Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
There is no actual evidence for a God and hence there is no need for me to believe in any divinity.
The fact that we are having this discussion proves either the second point or else that God does not have control and hence is not a "supreme being".
If the "translation was wrong" and god was a supreme being, then that is what god's intent was in the first place.
If God was a supreme being and he/she meant it to be interpreted in the "best possible way" then this IS the way God meant it to be interpreted.
Just as us mortal beings, God can't have his/her cake and eat it too!
That's fine, but my point is that what you say is a matter of interpretation
Which means that either:
"God" has no control over how his commandments will be interpreted, or
"God" meant for it to be interpreted in the worst possible way
And should I now actively prevent any RF signals leaking out of my monitor as well? I guess it is common knowledge that these can be detected from the street. It is a simple thing to surround my house with an RF cage. If I don't do this, that means it was my choice to "stand naked in a room with open windows" and Google would be well within their rights if they choose to record my screen images, passwords, emails, etc.
They absolutely do not think they are standing naked in a room with open windows. Google KNOWS that they don't know what they are doing and just goes ahead and exploits the situation.
You really believe that?
Substitute Google with something else to your liking (voyeur, peeping tom, pedophile, etc.) and see if this makes any difference.
At the very least, Google is guilty of exploiting the ignorance of an overwhelming majority of the population.
Just because they don't understand how computers communicate doesn't mean they are stupid.
Best we concentrate our energies in that direction.
This may be true whether it is a file in Word format, PDF or an even more proprietary format from Apple. So it is not something unique to MS.
And as to your 25 year time frame, I can still read the oldest document produced by Word on the latetst MS Office. And lastly, who's stopping you from storing files in XML format in Office?