| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft sees threat from Linux desktop | |
|
||
| Time: 11:14 EST/16:14 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft Chief Financial Officer John Connors said on Wednesday that the software giant's future growth would be hurt if the rival Linux operating system was to establish a foothold on desktop computers. Although Microsoft commands the desktop market with its Windows operating system running on nearly all of the world's personal computers, it is competing neck-to-neck with Linux in the market for servers, which manage computer networks. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 476 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:35:07 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 37 (24.196.75.142) at 12/5/2002 9:30:15 PM |
|
Sodajerk,
Still waiting for a response from you on the Xdoc conversation. Thanks. |
| #27 By 3339 (67.116.255.1) at 12/5/2002 9:49:16 PM |
| What was that again, Brian. Wasn't that a wekk ago or more or something? Whatever. Let me know and bring it up again later. I'm done for the day. |
| #28 By 11888 (64.230.72.210) at 12/5/2002 9:51:24 PM |
| This place makes me sad. |
| #29 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/6/2002 3:18:39 AM |
| Funny how you can make such comments, Richard. Sodablue time and again shows that you know very little about Windows 2000, yet you claim to know so much about it, even its code, that you can say it seems to be base on the BSDs. Forgive me if I don't put any stock in your posts regarding Windows. You may be knowledgable in the Linux or Unix world, but it seems you have a long way to go before you attain such a position in the Windows world. |
| #30 By 7797 (63.76.44.114) at 12/6/2002 7:24:26 AM |
|
RMD your logic is f--ckd
Faith: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Logical proof or material evidence do NOT equal reason. You may have a reason why you fave faith in something, but that reason may not be explainable by logical proof or material evidence. |
| #31 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/6/2002 8:52:16 AM |
|
#51 - I am using the term reason as defined "An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence".
Therefore, my logic is not "f--ckd". If you make a conscious decision to believe in something, and you have no logical proof or material evidence to back up your belief, your belief is unjustified and invalid... no matter how you define "reason". |
| #32 By 1868 (141.133.152.79) at 12/6/2002 9:11:58 AM |
|
RMD
I believe Panama exists. As of right now on and of my own accord, my belief that the country of Panama exists is based on the fact that I have faith in the maps I've viewed and the new stories I've read about Panama. But as of this moment, I have no current logical proof(what are you going to argue that becaus the maps have been arcurate in the past they are arcurate now?...what if Panama was put there by mistake?) or material evidence to back up my belief, so are you telling me that my belief is unjustified and invalid(btw I've never been to Panama, I've never met anyone from Panama)? This post was edited by Zeo01 on Friday, December 06, 2002 at 09:13. |
| #33 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 12/6/2002 10:01:27 AM |
|
Sodajerk,
No, that was only a couple days ago. Go back to the xdocs vs. adobe thread (currently shows 27 responses). |
| #34 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 12/6/2002 10:24:30 AM |
|
Sigh...
#53 - "I believe Panama exists." Good, so do I! :-) "As of right now on and of my own accord, my belief that the country of Panama exists is based on the fact that I have faith in the maps I've viewed and the new stories I've read about Panama." Good conclusion. "But as of this moment, I have no current logical proof(what are you going to argue that becaus the maps have been arcurate in the past they are arcurate now?" Other than in purely logical areas, such as math, logic is not the only kind of evidence. Hence the definition "logical proof or material evidence." "what if Panama was put there by mistake?) or material evidence to back up my belief, so are you telling me that my belief is unjustified and invalid(btw I've never been to Panama, I've never met anyone from Panama)?" Do you have any evidence to suggest Panama was put there by a mistake? You are making a conclusion that Panama exists based on a current set of evidence. This is a very reasonable and valid conclusion. It is not valid because nobody has proven otherwise, but rather it is valid because there is a substantial amount of independant evidence in addition to the fact nobody has provided evidence that there is a giant conspiracy to make believe Panama exists. Perhaps Panama was put there by a mistake, but you have no evidence of that (do you?!), so there is no reason to believe it. Science is full of "what if's", but they are only valid if there is evidence to support them. While speculation is indeed the first step to discovery, it is just the first step. Similarly, a belief may be valid at one point in time, and invalid in another. Right now, I believe in Panama, just like you. If tomorrow, however, the news reports that Panama was made up by the Reagan administration, then I will be forced to revalidate many of my beliefs. (Such as the existence of Panama, the history I was taught in school, etc.) I would probably make the effort to physically travel to where Panama should be to see if I can find the canal, evidence of some kind of government, people there who can validate or invalidate the news reports, etc. This post was edited by RMD on Friday, December 06, 2002 at 10:26. |
| #35 By 1868 (141.133.152.79) at 12/6/2002 10:38:02 AM |
|
RMD
Interesting.... I will respond on Sunday as I am heading to a retreat in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania where there will be no way for me to access the internet and I don’t get back until 6pm on Sunday. |
| #36 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 12/6/2002 11:19:44 AM |
|
#39 - About the Wired article:
About 10 years ago, just as scientists were becoming confident in big bang theory Well, confidence in science simply means that nobody has yet come up with a competition theory with as much evidence and that fits the current set of known facts. I asked Alan Dressler...what caused the bang. He scrunched his face and said, "I can't stand that question!" Strange he would say that, but I suppose it's a valid reaction. We have no idea what caused the big bang, although there are some really intertesting speculations out there. If this is your beef with evolution, than I suggest you ask yourself what caused God? If the big bang requires an initiator (which I think it does), so does God. At the time, cosmologists tended to assert that the cause and prior condition were unknowable. Who said that? I'm sure there were a small subset of comsmologists who believed that, but I think most would simply say "we don't know... yet". The bizarre physics of the singularity that preceded the explosion, they explained, represented an information wall that blocked (actually, destroyed) all knowledge of the prior condition and its physical laws. Who is "they"? They must not have been familiar with quantum theory... so perhaps, cosmologists of the early 20th century? The more scientists testily insisted that the big bang was unfathomable, the more they sounded like medieval priests saying, "Don't ask me what made God." Ahhh... there it is. I've read MANY books on cosmology, and I don't think I've ever heard a cosmologist say the big bang or the true nature of the universe was "unfathomable". To compare the uncertainty which is a tenet of science with the irresponsible refusal to justify beliefs which is a characteristic of religion is rediculous. Researchers, prominently Alan Guth of MIT, began to assert that the big bang could be believed only if its mechanics could be explained. Agreed. Right now, the Big Bang is a theory based on inferred evidence. In other words, we think we understand what makes things move away from each other and what makes things move towards each other, so we reason that there must have been something like the Big Bang a long time ago. Indeed, Guth went on to propose such an explanation. Suffice it to say that, while Guth asserts science will eventually figure out the cause, he still invokes unknown physical laws in the prior condition. That's the speculation part of science. See, a theory remains valid as long as it matches all known evidence. In fact, even with new stuff like dark matter, the big bang remains vaild. (Perhaps because it's so vague... but a theory as grand as this one takes a long time to mature.) And no matter how you slice it, calling on unknown physical laws sounds awfully like appealing to the supernatural. Baloney. Quantum physics predicts many things that we have no evidence for, and so far, all the experiments match the predictions wonderfully. So, we are "invoking" unknown particles so that we can progress with the theory. This is perfectly valid as long as the experiments that are done to detect the existance of those particles are used in the future to check the scientist's conclusions. Continued on next post... |
| #37 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 12/6/2002 11:20:18 AM |
|
Continued...
Beyond this is the puzzle of why the universe is hospitable to living creatures. Perhaps this universe is just one of many universes that exist, and perhaps we are the only universe that has the constants that allow for life to exist. We have no idea... but because we don't yet know why doesn't mean it invalidates the Big Bang theory. The theory still accuratly explains what we see. In recent years, researchers have calculated that if a value called omega — the ratio between the average density of the universe and the density that would halt cosmic expansion — had not been within about one-quadrillionth of 1 percent of its actual value immediately after the big bang, the incipient universe would have collapsed back on itself or experienced runaway-relativity effects that would render the fabric of time-space weirdly distorted. Instead, the firmament is geometrically smooth — rather than distorted — in the argot of cosmology. If gravity were only slightly stronger, research shows, stars would flame so fiercely they would burn out in a single year; the universe would be a kingdom of cinders, devoid of life. If gravity were only slightly weaker, stars couldn't form and the cosmos would be a thin, undifferentiated blur. Had the strong force that binds atomic nuclei been slightly weaker, all atoms would disperse into vapor. Again, I'm not sure what this suggests. There are many reasons why this could have happened... again, perhaps our universe is just one of billions which "evolve" into existance... some are successful, some aren't. We don't know! These cosmic coincidences were necessary to create a universe capable of sustaining life. Why are we assuming they are coincidences? Are electromagnitism and the strong/weak nuclear forces coincidences? No! They are intimatly related... just as these constants are likely to be, but it took us many years to realize that. That's why scientists are working so hard to discover the relationship between relativity and the quantum world. As it happens, a quirk of carbon chemistry — an equivalence of nuclear energy levels that allows helium nuclei to meld within stars — makes this vital element possible. Ah, so the periodic table is now a "quirk". Come on. To the late astronomer Fred Hoyle, who calculated the conditions necessary to create carbon in 1953, the odds of this match occurring by chance seemed so phenomenally low that he converted from atheism to a belief that the universe reflects a "purposeful intelligence." Oh, ok... then we all should too! Give me a break. I have great respect for Mr. Hoyle, but even a child knows to ask who created his "purposeful intelligence." His "solution" to the problem isn't a solution at all... it's a comforting and illogical shortcut. Hoyle declared, "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd." That is to say, Hoyle's faith in chance was shaken by evidence of purpose, a reversal of the standard postmodern experience, and one shared by many of his successors today. Faith in chance? Wow. Ok... so because we don't know ultimate causes (NOBODY DOES... yet), the massive body of both experimental and logical evidence that supports evolution is invalid? Wrong. (Also, scientists have discovered that in addition to the fact that life has had 4 billion+ years to evolve, simple silicon could provide the needed scaffolding to help RNA form without the need for “direct chance”.) This article provides no counter evidence against evolution or the big bang theory. We can only believe that which we have evidence or logical proofs for. Is it perfect? Of course not... but it still matches all known facts. This post was edited by RMD on Friday, December 06, 2002 at 11:33. |
| #38 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 12/6/2002 11:28:45 AM |
|
#40 - "As for faith: To quote God's authoritative word on the subject:"
Sigh... it always come back to your book, huh? To paraphase Bill Hicks: How do I know the Bible is not the literal word of God, even making the BIG assumption that your God exists? Look on the cover... what does it say? "The Holy Bible.... King James Version" There ya go. Also, see: http://www.rit.edu/~rmd0549/athought_hankandmary.html "Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." " Of course it would say that! Religions that are successful at brainwashing their sheep must have self-reinforcing tenets like that. "Believe what I say is true no matter what!", "Don't question!", "Don't judge!", "Don't use your rational mind to make decisions!" This is one big reason why religions are so dangerous... See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552388,00.html |
| #39 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/6/2002 12:47:41 PM |
|
LOL @ RMD
It would have been easier to just admit your initial mistake when you scolded rommels |
| #40 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/6/2002 1:00:57 PM |
| t, I don't agree with RMD that there is no evidence that God exists. I do, though, think he (RMD) has a lot to teach. You haven't refuted his claims with logic (which is, I think, the only thing that will mean much to him), rather you have attacked him and provided no evidence. |
| #41 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/6/2002 2:11:26 PM |
|
Mankind was created by God.
God was created by Mankind. Does that help? |
| #42 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 12/6/2002 2:37:54 PM |
|
sodablue/RMD, perhaps you evolved from ooze... but I was created human... by God. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Friday, December 06, 2002 at 14:38. |
| #43 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/6/2002 4:44:43 PM |
|
sodablue - I said nothing about ooze, and I did not deny that mankind was created by God. I simply pointed out that God was created by mankind.
It's just one of those interesting philosophical questions that are generally lost on conservatives who lack a sense of humor. :) |
| #44 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/6/2002 6:49:59 PM |
|
#64 - "sodablue/RMD, perhaps you evolved from ooze... but I was created human... by God."
If that makes you feel better, then fine... but don't try and push your belief as rational. It is not. I guess all I can hope is that some people will do their best to believe in that which has evidence, and lead the human race onward instead of backward. I'm doing my best, but I'm not nearly smart enough. #61 - BobSmith - stop being so reasonable... it makes it hard to attack your beliefs when you're such a nice guy. :-p |
| #45 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/6/2002 6:51:14 PM |
|
#60 - "It would have been easier to just admit your initial mistake when you scolded rommels."
Sure, it would have been... but it would have also been a lie. |
| #46 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 12/7/2002 2:04:32 AM |
|
RMD:
Well, if you want to use reason and such to prove the existance of God, then read the writings of every major philosopher in history. |
| #47 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/7/2002 3:10:39 AM |
|
CPUGuy - Every major philosopher in history has written something that proves the existance of God? Wow... wish somebody had told me about that earlier!
Give me a break. While I don't know you, I can say that I've read more philosophy books than the average Joe, and none of proven or disproven the existance of God. In fact, nobody has ever proven or disproven the existance of God, primarily because any such proof is impossible. Why is it impossible? Well, because an omnipotent being can do anything, and that includes changing reality to fit his desires. In other words, God could change the universe just to make it appear he doesn't exist... an idea that will always be invoked in times of doubt by people of "faith". For example: "Dinosaurs? God put those there to test our faith!". Uh huh. My favorite philosophers do, however, outline an excellent argument for not believing in God. (This is very different than affirming his non-existance.) While I use many of their points in my arguments, I can never really express their thoughts as well as they did. Check out Issac Asimov and Friedrich Nietzsche for brilliant writing. This post was edited by RMD on Saturday, December 07, 2002 at 15:53. |
| #48 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/7/2002 11:12:31 PM |
| RMD (#68) Err, sorry about that. Let me be mean for you. Shut up, dork! How was that? :-) |
| #49 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 12/9/2002 3:13:31 PM |
|
See you guys in hell! You'll go straight there, whereas I... being a believer... will have earned my trip.
;-) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 476 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
7:35:07 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
