You have probably never used PHP seriously, so you can be forgiven for your fast words. PHP is used in large commerce sites and large content sites all over the world.
Actually, ASP is for people who don't mind being locked in one operating platform, a problem PHP, Java , Python and Perl don't have. For your small projects it may not be an issue, but as projects grow bigger and more expensive, flexibility (pointedly cross-platform) quickly becomes a fundamental issue.
The "X doesn't have Y" syndrome
on
Programming PHP
·
· Score: 2
No, nothing has everything. On the other hand, "business" will do without almost anything as long as the task at hand gets done. PHP is not only excelent for business, it is wildly used in large e-commerce sites all over the world. Along with Perl, Python and Java servlets, it is one of the key web development technologies. It is very fast and very responsive. The lack of one or other feature may be a local problem, but it is not a general problem that allow you to classify it as "pointless"
Only inexperience makes one mix the "must have" column with the "nice to have" column. Or excessive press release reading. I have been using Java (Tomcat) and Python (by the way of Zope) in my recent projects, but I used PHP for years and it has always been adequate for small and large projects.
I know it is probably slightly off-topic, but maybe she is trying to make you understand that waking up half an hour early may be good for your marriage.
"And it doesn't stop when you leave home, either."
on
When Users Attack
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Let me tear down any hope you might have left: it doesn't stop even when you marry and give them grandchildren. It only stops 10 or so years after that when, if you raised your children correctly, you can pass the gramma/grampa computer support contract to your son/daughter. Believe me, I speak from experience.
The university clearly has the right to test its own network in whatever way it chooses. The students don't "own" the network, they are just granted the right to use it in whatever way the owners want.
As for the guy in the main article, he also asked to be tested. So, where is the "without permission" part?
And as for getting in a blackhole list in the first place, no one has to probe his server. Some of us still can read email headers and determine where some piece of email came from.
Your example is better than mine, although I believe that under very restrict and controlled situations those printers may even reach their claimed speed.
In Court the manufacturer will probably say that those speeds were acchieved in a clean room with a special cartridge filled with a non-consumer grade ink (with a density far bellow or far above the practical and profitable) printing on special, handmade paper found only in a Russian village.
First, have ou read the article? Of the three printers he comments only one (incidentaly the best one) is a laser printer. The two ink-jets wild claims do not have the PS/PCL excuse.
But this is not even the main point. Their consumers are not specialists anymore. They are selling to the average consumer who has absolutely no obligation of interpreting what they mean to say.
If a manufacturer printed "Average number of matches: 50" on the side of its matchboxes and consistently delivered boxes with 10 matches (and now and then send out a big box with 2000 matches to make the "average") it would go to jail real fast. There is no excuse for using unreal or confusing specs as a selling point. The continuing use of such data to sell printers is just bad faith.
You know, there are these language devices one may use to comment a situation. You are supposed to learn it in High School. As you failed to notice, I learned to use them in at least two different languages.
So, next time someone says to you "Your understanding is as deep as a rain pool", don't ask him about the average rainfall in the area. Ask him for help...
(As for Europe, I prefer the "Let the Russians win this one for us while we put up little show here in Holland and France" method. It is much safer, although the colateral effects may last half a century or so. Saddam is another matter entirely. Who said I want to ouster him? George, Dick and their vassal Tony, they are the ones at it).
Come on, he didn't say it was easy
on
Awari Solved
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But brute force it is indeed...Think of it as the Allied forces carpet bombing Iraq in Gulf I or the US trying to kill that Laden guy by droping a bomb in his head or the (other) Allied forces wasting tons of blood in Normandy . No one of these operations was easy, everyone of them had its novel approaches to logistical, spatial, scientific and communication problems. But not one of them shares the elegance of the Greeks sneaking a wood horse into Troy or the Panzer division ignoring the Maginot line they were supposed to attack and conquering France in a month.
(later they will recommend that you outsource everything to one of their "partners")
Which is exactly where the real money has always been, as SAP showed us so well. And it has been explained to exhaustion already that the right way to make money with Free software is by providing service to the users of the said software.
We all know the vast secret conspiracy against poor Microsoft does not tolerate these kind of behaviour. Anyone speaking against Java, Linux, Apache and other fine technologies will be as good as dead for the mainstream media and the general public as is anyone who speaks for Microsoft. They all go down the same wall of silence we dump Chomsky and Moore on.
How is copying a movie (which someone spent a lot of time and money creating) your right to privacy? I can't see anything even closely resembling your "right to privacy" in pirating -- other than they share some of the same letters.
You misundertand me here. I am not saying that copying a movie is part of my right to privacy. I am saying that the same laws (both in existence and in the making) that are supposed to prevent copying of copyright content are also restricting the privacy (and left unchecked will go on to open your personal property to the eyes of the law enforcement without reason except that of protecting the profit of half a dozen corporations).
Secondly, how come there is this supposed "right of advancement of technology" yet someone doesn't have the right to have their art protected?
I don't think you should put words in my mouth. I never said content providers can't use technology to protect themselves. I just say that the law should not prevent the development of technology and the use of this technology. The recent trends in legal copyright protection are a menace not to pirates (they will keep triving elsewhere) but to technology development and even to the whole free/open software as a whole.
The DMCA has already been used to jail one programmer for some months. It can also be used to prevent the public from knowing flaws and bugs in proprietary software. New laws mandating CRM in software may be used to kill some pieces of free software. Even independent cryptography research is threatned. As it is, a state of affairs that pleases many governments.
Thirdly, what buisness model for the MPAA and RIAA members would you propse (short of giving it away) that would almost halt piracy. Even if you could download a CD for $8 (50% off) people would still pirate it as much as they do now. Even if it was given away, but you could not copyright it, it would still be pirated. Until more people become more moralistic (for lack of a better term), these laws need to exist.
Would they? Some years ago, before the advent of fast internet and MP3, were people actively buying pirated CDs made in China? Some were, yes, but most people were buying their CDs where they always did, in the stores. I know that if I can download the music I want at the bitrate I want through a efficient network for a fair price, I will do just so.
I believe the music industry problem is that they can't see a way to make people pay for the low quality of their offering except by law. If you could choose which songs you want from an average CD, 10 out of 12 songs would be left undownloaded, unheard and unknown. And that is an optimistic figure. But the industry has grown fat and lazy, they can't see a world where they can't make you pay for the 10 garbage songs to have the right to hear the 2 good ones, the ones that made you purchase the album.
I will agree that perhaps archival backup should be legal as long as they stay in the owners possesion. Fair use should exist, but not in the manner that most people on Slashdot think it should. Their idea of fair use, and probably yours, is that you can use any amount of a "work" you want and that's fair.
You judge me unfairly. If you peruse my comments in this thread you will never see a defense of free-loading on the artists shoulders. I even think the producers and distributors have a place, a value to add to the process. I don't think (and I don't know anyone who does) downloading a song from the P2P networks is fair use. But I know it is a fact, a fact that should warn the industry about their relationship to their consumers and to their artists.
I also think the companies should expend more time and money thinking about how they can make a profit with these new technologies, instead of expending their time and money in the halls of Congress trying to buy laws to prevent the existence of the said technologies.
I'm talking about you, you idiot. I'm talking about people who try again and again to argue that copyright violation isn't a crime, and that stealing isn't wrong because only the big, faceless corporations suffer. This is a foolish argument, and those of us with sense see right through it.
Calm down. There is no need to start calling names in a civil discussion. That said, I have NOT, in any of my comments so far, stated my position about copyright violation. I believe my first and foremost argument was about the social reaction the companies may suffer if they get really serious about sending to jail the boyas and girls who are downloading their property. I made no argument about the fairness or unfairness of stealing from a corporation.
I also said it clearly that I think I new business model is needed. That much should be clear. When most of your consumers start taking away your product for free somewhere, you have problem no law will solve. Your product has suddenly lost its trade value and to recover it you must investigate what is exactly that made people exchange the quality and confot of your product by the uncertainty and limited availability of a instable network.
But if you seriously think this is one of those times, if you seriously think that your right to free stuff is being violated, then you need to spend some time reevaluating your life.
Again, I was never talking about "the right for free stuff". I was talking about not having my privacy and my property violated because some company think I might one day violate their copyright. I am also talking about about keeping in touch with the real world, where the public does not really give a damn if Disney made 10 or 20 billion dollars last year. And where the public will find it very wierd if when a teenager got some years of jail time for a "crime" that costs the producer almost nothing (for what that particular individual has "stolen", if you can "steal" such untangible things as a string of bytes).
You are aware that you sound like an idiot comparing media piracy to women's suffrage or civil rights, aren't you?
Deep down you know it is not about copyright violation, but about the right for privacy and the advancement of technology.
If you wanna go there, and obviously IANAL (but since you have stated otherwise, I believe YANAL too), the whole problem is that the megacorporations who control the content production and distribution are willing to make a copyright violation as serious a crime as murder, grand theft or drug smugling. This completely violates the long-standing principle of law that prescribes the punishment should be proportional to the crime. If you don't think this will cause a backslash I think you are misreading the public willingness to put up with anything the corporations want.
The only backlash here is the one against the anti-intellectual-property camp and their constant disregard for the laws and treaties under which we live
Here, I believe, you are confusing matters even more. Who, exactly, are you talking about? The Free Software Foundantion? The Open Source Movement? Would you care to point instances of their disregard for law and treaties?
And this, naturally, without even beginning to discuss the problem of how to deal with unfair, unjust laws. You are aware that sometime in the past the law used to say women couldn't vote, ain't you? And black people could not vote and could not do a host of other things.
We have been waiting for years now for the music and movie industries to completely lose their evil minds and follow the path you suggest.
Up to now, public awareness of the privacy and freedom problems posed by these two sectors of society is close to inexistent. The general public does not care much about this or that law, as long as some Britney has a new CD every six to nine months and the theaters have some new movies every summer.
Now, if you start jailing their sons and daughters, confiscating their properties and suing them into poverty for the sake of Disney, Sony and such other oh so poor companies, I believe we will see a backslash these guys won't forget for generations.
Some suggested the public reaction to the war on drugs should be seem as a sign that nothing will happen yet again. But I think these are two very different issues. Drugs and its criminal status are linked to issues like poverty, racism, mental illness and heavy health hazards. Britney is the opposite of it, as is Mickey Mouse. Jailing people for not paying a few bucks to very rich artists and companies will not be easily sold as a "Save the children" issue. Whose children, will ask John Doe, Hillary's? The Emperor's clothes will get pretty invisible here.
After that we will probably see the tide that will finnaly make some young executives sit back and start thinking about a new business model capable of keeping the money flowing instead of new laws.
In short, no, I don't care to read you book of all truth, nor will I study useless superstition posed as serious opposing views for your sake.
If you can't see how what you just posted contradicts all known science, alas, I am not your teacher, I am not your preacher, I am not responsible for you.
My position is pretty clear, I believe all creationist noise should be moderated down as trolls here (and I am not persecuting you alone, I also think references to astrology, Bach florals, and other superstitions should also have the same fate). You are just trying to disrupt a discussion about scientific books and issues with your useless nonsense. Hence, you are just common trolls disguised as defenders of a "truth" only you can see.
"Here" is my comment was meant to refer to Brazil. Sorry for the ambiguity. On the other hand, I support all moderation to hide creationist trolls and I am also not aware of the existence of any other kind of creationist. Slashdot should not harbour archaic superstition, else the next thing we will be reading is that Windows is evil because Bill Gates astral map says so.
"On the third day of creation grass and trees were created, but it wasn't until the fourth day of creation that the sun and moon were created. That obviously does not agree with evolution theory."
Funny that you care to argue how this contradicts evolution. Why do you choose to hide the real consequences? Because this little "fact" does not contradicts evolution directly, only all known biology upon which evolution rests. It contradicts every known fact about the physiology of plants. It contradict physics.
But thank you, you just demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt why your kind of Christian fanatic must be publicly exposed, debunked and fought at every possible forum. You are not just a danger to innocent Kansas children, you are a danger to civilization. Left to your own you would ban all known science and happily lead us to a dark age of ignorance and fear...
I suggest you study carrefully the list of Arguments for the existence of God. Specially on-topic for the present discussion are arguments 10, 26 and 120: 10. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION (1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists. (2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable (3) Therefore, God exists.
26. ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM (1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich. (2) Therefore, God exists.
120. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II) / ARGUMENT FROM IDIOCY (I) 1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians. 2) I am an idiot. 3) People often point that out. 4) Therefore, God exists.
Your facts are somewhat out of synch with reality.
In Brazil the Catholic schools have been teaching Evolution as a scientific fact for a long time. One detail easily overlooked is that the Catholic Church never favoured the literal interpretation of the Bible - sometimes they even considered certain literal interpretation sins.
I never seem any creationinst around here. They must exist somewhere, but they are probably hidden in their churches talking among themselves.
The reason is just to ridicule the creationists for the benefit of the sector of the public that matters.
We hold no hope for the hard entrenched "card-carrying" anti-science ones, but there is a huge young audience whose upbringing may have favoured a distorted, supersticious, view of science. These can be saved from their ignorance and their children may have hope for a better education, away from the pathetic 6000 years old Earth crowd.
Who, is his right mind, ever thought Hotmail was a haven for commercial or otherwise private information, when not a month goes by without a new flaw in their security or a new loophole in their privacy policy comes to light?
Or do all of the above from elsewhere in the world until the Americans sort their mess up.
I believe Joe and Mary GeneralPublic will be very angry when straight-A Johnny GeneralPublic II gets ten years in jail for sharing those N'Sync songs. Joe and Mary might even consider start voting, and in anti-RIAA candidates.
Slashdot Mirror
You have probably never used PHP seriously, so you can be forgiven for your fast words. PHP is used in large commerce sites and large content sites all over the world.
Actually, ASP is for people who don't mind being locked in one operating platform, a problem PHP, Java , Python and Perl don't have. For your small projects it may not be an issue, but as projects grow bigger and more expensive, flexibility (pointedly cross-platform) quickly becomes a fundamental issue.
No, nothing has everything. On the other hand, "business" will do without almost anything as long as the task at hand gets done. PHP is not only excelent for business, it is wildly used in large e-commerce sites all over the world. Along with Perl, Python and Java servlets, it is one of the key web development technologies. It is very fast and very responsive. The lack of one or other feature may be a local problem, but it is not a general problem that allow you to classify it as "pointless"
Only inexperience makes one mix the "must have" column with the "nice to have" column. Or excessive press release reading. I have been using Java (Tomcat) and Python (by the way of Zope) in my recent projects, but I used PHP for years and it has always been adequate for small and large projects.
I know it is probably slightly off-topic, but maybe she is trying to make you understand that waking up half an hour early may be good for your marriage.
Let me tear down any hope you might have left: it doesn't stop even when you marry and give them grandchildren. It only stops 10 or so years after that when, if you raised your children correctly, you can pass the gramma/grampa computer support contract to your son/daughter. Believe me, I speak from experience.
The university clearly has the right to test its own network in whatever way it chooses. The students don't "own" the network, they are just granted the right to use it in whatever way the owners want.
As for the guy in the main article, he also asked to be tested. So, where is the "without permission" part?
And as for getting in a blackhole list in the first place, no one has to probe his server. Some of us still can read email headers and determine where some piece of email came from.
Your example is better than mine, although I believe that under very restrict and controlled situations those printers may even reach their claimed speed.
In Court the manufacturer will probably say that those speeds were acchieved in a clean room with a special cartridge filled with a non-consumer grade ink (with a density far bellow or far above the practical and profitable) printing on special, handmade paper found only in a Russian village.
First, have ou read the article? Of the three printers he comments only one (incidentaly the best one) is a laser printer. The two ink-jets wild claims do not have the PS/PCL excuse.
But this is not even the main point. Their consumers are not specialists anymore. They are selling to the average consumer who has absolutely no obligation of interpreting what they mean to say.
If a manufacturer printed "Average number of matches: 50" on the side of its matchboxes and consistently delivered boxes with 10 matches (and now and then send out a big box with 2000 matches to make the "average") it would go to jail real fast. There is no excuse for using unreal or confusing specs as a selling point. The continuing use of such data to sell printers is just bad faith.
You know, there are these language devices one may use to comment a situation. You are supposed to learn it in High School. As you failed to notice, I learned to use them in at least two different languages.
So, next time someone says to you "Your understanding is as deep as a rain pool", don't ask him about the average rainfall in the area. Ask him for help...
(As for Europe, I prefer the "Let the Russians win this one for us while we put up little show here in Holland and France" method. It is much safer, although the colateral effects may last half a century or so. Saddam is another matter entirely. Who said I want to ouster him? George, Dick and their vassal Tony, they are the ones at it).
But brute force it is indeed...Think of it as the Allied forces carpet bombing Iraq in Gulf I or the US trying to kill that Laden guy by droping a bomb in his head or the (other) Allied forces wasting tons of blood in Normandy . No one of these operations was easy, everyone of them had its novel approaches to logistical, spatial, scientific and communication problems. But not one of them shares the elegance of the Greeks sneaking a wood horse into Troy or the Panzer division ignoring the Maginot line they were supposed to attack and conquering France in a month.
(later they will recommend that you outsource everything to one of their "partners")
Which is exactly where the real money has always been, as SAP showed us so well. And it has been explained to exhaustion already that the right way to make money with Free software is by providing service to the users of the said software.
We all know the vast secret conspiracy against poor Microsoft does not tolerate these kind of behaviour. Anyone speaking against Java, Linux, Apache and other fine technologies will be as good as dead for the mainstream media and the general public as is anyone who speaks for Microsoft. They all go down the same wall of silence we dump Chomsky and Moore on.
How is copying a movie (which someone spent a lot of time and money creating) your right to privacy?
I can't see anything even closely resembling your "right to privacy" in pirating -- other than they share some of the same letters.
You misundertand me here. I am not saying that copying a movie is part of my right to privacy. I am saying that the same laws (both in existence and in the making) that are supposed to prevent copying of copyright content are also restricting the privacy (and left unchecked will go on to open your personal property to the eyes of the law enforcement without reason except that of protecting the profit of half a dozen corporations).
Secondly, how come there is this supposed "right of advancement of technology" yet someone doesn't have the right to have their art protected?
I don't think you should put words in my mouth. I never said content providers can't use technology to protect themselves. I just say that the law should not prevent the development of technology and the use of this technology. The recent trends in legal copyright protection are a menace not to pirates (they will keep triving elsewhere) but to technology development and even to the whole free/open software as a whole.
The DMCA has already been used to jail one programmer for some months. It can also be used to prevent the public from knowing flaws and bugs in proprietary software. New laws mandating CRM in software may be used to kill some pieces of free software. Even independent cryptography research is threatned. As it is, a state of affairs that pleases many governments.
Thirdly, what buisness model for the MPAA and RIAA members would you propse (short of giving it away) that would almost halt piracy. Even if you could download a CD for $8 (50% off) people would still pirate it as much as they do now. Even if it was given away, but you could not copyright it, it would still be pirated. Until more people become more moralistic (for lack of a better term), these laws need to exist.
Would they? Some years ago, before the advent of fast internet and MP3, were people actively buying pirated CDs made in China? Some were, yes, but most people were buying their CDs where they always did, in the stores. I know that if I can download the music I want at the bitrate I want through a efficient network for a fair price, I will do just so.
I believe the music industry problem is that they can't see a way to make people pay for the low quality of their offering except by law. If you could choose which songs you want from an average CD, 10 out of 12 songs would be left undownloaded, unheard and unknown. And that is an optimistic figure. But the industry has grown fat and lazy, they can't see a world where they can't make you pay for the 10 garbage songs to have the right to hear the 2 good ones, the ones that made you purchase the album.
I will agree that perhaps archival backup should be legal as long as they stay in the owners possesion. Fair use should exist, but not in the manner that most people on Slashdot think it should. Their idea of fair use, and probably yours, is that you can use any amount of a "work" you want and that's fair.
You judge me unfairly. If you peruse my comments in this thread you will never see a defense of free-loading on the artists shoulders. I even think the producers and distributors have a place, a value to add to the process. I don't think (and I don't know anyone who does) downloading a song from the P2P networks is fair use. But I know it is a fact, a fact that should warn the industry about their relationship to their consumers and to their artists.
I also think the companies should expend more time and money thinking about how they can make a profit with these new technologies, instead of expending their time and money in the halls of Congress trying to buy laws to prevent the existence of the said technologies.
Who, exactly, are you talking about?
I'm talking about you, you idiot. I'm talking about people who try again and again to argue that copyright violation isn't a crime, and that stealing isn't wrong because only the big, faceless corporations suffer. This is a foolish argument, and those of us with sense see right through it.
Calm down. There is no need to start calling names in a civil discussion. That said, I have NOT, in any of my comments so far, stated my position about copyright violation. I believe my first and foremost argument was about the social reaction the companies may suffer if they get really serious about sending to jail the boyas and girls who are downloading their property. I made no argument about the fairness or unfairness of stealing from a corporation.
I also said it clearly that I think I new business model is needed. That much should be clear. When most of your consumers start taking away your product for free somewhere, you have problem no law will solve. Your product has suddenly lost its trade value and to recover it you must investigate what is exactly that made people exchange the quality and confot of your product by the uncertainty and limited availability of a instable network.
But if you seriously think this is one of those times, if you seriously think that your right to free stuff is being violated, then you need to spend some time reevaluating your life.
Again, I was never talking about "the right for free stuff". I was talking about not having my privacy and my property violated because some company think I might one day violate their copyright. I am also talking about about keeping in touch with the real world, where the public does not really give a damn if Disney made 10 or 20 billion dollars last year. And where the public will find it very wierd if when a teenager got some years of jail time for a "crime" that costs the producer almost nothing (for what that particular individual has "stolen", if you can "steal" such untangible things as a string of bytes).
You are aware that you sound like an idiot comparing media piracy to women's suffrage or civil rights, aren't you?
Deep down you know it is not about copyright violation, but about the right for privacy and the advancement of technology.
If you wanna go there, and obviously IANAL (but since you have stated otherwise, I believe YANAL too), the whole problem is that the megacorporations who control the content production and distribution are willing to make a copyright violation as serious a crime as murder, grand theft or drug smugling. This completely violates the long-standing principle of law that prescribes the punishment should be proportional to the crime. If you don't think this will cause a backslash I think you are misreading the public willingness to put up with anything the corporations want.
The only backlash here is the one against the anti-intellectual-property camp and their constant disregard for the laws and treaties under which we live
Here, I believe, you are confusing matters even more. Who, exactly, are you talking about? The Free Software Foundantion? The Open Source Movement? Would you care to point instances of their disregard for law and treaties?
And this, naturally, without even beginning to discuss the problem of how to deal with unfair, unjust laws. You are aware that sometime in the past the law used to say women couldn't vote, ain't you? And black people could not vote and could not do a host of other things.
We have been waiting for years now for the music and movie industries to completely lose their evil minds and follow the path you suggest.
Up to now, public awareness of the privacy and freedom problems posed by these two sectors of society is close to inexistent. The general public does not care much about this or that law, as long as some Britney has a new CD every six to nine months and the theaters have some new movies every summer.
Now, if you start jailing their sons and daughters, confiscating their properties and suing them into poverty for the sake of Disney, Sony and such other oh so poor companies, I believe we will see a backslash these guys won't forget for generations.
Some suggested the public reaction to the war on drugs should be seem as a sign that nothing will happen yet again. But I think these are two very different issues. Drugs and its criminal status are linked to issues like poverty, racism, mental illness and heavy health hazards. Britney is the opposite of it, as is Mickey Mouse. Jailing people for not paying a few bucks to very rich artists and companies will not be easily sold as a "Save the children" issue. Whose children, will ask John Doe, Hillary's? The Emperor's clothes will get pretty invisible here.
After that we will probably see the tide that will finnaly make some young executives sit back and start thinking about a new business model capable of keeping the money flowing instead of new laws.
In short, no, I don't care to read you book of all truth, nor will I study useless superstition posed as serious opposing views for your sake.
If you can't see how what you just posted contradicts all known science, alas, I am not your teacher, I am not your preacher, I am not responsible for you.
My position is pretty clear, I believe all creationist noise should be moderated down as trolls here (and I am not persecuting you alone, I also think references to astrology, Bach florals, and other superstitions should also have the same fate). You are just trying to disrupt a discussion about scientific books and issues with your useless nonsense. Hence, you are just common trolls disguised as defenders of a "truth" only you can see.
Please read my response that ponted to the same ambiguity in my comment.
"Here" is my comment was meant to refer to Brazil. Sorry for the ambiguity. On the other hand, I support all moderation to hide creationist trolls and I am also not aware of the existence of any other kind of creationist. Slashdot should not harbour archaic superstition, else the next thing we will be reading is that Windows is evil because Bill Gates astral map says so.
"On the third day of creation grass and trees were created, but it wasn't until the fourth day of creation that the sun and moon were created. That obviously does not agree with evolution theory."
Funny that you care to argue how this contradicts evolution. Why do you choose to hide the real consequences? Because this little "fact" does not contradicts evolution directly, only all known biology upon which evolution rests. It contradicts every known fact about the physiology of plants. It contradict physics.
But thank you, you just demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt why your kind of Christian fanatic must be publicly exposed, debunked and fought at every possible forum. You are not just a danger to innocent Kansas children, you are a danger to civilization. Left to your own you would ban all known science and happily lead us to a dark age of ignorance and fear...
I suggest you study carrefully the list of Arguments for the existence of God. Specially on-topic for the present discussion are arguments 10, 26 and 120:
10. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God
exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to
understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be
uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.
26. ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM
(1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
120. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II) / ARGUMENT FROM IDIOCY (I)
1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
2) I am an idiot.
3) People often point that out.
4) Therefore, God exists.
Your facts are somewhat out of synch with reality.
In Brazil the Catholic schools have been teaching Evolution as a scientific fact for a long time. One detail easily overlooked is that the Catholic Church never favoured the literal interpretation of the Bible - sometimes they even considered certain literal interpretation sins.
I never seem any creationinst around here. They must exist somewhere, but they are probably hidden in their churches talking among themselves.
The reason is just to ridicule the creationists for the benefit of the sector of the public that matters.
We hold no hope for the hard entrenched "card-carrying" anti-science ones, but there is a huge young audience whose upbringing may have favoured a distorted, supersticious, view of science. These can be saved from their ignorance and their children may have hope for a better education, away from the pathetic 6000 years old Earth crowd.
Who, is his right mind, ever thought Hotmail was a haven for commercial or otherwise private information, when not a month goes by without a new flaw in their security or a new loophole in their privacy policy comes to light?
Sue anyone and anything vaguely threatening to your line of business
Or do all of the above from elsewhere in the world until the Americans sort their mess up.
I believe Joe and Mary GeneralPublic will be very angry when straight-A Johnny GeneralPublic II gets ten years in jail for sharing those N'Sync songs. Joe and Mary might even consider start voting, and in anti-RIAA candidates.