The Grand Negus wrote: "I'd love to convert" list! Preach it brother. :laugh: This space available for advertising!

Bassam Saoud wrote: I believe in God, I know God exists. Proof? A Bible, witnesses of miracles, historical events. Can you prove that God does not exist? We have a few billion examples showing that people who die stay dead. We have scientific understanding of living organisms and the way they decay after death, so that the organism cannot be revived. The proposition that a being cannot be resurrected after death is about as well established as any scientific proposition could be. The Bible's claims of resurrection are thus plainly contradicted by science. That doesn't mean resurrection is an absolute impossibility, since nothing in science is 100% certain. But it does mean that anyone who respects science will require extremely solid evidence before believing in resurrection. As Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence of the Bible doesn't come anywhere near meeting the standard. People invent lots of myths and that is a far more likely explanation for the claims of the Bible than that the miraculous events actually happened. John Carson

Many different kinds of geometry already exist, providing your 'geometric rules' are applied consistently to a closed data set (for example the set of all integers) then I guess you could 'create' any kind of geometry you wanted. I'm not sure I agree with you on the argument behind this - conventional exists as a way of describing the real world and it works very well. It 'fails' when applied to fonts (for example) because of the restrictions applied to the data set (Real numbers) by the discrete device used to display the fonts and not because the geometry is wrong! As a mathematician I'd be glad to look at this for you - providing we can agree on payment terms ;)

As long as your website itself is live and accessible then no one's "rights" are being trampled on. cheers, Chris Maunder CodeProject.com : C++ MVP

Thinking for yourself and outside the box is orthogonal to absolute obeisence. That's the part that gets em' I think. Obey your master. Do what your told. And hence the radical cult comparisons. Interesting though that you prefer to keep it in a cultish style, and seek disciples. I always found people with this predisposition to be worth much less than the true seekers. The ones thinking for themselves. Willing to be at odds with the rest because they're passionate about their discoveries. Such as Jesus. He didn't do as he was told. He rebelled against his religion and instituted his own. This statement was never false.

I think a knowledge of both is integral (along with various other studies) to being a true, thoughtful, 21st century renaissance (wo)man. I've always admired traditional classical education very much, with its emphasis on the connectedness of the tree of knowledge (and which culminates in theology, as you mention). What Berlinski is looking for is a comprehensive education (and I am really racking my brain for a good word to call this but am drawing a blank) that reflects a modern "best-understanding" of the world from top to bottom. He, like everyone else, is hoping to answer the questions: "Who am I?", "What is my place in the world?", and then "Given that knowledge, what should I do with myself?" Physics is as integral to the whole tree of knowledge as anything else, but as a foundation. It sets the stage, by answering the first two questions, so that people can intelligently think about the third question. But my understanding of his comment was that he was shocked, or disappointed, or something that physics couldn't answer #3 directly. And that's what I took issue with. To fall back into corny metaphor, you can't begin to build a house without a foundation, but to expect that foundation to keep the rain off your head, and then fault the foundation for not doing so, is lunacy. Science describes, philosophy prescribes, and we need both, but let's not try to apply the disciplines to things they were never intended to do.

Replied too soon. The Grand Negus wrote: Why not have a small, local company make bottles just for our little community? Just the way we like them? Wouldn't that be better? Not necessarily. In your view it would, but not everyone shares that view. I take it you'd like to remake the world in your image. The Grand Negus wrote: Not like there use to be. We used to have a different, unique, stand-alone restaurant in every small town in America; now we've got a McDonald's and a Burger King. While its true that BK and Micky D's can be found everywhere, there are still unique restaurants in every town I've been in. The bummer with your vision of locals only, is that you end up pigeon holed into that community. I think we grow much more with exposure to other cultures and peoples. Both socially and in business. I think that looking at the world as a single community would have a greater impact. The Grand Negus wrote: The owner doesn't get to decide what to buy and how to cook it and how to market it and what the place should look like, etc; the creative aspect of restaurant ownership is gone. That just isn't true. If the guy decides to buy a franchise then yes. But then, that guy isn't going for creativity. If you want, you can surely start your own restaurant and do all of what you describe. In fact, there was a show last night on Food Network where they were doing a spotlight on a chef in Portland that does just that. 80% of his ingredients come from local farms, ranges, and markets. Now you are just downright skewing this matter. The Grand Negus wrote: And the restaurant franchisee doesn't buy eggs, meat, and vegetables from his neighbors, the local farmers who now cannot survive without becoming chicken factories. The ability to contribute to the local community has been curtailed. These are bad things. That is only the case with franchises. And some franchises are not constrained by this. In and Out Burger is one that I can think of. They tout fresh locally obtained ingredients. The Grand Negus wrote: I'd rather live in a world with a thousand different operating systems - good and bad - than live in this world where everyone has "standardized" on the same few pieces of crap. You are. Linux is a

That paragraph was strictly about Christians. Your original statement makes no mention of religion. Just because religions are screwed up, and think all other religions are false, does not make others atheists. Actually, most religions think people of other religions won't achieve salvation because they're not following theirs, but I don't think they believe others are atheists. "People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them." - Anonymous Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM

If we find a neow planet to live on, you "don't bother me, I don't care" people can keep that one too. Until then, we'll cover you in garbage, not really sorry for that. We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist

Design and Architecture. You may choose to associate your food with your waste. But isn't this a gross simplification and a crude attempt to show a fallacy in object orientation? Who would have a base category of "hinged device with hole"? No one. I'm sure you can come up with a better case if you really want to contest object oriented architectures. You do realize that the natural world follows an object oriented paradigm? Biology is a wonderful case for objects inheriting from base classes. Why do all felines look like cats? Why do all mammals have similarites? Why does plant life follow this same pattern of inheritance? And if it works so well for the natural world, why is it so flawed for this virtual one? This statement was never false.

Polytheism = "many gods". Pantheism = "god is all". Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: How men in the Catholic Church replaced Passover with Easter The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango

Hey, I apologize. I was able to see the person, and not the subject. And at the heat of the situation, I thought you were in support of Ilion who created a lot of chaos. In fact, at a later time when I read it all carefully, I felt bad. I had a stereotypic observation about you. Anyway, I hope you would agree on the part that you worked your way to earn bad reputation (Knowingly or unknowingly) while beginning here at CodeProject. Have a nice day. PS: How do I pronounce your name? First part is ok, but Rzeppa? How do I pronounce it? Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero

Sometimes, but I don't worry about it if they don't. :-D This statement was never false.

I wasn't questioning the existence of a Creator-God. Just raising another topic of consideration. You brought the topic back to what you are focused on. What is it that I'm not open-minded to? And what did you disagree to? I also didn't disagree with you. So your assumptions in this single post are illogical, and even irrational, since we're using these terms. Ilíon wrote: And this tells us all we need to know about you. Who is this "us" and "we"? Are you typing in committee? This statement was never false.

toxcct wrote: are you paranoid ? He also suffers from delusions of self-importance. :) Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler] Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp] The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson] I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]

Shoulda woulda coulda.... lamenting what should be in the face of what is doesn't serve much purpose. But... "It's your life. Spend it as you wish. " This statement was never false.

dan neely wrote: Do you still lurk in the SB though? The subject of productivity's came up today. I did at first during the "withdrawal" stage. But, I've since realized the SB and Lounge is only really interesting for news and if you're bored. So, if I'm looking to veg out, I do what I should've been doing all along - go do something like watch a movie, hang out with the gf, etc. Jeremy Falcon "It's a good thing to do and a tasty way to do it." - Wilford Brimley[^]

John M. Drescher wrote: From first hand experience I can say that it does indeed work and I believe the way it works is very impressive however it lacks most of the user interface that we expect from a professional software product made in this decade. Thanks for the compliment. The user interface is the way it is for three reasons: (1) It is designed to challenge preconceived notions. Specifically, how many of the widgets, gadgets, and redundant ways of doing things commonly found in a "software product made in this decade" are really necessary? For example, the Adobe PDF reader I use has over 110 different commands for adjusting page magnification; our page editor has just two. Our interface is offered as a minimalist (yet useful) corrective to such excesses. (2) Our interface is independent of the operating system. It looks the same under Windows 95, XP, and Vista. When we port it to LINUX, it will look the same there. Exactly the same. Nothing new to learn; nothing new to "get used to". Nothing new to document; nothing new to teach. A great productivity aid. (3) We like it the way it is. Really. And having used it to write several very significant programs, and having used the built-in page editor for designing everything from house plans to children's books, we think it's fair to say that it works and works well - at least for us.

The Grand Negus wrote: "Whatever?" Wrong answer. Wrong! It was the right answer. The correct response is what I decide, and not what you decide, unless you want to talk to yourself. The Grand Negus wrote: "I thought about what you said and you're right. One can serve and profit from that service at the same time; like Maunder does with his website. It is a side issue. I was wrong. Sorry." HAhahahahaha! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: I don't think so. That I would not say. But you seem to quote the bible alot and I don't think Jesus would accept profiteering in service as a motive. Accidental is one thing, as you suggest, and this is why its recommended to place a link in your signature. But to pimp your stuff is altogether different. What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder

The Grand Negus wrote: Please explain to my why this[^] post is considered "spam or inappropriate" (it's already been deleted once). I would like to say that your post is NOT spam and for me its a very valid answer to original posters question, IF I forget about your image here as spammer and IF I dont know that you sell PEC. Your post might be marked as spam for the following two reasons that I can think of: 1. I have already told you, just because of your earlier posts. The image you have now is "spammer" and even if you utter plain english now in this forum, unfortunately it might be stamped as spam. 2. You are the seller (or will be having a subsequent monetory benifit) of the solution that you gave to original poster. Had it been a user of your product who doesnt have any monetory benifit from the solution, it might not have been marked as spam. -- modified at 2:12 Monday 8th January, 2007 Pravar My Image Processing Article! Rate it!! My Blog