupid. It's unfortunate that the Gnome bugzilla will preserve this reaction for eternity, but people need to grow up and stop picking on it; it's been years, and he has changed his opinion later.
There are a million things that "should be done" in free software. This is not the most important one but yeah, it would be nice to have. But read the details and you'll see that screensaver configurability is not that easy to do correctly. It's not about arrogance at all. Fact is that nobody cared enough to prioritize it over other things they have to do, and nobody cared enough to pay someone to do it.
However, I have no clue why you complain about "random mode". I had that option in gnome-screensaver from day one, and still have it (I just checked).
I ran this bash script to create 10,000 empty files:
for i in $(seq 1 10000); do echo -n "file${i} "; touch file${i} 2> done
Then I opened gedit, clicked File-> Open and navigated to the directory. It took ca. 2.5 seconds to list them. Selecting and opening was instant. I did say "what's wrong with the _current_ dialog box", I don't care for bugs from years ago. Next time please save my time and try it yourself first, okithx.
Um, who mentioned the GPL? The guy I replied to said "for the very large number of would-be linux users it really doesn't matter one bit what license your software was produced under".
Slashdot Mirror
About your first point: I know that, but I am not the one that wrote "thou shalt not kill".
About your second point: he also told them to not use them.
About your third point: they get the authority from Wikipedia? ;) Seriously, I know that people think about such stuff. The question as why human thinking suddenly overrules the word of god.
Sorry, I have to be curt because actually I gotta run to work. Anyway, we could argue about the contradictions in the bible all year without exhausting them. It all just proves my point that one cannot derive moral authority from the bible.
This is ridiculous. Up to today, the German-language catholic church teaches "du sollst nicht töten". töten == kill. If they mean something else, well SAY SO!
Further, if I were to find out all the contradictions in the bible, I'd die before being done. I just disregard it as being the word of god and am happy with that. This is why I am clueless about all the finer points. In my view, people investing their lives and their religious belief in a book that was written collectively by hundreds of people, over more than a thousand years, by an organization that is well-known for blatant lying if in its interest (look up the Donation of Constantine for an exammple), are insane.
Crap. It's "du sollst nicht töten"
I didn't put a too fine point on the versions, translations, and so on. It is very obvious that this book fails on being "the word of god" when there are significant differences depending on which on you read.
I realize that scholarship is different now, but let's be honest, the religion as taught by the churches to their common followers has very little to do with the fine points of theological scholarship. Regarding the choice of the term "kill", I don't see how it matters what the Greek or whatever version really says. I judge the church on what they use officially today. And, for example, the official German bible of the catholic church uses "du sollst nicht tÃten", with tÃten == kill. So, that's the commandment for its German followers. If they mean something else, well, they should use a different term.
Well ok. Which proves that the bible is not reliable enough to "believe" in it, since "it" is not defined.
Thanks a lot. One wonders, though, what else the translations (and the first bible itself) gets wrong, when it even fails horribly at one of its central parts. And that's not any central part, it's the part that is supposed to capture the essence in 10 simple sentences. I mean sheesh, how hard would it have been to make it clear and write "murder"?
Thou shalt not kill REQUIRES some sort of qualifier.
Ok, point conceded. But since one usually does not talk about killing in regards to plants, I would wager that we are talking about humans here (insert disclaimer re common usage in King James' time).
So there.
Except that the catholic church is well known to not have maintained strict records wherever it pleased them. The best-known example is probably the Donation of Constantine. (Yeah, it's Wikipedia, but anyone doubting it can do his/her own research.)
Did you intend this as satire? In case you didn't:
Killing is not incompatible with Christianity.
Ok, so please explain to me why the commandment states simply "thou shalt not kill" without andding qualifiers?
Yeah, at least if you're an excessively naive and suicidal Christian.
My limited reading of the bible showed that apostles and others told Jesus that his stance was naive and suicidal, but he stuck to it nevertheless. So where does current christianity get the authority to overrule him?
I started with Cryptonomicon and have read most of the other stuff since, and I must say that I liked most of it very much. But maybe Snow Crash the most.
What's wrong with the ending of Snow Crash? Do you really need spelled out what happened after that, like in a fairy tale? And if you do, I figure you find little enjoyment in most novels that were written after, say, 1870.
You can lead an ass to water, but you can't make him drink.
Of course, it's the wrong end!
And it's good to remember that nothing of this has anything to do with Web 2.0 :)
Exactly. We do this for an internal app in the company, too. What you absolutely need (and why it works well for internal stuff, IMHO) is someone from the dev team who is there for the users. Someone who knows their jobs, talks to them, helps them with bugs (absolutely critical: if you do quick incremental updates, you need to take the occasional pain of bugs off the users shoulders quickly), explains to them what this is all about, and so on. A gardener for users, so to speak.
It works fantastic for us.
Your own quote clearly says it's in both.
I'll wait for the Tdium.
somewhat more clunky and heavy
Bingo!
I see. FWIW, I agree that the features you list would be nice to have. But I also agree with the Gnome guys that there is a need to provide to the admin the option to disallow certain configs. But to repeat, nobody seems to care enough to actually contribute to these goals, and I personally don't care at all.
As far as the attitude goes, I think that there is unanimous agreement (probably including himself) that his initial reaction was wrong and stupid. It's unfortunate that the Gnome bugzilla will preserve this reaction for eternity, but people need to grow up and stop picking on it; it's been years, and he has changed his opinion later.
There are a million things that "should be done" in free software. This is not the most important one but yeah, it would be nice to have. But read the details and you'll see that screensaver configurability is not that easy to do correctly. It's not about arrogance at all. Fact is that nobody cared enough to prioritize it over other things they have to do, and nobody cared enough to pay someone to do it.
However, I have no clue why you complain about "random mode". I had that option in gnome-screensaver from day one, and still have it (I just checked).
Okay Muscians actually do get paid and this isn't about record companies. This is the poor sap playing his ass off.
Read this and this. Thank you.
Um, most Linux distros used CUPS years before OSX.
I ran this bash script to create 10,000 empty files:
for i in $(seq 1 10000); do echo -n "file${i} "; touch file${i} 2> done
Then I opened gedit, clicked File-> Open and navigated to the directory. It took ca. 2.5 seconds to list them. Selecting and opening was instant. I did say "what's wrong with the _current_ dialog box", I don't care for bugs from years ago. Next time please save my time and try it yourself first, okithx.
Um, who mentioned the GPL? The guy I replied to said "for the very large number of would-be linux users it really doesn't matter one bit what license your software was produced under".
I meant that to kill and restart a process, any console is good enough.
for the very large number of would-be linux users it really doesn't matter one bit what license your software was produced under
It does, as without a proper license the OS would not even exist ...