That's not a name. It's a Web address. When the Web address is "openoffice.org," the name is Open Office. What about this is confounding you?
Wrong. You are trying to argue that something can't be both a name and a web address. This is obviously untrue.
But "open source" software has nothing at all to do with freedom. If it had anything to do with freedom, the software would be in the public domain. Since it's not, it's not about freedom. It's a commercial enterprise just like any other.
Wrong. You are trying to argue that if something has even the slightest restriction then it cannot be free. So there isn't free speech unless you can slander people and commit perjury. There isn't freedom of movement unless you can trespass anywhere. There isn't freedom of the press unless my newspaper can copy all its stories from yours. This is obviously untrue.
I'm really not interested in studies. I'm interested in my own personal experience, which says precisely the opposite. A million articles add up to precisely nothing when my own experience tells me otherwise.
Wrong. You are arguing that your personal experience with a single software product provides a basis for judging an entire software methodology. This is obviously untrue.
Yes, of course it is. As I said, I paid for such support myself, in the form of an in-house, full-time employee whose job it was to install and maintain Linux on our computers. My experience was so incredibly bad that I will not be considering a similar arrangement again. Ever. The fact that support is available does not mean that it's up to acceptable levels of quality.
It's become clear that you're a Mac troll but let's pretend for a moment that the incident you're discussing actually happened. What you are saying is that you had one bad experience where you can't even be sure if it was the product or the person implementing it. Because of this, you will never use that product again, no matter how much time passes or how the product changes. Well, that's pretty stupid. It's a good thing for your favorite platform's market share that all the people who had horrible experiences with early generation Macs don't have the same mental defect that you claim to have.
The entire point of your post was to try to promote the Mac platform by claiming to have found a deficiency in Linux and extending that to all of open source. If this were a Mac fanboy site you might have a chance but here on Slashdot you're preaching at people who know better. Your behavior is especially pathetic because the Mac is one platform that doesn't need any propping up; it can stand on its own merits.
Pardon me for being insistent, but "openoffice.org" is a Web address, not a name. If the company that makes it doesn't want their customers to call it "Open Office," they should change the name. (They should probably change the name in any case. "Open Office" doesn't exactly stir the soul.)
That's not being insistent, it's being stupid. OpenOffice.org is the name of the software. The original poster was correct, you tried to correct him but looked like an idiot because you were wrong and then I corrected you. It's a very simple sequence of events; do try and keep up. As for what you think of the name, nothing you've posted so far inspires me to assign any value to your opinion.
Numbers.
A meaningless non-response with nothing to back it up, almost certainly indicating that you have no basis for your opinion. This is unsurprising.
No, it was supposed to be illustrative. Reading comprehension much?
Illustrative of what? That you don't hire competent people? That you change your hardware and software platform whenever you change IT personnel? It's certainly not illustrative of anything regarding open source software.
> We use open source software because we like the support, reliability and licensing freedom.
How odd. Because it has none of those three things.
I don't normally go in for personal attacks but you're really not a very honest person, are you? Starting from the end:
For you to claim that open source software doesn't provide licensing freedom is either stupid or dishonest. Since you're apparently capable of operating a computer with at least minimal competency I find it difficult to believe that you could be stupid enough to believe what you said. So you've apparently lying. Unfortunately you chose to lie about a subject that the Slashdot audience understands reasonably well so you're not going to get very far.
As for reliability, there areplentyofstudies that show the reliability of open source.
And finally, support. I don't think this will be news to anyone except (perhaps) you but paid support is available for open source software. Linux is supported by distributions such as Redhat and Novell, Apache & Tomcat are supported by companies like JBoss and Samba is supported by a truly huge list of companies in many countries. As another poster pointed out, OpenOffice.org has commercial support available from companies like Blue Point
You shouldn't bother replying to this, but if you do be sure to bring some facts to back up your position. Your blind assertions do not impress.
I assume you're referring to Open Office. (I'm not sure what the company's Web site has to do with this.)
Actually he's probably referring to the software that is called OpenOffice.org, not Open Office, due to trademark conflicts.
>I've found the F/OSS community to be VERY helpful for the most part.
Boy oh boy. You're either lying, or your experiences have not been typical.
What makes you think your experience is more typical than his? We use Linux, Apache, Samba, Tomcat and other open source products on both our workstations and servers at my job and we have had excellent reliability and support. This is no less anecdotal than your experience but I don't see any reason to believe that my experience is less typical than yours.
The last time I ever used Linux for anything was the day the IT guy I'd hired to maintain my small company's computers told me that I should stick to Windows because I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to burn some files to a CD with Linux. I fired the IT guy[...]
So an IT guy that you apparently considered incompetent told you Linux was hard. This is supposed to be compelling?
I'm sorry that so many of you Slashdotters seem to think that being politically correct is reason enough to use bad software. It's not.
We use open source software because we like the support, reliability and licensing freedom. Open source is about a lot more than being politically correct, but I think you already knew that.
i also never stated that i was a christian. you'll notice that another poster who states he is an atheist made the same points as i attempted to, although he framed them much better than i did.
I'm sorry. I misjudged your response and overreacted. I shouldn't have made unwarranted assumptions.
known historical fact" may have been a strong term, but it's about as known as any other historical fact from more than ~500 years ago. the fact that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified by the romans ~2000 years ago is documented in historical texts other than the bible. of course, as far as i know, none but the bible say much about his life other than that.
It isn't documented in any historical texts outside the bible. That's the point. Christians have, in the past, tried to forge entries in certain historical documents (such as those from Josephus) but they haven't gotten away with it. So yes, "known historical fact" may have been a "strong term" if by "strong term" you mean "error".
as for the other- i suppose it is a wild claim. i have known scientists who have said that, but obviously 'most' was not really the right word. either way, my point was that even disregarding the bible and any other religious texts or beliefs, the existence of Jesus is easier to verify than the age of the universe.
The plural of anecdote is not data. "Most" was definitely not the right word if you're talking about the relatively small number of scientists you've known personally. As for your point, it isn't possible to verify the existence of jesus at all, even if you don't disregard the bible. On the other than, regarding age of the universe there is actual evidence from measurements of background radiation. Other posters have given links to some of the latest studies; you should check them out.
anyway, i should have known better than to feed the trolls...
You say two things that you later admit aren't accurate and you call me a troll. How christian of you.
So if an atheist believes there is no god, without knowing there is no god, how is he different than a theist.
What you are talking about is a specific type of atheism, called "strong" or "positive" atheism. Personally I'm a "weak" or "negative" atheist (lacking a belief as opposed to possessing an opposite belief) so I can't speak from personal experience but most of the things writings I've read from strong atheists argue that a god (generally defined as an all-powerful being that always existed and which created the universe) is logically impossible. Many good articles have been written on the subject. There are also evidential arguments. Now you may not agree with that definition of a god. If so then I would ask what is a god? The original article that started this discussion suggested that one way to escape the universe is to create another one. If we someday do that does that mean that the people involved are gods?
Is this not just another religion, the null religion?
That depends on your definition of religion. Looking at one definition for example, from dictionary.com:
religion n.
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
By this definition, I would say no. The only one that could even be massaged to fit is number 4 and only if you extended the definition to the point where it could apply to sports, politics or television.
I guess my point is, how can you disbelieve it, any more than you can believe it, if it is theoretically possible? It seems to be a much more rational position to say that you just don't know, one way or another.
I don't think you understand. Agnosticism is not a third choice between theism and atheism. Agnosticism deals with knowledge: whether or not the existence and/or nature of a god can be known. Theism / atheism deals with belief. If you possess a belief in the existence of one or more gods you are a theist; otherwise you're an atheist. Most agnostics are atheists as they don't see any reason to believe in something whose nature or existence can never be known but it is not unheard of for a person to believe that there must be SOMETHING that created the universe even if we can never understand it.
Most people who claim to be "an agnostic, not an atheist" are actually atheists (because they don't believe in any gods) but don't like the term or think that it refers exclusively to the positive belief that there is no god. This is different from simply not believing in any god, just as believing that there is no life on other planets is different from not believing in any specific life on another planet (UFO stories and the like).
So if this is theoretically possible, then is it not theoretically possible that some sufficiently advanced being (or intelligence) created our universe and is able to travel to it? Can it be ruled out?
Sure! And when someone provides some evidence that this is the case maybe I'll believe. Until then I'll continue to have a lack of belief in any god or gods.
Of course, this doesn't mean that existing bronze-age goat-herder stories like the bible are true. Christians (and I'm not saying you are one) who try to use this argument against atheism tend to gloss right over that bit. It's a mighty big step from "some intelligence" to yahweh.
Jesus did exist 2000 yeas ago. That is a known historical fact.
Christians keep saying this, but it isn't true. There's actually no evidence outside of the gospels (which are not eye-witness accounts and which contradict each other) that Jesus ever existed. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it's disingenuous to say that it's a "known historical fact" and act as though it isn't disputed.
Even most scientists will admit that they are less sure of the age of the universe than they are of the fact that a man called Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth around 2000 years ago.
Athiests are, in my opinion religious: They believe there is no God. They are as firm in this conviction as any Christian/Hindu/Muslim, etc. is in his/her believe that there is a God. Any statement to the contrary invokes a reaction quite similar to what a Christian would have when his beliefs are argued against, and there is a fair (if not large) amount of intolerance towards those whose beliefs are not identical.
I think you're operating from a definition of atheism that has been written by the religious. Some religions (such as Roman Catholicism) have a real problem with the word "atheist" and have promoted a definition that describes only one type of atheism (strong). In reality, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any god, much like asymmetric is the lack of symmetry and apolitical is the lack of politics. That is distinctly different from the positive belief that there is no god (which some atheists hold) that is generally referred to as "positive" or "strong" atheism. Here is a link that will give you more information.
Agnostics, on the other hand, are far more open-minded. They are willing to see either way, and aren't going to immediately reject either, viewing both as a possibility, neither of which can be proven.
Agnostics believe that it is impossible to ever know whether or not there is a god. It's possible to be an agnostic atheist (like me) or an agnostic theist, believing that although there must be something that created the universe it is impossible to know its nature.
But, in my view, agnostics also miss the point of religion entirely: To believe in something that is not known, and is not proveable by any known methods, and more importantly, to accept the fact that it may never be proveable at all.
That's a very interesting take on the purpose of religion. I'm not sure that the majority of christians (who generally believe that jesus is a fact period end of discussion) would agree that this is the point of their religion. Can you expand on what you consider the value of believing something that isn't known or provable?
Mass insanity? Maybe. But most theoretical scientists proceed with some facts, but largely a belief that there is something there, and they work and act upon their beliefs (even if their theory may never be 'proven'). Scientists have invested billions of dollars and more than a few man-hours around the ideas of the 'standard model' of particles, or to join the standard model with quantum physics using these things called 'strings'. Yet they plod on, sustained by their belief that some good may come of their research.
Science deals with trying to understand why things are as they are observed. Theories are made, tested and revised in the light of the factual observations made. The purpose of a theory is not to be proven true and scientists are willing (subject of course to normal human foibles) to see their theories disproven or modified. Newton's Laws of Motion are a good example. They seemed to hold true for all cases for hundreds of years and we have been able to build great technology from our understanding of them. But now we've discovered that they don't hold true for all cases. The fact that our understanding has changed doesn't destroy the value we've received from Newton's work.
Einstein's theory of relativity is a great example: He worked on it, argued about it, etc. But he never lived to see it 'proven'. In fact, he stated himself that it may never be proven, and that a single event can disprove it entirely. But the belief that he was right, and the evidence that seemed to support the theory brought it both recognition and acceptance. It is accepted as fact to a large enough extent that it is still used today.
Again, the best that science can do is try to understand the universe. Einstein did live to see predictions his theory made proven by obser
All that was quoted or mentioned has written proof of their existence. The cities found were called Sodom/Gommorrah - there was a severe burning - radioactivity of the remains found there.
It's obviously true from the link I gave you that not all that was quoted or mentioned has written proof from their existence. I'm not sure why you would say something that is so obviously untrue. If you had any significant evidence of the existence of Sodom or Gomorrah I'm sure you could point to it, or at least to some apologetics. But you can't even do that.
Mohhamed may have existed. Won't dispute that.
A good try at pretending to miss the point, but I'll help you out. You claimed that the possibility of Paul existing was proof of the bible's validity. I showed you that it wasn't by pointing out that this same argument would mean that Mohammed's existence proves the validity of the koran. Unless you're saying that you are a muslim....
A Sabre Tooth Tiger is a FAR greater species than a Tiger. What would be the purpose of a devolving?
Again you use the incorrect term "devolving". This shows a very child-like understanding of evolution. You think that a Sabre Tooth Tiger is a "greater" species than a tiger (whatever that means) so that a transition from one to the other is a step down. But evolution is about the adaptation of species to their environment. If a tiger is better adapted to its environment than a Sabre Tooth Tiger is, then it is reasonable that evolution will proceed in that direction. There's no concept of "greater" or "lesser" involved.
For you to say there was no global flood at one point makes you an ignoramous rather than a valid debater here.
Ad Hominem attacks don't impress. I've pointed you to a number of the many, many pieces of evidence that there was no global flood. All you can do is kick and scream and call names. It makes me suspect that deep down inside you doubt your own position.
Guess you've never seen sedimentary rock formations or understand why there is red mud in the Carolinas like is found in Colorado and Arizona.
Why would you think that sedimentary rock formations or red mud in the Carolinas would indicate a global flood? Perhaps my mistake is in using the word "think" to describe the process by which you come to your conclusions.
I noticed that you marked me foe. Probably a wise decision; everything you've said here so far suggests that you're out of your depth. You'll probably be happier in the future if you don't see my messages.
This is one argument that atheists or agnostics can't make.
Of course we can.
Has no Sodom & Gomorrah been discovered? Was it not charred by a seeming "nuclear type" explosion?
No. Archaeologists have found cities (such as Bab edh-Dhra' and Numeira) that they think might have been Sodom and Gomorrah, but no proof has been found. The two cities mentioned are considered promising by christian apologists because they show signs of being emptied, not because of any "nuclear type" explosion. Of course, there are any number of reasons why a city might be abandoned so it's not really strong evidence either way.
Was there no King Herod who had all the first born children killed?
Actually there's no evidence outside of the bible that Herod (who did exist) had all the first born children killed. None of the histories written at the time mention it.
Was there no flood of any type? Is there no scientific evidence to support this?
Nice try, but the bible specifies a global flood, not a "flood of any type". And there was no global flood. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Was there no Paul?
Was there no Mohammed? Guess you're also a Muslim then.
Now, the Bible may have a lot of unbelievable elements as well (to you).
Such as the idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful god had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to convince himself to change a rule ("sinners" go to hell) that he made himself. It's just nonsensical.
But evolution has a lot of unbelievable (and believable) elements to those that subscribe to the Bible.
That's not surprising.
I believe that Sabre Tooth Tigers existed - I do not believe they devolved into Tigers or that Tigers and domesticated kitty cats are anything related to evolution.
That would be evolved, not devolved. And ignoring the obvious similarity between larger cats like tigers and smaller domesticated cats is just silly.
people with quite a few braincells would call the entire planet, before life was on it, nothing more than dust.
Nonsense. You screwed up and you can't admit it. What are you, 12?
But then, you are a fucking moron who should shut up, so I guess you wouldnt make that connection.
Do you really think, even for a moment, that I or anyone else reading this message is at all impressed by this? You must or you wouldn't have typed it. That's just sad.
1) The Primary Cause (which religious folk call "God") is intelligent and the universe is the result of explicit intent.
2) The Primary Cause (which religious folk call "God") is non-intelligent and the universe is not the result of explicit intent.
Religious people make a leap of faith toward the first hypothesis. Atheists make a leap of faith toward the second hypothesis. Agnostics choose not to make a leap of faith in either direction on that issue.
It's not so much that atheists make a leap of faith towards the second hypothesis as it is just a matter of not assuming the existence of intelligence without some sort of evidence. For me, at least, it's a matter of saying "I don't know how the universe began, or even that it did. Yet. So I'm not going to make any assumptions."
Absolutely. Indeed, this hints at the distinction being lost in these religion/science debates:
There is a why to the universe which transcends and does not conflict with the how that modern science is trying to resolve.
Yes. Science is only a threat to religious inerrantists, not religion in general.
Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Hovind's offer is a sham. Here is some more information on the subject.
Do you have some other word for billions of tiny particles clumping together at random?
You are missing the point, which is hardly a surprise. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about how life began, only about how it has changed over time. The theory of how life began is called abiogenesis. That particular theory has life beginning in the ocean. No one with two brain cells to rub together would claim that dust is a synonym for ocean.
What is the agenda behind your being a fucking moron who should shut up?
Wow. After only one message you fall to pieces. That's much more quickly than most people would have. Perhaps you should run along now before you before you lose the ability to form complete sentences.
>But there's nothing saying that a "first cause" has to be conscious, intelligent or willful.
And nothing saying it isn't either. The ID people argue that it is, with no proof of the fact,
And that's the problem. The IDers are claiming as fact that only an intelligent designer could have created life. It's in the actual name of their movement. The unproven nature of this premise invalidates their claims.
while atheists argue the opposite with equally little evidence.
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any god. Very few atheists would argue that life couldn't have been created by an intelligent designer, only that there is no evidence that this is the case and that in the lack of any evidence it doesn't make sense to believe.
The Theory of Evolution makes no claim whatsoever about how life started. It only describes the ways in which life has changed over millions of years.
I disagree, but I take your point. I don't believe the insinuation (that says nothing even remotely about religion) is unconstitutional. That is the issue here.
The reason that this particular insinuation is unconstitutional is that the school board made it for the express purpose of promoting religion. The board members admitted this openly. The decision that has been handed down was narrowly crafted for precisely this reason. The court isn't saying that putting disclaimers on books is always unconstitutional. They're saying that in this particular instance the disclaimer is unconstitutional because of why it was made.
I've read Mere Christianity. In it C.S. Lewis makes the argument that Jesus was the son of god in the following way:
1. Jesus went around proclaiming himself to be the son of god
Assuming that Jesus actually existed and that the biblical description of him is accurate, an assumption for which there is little basis in fact.
2. For someone to just go around proclaiming themselves to be the son of god, they could be two things, a) telling the truth or b) crazy
Or misquoted, or non-existent.
3. We all know Jesus wasn't crazy, so I guess he's the son of god
No we don't. Plenty of crazy people have made wild claims about gods. The Heaven's Gate cult is one of the more recent examples. Those morons killed themselves for their beliefs. Unless you're claiming that you believe they were correct (in which case why are you still alive?), you must admit that Lewis's "proof" is no such thing.
Did Lewis really intend this as a general proof that Jesus was god? I had read somewhere that this was merely an argument against people who believe that Jesus existed and said the things he said but that he was merely a great philosopher. Supposedly Lewis's point was that if you believe Jesus was a great philosopher then you believe he existed and said what the bible says he said so you must believe that he was either lord, liar or lunatic. And if he's a liar or lunatic then he can't be a great philospher. An interesting argument against Jesus being merely a great philosopher but not a good general argument for his existence and divinity.
There are, of course, numerous flaws with the ID argument.
1) Effects have causes
Error: They are assuming that life is an "effect", in other words assuming their conclusion, that it has a cause.
2) No effect can cause itself
Error: This is a definitional question. If "effect" is defined as "something that is caused by something else" then this is trivially true, but unimportant. Also, the IDers contradict this point later.
3) Every effect, therefore is caused by something other than itself
If 2 were true, this would be true. However....
4) A causal chain cannot stretch back infinitely in time
Error: This is nothing more than an assumption (as you pointed out in your message).
5) There must, therefore be a First Cause that, itself, had no preceding cause
Error: This contradicts point 2.
6) God uniquely answers the cosmological question by being the Uncaused First Cause
Error: Only for a sufficiently broad (i.e. defective) definition of "God". I don't know many religionists who would claim their god has no consciousness, intelligence or will. But there's nothing saying that a "first cause" has to be conscious, intelligent or willful.
7) God, therefore, exists and created all that is.
This is stated as the final conclusion but the real final conclusion that the overwhelming majority of IDers hold is that this "God" is the christian god and the universe was created as described in the bible. The IDers just gloss over that bit even though they have no way at all to make that connection.
In short, the Intelligent Design people have not set themselves up to fall quite so easily. While misguided, their argument is not so ridiculous as the media would like it to be...unlike strict Creationists, whose claims are patently ridiculous and disprovable with the scant evidence we already have in hand.
I would say that they still fall pretty easily. But the main reason that ID isn't taught in science classes is that it isn't science. There's no disprovable theory being made here. No observations are made, no experiments run. It's just fantasy. And in the U.S. it's just creationism by another name.
Disclaimer: I am one of those Christians (i.e., most of us) who thinks that evolution seems like a solid theory and doesn't see how it shakes our religious foundation to allow science to do it's job.
This is not an unreasonable position for a christian to take since the Theory of Evolution doesn't say that the process couldn't have been kicked off by some entity. The Theory contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible but there are so many problems with a literal interpetation of the bible that Evolution is the least of an inerrantist's worries.
t would be accurate to say our country was founded on money and God which is why we have on our cash "In God We Trust".
It certainly wasn't founded on any god, which explains why the word "god" doesn't appear in the Constitution. The Treaty of Tripoli further clarifies the issue with regards to the christian religion in article 11, which begins "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,..."
I wish sometimes that we were founded on religious ideals rather than ideology.
Which religion? I certainly wouldn't tolerate living in a country based on any of the Abrahamic religions. Buddhism might be nice.
There are those who believe they should this day wish a Mary Christmas to all *good* people rather than all people.
For their own definition of "good", I'm sure. How nice.
1] Other than the atheism ideology, communism seems *much* closer to the teachings of Jesus than capitalism.
Actually, communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other. Stalin and other "communist" dictators opposed religion only because they didn't like sharing power (and weren't smart enough to work through religion like so many other dictators). But you're right, Jesus would have favored communism over capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a name. It's a Web address. When the Web address is "openoffice.org," the name is Open Office. What about this is confounding you?
Wrong. You are trying to argue that something can't be both a name and a web address. This is obviously untrue.
But "open source" software has nothing at all to do with freedom. If it had anything to do with freedom, the software would be in the public domain. Since it's not, it's not about freedom. It's a commercial enterprise just like any other.
Wrong. You are trying to argue that if something has even the slightest restriction then it cannot be free. So there isn't free speech unless you can slander people and commit perjury. There isn't freedom of movement unless you can trespass anywhere. There isn't freedom of the press unless my newspaper can copy all its stories from yours. This is obviously untrue.
I'm really not interested in studies. I'm interested in my own personal experience, which says precisely the opposite. A million articles add up to precisely nothing when my own experience tells me otherwise.
Wrong. You are arguing that your personal experience with a single software product provides a basis for judging an entire software methodology. This is obviously untrue.
Yes, of course it is. As I said, I paid for such support myself, in the form of an in-house, full-time employee whose job it was to install and maintain Linux on our computers. My experience was so incredibly bad that I will not be considering a similar arrangement again. Ever. The fact that support is available does not mean that it's up to acceptable levels of quality.
It's become clear that you're a Mac troll but let's pretend for a moment that the incident you're discussing actually happened. What you are saying is that you had one bad experience where you can't even be sure if it was the product or the person implementing it. Because of this, you will never use that product again, no matter how much time passes or how the product changes. Well, that's pretty stupid. It's a good thing for your favorite platform's market share that all the people who had horrible experiences with early generation Macs don't have the same mental defect that you claim to have.
The entire point of your post was to try to promote the Mac platform by claiming to have found a deficiency in Linux and extending that to all of open source. If this were a Mac fanboy site you might have a chance but here on Slashdot you're preaching at people who know better. Your behavior is especially pathetic because the Mac is one platform that doesn't need any propping up; it can stand on its own merits.
Pardon me for being insistent, but "openoffice.org" is a Web address, not a name. If the company that makes it doesn't want their customers to call it "Open Office," they should change the name. (They should probably change the name in any case. "Open Office" doesn't exactly stir the soul.)
That's not being insistent, it's being stupid. OpenOffice.org is the name of the software. The original poster was correct, you tried to correct him but looked like an idiot because you were wrong and then I corrected you. It's a very simple sequence of events; do try and keep up. As for what you think of the name, nothing you've posted so far inspires me to assign any value to your opinion.
Numbers.
A meaningless non-response with nothing to back it up, almost certainly indicating that you have no basis for your opinion. This is unsurprising.
No, it was supposed to be illustrative. Reading comprehension much?
Illustrative of what? That you don't hire competent people? That you change your hardware and software platform whenever you change IT personnel? It's certainly not illustrative of anything regarding open source software.
> We use open source software because we like the support, reliability and licensing freedom.
How odd. Because it has none of those three things.
I don't normally go in for personal attacks but you're really not a very honest person, are you? Starting from the end:
For you to claim that open source software doesn't provide licensing freedom is either stupid or dishonest. Since you're apparently capable of operating a computer with at least minimal competency I find it difficult to believe that you could be stupid enough to believe what you said. So you've apparently lying. Unfortunately you chose to lie about a subject that the Slashdot audience understands reasonably well so you're not going to get very far.
As for reliability, there are plenty of studies that show the reliability of open source.
And finally, support. I don't think this will be news to anyone except (perhaps) you but paid support is available for open source software. Linux is supported by distributions such as Redhat and Novell, Apache & Tomcat are supported by companies like JBoss and Samba is supported by a truly huge list of companies in many countries. As another poster pointed out, OpenOffice.org has commercial support available from companies like Blue Point
You shouldn't bother replying to this, but if you do be sure to bring some facts to back up your position. Your blind assertions do not impress.
> Precisely how is is better than OpenOffice.org.
I assume you're referring to Open Office. (I'm not sure what the company's Web site has to do with this.)
Actually he's probably referring to the software that is called OpenOffice.org, not Open Office, due to trademark conflicts.
>I've found the F/OSS community to be VERY helpful for the most part.
Boy oh boy. You're either lying, or your experiences have not been typical.
What makes you think your experience is more typical than his? We use Linux, Apache, Samba, Tomcat and other open source products on both our workstations and servers at my job and we have had excellent reliability and support. This is no less anecdotal than your experience but I don't see any reason to believe that my experience is less typical than yours.
The last time I ever used Linux for anything was the day the IT guy I'd hired to maintain my small company's computers told me that I should stick to Windows because I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to burn some files to a CD with Linux. I fired the IT guy[...]
So an IT guy that you apparently considered incompetent told you Linux was hard. This is supposed to be compelling?
I'm sorry that so many of you Slashdotters seem to think that being politically correct is reason enough to use bad software. It's not.
We use open source software because we like the support, reliability and licensing freedom. Open source is about a lot more than being politically correct, but I think you already knew that.
my response was hasty and not well thought out.
And suddenly I know exactly what that's like....
i also never stated that i was a christian. you'll notice that another poster who states he is an atheist made the same points as i attempted to, although he framed them much better than i did.
I'm sorry. I misjudged your response and overreacted. I shouldn't have made unwarranted assumptions.
known historical fact" may have been a strong term, but it's about as known as any other historical fact from more than ~500 years ago. the fact that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified by the romans ~2000 years ago is documented in historical texts other than the bible. of course, as far as i know, none but the bible say much about his life other than that.
It isn't documented in any historical texts outside the bible. That's the point. Christians have, in the past, tried to forge entries in certain historical documents (such as those from Josephus) but they haven't gotten away with it. So yes, "known historical fact" may have been a "strong term" if by "strong term" you mean "error".
as for the other- i suppose it is a wild claim. i have known scientists who have said that, but obviously 'most' was not really the right word. either way, my point was that even disregarding the bible and any other religious texts or beliefs, the existence of Jesus is easier to verify than the age of the universe.
The plural of anecdote is not data. "Most" was definitely not the right word if you're talking about the relatively small number of scientists you've known personally. As for your point, it isn't possible to verify the existence of jesus at all, even if you don't disregard the bible. On the other than, regarding age of the universe there is actual evidence from measurements of background radiation. Other posters have given links to some of the latest studies; you should check them out.
anyway, i should have known better than to feed the trolls...
You say two things that you later admit aren't accurate and you call me a troll. How christian of you.
What you are talking about is a specific type of atheism, called "strong" or "positive" atheism. Personally I'm a "weak" or "negative" atheist (lacking a belief as opposed to possessing an opposite belief) so I can't speak from personal experience but most of the things writings I've read from strong atheists argue that a god (generally defined as an all-powerful being that always existed and which created the universe) is logically impossible. Many good articles have been written on the subject. There are also evidential arguments. Now you may not agree with that definition of a god. If so then I would ask what is a god? The original article that started this discussion suggested that one way to escape the universe is to create another one. If we someday do that does that mean that the people involved are gods?
Is this not just another religion, the null religion?
That depends on your definition of religion. Looking at one definition for example, from dictionary.com:
By this definition, I would say no. The only one that could even be massaged to fit is number 4 and only if you extended the definition to the point where it could apply to sports, politics or television.
I guess my point is, how can you disbelieve it, any more than you can believe it, if it is theoretically possible? It seems to be a much more rational position to say that you just don't know, one way or another.
I don't think you understand. Agnosticism is not a third choice between theism and atheism. Agnosticism deals with knowledge: whether or not the existence and/or nature of a god can be known. Theism / atheism deals with belief. If you possess a belief in the existence of one or more gods you are a theist; otherwise you're an atheist. Most agnostics are atheists as they don't see any reason to believe in something whose nature or existence can never be known but it is not unheard of for a person to believe that there must be SOMETHING that created the universe even if we can never understand it.
Most people who claim to be "an agnostic, not an atheist" are actually atheists (because they don't believe in any gods) but don't like the term or think that it refers exclusively to the positive belief that there is no god. This is different from simply not believing in any god, just as believing that there is no life on other planets is different from not believing in any specific life on another planet (UFO stories and the like).
So if this is theoretically possible, then is it not theoretically possible that some sufficiently advanced being (or intelligence) created our universe and is able to travel to it? Can it be ruled out?
Sure! And when someone provides some evidence that this is the case maybe I'll believe. Until then I'll continue to have a lack of belief in any god or gods.
Of course, this doesn't mean that existing bronze-age goat-herder stories like the bible are true. Christians (and I'm not saying you are one) who try to use this argument against atheism tend to gloss right over that bit. It's a mighty big step from "some intelligence" to yahweh.
What if in the parallel universe, Jar Jar Binks wasn't just a movie character
:)
I'm sorry, I don't believe in hell.
Jesus did exist 2000 yeas ago. That is a known historical fact.
Christians keep saying this, but it isn't true. There's actually no evidence outside of the gospels (which are not eye-witness accounts and which contradict each other) that Jesus ever existed. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it's disingenuous to say that it's a "known historical fact" and act as though it isn't disputed.
Even most scientists will admit that they are less sure of the age of the universe than they are of the fact that a man called Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth around 2000 years ago.
That's a pretty wild claim. Got any evidence?
Athiests are, in my opinion religious: They believe there is no God. They are as firm in this conviction as any Christian/Hindu/Muslim, etc. is in his/her believe that there is a God. Any statement to the contrary invokes a reaction quite similar to what a Christian would have when his beliefs are argued against, and there is a fair (if not large) amount of intolerance towards those whose beliefs are not identical.
I think you're operating from a definition of atheism that has been written by the religious. Some religions (such as Roman Catholicism) have a real problem with the word "atheist" and have promoted a definition that describes only one type of atheism (strong). In reality, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any god, much like asymmetric is the lack of symmetry and apolitical is the lack of politics. That is distinctly different from the positive belief that there is no god (which some atheists hold) that is generally referred to as "positive" or "strong" atheism. Here is a link that will give you more information.
Agnostics, on the other hand, are far more open-minded. They are willing to see either way, and aren't going to immediately reject either, viewing both as a possibility, neither of which can be proven.
Agnostics believe that it is impossible to ever know whether or not there is a god. It's possible to be an agnostic atheist (like me) or an agnostic theist, believing that although there must be something that created the universe it is impossible to know its nature.
But, in my view, agnostics also miss the point of religion entirely: To believe in something that is not known, and is not proveable by any known methods, and more importantly, to accept the fact that it may never be proveable at all.
That's a very interesting take on the purpose of religion. I'm not sure that the majority of christians (who generally believe that jesus is a fact period end of discussion) would agree that this is the point of their religion. Can you expand on what you consider the value of believing something that isn't known or provable?
Mass insanity? Maybe. But most theoretical scientists proceed with some facts, but largely a belief that there is something there, and they work and act upon their beliefs (even if their theory may never be 'proven'). Scientists have invested billions of dollars and more than a few man-hours around the ideas of the 'standard model' of particles, or to join the standard model with quantum physics using these things called 'strings'. Yet they plod on, sustained by their belief that some good may come of their research.
Science deals with trying to understand why things are as they are observed. Theories are made, tested and revised in the light of the factual observations made. The purpose of a theory is not to be proven true and scientists are willing (subject of course to normal human foibles) to see their theories disproven or modified. Newton's Laws of Motion are a good example. They seemed to hold true for all cases for hundreds of years and we have been able to build great technology from our understanding of them. But now we've discovered that they don't hold true for all cases. The fact that our understanding has changed doesn't destroy the value we've received from Newton's work.
Einstein's theory of relativity is a great example: He worked on it, argued about it, etc. But he never lived to see it 'proven'. In fact, he stated himself that it may never be proven, and that a single event can disprove it entirely. But the belief that he was right, and the evidence that seemed to support the theory brought it both recognition and acceptance. It is accepted as fact to a large enough extent that it is still used today.
Again, the best that science can do is try to understand the universe. Einstein did live to see predictions his theory made proven by obser
All that was quoted or mentioned has written proof of their existence. The cities found were called Sodom/Gommorrah - there was a severe burning - radioactivity of the remains found there.
It's obviously true from the link I gave you that not all that was quoted or mentioned has written proof from their existence. I'm not sure why you would say something that is so obviously untrue. If you had any significant evidence of the existence of Sodom or Gomorrah I'm sure you could point to it, or at least to some apologetics. But you can't even do that.
Mohhamed may have existed. Won't dispute that.
A good try at pretending to miss the point, but I'll help you out. You claimed that the possibility of Paul existing was proof of the bible's validity. I showed you that it wasn't by pointing out that this same argument would mean that Mohammed's existence proves the validity of the koran. Unless you're saying that you are a muslim....
A Sabre Tooth Tiger is a FAR greater species than a Tiger. What would be the purpose of a devolving?
Again you use the incorrect term "devolving". This shows a very child-like understanding of evolution. You think that a Sabre Tooth Tiger is a "greater" species than a tiger (whatever that means) so that a transition from one to the other is a step down. But evolution is about the adaptation of species to their environment. If a tiger is better adapted to its environment than a Sabre Tooth Tiger is, then it is reasonable that evolution will proceed in that direction. There's no concept of "greater" or "lesser" involved.
For you to say there was no global flood at one point makes you an ignoramous rather than a valid debater here.
Ad Hominem attacks don't impress. I've pointed you to a number of the many, many pieces of evidence that there was no global flood. All you can do is kick and scream and call names. It makes me suspect that deep down inside you doubt your own position.
Guess you've never seen sedimentary rock formations or understand why there is red mud in the Carolinas like is found in Colorado and Arizona.
Why would you think that sedimentary rock formations or red mud in the Carolinas would indicate a global flood? Perhaps my mistake is in using the word "think" to describe the process by which you come to your conclusions.
I noticed that you marked me foe. Probably a wise decision; everything you've said here so far suggests that you're out of your depth. You'll probably be happier in the future if you don't see my messages.
This is one argument that atheists or agnostics can't make.
Of course we can.
Has no Sodom & Gomorrah been discovered? Was it not charred by a seeming "nuclear type" explosion?
No. Archaeologists have found cities (such as Bab edh-Dhra' and Numeira) that they think might have been Sodom and Gomorrah, but no proof has been found. The two cities mentioned are considered promising by christian apologists because they show signs of being emptied, not because of any "nuclear type" explosion. Of course, there are any number of reasons why a city might be abandoned so it's not really strong evidence either way.
Was there no King Herod who had all the first born children killed?
Actually there's no evidence outside of the bible that Herod (who did exist) had all the first born children killed. None of the histories written at the time mention it.
Was there no flood of any type? Is there no scientific evidence to support this?
Nice try, but the bible specifies a global flood, not a "flood of any type". And there was no global flood. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Was there no Paul?
Was there no Mohammed? Guess you're also a Muslim then.
Now, the Bible may have a lot of unbelievable elements as well (to you).
Such as the idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful god had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to convince himself to change a rule ("sinners" go to hell) that he made himself. It's just nonsensical.
But evolution has a lot of unbelievable (and believable) elements to those that subscribe to the Bible.
That's not surprising.
I believe that Sabre Tooth Tigers existed - I do not believe they devolved into Tigers or that Tigers and domesticated kitty cats are anything related to evolution.
That would be evolved, not devolved. And ignoring the obvious similarity between larger cats like tigers and smaller domesticated cats is just silly.
I agree Hovind's offer is bombast, insincere, and essentially a sham.
Unfortunately, the same can be said about most participants in talk.origins
Evidence?
people with quite a few braincells would call the entire planet, before life was on it, nothing more than dust.
Nonsense. You screwed up and you can't admit it. What are you, 12?
But then, you are a fucking moron who should shut up, so I guess you wouldnt make that connection.
Do you really think, even for a moment, that I or anyone else reading this message is at all impressed by this? You must or you wouldn't have typed it. That's just sad.
1) The Primary Cause (which religious folk call "God") is intelligent and the universe is the result of explicit intent.
2) The Primary Cause (which religious folk call "God") is non-intelligent and the universe is not the result of explicit intent.
Religious people make a leap of faith toward the first hypothesis. Atheists make a leap of faith toward the second hypothesis. Agnostics choose not to make a leap of faith in either direction on that issue.
It's not so much that atheists make a leap of faith towards the second hypothesis as it is just a matter of not assuming the existence of intelligence without some sort of evidence. For me, at least, it's a matter of saying "I don't know how the universe began, or even that it did. Yet. So I'm not going to make any assumptions."
Absolutely. Indeed, this hints at the distinction being lost in these religion/science debates:
There is a why to the universe which transcends and does not conflict with the how that modern science is trying to resolve.
Yes. Science is only a threat to religious inerrantists, not religion in general.
Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Hovind's offer is a sham. Here is some more information on the subject.
Do you have some other word for billions of tiny particles clumping together at random?
You are missing the point, which is hardly a surprise. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about how life began, only about how it has changed over time. The theory of how life began is called abiogenesis. That particular theory has life beginning in the ocean. No one with two brain cells to rub together would claim that dust is a synonym for ocean.
What is the agenda behind your being a fucking moron who should shut up?
Wow. After only one message you fall to pieces. That's much more quickly than most people would have. Perhaps you should run along now before you before you lose the ability to form complete sentences.
>But there's nothing saying that a "first cause" has to be conscious, intelligent or willful.
And nothing saying it isn't either. The ID people argue that it is, with no proof of the fact,
And that's the problem. The IDers are claiming as fact that only an intelligent designer could have created life. It's in the actual name of their movement. The unproven nature of this premise invalidates their claims.
while atheists argue the opposite with equally little evidence.
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any god. Very few atheists would argue that life couldn't have been created by an intelligent designer, only that there is no evidence that this is the case and that in the lack of any evidence it doesn't make sense to believe.
The Theory of Evolution makes no claim whatsoever about how life started. It only describes the ways in which life has changed over millions of years.
Natural Selection happening on a microscopic scale does not in any way prove that we all started as dust and evolved into our current forms.
The Theory of Evolution (unlike the bible) does not claim that we started as dust. What is the agenda behind your dishonest claim?
I disagree, but I take your point. I don't believe the insinuation (that says nothing even remotely about religion) is unconstitutional. That is the issue here.
The reason that this particular insinuation is unconstitutional is that the school board made it for the express purpose of promoting religion. The board members admitted this openly. The decision that has been handed down was narrowly crafted for precisely this reason. The court isn't saying that putting disclaimers on books is always unconstitutional. They're saying that in this particular instance the disclaimer is unconstitutional because of why it was made.
I've read Mere Christianity. In it C.S. Lewis makes the argument that Jesus was the son of god in the following way:
1. Jesus went around proclaiming himself to be the son of god
Assuming that Jesus actually existed and that the biblical description of him is accurate, an assumption for which there is little basis in fact.
2. For someone to just go around proclaiming themselves to be the son of god, they could be two things, a) telling the truth or b) crazy
Or misquoted, or non-existent.
3. We all know Jesus wasn't crazy, so I guess he's the son of god
No we don't. Plenty of crazy people have made wild claims about gods. The Heaven's Gate cult is one of the more recent examples. Those morons killed themselves for their beliefs. Unless you're claiming that you believe they were correct (in which case why are you still alive?), you must admit that Lewis's "proof" is no such thing.
Did Lewis really intend this as a general proof that Jesus was god? I had read somewhere that this was merely an argument against people who believe that Jesus existed and said the things he said but that he was merely a great philosopher. Supposedly Lewis's point was that if you believe Jesus was a great philosopher then you believe he existed and said what the bible says he said so you must believe that he was either lord, liar or lunatic. And if he's a liar or lunatic then he can't be a great philospher. An interesting argument against Jesus being merely a great philosopher but not a good general argument for his existence and divinity.
There are, of course, numerous flaws with the ID argument.
1) Effects have causes
Error: They are assuming that life is an "effect", in other words assuming their conclusion, that it has a cause.
2) No effect can cause itself
Error: This is a definitional question. If "effect" is defined as "something that is caused by something else" then this is trivially true, but unimportant. Also, the IDers contradict this point later.
3) Every effect, therefore is caused by something other than itself
If 2 were true, this would be true. However....
4) A causal chain cannot stretch back infinitely in time
Error: This is nothing more than an assumption (as you pointed out in your message).
5) There must, therefore be a First Cause that, itself, had no preceding cause
Error: This contradicts point 2.
6) God uniquely answers the cosmological question by being the Uncaused First Cause
Error: Only for a sufficiently broad (i.e. defective) definition of "God". I don't know many religionists who would claim their god has no consciousness, intelligence or will. But there's nothing saying that a "first cause" has to be conscious, intelligent or willful.
7) God, therefore, exists and created all that is.
This is stated as the final conclusion but the real final conclusion that the overwhelming majority of IDers hold is that this "God" is the christian god and the universe was created as described in the bible. The IDers just gloss over that bit even though they have no way at all to make that connection.
In short, the Intelligent Design people have not set themselves up to fall quite so easily. While misguided, their argument is not so ridiculous as the media would like it to be...unlike strict Creationists, whose claims are patently ridiculous and disprovable with the scant evidence we already have in hand.
I would say that they still fall pretty easily. But the main reason that ID isn't taught in science classes is that it isn't science. There's no disprovable theory being made here. No observations are made, no experiments run. It's just fantasy. And in the U.S. it's just creationism by another name.
Disclaimer: I am one of those Christians (i.e., most of us) who thinks that evolution seems like a solid theory and doesn't see how it shakes our religious foundation to allow science to do it's job.
This is not an unreasonable position for a christian to take since the Theory of Evolution doesn't say that the process couldn't have been kicked off by some entity. The Theory contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible but there are so many problems with a literal interpetation of the bible that Evolution is the least of an inerrantist's worries.
t would be accurate to say our country was founded on money and God which is why we have on our cash "In God We Trust".
It certainly wasn't founded on any god, which explains why the word "god" doesn't appear in the Constitution. The Treaty of Tripoli further clarifies the issue with regards to the christian religion in article 11, which begins "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,..."
I wish sometimes that we were founded on religious ideals rather than ideology.
Which religion? I certainly wouldn't tolerate living in a country based on any of the Abrahamic religions. Buddhism might be nice.
There are those who believe they should this day wish a Mary Christmas to all *good* people rather than all people.
For their own definition of "good", I'm sure. How nice.
1] Other than the atheism ideology, communism seems *much* closer to the teachings of Jesus than capitalism.
Actually, communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other. Stalin and other "communist" dictators opposed religion only because they didn't like sharing power (and weren't smart enough to work through religion like so many other dictators). But you're right, Jesus would have favored communism over capitalism.