If you're going to be a smartass, at least do it properly.
If you're going to be a smartass, at least do it properly.
The only reason I could defend Linus Torvalds is because I worship him.
Only a hero worshipper would believe Linux Torvalds need defending.
I'm not defending him because I believe he needs it, I'm defending him because your comment pissed me off. That you still consider only one possible cause for my comment is cute. Sad, and cute.
More so, that he hasn't innovated is hard fact, just because you made a quip.
Not because I made a quip, but because what he has done has been done by others before him. He has done commendable hard work used by many people, but I don't see the Linux kernel or git as innovation.
I did say that's your problem, not mine, and exactly why. Sorry, but I have to choose between the judgment of someone giving more than 1.000.000 Euros, and a random slashdot poster. I choose the former. Of course, you have the same right.
Go on, please. The only reason I could defend Linus Torvalds is because I worship him. More so, that he hasn't innovated is hard fact, just because you made a quip.
Get bent. Digging deep enough, and being enough of a smartass, nothing is actually innovative. Meanwhile, other people are writing world-class operating systems for the love of the game.
Well, since one of the implications of a product being "sold out" is that "somebody bought it", it stands to reason that someone should actually receive what they bought. If they bought it before christmas, a subsequent valid question is to inquire whether they got it in time for the holiday.
Delivering shoddy work may pay off in the beginning, but on the long term, I am pretty sure much it's stupid. You've lost one customer, and gained bad reputation.
You misread the article. It's about how well supported the phones are going on in time, not (only) about whether they ran the latest and greatest when they came out.
Is this actually something which would fall under the do-not-call provisions? It's not commercial, not exactly politics...
Yes, I'm sure most everyone of 350 million people can't think.
Are you for real? Whenever I read shit like this it usually mean 'they don't hold my worldview, therefore they're drooling morons'.
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't point out this. If I am, I got carried away and I apologize. But I have read too many comments in just this thread that treat people of faith as morons, and I find that wrong, too. Faith and belief have managed to inspire men to great things, as well as to atrocities, and I like to remember the great things, since I have to suffer knowing about the atrocities.
About the last point, I misread your post. Sorry.
There are all kinds of idiots. Those who read the whole bible as literal truth (or the ones that assume that Jesus was a caucasian who rocked a wild blond hair and beard) are not that different from the ones who read The Da Vinci Code as if it was the Gospel (oops).
Rather than trying to 'disprove' a book the truth of which even the Pope points out is more allegorical than literal, I'd say the problem is with the people who read it literally. You could make a similar argument about guns:
"Guns have been killing people in the past. Guns are killing people right now. Therefore, the best thing to do is ban them".
I love it, guns are the new Hitler
If there were no rational counterbalance to the Bible, how would you tell the difference? Are you advocating that everyone should accept or believe only what they themselves can prove? That way lies madness, too. I've talked to people who believe that gravity exists but evolution doesn't exactly because of this.
Or they were selfish jerks who couldn't say 'I don't really want to answer a survey, thanks' and hang up or leave, but had to skew results to have some fun.
That would be insightful, except for the fact that treating a collection of books written by many different authors, encompassing centuries between the first and the last, treating a vast array of topics (psalms, proverbs, hystorical accounts, laws, legends, erotic poetry, biographies, moral diatribes, acid trips, etc), is a fucking idiotic thing to do.
I always get a chuckle out of people who manage to 'disprove or refute the bible'. So you refuted a collection of books? What's next, you'll disprove the Encyclopaedia Britannica?
You have a deeply skewed view of what a religious person actually believes in today. Try talking to someone, see what they really think, instead of chewing on preconceived notions. You might find that many of them turn to religion as a help to mitigate the discomfort of this world, to find peace, and perhaps to get together with like-minded people who want to help others in need. True, there are other solutions (I myself am faithless), but dismissing them as crazy is just as silly as you think they are.
That said, America does have more than its fair share of religious nuts. I once read that the proliferation of different churches was partly due to the American sense of freedom and individuality that encourages everyone to think for themselves. True, you get a lot of crud, but that's because a lot of everything is crud.
While overgeneralising, tarring many good people with the same brush as some fanatics, and defining perfectly reasonable people as stupid, is completely reasonable. I'm as atheist as they come, but I do understand that many people are moved to faith while being able to keep a rational mind for practical purposes. Perhaps you should get your head out of the sand and try understanding why people go to church. Hint: it's generally not to plot the deaths of homos with the help of the creepy father figure in the sky.
The church (any church) has many things to answer for, true.
When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.