Messages in this digest:
* Re: Junkyard dog hits Motown
* Re: AP: "Angry atheists are hot authors"
* Re: 1/3 of Americans believe Bible is literally true
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<--
/// Subject: Re: Junkyard dog hits Motown ///
On 16 May, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
> But more to my point, they [MSFT] still put out
> software that is reliable, inexpensive, easy to use,
> works on a range of systems, integrates both within a
> system and with external services, etc, etc.
>
> [...]
>
> ..................
>
> LOL!
>
> Praising MSFT for internal and external systems
> integration is like praising your head for
> 'integrating well' with your body: of course their
> stuff integrates well, they made it. And what they
> didn't make must play nicely with the MSFT API because
> of their near total monopoly.
>
Hold your laughter, my friend. The above (what you write) is true of some of Microsoft's software, but not entirely. Here are some examples: Microsoft, from what I can tell (admittedly by snooping the net for IMAP packets), has a more compliant IMAP implementation than Apple Mail. Internet Explorer supports pagination CSS styling, something you would think is basic and required (how else does a content provider make pages printable?), something that neither Mozilla/Gecko nor KHTML (last check) do. Integration within the Microsoft product line is no different than what Apple or other vendors can do (there is no "natural" advantage for Microsoft). Finally, it works well because "they made it" is not much of a criticism, in an environment where the rest of the OS/SW producers (excepting the perennial standards- setter: Sun -- not surprisingly for very similar reasons) are not interested in or willing to "make it". Groupware services, unified user authentication and access control, etc are implemented fairly seamlessly in Microsoft environments. OTOH, NFS has been around, what, 20+ years? And we are still screwing around with SYS_AUTH vs IPSec vs Kerberos?!
> Windows XP Pro SP2 is just fine if you babysit it to
> ward off viruses, trojans and the like. Vista is all
> right if you factor out the AACS DRM trojan horse
> elements that'll be an issue in years to come. Windows
> Server 2003 is fine. SQL Server is okay. C# is fine.
> Yes. On and on.
>
> But let's not get carried away and give the Devil more
> than his due.
I should have anticipated the "viruses, trojans, etc" thing in my first message. So, yes, Microsoft is susceptible to viruses, etc. More so, than other OSes. Even taking into account the point that it is a more popular target. So, how does that affect the calculus? The point with XP, Vista etc, and MS is not whether they are fine, all right, or deserve their due. The point is simpler: a) They are as bad as all other software and (b) In the real world, you really have no alternative -- nobody else is willing to do what they do.
--ravi (does not own or use any Microsoft products, stock, etc)
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<--
/// Subject: Re: AP: "Angry atheists are hot authors" ///
On 25 May, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
> All that aside, the AP piece's point is the strong
> sales of these "anti-religion" books.
>
> Who's buying these books? If the audience was limited
> to "privileged white male intellectuals" (the only
> folk who have a problem with religious thought I
> guess) they'd be gathering dust.
>
> But apparently, the opposite is happening.
>
> Why?
>
Because more than 3% are actually atheist? Or because believers are not close-minded ignoramuses but are interested in hearing the other side? Or because its on some booklist? As you can probably guess by now, I do not really know!
> Does it really matter if Dennett, Dawkins and friends
> sharply (even rudely) criticize religion?
I think it does. See below.
> These so-called reductionist "assaults" on religion,
> which so clearly offend you, are little better than
> shooting arrows at an aircraft carrier.
>
> In other words Ravi, religious expression is doing
> quite alright for itself without your eager defense.
>
> Why are you so quick to rush, sword in hand, to help a
> fighter who has the situation well under control?
You are right about the first part regarding the prognosis for religion but wrong about my motivation/action. I am not eager to defend religion at all. To the contrary, I would like to see it contained. The publicity-mongering of the Dawkins/Dennett crowd runs counter to that project, for it antagonises a large soft middle (in more than one way) while making no significant contribution to the real world differences on the matter.
--8<-- New Message ---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
/// Subject: Re: 1/3 of Americans believe Bible is literally true ///
[part of below is material I sent to Doug off-list earlier]
On 25 May, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On May 25, 2007, at 3:25 PM, ravi wrote:
>
>> I think this sort of thing reflects more than anything else the
>> [necessarily] narrow 'excluded middle' approach of those collecting
>> and analysing data.
>
> The were given three choices - literal truth, inspired word of God,
> collection of fables. I'm not sure what's excluded by that trio; it
> covers all the bases I can think of.
I don't mean "excluded middle" in terms of the choice of answers. I mean it in the sense of non-contradiction: a proposition (in this case "belief") and its negation cannot both be true simultaneously. In other words, people are comfortable with "believing" in God, literal biblical truth, etc (because they want to "believe" in them) while at the same time acting in a manner that would belie this stated "belief" (e.g: refuse to participate or condone some biblical recommendation like killing gays or whatever it is that the bible says about gays, adulterers, etc. |||ly for beliefs about the origins of the earth, etc).
What I am getting at is that while the statistic itself may be true, we cannot conclude from it that [these] people "believe" in these fairy tales the way they believe in the certainty of death if they were to jump off a building.
--ravi