For example, you figured that the bulk of EA's revenue was from traditional console/PC games. Nope. IIRC like 60 or 70% is all from micro transaction/mobile/DLC/PC. Insane!
Though one odd thing I can't understand is why PC is treated like garbage when not only is this the re-emerging market, but it represents a pretty significant revenue area for most publishers/developers. The PC actually generates revenues on par (or more than) the Wii, PSP, or even the DS's. So why the poor ports and missing DLC/features (which should be in considering this is where the $$$ is at). Any ideas?
I'm not sure where you're seeing that on their 10-K. I found this interesting myself, so I pulled down EA's annual report and I see the following:
Net Revenue by platform:
Consoles - 2342m
Wireless - 472m
That's the current breakdown, and mobile is really only half of that. The numbers add up to the total topline revenue EA reported, so it would seem that right now, wireless revenues only account for ~ 10-15% of their total revenue. Forecasts may paint it differently, but that's because everyone wants to be Zynga.
I think it's new enough that there isn't a lot of first-hand experience with it. The FAQ describes it in Alpha, although the download link refers to it as Beta... in any case, my suspicion is that it is likely not very stable yet. You may want to experiment with it on a home PC before putting it on your work laptop.
You know, there's a lot of speculation about that. I suspect he did have a proof, but I'm skeptical that it was correct. There's no doubt that the man was brilliant but we've had people working on that question ever since Fermat died and no one has been able to produce a "simple, elegant" proof. (Fermat's own description, there.) But there's plenty of precedent for mathematicians making things inordinately complex before some young genius comes along and shows a magnificently simple way of achieving the same thing.
Yeah, when I was an Aruki-henro for Hachi-Jyuu-Hakkashou, I spent a lot of time in ryokan and minshuku, and zenkonyado as well, and the experience was absolutely phenomenal. It's a shame that those little inns and bed-and-breakfasts are slowly dying out.
No there aren't. Any sensible and considered person will soon lose their religion.
Right. Because that kind of statement doesn't make you look dogmatic or irrational at all.
The universe outside religion is so self-consistent and the evidence-based reasoning we use to solve all of our basic problems in life, as active scientists, or simply as humans trying to get through the day, is so overwhelmingly powerful compared to _anything_ that religious beliefs can do that any reasonable person with more than half a high school diploma must either decide to keep lying about what their own senses tell them or use their senses and abandon their pointless, illogical faith.
I could just as easily substitute "religion" for "science" in this paragraph and frame an argument that does exactly what yours just did.
Essentially you are convinced that science will provide you with all of your answers. Good for you. I am firmly convinced that the more than we learn about the universe, the more clear it becomes that the origins of our universe and the laws that govern it are inexplicable without some kind of outside interference. There is nothing pointless or illogical about this. I am, in essence, retaining my skepticism of science, whereas you have completely abandoned yours--much the same as any person who indulges in blind faith. I can think of no verifiable way to demonstrate that the universe came from nothing. And it's bad science to assume that the lack of evidence for something is enough to rule it out, especially when no contrary evidence can be provided.
If you don't want to be religious, fine, that's your call. I happen to be deeply so, and I have my reasons for it, none of which involve blindly believing. I would, however, suggest you show a bit more deference to the thinkers who came before you, as the shoulders of the giants on which you stand were all bowed in worship before God. And I think many of them would be very offended to hear that faith described as "pointless" or "illogical."
Either that or they just didn't want to get into any trouble, all with the inquisition, the witch burning, the being turned into an outcast, etc.
In that kind of society, where is the advantage in that?...
Again, you need to look past the institutions and return to the source material. Take, for example, the problem of slavery. There is no doubt that many Christian clergymen helped facilitate and sustain the slave trade. But the Bible is very clearly against slavery, and many prominent theologians spoke out against it. In fact, various Popes issued decrees against slavery numerous times throughout the Medieval and Enlightenment periods, yet his edicts were largely ignored by corrupt officials. (Chiefly in Spain, which promptly nosedived after they managed to kick the Moors out.) Islam followed similarly: within one hundred years of the Prophet Muhammad's death, the Ummayads had found new and ingenious ways to warp the theology of the Qur'an, replacing what was a startlingly egalitarian religion with one that encouraged Arabs to assert their superiority over their conquered people. (Look no further than the Islamic Conquest of Iran to see how greatly Islamic theology and Islamic institutions differed.)
Religious theology and religious institutions rarely mirror one another, often because the former inherently prevents authoritarianism. Most monotheistic traditions stress free will, which is anathema to any institution that wishes to exert power. This does not somehow invalidate the theology, though, which is what is so frustrating about the anti-religiousness of today's society: people who condemn religion and theology as baseless and devoid of reason are doing so without any actual exposure to either. They are, in effect, doing precisely what they claim to condemn.
Your confused by that whole cause-effect thing. The link between early religion and science is not that religion caused science, it was that money caused science, and religion caused money. The religions direct contact with science was to stifle it. It's just that when the money got to be enough, the science happened whether the religion wanted it to or not.
While I appreciate the point you are trying to make, this is not true. The early theologians were not rich, and yet if you read their works they very clearly advocate the application of reason and logic in all of man's endeavors. This focus on progress, coupled with the belief that man could use his faculties to improve the world around him, is what spurred scientific endeavor in the first place--and it's heavily supported by scripture. Simply because the later institutions went against this grain is not an indictment of religion, but instead a telling display of how easily power can corrupt.
There are religious people who are sensible and considered, and there are scientists with strong biases. But science as a system promotes the biases being noticed and removed from the understanding of a subject, whereas religions in general do not promote that kind of understanding - a few individual religious thinkers have shown good sense ( Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo come to mind - but their philosophies were derived from Platonic thought) but most end up integrating dumb ideas in to what usually starts as a decent religion and turn it in to a self-contradictory mess.
You are assuming that religion does not promote the exercise of reason and free will, when in fact this is patently untrue. Nearly all of the greatest scientists in history, prior to the modern era when we decided religion was for "teh craziez," were deeply religious men, and in fact their religion was a bulwark in how they approached science. The early Christian thinkers (I'm talking early, as in 2-300 A.D.) consistently stressed the necessity of exercising reason in faith. Early Islamic thinkers operated the same way, believing that the gift of free will and reason were not only blessings from the Creator but obligations to humanity in their exercise. (Although the Islamic question of free will is a very nuanced one, and honestly a bit confusing--this coming from an Iranian Muslim, mind you.) There is, nowadays, an overriding sentiment that because a.) religious institutions were corrupted and b.) people are generally stupid, that somehow this means religion promotes closed-mindedness. But any actual study of scripture and theology will often quite clearly paint a different picture. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are not theologians. Neither is Ahmadinejad, for that matter, and even Khameini, fundamentalist as he is, is remarkably pro-science. (Again, a consequence of following the doctrines of his religion. His sin is that he interprets as narrowly as he can when it comes to the social order.)
It annoys me to no end that the world is becoming both anti-religious and anti-intellectual. And the longer we go, the more "religious" science becomes, with any dissidents in the community ostracized because of their beliefs, rather than their evidence. This movement towards "consensus" in scientific thought is absolutely horrifying: I don't give a shit if one hundred million scientists "agree" that it looks like x is happening; consensus is the antithesis of good science. Either the studies support you, or they don't--and the methodology of those studies should be attacked with such virulence that there can be no doubt remaining that they are valid. Instead, we have a cartel of scientific bodies that exists solely to insulate its members from real scrutiny, and react with the vehemence of the Inquisition if anyone dares to question the results they provide. It's disgusting.
Has it crossed your mind that you might have been the people that 'ruined' Waikiki?
I don't understand the moral superiority that some people have when they declare it's ok for them to visit places, but not other people.
While I happen to agree with your sentiment, and your annoyance at the moral superiority the "I was here first, man, before it was popular" BS with which I am too oft assaulted, there is something to be said for the natural human inclination to ruin whatever "lost paradise" we find. And it's not really a recent thing, either--as long as I can remember, we routinely trade natural beauty for comfort. I travel somewhat frequently, and one of the most incredible places I've been were the islands of Ogasawara, which are only accessible via a 27-hour ferry ride from Tokyo. Because of their distance from the mainland and the relatively long commute time, tourism is kept fairly checked, but more importantly it is exceedingly difficult to get too many "modern" amenities there. There is very little landmass and a small local population, so as of yet, the islands retain a stunning amount of their natural appearance, and much of the local population fishes to supplement the weekly deliveries of groceries from the mainland.
Precisely what makes these islands such a treasure to visit is that they offer someone a chance to divorce him/herself from the world. Internet access is available only at a dial-up internet cafe, and rates are pretty absurd. I remember my Vodaphone being completely useless, although there may be a provider available there. The problem with increased tourism is that the average traveler, for whatever reason, doesn't really want to visit another area and experience its native lifestyle, but would prefer a 5-star hotel with all of the amenities, keeping themselves safely detached from whatever differences or difficulties the visited area may have originally presented. There's nothing wrong with wanting to vacation in this way, except that it effectively disenfranchises the visitors who prefer to leave those aforementioned conveniences behind. I would be truly saddened if I returned to Chichijima to see it becoming another Waikiki, because the reason I go there is to spend a few days where my biggest worry is whether or not the sea turtle habitat at which I volunteer is going to ask me to scrub the pools. (Sea turtles produce uncanny amounts of fecal matter.
And the way in which they are chosen is by direct election.
This should read "is not by direct election." I was attempting to say that the Council of Guardians and Assembly of Experts are not beholden to a particular constituency.
That isn't a question of whether Iran's president is or isn't good on foreign policies or his domestic economy... we're talking about a regime that sees fit to shut down the internet during elections.
And the people who make that call aren't up for election. Ahmadinejad is not "the regime"--Khamenei is. Along with the Council of Guardians and Assembly of Experts. And the way in which they are chosen is by direct election.
Um, how about ceasing to fund terrorism-using militant religious extremists? How about stopping shipments of cash and arms over the northern Iraqi border and through Syria to people who use them against civilians, blow up police stations, etc? How about simply recognizing that Israel exists, in the way that, say, Egypt, or Jordan have?
Let me ask you a question. I mean this in sincerity. Do you believe Hezbollah to be more evil than Israel? If so, why? Look at the total number of civilian casualties caused by each side. Look at Israel's involvement in the region, specifically what it has done to Lebanon for the past thirty years. Hezbollah was primarily responsible for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s. I actually happen to think Hezbollah is more evil than Israel, for ideological reasons, but I don't separate them that far from one another. Israel's certainly been the cause of much more death. Iran is playing a politically savvy game, in the same way America has for decades. Iran has quite clearly enumerated what it will take to get it to recognize Israel: elections that involve Palestinians. (He actually says so in the speech where he supposedly called for Israel to be destroyed. Funny, that.) Much of what we allege Iran does (for example, the Syrian examples you quoted) is part of a war of rhetoric. Iran can cite as many examples of the same--for years America supported Mujahideen E-Khal, which carried out terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. America has shot down Iranian planes full of civilians. Why should Iran be the one to cave to American demands? Iran held Americans hostage for a year--a dickish thing to do, but it pales in comparison to the overthrow of their democratically elected government and ensuing exploitation. We had our reasons, but do you think that justifies it, in their eyes? Especially given how much Iran helped us during both World Wars?
So, what good is sophistication when it can't serve the people it governs?
I wasn't saying that it was a good thing. I said it was sophisticated because it is, and as a result you can't look at it like the President is an accurate reflection of the will of the people. It's just not that simple. The political system is surprisingly complex, and in many ways mirrors the American one, in that our higher officials are not necessarily selected by those they govern. In Iran's case, it's essentially two governments in one, with one subservient to the other, and the subservient one includes the electable offices--but who qualifies to be elected is completely determined by the superior government. I agree with you: Iran doesn't do a good job of representing itself on the world stage. But that has a lot to do with who its enemies are. America wages a much better PR campaign, and so does Israel.
runs Iran and is working so hard to prevent its next door neighbors from developing a secular society that actually functions on behalf of its people.
Now you're just being naive. Iran is not the source of the problems in Iraq, nor is it trying to prevent Iraq from becoming stable. A stable Iraq is in Iran's best interests. What it wants, however, is an Iraq free of American influence, much like America wants an Iraq free of Iranian influence. Neither scenario is achievable, and neither player is happy, so each is making the other bleed for it--America through the UN sanctions, Iran through its covert operations in Iraq. But even in light of those operations, the vast m
No, Iran itself wants to be, and wants to be perceived that way. There's no other way to explain it, and the frequently repeated ravings of its top elected official.
You are either completely ignorant of how elections work or you're flamebaiting. Its "top elected official" was one of the only candidates not to be ruled "too liberal" by the Council of Guardians in the 2005 election runoff. This was, in part, a reaction to America's foreign policy. (When your greatest enemy invades the neighboring country, and then completely reneges on its agreements with you, it tends to bolster the reactionary political bloc.) Most Iranians didn't have a choice. And believe it or not, Ahmadinejad does more than sound off crazily--he's actually made quite a bit of headway in Iran to reducing corruption and pollution. As far as presidents go, he's done some good, and some bad. It just so happens the bad he does is almost entirely on the foreign policy side (in addition to his absurd economic policy), but there was never really an alternative to him, as his chief opponent, Rafsanjani, was clearly corrupt. But Ahmadinejad is no more the absolute voice of the Iranian people than George W. Bush (who currently enjoys what, a 15% approval rating?) is the absolute voice for America. How much power do we have, really, over choosing who runs for President? What makes you think it's so different in Iran?
I am sure you hate to hear this, but Iran actually has a surprisingly sophisticated political system, and unfortunately an extremely large part of it is held essentially unaccountable. There's no shortage of crazies in Iran, this is very true, but a.) being Persian, and b.) having been to Iran numerous times, I can assure you that Iranians are not pleased with the way in which they appear to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, their country is at war with both the United States and Israel, and those two countries have made it exceedingly difficult for any moderate voices in Iran to be viewed as anything but submissive to what has historically been Western imperialism. It's not like the Iranians have much reason to trust the UN or the US when they say: "just stop your nuclear enrichment and we'll make sure you still get fuel." There is nothing Iran can do, short of revolution, that will ever pacify the United States or Israel. Iran suspended its enrichment for years while the UN inspectors twiddled their thumbs. It didn't make any difference: the possibility of a nuclear Iran, however remote, is enough to challenge Israel's hegemony in the region. (And considering that Iranian-trained guerillas have been the only force to successfully achieve military objectives against Israel in the past thirty years, I can imagine how uncomfortable the entire ordeal makes Israeli leadership.) That's just the way it is.
their current program of funding all sorts of extremist militants, terrorists, and cutthroat muderers who send mentally disabled women into markets full of children to blow up bombs.
Get your facts straight. That suicide bombing was attributed to al-Qaeda, and Iran and al-Qaeda don't particularly like one another. Second, Iran has never been linked to a suicide bombing. There has never been a Persian suicide bomber, to my knowledge. That is chiefly an Arab phenomenon, and I don't even think Hezbollah (the extremist militants and terrorists whom Iran funds) condones suicide bombing.
Then why do they put forth a government that acts in that way, and talks in terms of wiping other countries off the map?
Oh God, not this again. Way to buy into the media's sensationalism, hook, line, and sinker. You are aware that the allegation to which you refer is patently false, and that's not what he said? But that's ok; it's easier to believe what you're told.
There's no doubt that Iran is fucked up right now. But we Americans have a very large hand in that--ESPECIALLY in our dealings with Iran post-9/11. Pick up "America's Secret War" by George Friedman if you want to see just how badly we've shot ourselves in the foot, vis-a-vis the Islamic Republic.
Hm... this makes me wonder: can you really trace the concept of human rights to monotheistic religion, or is it just the formal declaration of such?
I think, for some rights, you can--or at least the universality of those rights. Often a tribe would recognize its members right to life or liberty, but a conquered people were not afforded those same dignities. Monotheistic religion generally makes absolute statements about the equality of all people. That's what makes the Cyrus Cylinder so impressive: in it, Cyrus declares that all people, regardless of race, creed, or even gender (women's rights were remarkably progressive during the Achaemenids), have the right to live freely (not be enslaved), choose their ruler, and worship as they please. Now it's doubtful that Cyrus is promoting absolute democracy in this case, but he did allow his subjects considerable autonomy in determining their own governments. He collected a tribute, but in exchange he provided a great deal of protection (and ultimately prosperity, thanks to his organization of the empire).
That empire was the first in the world to guarantee liberty and religious freedom, and was not again matched until much, much later. (The legal abolition of slavery in any empire would not be repeated again until the 2nd millenium AD, to my knowledge.)
There is a compelling case to be made that Christianity gave birth to capitalism, which in turn spawned democracy and legal recognition of human rights. (Rodney Stark's book The Victory of Reason is perhaps the flagship of this philosophy.) And while Christian theologians certainly touched on the idea of natural rights, as afforded by the Creator, their integration into legal systems occurred in Islamic empires before they did in the Christian world.
It is very interesting, though, that you can directly trace the concept of human rights to monotheistic religion. Ultimately the doctrine of free will is the precursor to any philosophical recognition of human rights, and Zoroastrianism and Christianity are perhaps the two religions that focus most heavily on free will. (Personally I believe Islam does too, but the theology surrounding human will vs. God's will inspired a very fatalistic bend to modern Islam, which is unfortunate.)
They were Christian Europe's response to Islamic aggression, when Muslim armies started conquering Christian countries in the Near East.
You mean Christian Empires, namely the Byzantine Empire, which had been at war with Sassanid Persia for the past four hundred years, and had conquered/enslaved/slaughtered no small amount of people. Or is it only "aggression" when yours isn't the latest act of inhumanity?
The Crusades were just another extension of the ongoing conflict for land in the Middle East, which predated both Christianity and Islam. They were, however, an excellent example of using religious fanaticism to justify terrible atrocities. Generally, invading Islamic forces did not slaughter the civilians of a city that resisted them; the Crusaders, on the other hand, cannibalized Muslim corpses, ransacked any conquered cities (and eventually stopped discriminating between Muslims and Christians altogether, as evidenced by the Constantinople affair), and actively terrorized the countryside.
Perhaps you were not attempting to justify the Crusades, and just noting that the Crusades were quite literally a desperate plea from the Byzantines for assistance. If that's all, then yes, you are right. But whether the Byzantines held any moral superiority to the Muslims defeating them is another matter entirely, and the answer to that is a resounding "no"--they both sought power and land, and it just so happened the Muslims were better at securing those things.
The Crusades were not a proactive attack but rather they were a defense and recapture of previously held territory.
That is utter nonsense. You think the Byzantine Empire rightfully owned those lands before the Muslims seized them? Are you even marginally familiar with the Middle East? It has been under the control of one empire or another until the fall of the Ottomans. The Holy Land was conquered by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Persians again, and then proceeded to oscillate between the late Roman/early Byzantines and the Persians. That is, until the Islamic caliphate conquered a war-exhausted Sassanid empire and then promptly began kicking Byzantine ass.
The world is borne of conflict. The Greeks/Romans never had any claim to the Holy Land--they took it by force, just like everyone else. And its population has been relocated and slaughtered so many times that attempting to claim ancestral ownership is pointless--the Hebrews have lived there for less time than practically ANY other ethnic group native to the area, be it Arab, Iranian, or Turk. The only determining factor in ownership of those lands is the strength to hold it, which is why Israel holds it now, and will continue to hold it until someone gets strong enough to kick them out.
How interesting it would be if we finally make contact with an alien race and the first thing they ask us is whether or not The Creator has sent a "Messiah" to us yet.
Well then clearly they would be unintelligent, because as so many of our astute Slashdot contributors loudly declare, religion is the willful abandonment of all rational thought and discourse. Isn't it fun being batshit loco? I know I love it.
The ONLY DRM system that has been added to Vista is required by all operating systems (this includes OS X and Linux) if they want to display Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content in high definition.
This is just patently false. It's not just Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content--it's ANY content in high definition. It extends to the mess involving CableCARDs and QAM tuners as well. Also, spend some time messing around with Windows Media Player 11, and the new schemes they use to protect WMV and WMA. You can no longer back up your licenses, period--so if you lose the device to which they are tied, well, sorry, time to purchase again.
I would suggest you take your own advice and simply google "Vista DRM."
And a comment of this attitude directed at Linux would be considered offtopic and flamebait.
While I generally frown on the virulent anti-MS sentiment running rampant through teh slashdotz, I don't think the OP was guilty of succumbing to its siren call. Microsoft really did spend an inordinate amount of time DRM-ing the living bejesus out of Windows Vista to satisfy content providers, and if the consumers succeed in forcing said providers to stop being Nazis, Microsoft will have effectively wasted millions of dollars implementing a system that will be useless. That money and time could (and should) have been spent making Vista a more streamlined and stable OS. I use Vista Ultimate at home, and it does a lot of things right (Media Center is a joy to use), but it does plenty wrong too. (I don't want to turn this into a Vista bashing thread so I'll leave it at that.)
It really is unfortunate how short-sighted the record labels and movie studios are. This entire mess could have been avoided if they'd done market research on how to effectively combat piracy, rather than throwing around ridiculous figures of "cash monieZ LSOT to teh PIRATZ ARRRRRRR" and assuming that some single mother with a handful of MP3s is the source of their lost revenue.
There's a large gap between charging per processor or per machine. A machine could feasibly be used to independently run the software alongside other instances of it on the network, so charging for another license isn't unreasonable. But charging per core doesn't make any sense to me: unless each core is running a separate and independent instance of Oracle (can it be programmed to do so? Does virtualization play a role here?) then it just seems like you're being penalized for attempting to increase your efficiency.
When it comes to being robust, MySQL isn't even in the same league as Oracle. PostgreSQL is a lot better, but I still don't think it compares very well to Oracle.
Fair enough; I'm not particularly well-versed in database solutions. But judging from the pricing scheme Oracle employs, I wonder how many people find ways to work within Postgre's limitations?
Slashdot Mirror
For example, you figured that the bulk of EA's revenue was from traditional console/PC games. Nope. IIRC like 60 or 70% is all from micro transaction/mobile/DLC/PC. Insane!
Though one odd thing I can't understand is why PC is treated like garbage when not only is this the re-emerging market, but it represents a pretty significant revenue area for most publishers/developers. The PC actually generates revenues on par (or more than) the Wii, PSP, or even the DS's. So why the poor ports and missing DLC/features (which should be in considering this is where the $$$ is at). Any ideas?
I'm not sure where you're seeing that on their 10-K. I found this interesting myself, so I pulled down EA's annual report and I see the following:
Net Revenue by platform:
Consoles - 2342m
Wireless - 472m
That's the current breakdown, and mobile is really only half of that. The numbers add up to the total topline revenue EA reported, so it would seem that right now, wireless revenues only account for ~ 10-15% of their total revenue. Forecasts may paint it differently, but that's because everyone wants to be Zynga.
I think it's new enough that there isn't a lot of first-hand experience with it. The FAQ describes it in Alpha, although the download link refers to it as Beta... in any case, my suspicion is that it is likely not very stable yet. You may want to experiment with it on a home PC before putting it on your work laptop.
You know, there's a lot of speculation about that. I suspect he did have a proof, but I'm skeptical that it was correct. There's no doubt that the man was brilliant but we've had people working on that question ever since Fermat died and no one has been able to produce a "simple, elegant" proof. (Fermat's own description, there.) But there's plenty of precedent for mathematicians making things inordinately complex before some young genius comes along and shows a magnificently simple way of achieving the same thing.
Yeah, when I was an Aruki-henro for Hachi-Jyuu-Hakkashou, I spent a lot of time in ryokan and minshuku, and zenkonyado as well, and the experience was absolutely phenomenal. It's a shame that those little inns and bed-and-breakfasts are slowly dying out.
Right. Because that kind of statement doesn't make you look dogmatic or irrational at all.
I could just as easily substitute "religion" for "science" in this paragraph and frame an argument that does exactly what yours just did.
Essentially you are convinced that science will provide you with all of your answers. Good for you. I am firmly convinced that the more than we learn about the universe, the more clear it becomes that the origins of our universe and the laws that govern it are inexplicable without some kind of outside interference. There is nothing pointless or illogical about this. I am, in essence, retaining my skepticism of science, whereas you have completely abandoned yours--much the same as any person who indulges in blind faith. I can think of no verifiable way to demonstrate that the universe came from nothing. And it's bad science to assume that the lack of evidence for something is enough to rule it out, especially when no contrary evidence can be provided.
If you don't want to be religious, fine, that's your call. I happen to be deeply so, and I have my reasons for it, none of which involve blindly believing. I would, however, suggest you show a bit more deference to the thinkers who came before you, as the shoulders of the giants on which you stand were all bowed in worship before God. And I think many of them would be very offended to hear that faith described as "pointless" or "illogical."
Again, you need to look past the institutions and return to the source material. Take, for example, the problem of slavery. There is no doubt that many Christian clergymen helped facilitate and sustain the slave trade. But the Bible is very clearly against slavery, and many prominent theologians spoke out against it. In fact, various Popes issued decrees against slavery numerous times throughout the Medieval and Enlightenment periods, yet his edicts were largely ignored by corrupt officials. (Chiefly in Spain, which promptly nosedived after they managed to kick the Moors out.) Islam followed similarly: within one hundred years of the Prophet Muhammad's death, the Ummayads had found new and ingenious ways to warp the theology of the Qur'an, replacing what was a startlingly egalitarian religion with one that encouraged Arabs to assert their superiority over their conquered people. (Look no further than the Islamic Conquest of Iran to see how greatly Islamic theology and Islamic institutions differed.)
Religious theology and religious institutions rarely mirror one another, often because the former inherently prevents authoritarianism. Most monotheistic traditions stress free will, which is anathema to any institution that wishes to exert power. This does not somehow invalidate the theology, though, which is what is so frustrating about the anti-religiousness of today's society: people who condemn religion and theology as baseless and devoid of reason are doing so without any actual exposure to either. They are, in effect, doing precisely what they claim to condemn.
While I appreciate the point you are trying to make, this is not true. The early theologians were not rich, and yet if you read their works they very clearly advocate the application of reason and logic in all of man's endeavors. This focus on progress, coupled with the belief that man could use his faculties to improve the world around him, is what spurred scientific endeavor in the first place--and it's heavily supported by scripture. Simply because the later institutions went against this grain is not an indictment of religion, but instead a telling display of how easily power can corrupt.
You are assuming that religion does not promote the exercise of reason and free will, when in fact this is patently untrue. Nearly all of the greatest scientists in history, prior to the modern era when we decided religion was for "teh craziez," were deeply religious men, and in fact their religion was a bulwark in how they approached science. The early Christian thinkers (I'm talking early, as in 2-300 A.D.) consistently stressed the necessity of exercising reason in faith. Early Islamic thinkers operated the same way, believing that the gift of free will and reason were not only blessings from the Creator but obligations to humanity in their exercise. (Although the Islamic question of free will is a very nuanced one, and honestly a bit confusing--this coming from an Iranian Muslim, mind you.) There is, nowadays, an overriding sentiment that because a.) religious institutions were corrupted and b.) people are generally stupid, that somehow this means religion promotes closed-mindedness. But any actual study of scripture and theology will often quite clearly paint a different picture. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are not theologians. Neither is Ahmadinejad, for that matter, and even Khameini, fundamentalist as he is, is remarkably pro-science. (Again, a consequence of following the doctrines of his religion. His sin is that he interprets as narrowly as he can when it comes to the social order.)
It annoys me to no end that the world is becoming both anti-religious and anti-intellectual. And the longer we go, the more "religious" science becomes, with any dissidents in the community ostracized because of their beliefs, rather than their evidence. This movement towards "consensus" in scientific thought is absolutely horrifying: I don't give a shit if one hundred million scientists "agree" that it looks like x is happening; consensus is the antithesis of good science. Either the studies support you, or they don't--and the methodology of those studies should be attacked with such virulence that there can be no doubt remaining that they are valid. Instead, we have a cartel of scientific bodies that exists solely to insulate its members from real scrutiny, and react with the vehemence of the Inquisition if anyone dares to question the results they provide. It's disgusting.
While I happen to agree with your sentiment, and your annoyance at the moral superiority the "I was here first, man, before it was popular" BS with which I am too oft assaulted, there is something to be said for the natural human inclination to ruin whatever "lost paradise" we find. And it's not really a recent thing, either--as long as I can remember, we routinely trade natural beauty for comfort. I travel somewhat frequently, and one of the most incredible places I've been were the islands of Ogasawara, which are only accessible via a 27-hour ferry ride from Tokyo. Because of their distance from the mainland and the relatively long commute time, tourism is kept fairly checked, but more importantly it is exceedingly difficult to get too many "modern" amenities there. There is very little landmass and a small local population, so as of yet, the islands retain a stunning amount of their natural appearance, and much of the local population fishes to supplement the weekly deliveries of groceries from the mainland.
Precisely what makes these islands such a treasure to visit is that they offer someone a chance to divorce him/herself from the world. Internet access is available only at a dial-up internet cafe, and rates are pretty absurd. I remember my Vodaphone being completely useless, although there may be a provider available there. The problem with increased tourism is that the average traveler, for whatever reason, doesn't really want to visit another area and experience its native lifestyle, but would prefer a 5-star hotel with all of the amenities, keeping themselves safely detached from whatever differences or difficulties the visited area may have originally presented. There's nothing wrong with wanting to vacation in this way, except that it effectively disenfranchises the visitors who prefer to leave those aforementioned conveniences behind. I would be truly saddened if I returned to Chichijima to see it becoming another Waikiki, because the reason I go there is to spend a few days where my biggest worry is whether or not the sea turtle habitat at which I volunteer is going to ask me to scrub the pools. (Sea turtles produce uncanny amounts of fecal matter.
Yes because as we know, nothing in the Bible actually happened, or matters to the vast majority of the world's population.
Teh relijunz is teh crazies! Give me my cold, hard science, which is never polemical or laced with hidden agendas.
This should read "is not by direct election." I was attempting to say that the Council of Guardians and Assembly of Experts are not beholden to a particular constituency.
That isn't a question of whether Iran's president is or isn't good on foreign policies or his domestic economy... we're talking about a regime that sees fit to shut down the internet during elections.
And the people who make that call aren't up for election. Ahmadinejad is not "the regime"--Khamenei is. Along with the Council of Guardians and Assembly of Experts. And the way in which they are chosen is by direct election.
Let me ask you a question. I mean this in sincerity. Do you believe Hezbollah to be more evil than Israel? If so, why? Look at the total number of civilian casualties caused by each side. Look at Israel's involvement in the region, specifically what it has done to Lebanon for the past thirty years. Hezbollah was primarily responsible for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s. I actually happen to think Hezbollah is more evil than Israel, for ideological reasons, but I don't separate them that far from one another. Israel's certainly been the cause of much more death. Iran is playing a politically savvy game, in the same way America has for decades. Iran has quite clearly enumerated what it will take to get it to recognize Israel: elections that involve Palestinians. (He actually says so in the speech where he supposedly called for Israel to be destroyed. Funny, that.) Much of what we allege Iran does (for example, the Syrian examples you quoted) is part of a war of rhetoric. Iran can cite as many examples of the same--for years America supported Mujahideen E-Khal, which carried out terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. America has shot down Iranian planes full of civilians. Why should Iran be the one to cave to American demands? Iran held Americans hostage for a year--a dickish thing to do, but it pales in comparison to the overthrow of their democratically elected government and ensuing exploitation. We had our reasons, but do you think that justifies it, in their eyes? Especially given how much Iran helped us during both World Wars?
So, what good is sophistication when it can't serve the people it governs?
I wasn't saying that it was a good thing. I said it was sophisticated because it is, and as a result you can't look at it like the President is an accurate reflection of the will of the people. It's just not that simple. The political system is surprisingly complex, and in many ways mirrors the American one, in that our higher officials are not necessarily selected by those they govern. In Iran's case, it's essentially two governments in one, with one subservient to the other, and the subservient one includes the electable offices--but who qualifies to be elected is completely determined by the superior government. I agree with you: Iran doesn't do a good job of representing itself on the world stage. But that has a lot to do with who its enemies are. America wages a much better PR campaign, and so does Israel.
runs Iran and is working so hard to prevent its next door neighbors from developing a secular society that actually functions on behalf of its people.
Now you're just being naive. Iran is not the source of the problems in Iraq, nor is it trying to prevent Iraq from becoming stable. A stable Iraq is in Iran's best interests. What it wants, however, is an Iraq free of American influence, much like America wants an Iraq free of Iranian influence. Neither scenario is achievable, and neither player is happy, so each is making the other bleed for it--America through the UN sanctions, Iran through its covert operations in Iraq. But even in light of those operations, the vast m
You are either completely ignorant of how elections work or you're flamebaiting. Its "top elected official" was one of the only candidates not to be ruled "too liberal" by the Council of Guardians in the 2005 election runoff. This was, in part, a reaction to America's foreign policy. (When your greatest enemy invades the neighboring country, and then completely reneges on its agreements with you, it tends to bolster the reactionary political bloc.) Most Iranians didn't have a choice. And believe it or not, Ahmadinejad does more than sound off crazily--he's actually made quite a bit of headway in Iran to reducing corruption and pollution. As far as presidents go, he's done some good, and some bad. It just so happens the bad he does is almost entirely on the foreign policy side (in addition to his absurd economic policy), but there was never really an alternative to him, as his chief opponent, Rafsanjani, was clearly corrupt. But Ahmadinejad is no more the absolute voice of the Iranian people than George W. Bush (who currently enjoys what, a 15% approval rating?) is the absolute voice for America. How much power do we have, really, over choosing who runs for President? What makes you think it's so different in Iran?
I am sure you hate to hear this, but Iran actually has a surprisingly sophisticated political system, and unfortunately an extremely large part of it is held essentially unaccountable. There's no shortage of crazies in Iran, this is very true, but a.) being Persian, and b.) having been to Iran numerous times, I can assure you that Iranians are not pleased with the way in which they appear to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, their country is at war with both the United States and Israel, and those two countries have made it exceedingly difficult for any moderate voices in Iran to be viewed as anything but submissive to what has historically been Western imperialism. It's not like the Iranians have much reason to trust the UN or the US when they say: "just stop your nuclear enrichment and we'll make sure you still get fuel." There is nothing Iran can do, short of revolution, that will ever pacify the United States or Israel. Iran suspended its enrichment for years while the UN inspectors twiddled their thumbs. It didn't make any difference: the possibility of a nuclear Iran, however remote, is enough to challenge Israel's hegemony in the region. (And considering that Iranian-trained guerillas have been the only force to successfully achieve military objectives against Israel in the past thirty years, I can imagine how uncomfortable the entire ordeal makes Israeli leadership.) That's just the way it is.
their current program of funding all sorts of extremist militants, terrorists, and cutthroat muderers who send mentally disabled women into markets full of children to blow up bombs.Get your facts straight. That suicide bombing was attributed to al-Qaeda, and Iran and al-Qaeda don't particularly like one another. Second, Iran has never been linked to a suicide bombing. There has never been a Persian suicide bomber, to my knowledge. That is chiefly an Arab phenomenon, and I don't even think Hezbollah (the extremist militants and terrorists whom Iran funds) condones suicide bombing.
Then why do they put forth a government that acts in that way, and talks in terms of wiping other countries off the map?Oh God, not this again. Way to buy into the media's sensationalism, hook, line, and sinker. You are aware that the allegation to which you refer is patently false, and that's not what he said? But that's ok; it's easier to believe what you're told.
There's no doubt that Iran is fucked up right now. But we Americans have a very large hand in that--ESPECIALLY in our dealings with Iran post-9/11. Pick up "America's Secret War" by George Friedman if you want to see just how badly we've shot ourselves in the foot, vis-a-vis the Islamic Republic.
I think, for some rights, you can--or at least the universality of those rights. Often a tribe would recognize its members right to life or liberty, but a conquered people were not afforded those same dignities. Monotheistic religion generally makes absolute statements about the equality of all people. That's what makes the Cyrus Cylinder so impressive: in it, Cyrus declares that all people, regardless of race, creed, or even gender (women's rights were remarkably progressive during the Achaemenids), have the right to live freely (not be enslaved), choose their ruler, and worship as they please. Now it's doubtful that Cyrus is promoting absolute democracy in this case, but he did allow his subjects considerable autonomy in determining their own governments. He collected a tribute, but in exchange he provided a great deal of protection (and ultimately prosperity, thanks to his organization of the empire).
This is not entirely true--the first declaration of human rights was written by a Zoroastrian, not a Christian.
That empire was the first in the world to guarantee liberty and religious freedom, and was not again matched until much, much later. (The legal abolition of slavery in any empire would not be repeated again until the 2nd millenium AD, to my knowledge.)
There is a compelling case to be made that Christianity gave birth to capitalism, which in turn spawned democracy and legal recognition of human rights. (Rodney Stark's book The Victory of Reason is perhaps the flagship of this philosophy.) And while Christian theologians certainly touched on the idea of natural rights, as afforded by the Creator, their integration into legal systems occurred in Islamic empires before they did in the Christian world.
It is very interesting, though, that you can directly trace the concept of human rights to monotheistic religion. Ultimately the doctrine of free will is the precursor to any philosophical recognition of human rights, and Zoroastrianism and Christianity are perhaps the two religions that focus most heavily on free will. (Personally I believe Islam does too, but the theology surrounding human will vs. God's will inspired a very fatalistic bend to modern Islam, which is unfortunate.)
I'm in your boat. I would wager it is because we are both such visionaries.
You mean Christian Empires, namely the Byzantine Empire, which had been at war with Sassanid Persia for the past four hundred years, and had conquered/enslaved/slaughtered no small amount of people. Or is it only "aggression" when yours isn't the latest act of inhumanity?
The Crusades were just another extension of the ongoing conflict for land in the Middle East, which predated both Christianity and Islam. They were, however, an excellent example of using religious fanaticism to justify terrible atrocities. Generally, invading Islamic forces did not slaughter the civilians of a city that resisted them; the Crusaders, on the other hand, cannibalized Muslim corpses, ransacked any conquered cities (and eventually stopped discriminating between Muslims and Christians altogether, as evidenced by the Constantinople affair), and actively terrorized the countryside.
Perhaps you were not attempting to justify the Crusades, and just noting that the Crusades were quite literally a desperate plea from the Byzantines for assistance. If that's all, then yes, you are right. But whether the Byzantines held any moral superiority to the Muslims defeating them is another matter entirely, and the answer to that is a resounding "no"--they both sought power and land, and it just so happened the Muslims were better at securing those things.
That is utter nonsense. You think the Byzantine Empire rightfully owned those lands before the Muslims seized them? Are you even marginally familiar with the Middle East? It has been under the control of one empire or another until the fall of the Ottomans. The Holy Land was conquered by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Persians again, and then proceeded to oscillate between the late Roman/early Byzantines and the Persians. That is, until the Islamic caliphate conquered a war-exhausted Sassanid empire and then promptly began kicking Byzantine ass.
The world is borne of conflict. The Greeks/Romans never had any claim to the Holy Land--they took it by force, just like everyone else. And its population has been relocated and slaughtered so many times that attempting to claim ancestral ownership is pointless--the Hebrews have lived there for less time than practically ANY other ethnic group native to the area, be it Arab, Iranian, or Turk. The only determining factor in ownership of those lands is the strength to hold it, which is why Israel holds it now, and will continue to hold it until someone gets strong enough to kick them out.
Nice try?
Or, God forbid, a killer badger?
Only sissies call it "parliament." Its proper reference is "freedom council of freedom and liberty justice."
America. FUCK YEAH.
Well then clearly they would be unintelligent, because as so many of our astute Slashdot contributors loudly declare, religion is the willful abandonment of all rational thought and discourse. Isn't it fun being batshit loco? I know I love it.
Yes, it is completely real. In America, our bandwidth is taxed at $20/kb to make sure we don't support "teh piratez."
This is just patently false. It's not just Blu-Ray and HD-DVD content--it's ANY content in high definition. It extends to the mess involving CableCARDs and QAM tuners as well. Also, spend some time messing around with Windows Media Player 11, and the new schemes they use to protect WMV and WMA. You can no longer back up your licenses, period--so if you lose the device to which they are tied, well, sorry, time to purchase again.
I would suggest you take your own advice and simply google "Vista DRM."
While I generally frown on the virulent anti-MS sentiment running rampant through teh slashdotz, I don't think the OP was guilty of succumbing to its siren call. Microsoft really did spend an inordinate amount of time DRM-ing the living bejesus out of Windows Vista to satisfy content providers, and if the consumers succeed in forcing said providers to stop being Nazis, Microsoft will have effectively wasted millions of dollars implementing a system that will be useless. That money and time could (and should) have been spent making Vista a more streamlined and stable OS. I use Vista Ultimate at home, and it does a lot of things right (Media Center is a joy to use), but it does plenty wrong too. (I don't want to turn this into a Vista bashing thread so I'll leave it at that.)
It really is unfortunate how short-sighted the record labels and movie studios are. This entire mess could have been avoided if they'd done market research on how to effectively combat piracy, rather than throwing around ridiculous figures of "cash monieZ LSOT to teh PIRATZ ARRRRRRR" and assuming that some single mother with a handful of MP3s is the source of their lost revenue.
There's a large gap between charging per processor or per machine. A machine could feasibly be used to independently run the software alongside other instances of it on the network, so charging for another license isn't unreasonable. But charging per core doesn't make any sense to me: unless each core is running a separate and independent instance of Oracle (can it be programmed to do so? Does virtualization play a role here?) then it just seems like you're being penalized for attempting to increase your efficiency.
When it comes to being robust, MySQL isn't even in the same league as Oracle. PostgreSQL is a lot better, but I still don't think it compares very well to Oracle.Fair enough; I'm not particularly well-versed in database solutions. But judging from the pricing scheme Oracle employs, I wonder how many people find ways to work within Postgre's limitations?