Channel 9 - Discussions by mtz

Coffeehouse - Obama gets gutted, McCain closer to white house

mtz — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:08:42 GMT

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

In order to find a cure for cancer we need to be investigating the behavior of cancer, and how it interacts with our biology - not how birds magically came from dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago. The latter benefits nobody but the fellow who suckered out the grant money.

With regard to 98% similarity between Creation Paradigm and Evolution Paradigm, I don't know of a resource for you. To be completely honest, it's my perspective and not one I've gotten from any place online. Why do I suggest they are so similar? Because they both are predominantly the same scientific knowledge, with a minor interpretation difference. Chemistry is the same in both, Physiology is the same in both, Astronomy is the same in both, Geology is the same in both, etc. It's all really the same in both Paradigms, with the exception of the interpretation given by the researcher.

AIG does a good job of pointing out that this isn't Science vs. Religion, which is sort-of what I mean when I say "both are very similar," because it's Scientists vs. Scientists - and both sides use the same Science.

How do I define a Creationist? I suppose one who thinks the Universe was Created an intelligent Being.

With regards to teaching ID in schools, no. I don't support it. Nor do I suppose Creation in the curriculum. I do support debate and discussion though. I think the students should be able to discuss whatever they wish without the local atheist group getting all pissed off.

jonathansampson,
you are more of an intelligent design person than a creationist ..i thought creationist is a person who believed the world came into existance according what the bible says ..i looked it up and there are the definitions i got from dictionary.com

1.	the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

2.	(sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.

3.	the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

url : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist

of the three, which one do you subscribe to? i noticed you have used the capital "C" when writing "creationism" ..does that mean you go with the second definition? if so, then the GOD you are talking about is the jewish GOD since the definition is talking about the bible , right?

the paradism are different, if you go with the above definitions ..creationism starts with "GOD created the world according to what the book of genesis says" and then move on from there ..all the conclusions and hypothesis starts and end in that book and that is why you can not have anything older than 6000 years old with this theory

on the other hand ...evolutionism(like any other scientific theory of how complex systems are formed) starts from saying that all complex entities starts from combination of simpler entities and evolution is trying to explain the complexity in living organisms ..there are other perspectives too like what quantum mechanics people and relativity people are trying to do

..scientifically, it is really the same questions that drives those scientists who wonder about the relationships btw dinosours and birds, the the forces that govern the world of the very large(relativity), the world of the very small(quantum mechanics) and whatever those people at that hydrogen collider are up to(i believe they are most quantum mechanics people)

..all of them operate on the same general principle, basic entities form complex entities and these basic entities could be, inturn complex entities in themselves depending on how "close" you choose to look at them..fundamentally, here is where science differs from creationism(as mostly defined in the 1st definition)

how exactly can you logically "add" a GOD's hand in the formation of the periodic table? if you go with definition 1 ..did GOD created the periodic table? ..if he did, logically, HE seem to add one proton to an already existing elements and scientists use this knowledge to add more elements to the periodic table(the ones HE didnt feel like adding for whatever reason) .. to be able to add new elements ..scientists must first start with an assumption that heavier elements came from previous ones and all they have to do is add more protons to form new ones(and a bunch of neutros to stabilize the nucleaus)

can i come up with any useful information that came from dinosour research? no ..but i am sure that link is crucial in understanding how animals relate to each other and how they evolve(you will have to be a pro/anti evolution though to take on such question) ..what is the use in researching dark matter and dark energy and galaxies billions of years away from us? how about what make up sub-atomic particles?..if anything, they increase our understanding of the natural world ..the world that didnt start 6000 years ago

Coffeehouse - Obama gets gutted, McCain closer to white house

mtz — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:49:09 GMT

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

The good thing is, nothing needs to replace these silly ideas, because the ideas don't actually advance Science in any way. "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" doesn't have to be replaced with anything, no more than having a mole removed from your back needs to be replaced with something to take its place - it's simply unnecessary, and a waste of valuable time.

In a world where cancer is killing children, and families are starving every night, why should we waste time and money trying to investigate pointless issues like which theropod is the best candidate for bird-evolution? It's simply not necessary, and doesn't need to be replaced with anything.

Let's focus our Scientific knowledge and tax-payer dollars on researching things that will actually benefit the world.

i will have to disagree with you ...the core understanding of science is that complex entities are made up of simpler entities ..and these entities interact in a interest way and in the process, form new entities or retain their identity but change in properties ..at its core, science is all about understanding our natural world and knowing how, why, when simple and complex entities where formed is a critical component of science ..

complex scientific thinking is build on simpler scientific thinking that are inturn build on more simpler scientific thinking ...you cant just dismiss something at a basic level without replacing it and expect the higher level stuff to continue being sound ..

thats like saying "who cares about quantum mechanics"? when there are children dying of hunger? or whatever that hydrojen collider will show? ...all things in our natural world are interconnected on a fundamental level ..you will have to have something like "GOD did it" in areas we dont know and dont care to investigate because "who cares?"well, "GOD did it because HE just wanted to" isnt very logical thing to say

"theropod is the best candidate for bird-evolution" and "Dinosaurs evolved into birds" are relevant question if you want to draw "a family of living organism tree and its history" .. a clue to cure to cancer could lie somewhere on that tree ..science doesnt like gaps ...it will always come with an explanation to close it ..you can just remove an explanation without offering a replacement ..even less that complete and troublesome explanations are sometimes used to fill up gaps ..

do you have any links i can read more about the 98% in evolution that is in Creationist paradism? or any attempt and merging/showing similarities creationism and evolution/naturalism?

how do you define a cretionist?

what do you think about intelliget design?

what do you think about teaching intelligent design in public schools?
i am just c

Coffeehouse - Obama gets gutted, McCain closer to white house

mtz — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:01:20 GMT

jonathansampson said:

Dr Herbie said:

*snip*

Herbie, please trail back through my posts and show me where I invoked the Creator to explain anything. With regards to my latest example, HC2/CHMP12,13 - no Creator is invoked, so where is my leap in that example? I make no leap, I simply state what the data seems to suggest. Humans had another set of chromosomes. Evolutionists make the leap that this demonstrates a relationship between Homo Sapien and his cousin, the chimp. So who is making a leap here?

Creationists don't have to explain where God came from, just as Evolutionists don't have to explain where life came from. It's irrelevant, and you know that having your degree in Evolutionary Biology. What we are discussing is the descent and diversity of life. The origin of life, or the origin of God are interesting topics, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

jonathansampson, i thought you said you are a creationist? ..how do you define "creationist" ..i though it means somebody who believes in the jewish explanation of the world ..the whole "GOD created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh" ..you dont have to mention GOD ..merely saying "i am a creationist" implies believing in jewish GOD and that he created the world the way the book of genesis says .. or what exactly do you mean when you call yourself that?

if you look at our natural world, the world seems to be made of simple entities joined together to form complex entities ..if you believe that GOD created everything in six days 6000 years ago(isnt this what creationist believe?) ..then you will have to logically see that HE first seemed to make the basic entities and then add them up to whatever we have today ..and science, to the most part, explains how these complex entities come together..sometimes science can explain them very well, sometimes it cant ...

science upto now can not explain where these basic entities came from ..same as religion can not explain where GOD came from .. "he was just there" is not really a logical statement to make" ...its more or less that a logician saying "this is true and it doesnt need to be proven" with their axioms

you can always point to specific events and show how evolution is wrong but the bigger aspect of the theory is sound ..and there are assumptions that are made to smooth out the bigger picture ..you may look at these aspects to disprove the theory but whatelse do you have that can take its place ..

if you look at the world, if GOD did it, then he had to have done it in stages, HE had to first build the simplest parts, tweak them a little to differentiate them and then add them up in an interesting way to what we have today ..

you can look at the cromosomes btw chimps and humans and prove that evolution didnt happen ..but if you look at animal "family tree" ..you will see some sort of a pattern ..how do you explain this pattern on a grand scheme of things .. if GOD created the the world and everything in it, HE had to fist have and then followed a master plan and science is trying to explain this master plan ..

maybe evolution is not the best theory, but what is out there attempts to explain in detail how living organisms evolved and the differentiation btw them ..

we can look at the periodic table and see the elements in it ..we can say "GOD did it" ..but how? ..logically, he seemed to start with a single proton and just add them from there throwing neutrons to stabilize the atom ..and them he used the atoms to form complex entities(compounds and molecules) and he move from there ..building stuff ontop of whatever he already had

looking at cromosomes btw chimps and humans and then disprove evolution is more or less equivalent to looking how small the universe is from laws of relativity perspective and say the cheotic quantum mechanic world is wrong ..

evolution may be wrong, maybe imperfect, maybe it needs to be more refined ..but it is the best scientific explanation of how complex entities were formed and differentiate themselves in a biological level ..the core piece of the theory is a fundamental pillar in science ..

if you are to explain how complex entities are formed using religion, you will end up with a lot of "because GOD wanted it that way" or "because he just felt like it" ..you will have to have a lot of "opinions" on how things fit together on a grand scheme of things and you seem to have an issue on how evolutionalists theorise how pieces came together ..it just seem odd to me saying that ..evolution is wrong therefore creation is wright ..can you come up with a detailed explanation of an alternative theory?

what do you think about intelligent design? ..to me, it seems the only way to logically explain how complex entities came together the way they did is by using intelligent design ..scientists just wont have it because its just not possible to "add" GODs hands in scientific experiments and theories ..but it doesnt seem to be that hard comming from religion point of view ..

by GOD, i am assumption the jewish GOD ..if that wasnt clear cause the whole debate will just crumble if we were talking about another GOD from another civilization because they probably have their own and different explanation of the world

Coffeehouse - Obama gets gutted, McCain closer to white house

mtz — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:56:35 GMT

mtz said:

jonathansampson said:

*snip*

i though creationists believe something like "jewish GOD created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and the world is the way it is because HE wants it to be that way"

why religion and science dont mix? lets have an example, john was walking(fact), he fell(fact), he broke two ribs(fact) ..then john shouts .."praise the LORD!! ..i only broke two ribs because jesus loves me so much..i would have broken 15 ribs if it wasnt for him" ..how exactly can you prove/disprove the last part? ..i think this is where science and religion dont mix because at the end of the day, a creationist will say "this thing is this way because GOD wants it that way" ...

that grand canyon will have to be less than 6000 years old ..i think evolution has holes in it, i think the bible also has holes in it ..the biggest hole in the bible is this 6000 year old world ..the world is clearly more than 6000 years old ..the biggest hole in evolution i think is the missing gaps btw species ..

evolution is not perfect, but its the best explanation of our natural world if you think about it logically ..for example, the bible says that GOD created adam first and then later one created eve when he saw that he was lonely alone ..at least thats how i remember my bible, the question follows, why did GOD created Adam with nipples? he is man, he doesnt need them ..male gorillas have them, cats dont ...nipples in male animal showed up somewhere in the animal tree, where? ..why did it happen? ..becaue GOD just felt like it?

do you know that you share close to 70 % of your DNA with a banana? why is that? was it because GOD was lazy/efficient and reused some of the DNA lying around from his previous creatins? IF he reused stuff, wont evolution be a better candidate to explain how he started with simpler stuff and build complex stuff ..

if you look at the periodic table, you will notice that all elements share the same elementary entities, electrons, protons and neutron ..the logical existance of the periodic table is that these elementary particles just add themselves up to form the periodic table ..if you look at animal classification, you will see the same pattern ..if GOD created everything he seem to follow some sort of a plan ..as you can see, i am bordering an intelligence design argument ..the reason why this doesnt fly with science is that the only thing that can reasonably be assumed about GOD in a scientific discourse is that he keeps his hands to himself and can safely be removed out of equestions and assumptions

as a cretionistt, how do you explain the existence of the periodic table? how do naturalists explain the existence of the periodic table?

"I object to Evolution on strictly scientific and logical grounds, not because my Bible or personal beliefs dictate that I should"

one of the core principles of science is that all complex entities comes from combination of simple entities .. if you punch a hole in this principle and the whole scientific thinking crumbles down ..

look at the periodic table, all elements are arranged according to increasing number of protons, the simplest element is hydrogen with a single proton ..where did this proton come from?

if you look at the universe, the universe gets bigger as we go forward it time, its logical to assume it will get small as we back it time up to a single point ..what happen before that?

if you look at logic ..all complex truths and false are based on combination of simpler truths and false ..at the bottom, you will have axioms and all logical statements are based on them as you go up the ladder ..where do they come from?

if you look at living organisms ..if you classify all living organisms based on their similarities and differences ..you will end up with some sort of a tree and they will all have a common ancestry, a single cell ..where did it come from? what forces forced animal diversity?

if you look at animals, the complexity starts at the cell level as they organize themselves to tissues, organs, systems and last to complex living organisms ..how did the cell organize itself?

evolution is a scientific attempt to explain animal diversity in a way that is consistent with all scientific explanations of how complex entities are formed ..

all scientific explanations fails to explain how basic entities came into existence but can easily explain how they seem to come together to form complex entities

can you come up with a better scientific explanation of how complex entities are formed? where did the simple ones came from?

the only reason why people go after evolution is because it directly challenges the bible and people use it when attacking the bible .. but if you attack evolution, you are effectively attacking one of the core understanding of science ....what logical grounds do you have against evolution? what about some of other things i have mentioned?

i can personally coexist with both of them ...

Coffeehouse - Obama gets gutted, McCain closer to white house

mtz — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:08:43 GMT

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

mtz,

I want to clear something up real quick before I address any other issues you've raised. One is that I, as a Christian and Creationist, don't feel threatened by Evolution. Not in the least bit. Honestly.

I object to Evolution on strictly scientific and logical grounds, not because my Bible or personal beliefs dictate that I should. I invite you to visit the previous pages and count how many times I quoted scripture as an objection to Evolution. You'll find that I didn't, because it's isn't an objective way of discussing this subject, and I readily admit that. What you will find is that I make constant reference to the inductive nature of science, and the non-objective nature of evolutionary understanding. I defend my position as objectively as possible.

Creationists are Scientists as well, regardless what head-in-the-sand participants wish to believe. Ask a Creationist how the Grant Canyon formed, and an Evolutionist how it formed and they will describe the exact same processes in every detail. Where they differ is in how long it took, and when it took place. But their science is practically the same thing. The same is true if you ask them about immunology, antibiotic resistance, reproduction, inheritance, and any other scientific topic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "God in Science," because no Creationist is asking for any such thing. Instead, I am asking for reason in Science. I'm asking that we distinguish between facts, and our interpretations. That's all. There isn't a single fact in science that Creationists disagree with, not one piece of data is objected to.

i though creationists believe something like "jewish GOD created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and the world is the way it is because HE wants it to be that way"

why religion and science dont mix? lets have an example, john was walking(fact), he fell(fact), he broke two ribs(fact) ..then john shouts .."praise the LORD!! ..i only broke two ribs because jesus loves me so much..i would have broken 15 ribs if it wasnt for him" ..how exactly can you prove/disprove the last part? ..i think this is where science and religion dont mix because at the end of the day, a creationist will say "this thing is this way because GOD wants it that way" ...

that grand canyon will have to be less than 6000 years old ..i think evolution has holes in it, i think the bible also has holes in it ..the biggest hole in the bible is this 6000 year old world ..the world is clearly more than 6000 years old ..the biggest hole in evolution i think is the missing gaps btw species ..

evolution is not perfect, but its the best explanation of our natural world if you think about it logically ..for example, the bible says that GOD created adam first and then later one created eve when he saw that he was lonely alone ..at least thats how i remember my bible, the question follows, why did GOD created Adam with nipples? he is man, he doesnt need them ..male gorillas have them, cats dont ...nipples in male animal showed up somewhere in the animal tree, where? ..why did it happen? ..becaue GOD just felt like it?

do you know that you share close to 70 % of your DNA with a banana? why is that? was it because GOD was lazy/efficient and reused some of the DNA lying around from his previous creatins? IF he reused stuff, wont evolution be a better candidate to explain how he started with simpler stuff and build complex stuff ..

if you look at the periodic table, you will notice that all elements share the same elementary entities, electrons, protons and neutron ..the logical existance of the periodic table is that these elementary particles just add themselves up to form the periodic table ..if you look at animal classification, you will see the same pattern ..if GOD created everything he seem to follow some sort of a plan ..as you can see, i am bordering an intelligence design argument ..the reason why this doesnt fly with science is that the only thing that can reasonably be assumed about GOD in a scientific discourse is that he keeps his hands to himself and can safely be removed out of equestions and assumptions

as a cretionistt, how do you explain the existence of the periodic table? how do naturalists explain the existence of the periodic table?

Coffeehouse - Obama gets gutted, McCain closer to white house

mtz — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:54:16 GMT

jonathansampson said:

mtz said:

*snip*

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with watermelon on a flag.
I do think it's wrong to put watermelon on a flag in an attempt to ridicule a person.
I don't think watermelons are racist.
I do think that watermelons can be used to inappropriately stereotype a person/group.

That should sum it up

In order to change somebody's mind on the Evolution thing, the person must be willing to admit when they are wrong. I am, as I've changed many of my personal views over the years. Today, I unashamedly admit that Evolution is a grand idea, and beautiful. I still reject it because it's not objective in nature, and requires too much presumptuous dedication for its evidence to make any type of sense.

Post counts aren't an issue (with me anyway) as they're not displayed anywhere. As a matter of fact, the Channel9 team deliberately kept those numbers off of pages to keep anybody from getting post-happy.

With regard to Belief Systems, it is my conviction that both are partially belief systems. Practically every objection Evolutionists have against Creationists, are applicable to most Evolutionists themselves. Both sides are unwilling to remove their basic idea, "Genesis is correct," and "Naturalism is correct." Both are looking for mechanism that work within their frameworks. Creationists don't start with all of the answers, and neither do Evolutionists. Creationists have vicious scientific debates over timing, mechanisms, etc, within their circles, as do Evolutionists.

I sincerely think that meaningful conclusions could come from these discussions if people would only discuss matters they understand, adhere to rational discourse, and remove all arrogance and pride from their dialogue. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. When you have people making claims about evolutionary mechanisms that they clearly don't understand, it tends to take the discussion nowhere - fast.

9 out of 10 Evolutionists online have no clue what they're talking about. And the same is said for 9 out of 10 Creationists. Unfortunately, for guys like me who really sincerely love Science, I have a 90% chance that I'm wasting my time, and 90% chance I'm going to have to answer several misconceptions about this debate before I can even address core issues.

Honesty, above all. And all else will work out fine.

what r your views about intelligent design? there are three sides to the debate, i have yet to hear anybody who advocate intelligent design as a way "accomodate" both sides ..

personally, i dont think religion and science mix ..i think most of this debate comes from people trying to use science to challenge religion and religious people(christians) who feel threatened by scientific explanation of our existance and they use the bible to challenge science.

most of this discussion occurs in the west and to the most part, its a debate btw christianity explanation of the world and scientific one..i wonder how hinduism thinks about evolution, or any other "major" religions that may not be in wide use today ..

i mean before you have this discussion, an assumption must be made that christianity explanation is the true explanation and all other religious explanations are wrong ..how do you know this? .. ..christianity explanation is jewish explanation ..all major cultures have some sort of a story that tries to explain their existance and the world around them ..i dont know know how well mel gibson's movie apocalypto reflected azteck culture and belief system but there is a part in the movie that tried to explain how they came into existance and why human have intelligence over all other animals around them ..how do japanese explain the world and their existance?

i dont think you can have GOD in science, it just wont make sense .. if you decide to do that, then the question that should follow is who's GOD are you talking about ...does anybody know the discussion btw christianity, hinduism and arztech and the beginning of the world? he he he ..

what makes this discussion so special other than the fact that its happening in west where majority of people happen to be christians and evolution seems to directly challenge what the bible says?

Coffeehouse - Obama gets gutted, McCain closer to white house

mtz — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:02:47 GMT

jonathansampson said:

DCMonkey said:

*snip*

HOW is it racist? I know that it's stereotyping, and it's disrespectful in this case, but it's not "racist", since it doesn't demonstrate an inferiority of a race, or the superiority of one over the other. Don't mix things up, I'm not defending the watermelon flag, I'm only saying that you've got your objections confused.

just courious jonathansampson if you still think there is nothing wrong with having watermelon on a flag after reading ScanIAm post andseeing DCMonkey pictures on page six? ... what do you think about what they said? did you know about the history of the fruit and slavery? ..i didnt..

i doubt anybody changed anybody's mind with the whole evolution thing ..it sounded to me like a bunch of teenage girls arguing over what color is better btw blue and green .. the best people can do here with this topic is to have a good time and increase their post counts if this forum keeps track of that, expecting to convince anybody to change their mind to whatever anybody's currently views is a waste of time and expecting to convince anybody of anything that is related to a belief system in a forum(like this) will only lead to threads that run 8+ pages with no end in sight and no meaningful conclusions at the end ... its been fun reading though ..smile..

Coffeehouse - Question - Will Silverlight come to C9?

mtz — Wed, 23 May 2007 09:13:40 GMT

blowdart wrote:

mtz wrote:

this post made me think something i never thought before ..could it be that all the video arent embeded in flash because its not ms technology? ..its a bit off that C9 doesnt have an option to play the videos in flash ..only downloading them or streaming them to a stand alone player ..

Why? What more does flash give you? Media Player for the Mac, and it's replacement suport mms streams. It's better quality, better bandwidth control. Why a conspiracy when franking streaming is a better option that downsizing and loosing quality like you see on YouTube

one of the post above me said "someone from the team said "it is obvious". " so if its obvious for silverlight will be used ...why not flash?

i agree though, watching them on a stand alone player is much better than on a webpage because it will force me to always have a tab open for that page and i can continue to surf the web and watch the video at the same time ..

Coffeehouse - Windows Vs Mac OS Vs Linux Question...

mtz — Wed, 23 May 2007 09:07:25 GMT

windows had 90+ % market share ...there is really no point in talking about them ..linux and macs struggles for the rest of the market ..they have to be very vocal and on your face sometime to be heared and to let new users know about them.

do you belong to any minority group? do you know how it feels for someone from a majority group to just dismissing you simply because of where you came from, or what you represent? ..i think this is where it is comming from. I use linux full time but i use windows too and thats why i hang out in this side ..i watch each and every technical stuff about microsoft technologies because i enjoy reading anything relating to CS

..one thing that make me feel like defending my system of choice is when someone flat out dismiss it as a piece of crap without even trying it, or use it for half a second and judge the rest of the system based on that.

i can understand this is a microsoft site and most people here will be upset with all the linux talk in here but well ..people need to hear about it somehow..i use linux too but the ubuntu talking mostly gets to me because they are very vocal sometimes(no dissin intended for all ubuntu fans out there )

on macs for example .. very few people use macs ..if anybody brings up macs on a discussion, most likely, that converstation wont go anywhere, most people will just dissmiss them because they either dont care about them or arent interested ...so what do they do ..talking about weaknesses in windows first and compare them with macs ..remember those macs commercial? ..get what i am talking about? talking about macs without mentioning windows to most people will be like talking about &^)&*)%*&^^& from china ..most people wont relate to it.

windows users, you are the majority, get used to it ..your question is like a white person asking "why can black people call each other niggers and we cant call them that?" .because you just cant ...

Coffeehouse - Question - Will Silverlight come to C9?

mtz — Wed, 23 May 2007 08:40:34 GMT

this post made me think something i never thought before ..could it be that all the video arent embeded in flash because its not ms technology? ..its a bit off that C9 doesnt have an option to play the videos in flash ..only downloading them or streaming them to a stand alone player ..

is this true or i am just running a conspiracy theory here?

Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source

mtz — Tue, 22 May 2007 07:48:21 GMT

anand.t wrote:

emet wrote:

FSF's philosophy is free software is always the better choice. RMS said himself that it is better to use an inferior software if it is free software. The FSF's goals is not really to promote use of free software, but to promote the philosophy behind it. So yes, they use free software to push an agenda, not an agenda to push free software. They've always been that way.

The last time I checked both WMP and Itunes was free. I am sure the philosophy needs to be changed to say "Free Non-MSFT software is always the better choice"

Seriouslyy what has RMS achieved using this agenda. He has created a bunch of die hard fans. While gates has gone and made billions, donated billions towards curing malaria, TB, cancer, aids and dont forget they donated millions worth software and hardware. Donating software was definitely selfish as they wanted everyone to use MSFT products, but who really cares as long as kids get a decent OS and computer.

i think you dont get the meaning of "free". There is "free" as in "free beer" and "free" as in "freedom of speed"

"free" as in "free beer" has to do with how much you have to pay(in monetary term) and "free" as in "freedom speed" has to do with what can do you with the code after you get it(it doesnt matter if you paid for it or not)

WMP and Itunes are "free" as in "free beer" because you dont have to pay to get them but they are not "free as in freedom of speech" because, you cant for example, take WMP, change the code to something you want, publish your modifications for the world to see and apply and redistribute your modified version without asking/begging or paying microsoft to that ability. linux is "free" as in "freedom of speed" because you can do that.

so when you see FSF(free software foundation) ..think .."FREE AS IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH" ..thats what they care about ..ofcource, this philosofy tend to drive the price of software to 0$ but thats the side effect, not the intendend target

Free software doesnt exist to destroy microsoft, thats the side effect since what microsoft stands for is at a direct confict with what free software hope to achieve, microsoft isnt alone.

Do you agree with DRM technology? do you like to share your stuff? with your friends and family? would you like to buy the same song 5 times? for yourself, your wife and your 3 kinds and the last copy for your best friend?

free software stands for what you want to do with the code you have, propietary company like to restrics some of these rights to for their own benefits ..

RMS likes to see or he presents the world in black and white and i have issues with that but, fundamentally, what he is fighting for is something is good for the end user at the expense of big/greedy corporations

Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source

mtz — Tue, 22 May 2007 07:27:56 GMT

ixdatul wrote:

emet wrote:

Free Software Foundation has an agenda!!!!

Who would have known?

I'm sure they keep it really super secret too, not like you kind find anything about it here.

"Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects—such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline—in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them."

I'm just going to go out on a limb here...

I'm a VB.NET developer, if I, infact, believed in free software and went in that direction, I would be unemployed, because who wants to pay a guy to write software that won't turn a buck? Well, I guess then I would lose my house, my car, and probably my wife, since she knows me, and realizes, for me to do something that astronomicaly stupid, I would have to be on crack, or in a cult....So then I would become a religous zealot for open source (THIS SHOULD NOT EXIST), because hell, I dedicated my life to it now, I once again live with my parents, and shake my fist at the capitolist pigs that put me here, because if everyone thought like I did, we would all live in a very magical place, where software evolution is driven by desire to improve rather that the almighty dollar.

Oh wait....wouldn't that make me a communist? I want to live in a Utopia that can never exist. I have such high idealism I'm actually blinded to the downsides of what I'm fighting for. And I think that corporations are, in fact, evil. The worst kind of evil...

The reason that you fight a losing battle, is simply this....there is always someone out there like me, who wants to be better than you, have more than you, and continue to improve MY quality of life. I don't donate to the Salvation Army, Red Cross, or the Make Sally Struthers Fatter in the Name of Starving Children Fund. I donate money to the Banco del Me. And ya know what, my family loves me for it, because the harder I work, and play ball with a society I can't, and don't want to change, the better their lives are because of it.

The best part, it's not even a sacrifice, I love what I do, and I love working for a heartless corporation. Why? Because they don't let ridiculous idealism get in the way of progress, progress which gets me a raise, my wife the medical care she needs, and my twelve year old daughter the braces she needs so she won't be chastised later in life for a physical flaw, which is the way it is, period.

So yes, you are absolutely right, there are heartless, greedy, zealot-loathing people out there, and I am proud to be one of them.

Regards,
Ix

Side Note: I deeply appologize for jacking you're thread momentarily Blowdart, I mean no disrespect to you in any way.

not necessarily, i will give you an example ..lets say i want to be a VB.net developer, i can go to a public librabry, borrow a book and study at home and/or hire someone to tutor me at home(and take some sort of an exam to get certification) ..or i can go to a local community college and pay a bit of money for that education, or i can go to those expensive colleges and study the same material, can professors and teachers lobby for public libraries and books out of classrooms to be banned becase they will loose their jobs? because people can get educated without going to their classrooms?

there is altleast more than one person who looses out when changes happen ..if free and open source software becames so popular that it cuts microsoft strength by 50%(unlikely), most people who will loose the most are microsoft employees and those that depend on them exclusively ..but as a developer, i am sure you can get a job someplace else ..you might even be writing vb code on solaris one day and get paid 3x more, who knows ..

people are always afraid of change and your concerns are understandable ..free and open source software will not mean the end to paid developers, linux is getting paid, isnt he?

i believe the two software delevopment model can exist peacefully with one another

dont think too much about it, dont try to fight it, its comming, get prepared just in case