I surely do not want to have another trollfest on religion, but what data do you quote to say that 50% of people literally believe the world was created 6000 years ago?
I know you are trying to be funny, and the AC post above is dubious at best. However, let's keep things in reality. Outside of Steve Jobs' letter, what steps have Apple taken to become more open with regards to DRM?
Considering his editorial was posted in a timeframe that reflected pressure from the EU about licensing FairPlay, a bit of cynicism creeps into my view of what he has said. I am not sure of the numbers, but it is known that a portion of the music sold on iTMS is not a part of the RIAA and is sold by others (eMusic, for example) without DRM restrictions. If Steve Jobs is interested in pursuing a non-DRM music world, why does he not put his money where his mouth is and have iTMS sell independent songs without wrapping them with FairPlay?
Some apologists say that Apple must have an agreement in place with the RIAA that prevents them from doing such a thing. Ok, then, Apple, tell us that. If Steve Jobs is calling out the big labels for requiring DRM, really hit the point home and tell us how they will not allow Apple to sell their music without DRM being on all tracks. There is no motivation for Apple not to report that if it is true.
So, I have to agree with the AC above, at least in principle. It is one thing for Steve Jobs to talk about a longing for no DRM while the EU pressures him to open up FairPlay, it is an entirely different thing to show that commitment.
Don't mistake this post as being from someone who does not like Apple or iTunes. I am a customer and I love my iPod. But I don't believe in giving someone who preaches a good message a free ride to continue to do what most of us on/. are against.
Can you cite this? Although I am no Dvorak fan, it seems hard to believe that he simply did a word substitution for an old article. What is the link for this?
I don't know about you, but with the exception of a few major label artists, I have been getting into local bands and bands under small independent labels a lot lately. A subscription to emusic has aided in this discovery process. There are still some major artists that appeal to me, but outside of those artists, I find my money and my ears are much happier with what I am doing currently.
I will agree with you though, to look upon the complete destruction of this industry with glee is not something I share with some others.
"During a press and anlalyst briefing Wednesday, Adobe's senior vice president and chief software architect Kevin Lynch said Adobe will build its future products using Apollo."
The current alpha release is for windows and mac osx only. A linux runtime environment and SDK is supposed to be released for Linux at some point as well.
It is not exactly a "wrapper" for existing technologies. What the Apollo software will allow is people accustomed to writing rich web-based applications, using various technologies such as AJAX, flash, and plain ole HTML to port those applications to the desktop. No need for internet connectivity, no need to have a web server or internet browser. All the user will need is the runtime environment. I believe this will open up the applications that are available for users across windows, linux, and osx.
Actually, I was raised orthodox christian. Despite what you may think, I know religion and faith very well.
I apologize for my previous statement. Re-reading it, it comes across as critical, and I did not mean it to be that way.
You are applying logic, too. You say "applying logic can not be done where logic is inappropriate". But that is application of logic! How can you apply logic, as well?
I only mean to say that a logical view of faith will not aid in understanding. I see religious faith as something "other-worldly" if you will, and that there are things that cannot be reasoned with logic. I don't mean to try to dodge your application of reason, I just honestly do not believe it applies.
How do you know that no rules can be placed? "no rules" is a rule itself. You are contradicting yourself.
Fair enough. Let me rephrase myself: we, as human beings, cannot place God into our own self-created rules.
It's simple...put the two and two together: the Bible says God knows everything. Therefore God knows the future (another proof of this is prophecy). Therefore, God knew that Eve would ate the fruit. And that is because God created everything.
Again, good point. However, the problem was not the fruit itself. The fruit was from the tree of knowledge. It was the ACT of eating the fruit which was sin. Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat the fruit, which was disobeying God's command to not eat of it. Therefore, she disobeyed God. Now, where the serpent comes from, you would have to look at Paradise Lost or something else to get the common understanding of the serpent being the devil, whom is a fallen angel. But, really, I don't like putting myself in the position of defending a story that I do not believe to be literal truth.
How do you know how complex God is so as that you can say God does not know what you will decide or not? it is not logical.
I did not say that God does not know what I will decide. I said that I have an option, a choice. But God knows ME so well, inside and out, that he knows what decision I will make. I can say to myself, "Ok, God will expect me to do x, so I will do y." But God knows me well enough to know that I would think that and then knows which choice I will make.
I will admit, however, that this is sketchy stuff for me. I'm arguing this point, but I don't have a real understanding or have real comfort with this idea. It is not an easy concept, and I am presenting an argument, but don't take that as my belief that I have a full understanding or have complete belief in that at all times.
But love is a need, and a perfect being would not have needs. Therefore either God is not perfect and the Bible is wrong, or God is perfect and does not feel love.
There are multiple times in the Bible where God becomes jealous, angry, wants our praise, etc. I cannot argue against you without resorting to saying that you are applying human understanding to a non-human entity. Sorry for lack of a more reasoned argument.
I am doing exactly what you religious type do.
Come on now, I am trying to be as fair and open as I can. I think you make a mistake in grouping all religious people together. Not that I am some great example, but I don't see myself as a blind sheep either. I appreciate your arguments and I am always open to discussion.
All I am saying is that life is too short, when compared to the afterlife, to be a criterion for afterlife.
You raise an interesting point that I have never given real thought to. I agree with you, logically, it does not make sense for such a small period of time to stand for where we are for eternity. I don't see how this strengthens your argument though. Sure, it could be an indication of a man-created, non
I mentioned in a different reply about the book of Job. A literal view of Job does not make any sense. I agree with you. I have a problem with the idea of a god who is vengeful and wages a bet with satan about one of God's followers. Now, I know you will challenge me on "well, if you can pick and choose what to believe, what's the point in believing in any of it."
The significance of Job is that it came about at a time when the Jewish people had an understanding of God where he would always protect and care for those who were faithful, but turn away from those who were not. So, if something bad happened to you or your family, it would be interpreted as you having done something to wrong God. Obviously, we do not consider God to be like that today, Christian or Jew.
The book of Job illustrates the idea that you can be a faithful follower of God, and still have bad things happen. This was a real challenge to the belief system of the time. If you take the book literally (whether you are a believer in God or not), you miss it's significance.
You also bring up an important point about how God appears different in the Old Testament verses the New Testament. I attribute this to people having a different understanding of God and how he works in the Old Testament. The New Testament is so different because Jesus came and told people where they were wrong. He preached about the important things to faith, challenged the currupt religious people of the time, and brought a message of love to the people. I believe that is why you see a different view of God in the New Testament.
This discussion is really past it's time, but I did want to reply at any rate. Hope you will see it.
Because I'm bored, I'll respond, but you probably won't like some of my responses. The fact is, at some point, faith has to come into play. I will say this: as I read your post, I didn't think "wow, this person has really made some good points" as much as "wow, this person really has no clue what religious faith is all about or how it works." Take that as you will.
The complexity argument ("some things are too complex to have been randomly created, therefore a creator of the universe exists") is invalid, because if it was valid, the creator of the universe would have to be more complex than the universe, and therefore there should have been a creator for the creator, which leads to infinite recursion of creators, something totally illogical. Therefore the complexity argument is invalid.
You are applying logic where logic is inappropriate. You apply humanly understood rules to God, where no rules can be placed. Can I speak to the creation story and explain it away? No. But I also believe it is more a "story" than fact. That's a lame answer, but I must still say that you are applying rules that cannot be used with this story.
God created everything, and therefore created evil.
Not true. I don't know where you get this from. Evil is clearly defined as sin. According to the creation story, once Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, sin was introduced into the world. It is sin that separates us from God, not God who creates sin/evil.
God knows the future, and therefore there is no free will.
I would argue that God is complex enough to be all-knowing, but that does not mean that I don't have the ability to make decisions on my own. I am choosing to type this response, but that does not mean that God does not know me and the situation I am in right now well enough to know that I would be doing what I am doing. This is a difficult and hard to understand argument, and I will concede that I am troubled by issues relating to this from time to time.
God is a perfect being, and perfect beings do not have needs. Therefore God would not have created anything: he/she/it would not have the urge to create anything.
Again, you are applying some arbitrary rules to who God is or what God is like.
What is the purpose of heaven from God's perspective? there is no purpose actually, for God: it only serves to relieve us humans from the idea of death.
God loves his people dearly and wants them to be with Him in heaven.
Afterlife is eternal, according to scriptures. So living a life of, say, 90 years, is too small a criterion for choosing eternal heaven or eternal hell.
I honestly do not know what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase this? I don't understand what the argument is about living a life and then facing afterlife.
Noah could not have taken a pair of every species on Earth on board his ship, because otherwise the ship would have to be enormous. He would also need enormous resources to feed them.
Agreed. The story of Noah's ark is a great story that was passed down generation by generation. I know you will challenge me on picking and choosing certain parts of the Bible to be fact and some to be inspired stories. I believe most of the Old Testament to be inspired stories. Many with truth in them, but also the influence of time and religious influence. This does not mean I find the Bible to be of no use.
If God existed, why he would divide His people into totally opposing religions that are in conflict for most of the time? the existence of many religions prove God does not exist.
I would argue that sin and imperfections in mankind has caused divisions. Also, with a historical view (other than just Biblical), we know that Jewish faith b
Oh come on, don't be silly. While some may argue over what parts of the Bible can be literal verses figurative, the Psalms are not debatable. They were written specifically for worship and honest expression of the psalmists feelings about God. There is no factual basis in them, and you are really grasping at straws to apply a reasoned view to that book of the Bible.
On the surface, yes, it does appear that there are inaccuracies. I am a Christian, but I also read and try to learn the historical background of the Bible. It is widely theorized that there was a source document, called "Q", that told the stories of Jesus. This document is lost to us today. Mark is said to be the oldest of the four gospels. It is believed that the writers of Matthew and Luke had the Q document and Mark to use as source material for writing their gospels.
Then why did the writers write two more gospels? It is obvious that they must have felt another version would be necessary to get across a specific message. Matthew's genealogy section and the gospel itself is written for Jewish people of the time to recognize that Jesus has come to fulfill the prophesy of the coming Messiah. There are many direct old testament quotes in Matthew. Luke was written more for Christian people to see the life of Jesus. The writer was less concerned with establishing the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy. I would suggest reading some of Bert Ehrman's work on Biblical history.
Let us assume that Matthew's list got shorter because of loss in translation, and other errors. If that is true, let not the evangelists admit that Bible is true (i.e. inerrant) in the literal sense. Hence it has to interpreted, in which case, they should not hold it as evidence against scientific evidence.
You and I agree here. I don't believe in using blind faith to discount scientific evidence. I would also agree that to read the Bible without thoughtful, reasoned interpretation would be a loss.
The most holy book, has 15 errors in such a short passage. Many of those errors could be claimed to be because of human intervention. Then what does that say about the amount of strain we should have when living exactly by its preaching?
I don't see how a difference in lineage affects the entire Biblical message. I also don't see this "strain" that you talk about. I find my faith to be freeing.
Does it make sense that The Holy Word of God given by God so that ordinary men may live by its above-human-logic morality, is infused with silly logical errors so that we may be confused by it? This is not strictly a valid argument in Christianity because God the Potter can choose to make the pot anyway he wishes.
I don't really see "errors" in the Bible as you do. The Bible is not a purely historical and factual document. I would never make such a claim. The writers had agendas. Old Testament stories were passed down by oral tradition for centuries before being recorded. Scribes added and took away portions when transcribing copies. Events were recorded through a religious lens. All of these things affected the accuracy of the Bible. I don't see this as a weakness, however. I believe we have the document God intended. The Bible is a book of faith, not of fact. It is not meant to be a book of fact.
Using common sense to figure out what is literal and figurative in the bible as many evangelists do today, requires arbitrary line drawing. Don't you see how this works? The universe is earth-centric... wait, science disproved that, so that must have been a metaphor. The earth (and universe) are only 6000 years old... wait science disproved that, I guess that must have been a metaphor too. I've got an idea... why not look at this like you would any other source of information: fairly. If the claims made in the bible show themselves to be wrong, then stop making excuses for it and treat it like it is: an unreliable source of information.
To be honest, I am a little disappointed in you going back to the same argument everyone uses. It is quite easy to pick on Genesis. I would say though, that no where in the Bible does it mention how old the Earth is. That was some person who made interpretations. It's not fair to use a Biblical interpretatio
Obviously, Mark Shuttleworth has become a major voice in mainstream Linux. He raises some good points.
He mentions the problem vendors face with the idea of Microsoft cutting some co-marketing funds. I really do not see much risk to Dell from this. After all, they already sell some OS-less (freedos) desktops and laptops (albeit fairly hidden). That to me seems like something for Microsoft to complain about more than selling preinstalled Linux machines. It should be understood that the cost of a pre-installed Linux machine will be more than a Windows machine. The additional software Dell installs on Windows helps them make money.
Shuttleworth also brings up the valid and true point that Linux users are very fussy and picky. Linux users also are very specific with what they want. The problem being that Linux users will want specific hardware and a specific distribution. With Dell already talking about certifying several lines of machines for Linux, I see this problem disappearing completely. If the Inspiron notebook line is certified to work with Linux, then it should be trivial to have Dell install Linux instead of Windows Vista. Dell should decide on a specific distro to support, and preinstall that on the Linux computers. Then, if someone is a more "expert" Linux user, he or she can install whatever distro and version he or she wants. The main issue is that the Linux buyer is not buying Vista.
Crap, I forgot to mention: linux.org is not an officially sanctioned site for linux or linux support. The owner of the site is also not universally accepted as someone who is a supporter of linux.
To get more reliable laptop data, a better site would be tuxmobil.org.
Let's be fair here. Your reply comes across as an attempt to entice flames, especially the last line.
Yes, Wal-mart offered inexpensive pcs and laptops on their website a few years ago. You can still buy laptops and desktops with linux, but, as you said, not from major players. However, with HP selling huge orders of linux machines, and Dell recently making statements to indicate they will be selling linux laptops, your statement that "Linux missed the window" seems a little short-sighted.
No, iTunes store does not work with Linux. I don't see how it is fair to equate a 3rd-party vendor's support as a short-coming of the OS. DVD's can be played on Linux, but yes, the legality is questionable. However, the Click-N-Run warehouse (what linspire/freespire use to sell software) will work with the next version of Ubuntu, which will incorporate a large number of desktop linux users. Again, your "Linux missed the window" comment appears short-sighted.
You are way off-base here and do not have the facts straight.
Wal-mart sold Linspire-based PCs, but ONLY from the internet. There were no linux computers sold in stores. You could buy the machines online from walmart.com. An argument can still be made regarding demand, etc., but it is important to point out that they were not specifically sold in stores.
Without doubt, there are specific areas where linux is behind windows and osx, especially wireless drivers. I just have to believe that over time, this will improve.
Specifically, the Broadcom 43xx drivers DO work when using ndiswrapper. Download the program, download the XP drivers from your vender, extract them, and then use ndiswrapper to initialize them. You can then use one of a number of gui-based tools to configure your card.
But yes, this is a technical process and more difficult than plug-and-play. Just think what it would be like if venders created drivers for linux all the time! It would make things much easier. As it is now, most have to be reverse-engineered. Over time, I think we will get to plug-and-play wireless.
Could you back up your grade-school comment with real-world arguments to the contrary? Or are you just blindly replying without even being familiar with or considering the merits of amarok?
If they publish docs in word format you can read them with open office or the free viewer from microsoft
Yes, you are missing the point. Sure, you can (today) read MS Office formats with Open Office. This is not blessed or authorized by Microsoft, but done through reverse engineering (which is why conversion is not always perfect). The free viewer is available for Windows. What about other operating systems? Or do you only see Windows as being relevant in society?
Another issue that you are short-sighted on, is that Microsoft can change the file format at any time; effectively locking out other vendors from reading or writing their files until the format can be reverse engineered again.
If they want docs in word format you can use open office to produce them, or any number of freeware programs to convert them. If you think that's an unacceptable cost of business, then it would be even more of an impost on windows users to expect them to get an add on program to do the same thing. De facto standards become de facto because most people use them.
I think my previous paragraphs answer this. And, the grand-parent is saying that due to Open Office not having full format compatibility means that you may submit documents for a purpose and due to a formatting issue, come across as unprofessional and be passed over for a competitor that uses MS Office. Standards are standards, but there is a problem when we have a convicted monopoly setting the so-called "standard."
If it's historical perusal you are after, then what's the issue? Can you name one document format that can't be read from a file on a hard drive? Do you REALLY think the world will forget microsoft before your business forms are just garbage? I think you are getting confused between the way you work and the way most people work. You may just have to get used to it. I think it's called "the tyranny of the majority" in some recent texts. Usually by marxist and green groups though.
I know that people hate microsoft, but there's no need for the hyperbole.
Oh, sorry. forgot where I was.
It may be true that this is slashdot, and sometimes opinions can be fairly one-sided, but that does not mean you can dismiss them simply because this is slashdot. Imagine that Microsoft Office and it's format becomes the defacto standard in the world. I think it's apparent to anyone that there is a push to "live" services and paid subscriptions. So, 15 years from now, lets say we pay a 200/yr fee to renew our subscription to MS Office Live. If you stop paying your fee, you lose the ability to read and write office documents.
It may seem reasonable that you would lose write capability, but to lose access to all of your previously written documents is something no business could live with. Therefore, they would continue to pay the fee so they could have access to their documents. It is not inconceivable for this to be reality in a few years. And if that happened, Microsoft would be tying everyone into paying them yearly to continue to read old documents.
I have no particular hatred of MS, but we must continually look into the future, especially with a company that has such a history. It is important that we cast a critical eye at any potential threats to information freedom.
I'm not really sure what you are expecting. What new feature in the kernel could directly affect desktop linux (Outside of adding drivers, more efficient hardware resource usage, etc.)?
I think you are confusing the purpose of the kernel with the software that runs on top of it. Yes, there are improvements that could be made here, but I do not think that there is a huge gap between linux desktop experience and other operating system desktop experience. I've been using linux as my desktop exclusively for 8 years now, and it continues (in my eyes) to outperform and be less intrusive than an OS like XP or Vista.
If what you say is true, then we have a lot further to go before spam will no longer be a viable marketing tool.
I always thought that, yes, spammers can sometimes get around things like spamassassin, but due to the horrible misspellings and wording, no one would trust them enough to buy. Guess I am wrong.
Actually the most uniform behavior seen in prison is that the persons are ones who "flunked out of kindergarten." The reality here is that successful anti-crime programs generally teach people to defer gratification and to do things like saying those 3 magic words, "Please" and "Thank you." I know this sound simple. It really is. The Church of Scientology (I am not a member and don't intend to be one) has a very successful program that teaches this sort of stuff. It empties prisons when tried. The reality is that when people are taught how to actually deal with their desires and how to communicate with others and how to handle situations, most of them actually do so. This is a damning statement against our modern public schools who think that such teaching is not their duty. Frankly it is their only duty.
I am a psychologist in a school system. I agree with almost everything you say. However, there are a couple of points I must disagree with.
First, I would think socio-economic status, parent education level, crime in the home, etc. are much more accurate predictors of criminal activity versus race.
Secondly, yes, there are significant problems in public schools. I am not sure how much time you spend in schools, but I will tell you that the teachers are required to cover certain topics every day. There is very very little room for differentiation in a classroom. For example, I can walk in two science classes, and, in theory, they will be teaching the exact same lesson on the same day. I'm not saying this is bad or good, just saying what education is like today.
I spend my days going to certain schools and counseling with children who have very very sad histories. There are more and more children who need real mental health services in the schools because of prenatal drug use by mothers, poor home life, and parents who themselves came from very poor homes. Teachers do not have the time or resources or training to address these significant problems.
I'm not really sure what the solution is, but to say that a teacher's only priority is to teach "please" and "thank you" is completely off-base.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it serves it's purpose well. GAIM is now known as Pidgin.
Check it out. It does take a little learning to get used to the interface, but it's a very nice product.
I surely do not want to have another trollfest on religion, but what data do you quote to say that 50% of people literally believe the world was created 6000 years ago?
I know you are trying to be funny, and the AC post above is dubious at best. However, let's keep things in reality. Outside of Steve Jobs' letter, what steps have Apple taken to become more open with regards to DRM?
/. are against.
Considering his editorial was posted in a timeframe that reflected pressure from the EU about licensing FairPlay, a bit of cynicism creeps into my view of what he has said. I am not sure of the numbers, but it is known that a portion of the music sold on iTMS is not a part of the RIAA and is sold by others (eMusic, for example) without DRM restrictions. If Steve Jobs is interested in pursuing a non-DRM music world, why does he not put his money where his mouth is and have iTMS sell independent songs without wrapping them with FairPlay?
Some apologists say that Apple must have an agreement in place with the RIAA that prevents them from doing such a thing. Ok, then, Apple, tell us that. If Steve Jobs is calling out the big labels for requiring DRM, really hit the point home and tell us how they will not allow Apple to sell their music without DRM being on all tracks. There is no motivation for Apple not to report that if it is true.
So, I have to agree with the AC above, at least in principle. It is one thing for Steve Jobs to talk about a longing for no DRM while the EU pressures him to open up FairPlay, it is an entirely different thing to show that commitment.
Don't mistake this post as being from someone who does not like Apple or iTunes. I am a customer and I love my iPod. But I don't believe in giving someone who preaches a good message a free ride to continue to do what most of us on
Can you cite this? Although I am no Dvorak fan, it seems hard to believe that he simply did a word substitution for an old article. What is the link for this?
I don't know about you, but with the exception of a few major label artists, I have been getting into local bands and bands under small independent labels a lot lately. A subscription to emusic has aided in this discovery process. There are still some major artists that appeal to me, but outside of those artists, I find my money and my ears are much happier with what I am doing currently.
I will agree with you though, to look upon the complete destruction of this industry with glee is not something I share with some others.
From here: http://news.com.com/Adobe+ponies+up+for+Apollo/210 0-1012_3-6129403.html
"During a press and anlalyst briefing Wednesday, Adobe's senior vice president and chief software architect Kevin Lynch said Adobe will build its future products using Apollo."
The current alpha release is for windows and mac osx only. A linux runtime environment and SDK is supposed to be released for Linux at some point as well.
It is not exactly a "wrapper" for existing technologies. What the Apollo software will allow is people accustomed to writing rich web-based applications, using various technologies such as AJAX, flash, and plain ole HTML to port those applications to the desktop. No need for internet connectivity, no need to have a web server or internet browser. All the user will need is the runtime environment. I believe this will open up the applications that are available for users across windows, linux, and osx.
Actually, I was raised orthodox christian. Despite what you may think, I know religion and faith very well.
I apologize for my previous statement. Re-reading it, it comes across as critical, and I did not mean it to be that way.
You are applying logic, too. You say "applying logic can not be done where logic is inappropriate". But that is application of logic! How can you apply logic, as well?
I only mean to say that a logical view of faith will not aid in understanding. I see religious faith as something "other-worldly" if you will, and that there are things that cannot be reasoned with logic. I don't mean to try to dodge your application of reason, I just honestly do not believe it applies.
How do you know that no rules can be placed? "no rules" is a rule itself. You are contradicting yourself.
Fair enough. Let me rephrase myself: we, as human beings, cannot place God into our own self-created rules.
It's simple...put the two and two together: the Bible says God knows everything. Therefore God knows the future (another proof of this is prophecy). Therefore, God knew that Eve would ate the fruit. And that is because God created everything.
Again, good point. However, the problem was not the fruit itself. The fruit was from the tree of knowledge. It was the ACT of eating the fruit which was sin. Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat the fruit, which was disobeying God's command to not eat of it. Therefore, she disobeyed God. Now, where the serpent comes from, you would have to look at Paradise Lost or something else to get the common understanding of the serpent being the devil, whom is a fallen angel. But, really, I don't like putting myself in the position of defending a story that I do not believe to be literal truth.
How do you know how complex God is so as that you can say God does not know what you will decide or not? it is not logical.
I did not say that God does not know what I will decide. I said that I have an option, a choice. But God knows ME so well, inside and out, that he knows what decision I will make. I can say to myself, "Ok, God will expect me to do x, so I will do y." But God knows me well enough to know that I would think that and then knows which choice I will make.
I will admit, however, that this is sketchy stuff for me. I'm arguing this point, but I don't have a real understanding or have real comfort with this idea. It is not an easy concept, and I am presenting an argument, but don't take that as my belief that I have a full understanding or have complete belief in that at all times.
But love is a need, and a perfect being would not have needs. Therefore either God is not perfect and the Bible is wrong, or God is perfect and does not feel love.
There are multiple times in the Bible where God becomes jealous, angry, wants our praise, etc. I cannot argue against you without resorting to saying that you are applying human understanding to a non-human entity. Sorry for lack of a more reasoned argument.
I am doing exactly what you religious type do.
Come on now, I am trying to be as fair and open as I can. I think you make a mistake in grouping all religious people together. Not that I am some great example, but I don't see myself as a blind sheep either. I appreciate your arguments and I am always open to discussion.
All I am saying is that life is too short, when compared to the afterlife, to be a criterion for afterlife.
You raise an interesting point that I have never given real thought to. I agree with you, logically, it does not make sense for such a small period of time to stand for where we are for eternity. I don't see how this strengthens your argument though. Sure, it could be an indication of a man-created, non
I mentioned in a different reply about the book of Job. A literal view of Job does not make any sense. I agree with you. I have a problem with the idea of a god who is vengeful and wages a bet with satan about one of God's followers. Now, I know you will challenge me on "well, if you can pick and choose what to believe, what's the point in believing in any of it."
The significance of Job is that it came about at a time when the Jewish people had an understanding of God where he would always protect and care for those who were faithful, but turn away from those who were not. So, if something bad happened to you or your family, it would be interpreted as you having done something to wrong God. Obviously, we do not consider God to be like that today, Christian or Jew.
The book of Job illustrates the idea that you can be a faithful follower of God, and still have bad things happen. This was a real challenge to the belief system of the time. If you take the book literally (whether you are a believer in God or not), you miss it's significance.
You also bring up an important point about how God appears different in the Old Testament verses the New Testament. I attribute this to people having a different understanding of God and how he works in the Old Testament. The New Testament is so different because Jesus came and told people where they were wrong. He preached about the important things to faith, challenged the currupt religious people of the time, and brought a message of love to the people. I believe that is why you see a different view of God in the New Testament.
This discussion is really past it's time, but I did want to reply at any rate. Hope you will see it.
You are applying logic where logic is inappropriate. You apply humanly understood rules to God, where no rules can be placed. Can I speak to the creation story and explain it away? No. But I also believe it is more a "story" than fact. That's a lame answer, but I must still say that you are applying rules that cannot be used with this story.
God created everything, and therefore created evil.
Not true. I don't know where you get this from. Evil is clearly defined as sin. According to the creation story, once Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, sin was introduced into the world. It is sin that separates us from God, not God who creates sin/evil.
God knows the future, and therefore there is no free will.
I would argue that God is complex enough to be all-knowing, but that does not mean that I don't have the ability to make decisions on my own. I am choosing to type this response, but that does not mean that God does not know me and the situation I am in right now well enough to know that I would be doing what I am doing. This is a difficult and hard to understand argument, and I will concede that I am troubled by issues relating to this from time to time.
God is a perfect being, and perfect beings do not have needs. Therefore God would not have created anything: he/she/it would not have the urge to create anything.
Again, you are applying some arbitrary rules to who God is or what God is like.
What is the purpose of heaven from God's perspective? there is no purpose actually, for God: it only serves to relieve us humans from the idea of death.
God loves his people dearly and wants them to be with Him in heaven.
Afterlife is eternal, according to scriptures. So living a life of, say, 90 years, is too small a criterion for choosing eternal heaven or eternal hell.
I honestly do not know what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase this? I don't understand what the argument is about living a life and then facing afterlife.
Noah could not have taken a pair of every species on Earth on board his ship, because otherwise the ship would have to be enormous. He would also need enormous resources to feed them.
Agreed. The story of Noah's ark is a great story that was passed down generation by generation. I know you will challenge me on picking and choosing certain parts of the Bible to be fact and some to be inspired stories. I believe most of the Old Testament to be inspired stories. Many with truth in them, but also the influence of time and religious influence. This does not mean I find the Bible to be of no use.
If God existed, why he would divide His people into totally opposing religions that are in conflict for most of the time? the existence of many religions prove God does not exist.
I would argue that sin and imperfections in mankind has caused divisions. Also, with a historical view (other than just Biblical), we know that Jewish faith b
Oh come on, don't be silly. While some may argue over what parts of the Bible can be literal verses figurative, the Psalms are not debatable. They were written specifically for worship and honest expression of the psalmists feelings about God. There is no factual basis in them, and you are really grasping at straws to apply a reasoned view to that book of the Bible.
What about Job do you consider a problem for religious people? I'm not sure I follow your argument?
Luke's list, Matthew's list
On the surface, yes, it does appear that there are inaccuracies. I am a Christian, but I also read and try to learn the historical background of the Bible. It is widely theorized that there was a source document, called "Q", that told the stories of Jesus. This document is lost to us today. Mark is said to be the oldest of the four gospels. It is believed that the writers of Matthew and Luke had the Q document and Mark to use as source material for writing their gospels.
Then why did the writers write two more gospels? It is obvious that they must have felt another version would be necessary to get across a specific message. Matthew's genealogy section and the gospel itself is written for Jewish people of the time to recognize that Jesus has come to fulfill the prophesy of the coming Messiah. There are many direct old testament quotes in Matthew. Luke was written more for Christian people to see the life of Jesus. The writer was less concerned with establishing the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy. I would suggest reading some of Bert Ehrman's work on Biblical history.
Let us assume that Matthew's list got shorter because of loss in translation, and other errors. If that is true, let not the evangelists admit that Bible is true (i.e. inerrant) in the literal sense. Hence it has to interpreted, in which case, they should not hold it as evidence against scientific evidence.
You and I agree here. I don't believe in using blind faith to discount scientific evidence. I would also agree that to read the Bible without thoughtful, reasoned interpretation would be a loss.
The most holy book, has 15 errors in such a short passage. Many of those errors could be claimed to be because of human intervention. Then what does that say about the amount of strain we should have when living exactly by its preaching?
I don't see how a difference in lineage affects the entire Biblical message. I also don't see this "strain" that you talk about. I find my faith to be freeing.
Does it make sense that The Holy Word of God given by God so that ordinary men may live by its above-human-logic morality, is infused with silly logical errors so that we may be confused by it? This is not strictly a valid argument in Christianity because God the Potter can choose to make the pot anyway he wishes.
I don't really see "errors" in the Bible as you do. The Bible is not a purely historical and factual document. I would never make such a claim. The writers had agendas. Old Testament stories were passed down by oral tradition for centuries before being recorded. Scribes added and took away portions when transcribing copies. Events were recorded through a religious lens. All of these things affected the accuracy of the Bible. I don't see this as a weakness, however. I believe we have the document God intended. The Bible is a book of faith, not of fact. It is not meant to be a book of fact.
Using common sense to figure out what is literal and figurative in the bible as many evangelists do today, requires arbitrary line drawing. Don't you see how this works? The universe is earth-centric... wait, science disproved that, so that must have been a metaphor. The earth (and universe) are only 6000 years old... wait science disproved that, I guess that must have been a metaphor too. I've got an idea... why not look at this like you would any other source of information: fairly. If the claims made in the bible show themselves to be wrong, then stop making excuses for it and treat it like it is: an unreliable source of information.
To be honest, I am a little disappointed in you going back to the same argument everyone uses. It is quite easy to pick on Genesis. I would say though, that no where in the Bible does it mention how old the Earth is. That was some person who made interpretations. It's not fair to use a Biblical interpretatio
Obviously, Mark Shuttleworth has become a major voice in mainstream Linux. He raises some good points.
He mentions the problem vendors face with the idea of Microsoft cutting some co-marketing funds. I really do not see much risk to Dell from this. After all, they already sell some OS-less (freedos) desktops and laptops (albeit fairly hidden). That to me seems like something for Microsoft to complain about more than selling preinstalled Linux machines. It should be understood that the cost of a pre-installed Linux machine will be more than a Windows machine. The additional software Dell installs on Windows helps them make money.
Shuttleworth also brings up the valid and true point that Linux users are very fussy and picky. Linux users also are very specific with what they want. The problem being that Linux users will want specific hardware and a specific distribution. With Dell already talking about certifying several lines of machines for Linux, I see this problem disappearing completely. If the Inspiron notebook line is certified to work with Linux, then it should be trivial to have Dell install Linux instead of Windows Vista. Dell should decide on a specific distro to support, and preinstall that on the Linux computers. Then, if someone is a more "expert" Linux user, he or she can install whatever distro and version he or she wants. The main issue is that the Linux buyer is not buying Vista.
Crap, I forgot to mention: linux.org is not an officially sanctioned site for linux or linux support. The owner of the site is also not universally accepted as someone who is a supporter of linux.
To get more reliable laptop data, a better site would be tuxmobil.org.
Let's be fair here. Your reply comes across as an attempt to entice flames, especially the last line. Yes, Wal-mart offered inexpensive pcs and laptops on their website a few years ago. You can still buy laptops and desktops with linux, but, as you said, not from major players. However, with HP selling huge orders of linux machines, and Dell recently making statements to indicate they will be selling linux laptops, your statement that "Linux missed the window" seems a little short-sighted. No, iTunes store does not work with Linux. I don't see how it is fair to equate a 3rd-party vendor's support as a short-coming of the OS. DVD's can be played on Linux, but yes, the legality is questionable. However, the Click-N-Run warehouse (what linspire/freespire use to sell software) will work with the next version of Ubuntu, which will incorporate a large number of desktop linux users. Again, your "Linux missed the window" comment appears short-sighted.
As a practicing psychologist, let me just say that, in my opinion, you are an idiot.
You are way off-base here and do not have the facts straight. Wal-mart sold Linspire-based PCs, but ONLY from the internet. There were no linux computers sold in stores. You could buy the machines online from walmart.com. An argument can still be made regarding demand, etc., but it is important to point out that they were not specifically sold in stores.
Without doubt, there are specific areas where linux is behind windows and osx, especially wireless drivers. I just have to believe that over time, this will improve.
Specifically, the Broadcom 43xx drivers DO work when using ndiswrapper. Download the program, download the XP drivers from your vender, extract them, and then use ndiswrapper to initialize them. You can then use one of a number of gui-based tools to configure your card.
But yes, this is a technical process and more difficult than plug-and-play. Just think what it would be like if venders created drivers for linux all the time! It would make things much easier. As it is now, most have to be reverse-engineered. Over time, I think we will get to plug-and-play wireless.
Could you back up your grade-school comment with real-world arguments to the contrary? Or are you just blindly replying without even being familiar with or considering the merits of amarok?
If they publish docs in word format you can read them with open office or the free viewer from microsoft
Yes, you are missing the point. Sure, you can (today) read MS Office formats with Open Office. This is not blessed or authorized by Microsoft, but done through reverse engineering (which is why conversion is not always perfect). The free viewer is available for Windows. What about other operating systems? Or do you only see Windows as being relevant in society?
Another issue that you are short-sighted on, is that Microsoft can change the file format at any time; effectively locking out other vendors from reading or writing their files until the format can be reverse engineered again.
If they want docs in word format you can use open office to produce them, or any number of freeware programs to convert them. If you think that's an unacceptable cost of business, then it would be even more of an impost on windows users to expect them to get an add on program to do the same thing. De facto standards become de facto because most people use them.
I think my previous paragraphs answer this. And, the grand-parent is saying that due to Open Office not having full format compatibility means that you may submit documents for a purpose and due to a formatting issue, come across as unprofessional and be passed over for a competitor that uses MS Office. Standards are standards, but there is a problem when we have a convicted monopoly setting the so-called "standard."
If it's historical perusal you are after, then what's the issue? Can you name one document format that can't be read from a file on a hard drive? Do you REALLY think the world will forget microsoft before your business forms are just garbage? I think you are getting confused between the way you work and the way most people work. You may just have to get used to it. I think it's called "the tyranny of the majority" in some recent texts. Usually by marxist and green groups though.
I know that people hate microsoft, but there's no need for the hyperbole.
Oh, sorry. forgot where I was.
It may be true that this is slashdot, and sometimes opinions can be fairly one-sided, but that does not mean you can dismiss them simply because this is slashdot. Imagine that Microsoft Office and it's format becomes the defacto standard in the world. I think it's apparent to anyone that there is a push to "live" services and paid subscriptions. So, 15 years from now, lets say we pay a 200/yr fee to renew our subscription to MS Office Live. If you stop paying your fee, you lose the ability to read and write office documents.
It may seem reasonable that you would lose write capability, but to lose access to all of your previously written documents is something no business could live with. Therefore, they would continue to pay the fee so they could have access to their documents. It is not inconceivable for this to be reality in a few years. And if that happened, Microsoft would be tying everyone into paying them yearly to continue to read old documents.
I have no particular hatred of MS, but we must continually look into the future, especially with a company that has such a history. It is important that we cast a critical eye at any potential threats to information freedom.
I think you are confusing the purpose of the kernel with the software that runs on top of it. Yes, there are improvements that could be made here, but I do not think that there is a huge gap between linux desktop experience and other operating system desktop experience. I've been using linux as my desktop exclusively for 8 years now, and it continues (in my eyes) to outperform and be less intrusive than an OS like XP or Vista.
I always thought that, yes, spammers can sometimes get around things like spamassassin, but due to the horrible misspellings and wording, no one would trust them enough to buy. Guess I am wrong.
I am a psychologist in a school system. I agree with almost everything you say. However, there are a couple of points I must disagree with.
First, I would think socio-economic status, parent education level, crime in the home, etc. are much more accurate predictors of criminal activity versus race.
Secondly, yes, there are significant problems in public schools. I am not sure how much time you spend in schools, but I will tell you that the teachers are required to cover certain topics every day. There is very very little room for differentiation in a classroom. For example, I can walk in two science classes, and, in theory, they will be teaching the exact same lesson on the same day. I'm not saying this is bad or good, just saying what education is like today.
I spend my days going to certain schools and counseling with children who have very very sad histories. There are more and more children who need real mental health services in the schools because of prenatal drug use by mothers, poor home life, and parents who themselves came from very poor homes. Teachers do not have the time or resources or training to address these significant problems.
I'm not really sure what the solution is, but to say that a teacher's only priority is to teach "please" and "thank you" is completely off-base.