About Linux on laptops: I've recently installed Linux (openSUSE) on a bunch of them, and there is no single piece of hardware that doesn't work, apart from suspending to RAM on our HP nx9030s (we also have some other brands and types, and they work flawlessly). Linux has the reputation, yes, but I think that reputation is outdated. In particular, 3D acceleration on these HPs (Intel video) is infinitely better than anything close on Windows.
(I've also had FreeBSD on some of those machines. Worked OK too, but no wireless networking joy nor 3D goodness)
So, because the browsers permit sites to do evil through a scripting language, we web-devvers should hereby stop to use said great tool and rely on pure HTML and CSS instead?
That is simply hilarious when you think about it. And really, don't say to me that there is no value-added way to use JavaScript on webpages. There are many, but they are not often used, because we have to keep in mind that a lot of paranoid sheep disable JavaScript completely.
(That and the fact that JavaScript *can* be nasty, but that shouldn't be the users problem or the webdevelopers problem.)
ONLY temperature, in an analog way. A drop in pressure would cause a drop in temperature, thus telling if something weird (like micrometeoroids) is going on.
The beauty of Sputnik was its simplicity. And the fact that it was in orbit.
Here (the Netherlands) you can choose between several companies when it comes to power and gas. They all use the same grid, but basically they have to put the same amount of energy on the grid as their customers use. In the same manner, there is a general distinction between "green" and "grey" energy.
I have decided to go with green electricity, which basically means that the company where I buy my energy has vowed to me that they will produce / buy as much green energy as I use. So yes, the power is the same, from the same grid, but I pay the company I chose and I pay extra for "green" energy.
Companies who buy their power from the maintainer of the grid exists, but the main companies produce their own energy and deliver that to the grid.
Only to a certain level. When there is evidence that the directors have willingly damaged the company, they are liable. I believe the same is true in the US. But a corporation in general is regarded as a "rightsperson" and are basically regarded as a entity in his own right by law.
Note: this is not true for all types of corporations. Basically, the distinction between limited companies and unlimited ones is pretty universal in the western world.
Plus, with vanilla builds on Linux, Java (when JMF is installed) enables embedded video. For most big distros, this is replaced / complemented with a gstreamer frontend.
Not me. I would like to punish them for being naive and oblivious about the fact that a PC attached to a network is a complex responsibility. In other words: I would like to punish them for operating a computer while not being a geek without the right precautions.
I really should dig into my Bible to respond properly, but here goes:
About Numbers: first, I find the word "should" a keyword there. Secondly, in my opinion, God never did lie or repent throughout the biblical history. Christ took upon Him the punishment meant for mankind. From that day onward, the rules have changed. That means that there was no longer a need for punishment. I did not mean "the need for a punishing god was abolished" as a shift in how we see or describe God. I meant it as a (planned, by the way) change of course by God.
Now, about evil being created. As I gather from the notes about the verses you mentioned, "evil" as in Isaiah and Amos is being interpreted as punishment (language differences are cited, as well as change of meaning in our time. I know that "hatred" used to be a lot softer in the days most translations were done). Genesis 19: 19 is given as reference. As for Lamentations: "evil and good" is also translated as "misfortune and fortune" (this is the best translation I could manage from Dutch to English; an alternative would be: "trouble and blessings").
Those of who you think are in denial might appear in my eyes as folks who were in doubt, but were reassured in their faith. Personally, I'm doubting a lot lately, even this (little) debate is more a strain for me than it would've been a year ago. I don't know where I end up, it's likely that I'll accept that doubt is part of the process of believing. But the thought of loosing my religion (thanks REM) is not scaring me a bit. The thought of being wrong is much more scaring. I rather find out the truth than hold on to something which isn't. So no, fear is not an issue for me. Maybe, just maybe, my views are so different from yours that I see absolutely no need to put the blame at the doorstep of the creator of all.
(One last note: if I say that He is the creator of all, the natural response would be: evil is part of all. That might be true, but that doesn't mean that the creation of evil was intended or initiated by God himself. Made possible, maybe (see my points on free will).
1) The mention of quantum physics and string theory was purely humoristic. The fact that the Bible was written millenia ago is, however, totally void, since I believe in God today. Quantum physics removes the need for a creator indeed, but it does not remove the possibility.
2) I was talking about an infinite amount of chances in this earthly life. On death, this life ends (be there another one or not, unless you believe in reincarnation, which is, by the way, more or less forbidden by the Chinese government). From birth to death, the Bible gives us an infinite amount of chances. It stresses, however, that we do not know when death will arrive. As such, it's better to act now, because you may not get another opportunity.
3) I have no dilemma. Keeping with my analogy, I think no government is more immoral than whichever government. Besides that, it is rubbish to talk about how evil God is when we have to measure it against the option of no God at all. Obviously, any being is as evil or more evil when existing than when it does not exists. As for your last point at 3: see my former point 5.
4) Here should come a major theological debate about the difference between the Old Testament versus the New Testament. See Matthew 5: 38-39 and Acts 10: 9-16 for a notion about the regarding the (often savage) laws. Basically, with the death and resurrection of Christ, the need for a punishing God is abolished (the "flaw" you mentioned is a case of "an eye for an eye"). As for what Jesus has done for me lately: with his death 2000 years ago, He gave me certainty and peace of mind right now.
5) I see God not as all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing but rather as the One with the most wisdom, the most power and the most knowledge. That means there is no other being with more wisdom, power and knowledge. That could indeed mean that God is all-wise and all-knowing, but certainly not that He is all-powerful. He still can't create a stone He himself can't lift. That being said, He promised us this world until judgment day. Upon intervening, He would break his own law, therefore rendering His law (and in my believe: morality as a whole, since that is His law) null and void. Besides that: I think you're using the anthropomorphic principle wrong. In my version of the truth (;-) ), the anthropomorphic principle is one of the proves of Gods existence (the universe is there, because if it weren't, we would not be here to observe it).
6) I purposefully debate on this issue from my set of beliefs. That means that I automatically assume that God exists, and that Jesus died for our sins. I also assume that morality is Gods law, and that without Him, there would be no question of Good and Evil.
First: you seem to equal "eternity" to "forever". That might be correct in popular speech, but strictly (and in most theological cases) it means: without time. That is a hard thing to grasp, so I dare you to define the experience of eternity for me (does it have spacetime, does it have memories, etc). Queue quantum physics and string theories;-)
Secondly: I do not favor the death-penalty, so let's analyze a maximum punishment of 25 years. That can mean that someone looses his life (figuratively), but besides that: we are still talking about this earthly life. In this earthly life, the Bible teaches us that we have an infinite amount of chances. Please add this to my first point. God is in that respect probably more righteous than most western governments.
Third point coming up: I reckon a God that does not provide me with free will more immoral than a God that does not put an end to evil. Just about the same thing as freedom and privacy vs. Orwell's 1984. Queue anti-terrorism debate here.
4th: When I read the Bible, I get the feeling that mercy is available to everyone, no matter who, as long as he / she abides to a certain set of rules. Those rules aren't that hard, so no biggie there. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Take note, that while the AKJV talks about "everlasting", the word we use in the Dutch translations is "eternal". There, point one is saved (pheew).
Last and fifth point: If I were God, I would mourn this earth and what mankind has done to it. But I wouldn't (yet) intervene, simply because I gave this earth to mankind as a gift. If I give a child a beautiful gift, and I see that the child is destroying it, I will not take the gift away. I know that the earth is more that "just a gift", but then consider this: if God lives outside our known spacetime, and we will live there too, then the time that this earth exists is in consideration so small that the question "when do I intervene" might be still pondered over.
One remark: if faith is not about predestination but about choice, it might be logical that this is the case because the supreme being chose to give us free will. That also means that it is my responsibility to do with that as I choose, as long as I accept the consequences (which are written out for me). So: no, that is not unjust, but it also doesn't mean that the supreme being in question is not all-powerfull. It just means that he wants us to make our own choices instead of forcing it on us.
I regularly come across hardware which provides Linux drivers alongside Windows drivers. Most NICs I've seen do so, as well as some other hardware.
Besides that, I've found that wireless networking is a lot easier to set up with openSUSE compared to Vista, and don't get me started about XP. Add to that the fact that some old NICs are not, and never will be, supported on Vista while they are on Linux.
All those statements about hardware support being less than Windows were true for me when I was running FreeBSD. On Linux, I have yet to come across a piece of kit that doesn't work.
Ha! Now the pot calls the kettle black, while the kettle is calling the pot the same. Both are shouting at eachother that the pot is calling the kettle something, or vice versa. At least both aknowledge that both where or are wrong somewhere with something, but in a while I guess everyone is forgotten what exactly was the case. Except for the fact that the opposing party was far more wrong to begin with, because their own side was less black. Grey even, maybe anthracitish. They will accuse eachother of this, and so the cycle starts over again. Rinse and repeat until... Until what exactly?
Man, where is my popcorn. This must be the funniest flamefest I saw about BSD vs GPL yet.
The Big business for SaaS right now (as in: where the bucks are) is in the enterprise. Think ERP, CRM, light productivity (word processing, spreadsheets) and groupware. That can all be done in a browser (even cross-browser / cross-platform).
That saves the average SMB around $1000,= per Desktop per upgrade cycle.
Compare that to, say, $50,= perhaps per month per seat (plus the fact that an average SMB probably need less seats than desktops) and the step becomes easy.
That is without calculating the maintainance costs for those desktops (software wise: antivirus, spyware, service packs, BSODs, the lot).
A talk from the front line here:
My boss is moderately interested in Linux, mostly because it can save him money by going the OSS road. Basically, we've laid out plans to replace all our software with OSS ones and build those we can't replace ourselves.
He recently installed openSUSE on his brand new laptop, dual booting with Vista. He found it moderately easy and entertaining, but I'm pretty sure he would've bought an OEM Linux laptop when he had a decent chance.
As long as managers take decisions like that, more and more companies will go that road. As that happens, more and more employees will be working with Linux a few hours a day. When they are in need for a new PC, they will seriously consider Linux loaded PC's when it saves them money.
As a side note: we sysadmins who love to turn our workplace into a Linux fortress should be prepared to answer and help our coworkers in the future. They will hunt us down with questions regarding installation of software, configuration of hardware and whatnot. The most profound issue I have met with my boss is the nature of the packaging systems. As a Windows user, he was used to find his software on the net, download it and follow the install routine. On most decent Linux distros, that is either the hard way or the wrong way to go.
You seem to be implying that any person here who does not like Eltons music (or recognizes his influence in the same way as you do) is too young to understand him and is probably listening to Britney, Christina and Shakira all day long.
Now that is a bold claim to make. In Eltons haydays, not every single person appreciated his work. And I have a hard time thinking about musical currents that were directly influenced by him. True, he is a true writer, and his pitch is near perfect. But that doesn't mean he is the only one, even now.
Personaly, I don't like his work. But it is way better than the Britney-like lipsync crowd. But there is better music out there, and some of it is even fairly new and quite popular (at least here in Europe. Can't say about the other side of the pool...)
Do not, ever, generalize geeks on a non-geeky field:-)
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the thing with the past, isn't it? You learn from it.
About Linux on laptops: I've recently installed Linux (openSUSE) on a bunch of them, and there is no single piece of hardware that doesn't work, apart from suspending to RAM on our HP nx9030s (we also have some other brands and types, and they work flawlessly). Linux has the reputation, yes, but I think that reputation is outdated. In particular, 3D acceleration on these HPs (Intel video) is infinitely better than anything close on Windows.
(I've also had FreeBSD on some of those machines. Worked OK too, but no wireless networking joy nor 3D goodness)
The Cold War is over.
So, because the browsers permit sites to do evil through a scripting language, we web-devvers should hereby stop to use said great tool and rely on pure HTML and CSS instead?
That is simply hilarious when you think about it. And really, don't say to me that there is no value-added way to use JavaScript on webpages. There are many, but they are not often used, because we have to keep in mind that a lot of paranoid sheep disable JavaScript completely.
(That and the fact that JavaScript *can* be nasty, but that shouldn't be the users problem or the webdevelopers problem.)
God wrote in LISP code.
ONLY temperature, in an analog way. A drop in pressure would cause a drop in temperature, thus telling if something weird (like micrometeoroids) is going on.
The beauty of Sputnik was its simplicity. And the fact that it was in orbit.
You seem to have just lost another one...
Here (the Netherlands) you can choose between several companies when it comes to power and gas. They all use the same grid, but basically they have to put the same amount of energy on the grid as their customers use. In the same manner, there is a general distinction between "green" and "grey" energy.
I have decided to go with green electricity, which basically means that the company where I buy my energy has vowed to me that they will produce / buy as much green energy as I use. So yes, the power is the same, from the same grid, but I pay the company I chose and I pay extra for "green" energy.
Companies who buy their power from the maintainer of the grid exists, but the main companies produce their own energy and deliver that to the grid.
Only to a certain level. When there is evidence that the directors have willingly damaged the company, they are liable. I believe the same is true in the US. But a corporation in general is regarded as a "rightsperson" and are basically regarded as a entity in his own right by law.
Note: this is not true for all types of corporations. Basically, the distinction between limited companies and unlimited ones is pretty universal in the western world.
Plus, with vanilla builds on Linux, Java (when JMF is installed) enables embedded video. For most big distros, this is replaced / complemented with a gstreamer frontend.
Plus probably a broker or two...
Not me. I would like to punish them for being naive and oblivious about the fact that a PC attached to a network is a complex responsibility. In other words: I would like to punish them for operating a computer while not being a geek without the right precautions.
I think I'll leave the debate with this.
Thanks, it's been fun!
I really should dig into my Bible to respond properly, but here goes:
About Numbers: first, I find the word "should" a keyword there. Secondly, in my opinion, God never did lie or repent throughout the biblical history. Christ took upon Him the punishment meant for mankind. From that day onward, the rules have changed. That means that there was no longer a need for punishment. I did not mean "the need for a punishing god was abolished" as a shift in how we see or describe God. I meant it as a (planned, by the way) change of course by God.
Now, about evil being created. As I gather from the notes about the verses you mentioned, "evil" as in Isaiah and Amos is being interpreted as punishment (language differences are cited, as well as change of meaning in our time. I know that "hatred" used to be a lot softer in the days most translations were done). Genesis 19: 19 is given as reference. As for Lamentations: "evil and good" is also translated as "misfortune and fortune" (this is the best translation I could manage from Dutch to English; an alternative would be: "trouble and blessings").
Those of who you think are in denial might appear in my eyes as folks who were in doubt, but were reassured in their faith. Personally, I'm doubting a lot lately, even this (little) debate is more a strain for me than it would've been a year ago. I don't know where I end up, it's likely that I'll accept that doubt is part of the process of believing. But the thought of loosing my religion (thanks REM) is not scaring me a bit. The thought of being wrong is much more scaring. I rather find out the truth than hold on to something which isn't. So no, fear is not an issue for me. Maybe, just maybe, my views are so different from yours that I see absolutely no need to put the blame at the doorstep of the creator of all.
(One last note: if I say that He is the creator of all, the natural response would be: evil is part of all. That might be true, but that doesn't mean that the creation of evil was intended or initiated by God himself. Made possible, maybe (see my points on free will).
1) The mention of quantum physics and string theory was purely humoristic. The fact that the Bible was written millenia ago is, however, totally void, since I believe in God today. Quantum physics removes the need for a creator indeed, but it does not remove the possibility.
;-) ), the anthropomorphic principle is one of the proves of Gods existence (the universe is there, because if it weren't, we would not be here to observe it).
2) I was talking about an infinite amount of chances in this earthly life. On death, this life ends (be there another one or not, unless you believe in reincarnation, which is, by the way, more or less forbidden by the Chinese government). From birth to death, the Bible gives us an infinite amount of chances. It stresses, however, that we do not know when death will arrive. As such, it's better to act now, because you may not get another opportunity.
3) I have no dilemma. Keeping with my analogy, I think no government is more immoral than whichever government. Besides that, it is rubbish to talk about how evil God is when we have to measure it against the option of no God at all. Obviously, any being is as evil or more evil when existing than when it does not exists. As for your last point at 3: see my former point 5.
4) Here should come a major theological debate about the difference between the Old Testament versus the New Testament. See Matthew 5: 38-39 and Acts 10: 9-16 for a notion about the regarding the (often savage) laws. Basically, with the death and resurrection of Christ, the need for a punishing God is abolished (the "flaw" you mentioned is a case of "an eye for an eye"). As for what Jesus has done for me lately: with his death 2000 years ago, He gave me certainty and peace of mind right now.
5) I see God not as all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing but rather as the One with the most wisdom, the most power and the most knowledge. That means there is no other being with more wisdom, power and knowledge. That could indeed mean that God is all-wise and all-knowing, but certainly not that He is all-powerful. He still can't create a stone He himself can't lift. That being said, He promised us this world until judgment day. Upon intervening, He would break his own law, therefore rendering His law (and in my believe: morality as a whole, since that is His law) null and void. Besides that: I think you're using the anthropomorphic principle wrong. In my version of the truth (
6) I purposefully debate on this issue from my set of beliefs. That means that I automatically assume that God exists, and that Jesus died for our sins. I also assume that morality is Gods law, and that without Him, there would be no question of Good and Evil.
Hehe... OK, here goes...
;-)
First: you seem to equal "eternity" to "forever". That might be correct in popular speech, but strictly (and in most theological cases) it means: without time. That is a hard thing to grasp, so I dare you to define the experience of eternity for me (does it have spacetime, does it have memories, etc). Queue quantum physics and string theories
Secondly: I do not favor the death-penalty, so let's analyze a maximum punishment of 25 years. That can mean that someone looses his life (figuratively), but besides that: we are still talking about this earthly life. In this earthly life, the Bible teaches us that we have an infinite amount of chances. Please add this to my first point. God is in that respect probably more righteous than most western governments.
Third point coming up: I reckon a God that does not provide me with free will more immoral than a God that does not put an end to evil. Just about the same thing as freedom and privacy vs. Orwell's 1984. Queue anti-terrorism debate here.
4th: When I read the Bible, I get the feeling that mercy is available to everyone, no matter who, as long as he / she abides to a certain set of rules. Those rules aren't that hard, so no biggie there. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Take note, that while the AKJV talks about "everlasting", the word we use in the Dutch translations is "eternal". There, point one is saved (pheew).
Last and fifth point: If I were God, I would mourn this earth and what mankind has done to it. But I wouldn't (yet) intervene, simply because I gave this earth to mankind as a gift. If I give a child a beautiful gift, and I see that the child is destroying it, I will not take the gift away. I know that the earth is more that "just a gift", but then consider this: if God lives outside our known spacetime, and we will live there too, then the time that this earth exists is in consideration so small that the question "when do I intervene" might be still pondered over.
Protestant Christian here, enjoying the debate.
One remark: if faith is not about predestination but about choice, it might be logical that this is the case because the supreme being chose to give us free will. That also means that it is my responsibility to do with that as I choose, as long as I accept the consequences (which are written out for me). So: no, that is not unjust, but it also doesn't mean that the supreme being in question is not all-powerfull. It just means that he wants us to make our own choices instead of forcing it on us.
Please continue.
Less and less so.
I regularly come across hardware which provides Linux drivers alongside Windows drivers. Most NICs I've seen do so, as well as some other hardware.
Besides that, I've found that wireless networking is a lot easier to set up with openSUSE compared to Vista, and don't get me started about XP. Add to that the fact that some old NICs are not, and never will be, supported on Vista while they are on Linux.
All those statements about hardware support being less than Windows were true for me when I was running FreeBSD. On Linux, I have yet to come across a piece of kit that doesn't work.
Ha! Now the pot calls the kettle black, while the kettle is calling the pot the same. Both are shouting at eachother that the pot is calling the kettle something, or vice versa. At least both aknowledge that both where or are wrong somewhere with something, but in a while I guess everyone is forgotten what exactly was the case. Except for the fact that the opposing party was far more wrong to begin with, because their own side was less black. Grey even, maybe anthracitish. They will accuse eachother of this, and so the cycle starts over again. Rinse and repeat until... Until what exactly?
Man, where is my popcorn. This must be the funniest flamefest I saw about BSD vs GPL yet.
The Big business for SaaS right now (as in: where the bucks are) is in the enterprise. Think ERP, CRM, light productivity (word processing, spreadsheets) and groupware. That can all be done in a browser (even cross-browser / cross-platform).
That saves the average SMB around $1000,= per Desktop per upgrade cycle.
Compare that to, say, $50,= perhaps per month per seat (plus the fact that an average SMB probably need less seats than desktops) and the step becomes easy.
That is without calculating the maintainance costs for those desktops (software wise: antivirus, spyware, service packs, BSODs, the lot).
A talk from the front line here:
My boss is moderately interested in Linux, mostly because it can save him money by going the OSS road. Basically, we've laid out plans to replace all our software with OSS ones and build those we can't replace ourselves.
He recently installed openSUSE on his brand new laptop, dual booting with Vista. He found it moderately easy and entertaining, but I'm pretty sure he would've bought an OEM Linux laptop when he had a decent chance.
As long as managers take decisions like that, more and more companies will go that road. As that happens, more and more employees will be working with Linux a few hours a day. When they are in need for a new PC, they will seriously consider Linux loaded PC's when it saves them money.
As a side note: we sysadmins who love to turn our workplace into a Linux fortress should be prepared to answer and help our coworkers in the future. They will hunt us down with questions regarding installation of software, configuration of hardware and whatnot. The most profound issue I have met with my boss is the nature of the packaging systems. As a Windows user, he was used to find his software on the net, download it and follow the install routine. On most decent Linux distros, that is either the hard way or the wrong way to go.
Might be guerrilla advertising for AppArmor (which is, by the way, a decent OSS product) but it certainly isn't a SuSE/openSUSE/SLED advertisement.
But then, maybe it's just me: I don't consider Novell or any of its products evil. I know many do.
Larry, is that you?
Whoa there, grasshopper!
:-)
You seem to be implying that any person here who does not like Eltons music (or recognizes his influence in the same way as you do) is too young to understand him and is probably listening to Britney, Christina and Shakira all day long.
Now that is a bold claim to make. In Eltons haydays, not every single person appreciated his work. And I have a hard time thinking about musical currents that were directly influenced by him. True, he is a true writer, and his pitch is near perfect. But that doesn't mean he is the only one, even now.
Personaly, I don't like his work. But it is way better than the Britney-like lipsync crowd. But there is better music out there, and some of it is even fairly new and quite popular (at least here in Europe. Can't say about the other side of the pool...) Do not, ever, generalize geeks on a non-geeky field