₦airaland Forum

dancon:
instead`of wasting words on bashing the image of Nigeria( if you are a nigerian you are guilty of everything you accuse your govt of- disloyalty and dishonesty) and contesting the words of Pastor Adeboye, invest that time and energy in seeking God's face concerning your lives.

hahaha. . taking a page out of G.W. Bush's playbook huh.

If you don't support the war, then you must be supporting the enemy.

Since when is criticizing your government disloyal or dishonest?

It amazes me that some people expect that everyone should just lie down and allow incredibly dumb things to happen in the name of patriotism.

Umm. . . there is a little known secret. . .outside of the world of those who study physics. . .

all laws of physics. . .are not exact. Essentially, they describe what would happen on a probabilistic basis.

For example, if you toss a fair coin, you expect that over time, the ratio of heads to tails will approach 1:1.

Similarly, if you push an object a lot of times while it rests on a surface which imparts zero friction onto it and somehow manage to isolate it from all forces that don't act perpendicular to the plan of motion, you would probabilistically expect the object to remain in motion.

Just like it is actually impossible to "prove" the fair coin experiment - ie, you deform the coin each time you flip it and its contact with air, light waves, hitting the floor changes its composition and distribution so you'd never be flipping the exact same coin the exact same way,

neither can you really conduct an experiment that would definitively prove the law of inertia holds for all cases.

If this wasn't enough, there are alternate theories which can explain the effects that we currently observe (ie - if correct, it means that our concept of inertia is actually wrong) but those theories have not been proven beyond . . . a scientific doubt - or we don't have the technology or knowledge to observe effects which would prove this theory.

This is a basic . . .example in bayesian decision texts. A man has a burglar alarm which goes off when a burglar is detected. however, it also goes off if an earthquake is experience near his home. When the alarm goes off, the man gets a message on his phone. So, the man is at work one day and gets the message. If there was a burglary, he should probably rush home. However, if it was just an earthquake, then he can stay at work. If the man turns on the radio, and hears that an earthquake occurred, then that can explain the alarm and decrease the man's belief that it was a burglar.

Right now, for "large" masses, newton's laws apply. However, we already know that inertia does not apply to an electron or many other "small" molecules. We have relativity and associated theories which seem to explain the effects we observe (to some degree), however, there are people who are working on new theories that can explain those effects and show newton and relativity to be wrong.

These new theories are like the man discovering he had rats in his basement which sometimes would cause the alarm to go off. The rats would only move when an earthquake occurred. So, now, while the alarm and the observations as to the cause remain correlated, there is a hidden link exposed between the two.

pearldrops:
alonym are u gay or related to it?
l apprecaite your views but lets call a spade a spade

Not sure what exactly you are hinting at. , unless you are trying to imply that if a gay person is making an argument, you would have license to ignore them.

it is true. . he did nominate Seun.

Umm,

My laptop has never asked me for drivers for any of the printers I've used.

It has never asked for drivers for anything I've connected to the usb.

I've never installed drivers for anything other than my minidisc player.

I run windows xp.

I'm not the exception, i'm the rule.

You can refuse to believe it all you want. . . heck, windows 98 had drivers for most of the common things I had (at the time). The only exception was my Iomega zip drive (parallel port).

Jackie24:
People think they can outsmart God or prove his non-existance, we humans are so arogent.

That of course, assumes there is a God to outsmart.

I sometimes wonder, is it possible to prove the non-existance of something that does not exist.

I suppose if you think about anything too long, it stops making sense.

Jackie24:
Bad things are not the wrath of God, this sort of talk turns believers into haters. Bad things happen to good people, look at it as a blessing and have strength God will reward you.

exactly, God makes bad things happen to you as a way for you to grow in your trust with him. True believers will get stronger, trusting more in the lord to take care of them. If they die, then even better for them, they're one step closer to their lord.

Similarly, good things happen to those who are evil as a test as well. Clearly, true believers are able to show restraint when evil is rewarded and must resist the temptation to go over to the dark side just for earthly pleasures. After all, a true believer lives for eternal life after death, and will resist the fleshly desires of this world.

True believers don't wonder about the pointlessness of life after death or even think about how different it would be from this life. They don't try to think how exactly they would be so happy, they will gladly spend the rest of eternity praising God (that being the only thing they'll do after death). They don't even wonder about the pointlessness of having different stations in heaven, unless of course pleasure after death would be tied to how close you can sit to a God that is theoretically everywhere. Its not like anyone would care about you having a higher station since technically, nobody will suffer from envy or covet anyone else's position.

Typewriter:
please this not new on earth

in Fact when Lord Jesus disappeared from the tomb he was said that he was abducted/stoled by his boys

when America as fore Osman 007bond bin laden from Afghani Government they said he has escaped

when Hitler of germany finished world war II he was said to disappeared in Court,

Ok. . Jesus - yes

The Afghani government never had Osama Bin Laden in custody.

Hitler commited suicide rather than be captured.

xkape:
God has already done all he can do for the junky child. i used to be one of them, i am no longer but it was my choice, sometimes u have to cold turkey on a lot of things, especially pride. I can tell u for a certainty that i aint going to hell (unless i do something stupid like deny God). So there at least he did something about this here junky child.
Any more

That is not true. If I believe that God is all powerful, then that means that if God wanted, all the drugs in the world would disappear, never to return. God definitely, has not done all that he can do. To say that would suggest there are limits to his power. God has done all that he wants to do. That, I will agree to.

Dude. . . did you read any of the other posts here?

Lol, I hope Moller is able to get this to commercial development in the next 5 years.

Its not called sacrifice when you give your money to a thief.

BTW, bill clinton did not allow a man who was under trial for war crimes to escape.

There is a difference between having a thief escape from jail, and having . . say a governor who was arrested for some crime, escape.

Let me put it this way,

Companies that have used windows for years on the same series of computers don't have issues with the OS.

Companies that have used linux for years on the same series of computers don't have issues with the OS.

Poor companies acquiring random machines are more likely to use Windows 2000 rather than linux or XP. Why, it is more likely to work and easier to debug. XP is even more likely to work, just more likely to crash as well. Linux is less likely to work, though if you are lucky to get it working, it would probably not crash.

If it doesn't matter to you to have a mix of linux/windows machines, then i suppose you'd go with whatever config you desire. If the software suite you plan on using requires homogenous machines to work well, they'd probably go with the win2k and save a lot of potential heartache, not to mention wasted time.

dakmanzero:
Hey, Alloym

Trying to claim that windows is better than Linux just damages your credibility. Please don't do it.

Both are OSs for the IBM PC, which is a superior platform to the Mac (the point we have been making here for a while). However they achieve the same aim in different ways. Windows makes some concessions in configurability to make it appear more 'toaster like' or 'fridge-like', as a macintosh is.

but the point i have been making since is that any computer that is simple to use is merely fooling the user. This is because computers are complex.

On the macintosh, this illusion is more effective because of Apple's tight control over the hardware. Mac users have given up their freedom from the word go, so it is trivial for Apple to provide a crash-proof, virus-free system for computer 'users' so clueless they don't realise they have thrown 90% of their computing capability into the dustbin just so they can do 1 or 2 things without problems. Its a 'dummie's computer', kind of like a riding dodgem car as opposed to a real one.

on the PC, microsoft runs into the problem that PC users have NOT bent over to be ass-raped by some hardware manufacrture, and are tricking out their computers with SATA drives, multiprocessor systems, IRDA interfaces, RAID arrays, FLOPTICAL drives, LCD light gun sensors, SLI GEFORCE cards, and a billion other components from a wide variety of manufacturers. This means that any attempt to make things nice and easy will fail woefully, and so yopu must simply manage the 'degree of failure'. The end result is windows, where a lot of tasks can be completed real quick, but you put up with BSODs, viruses and other junk.

I agree (mostly) with you up to this point.

dakmanzero:
Linux is pure. And pure means the complexity is made REAL. but since it isnt trying to autoconfigure everything for you, it is rocksolid and super-stable once it is configured, and when you do something ONCE, you usually never need to revisit it again.

SO it may take you 5 mins to set something up on ure windows box, and 1 day to set up same on linux, but u will never have to revisit the setup again on linux, while the windows system will have to be reconfigured and reinstalled every other day. for some things, (ie many desktop apps) this is no problem, but for other things (most server apps) it is total nonsense.

end result? use windows on the desktop and linux on your servers. leave the macs for the suckers.

This is just not true. Maybe you've never had this problem. Try installing ONE single linux distro on ten different fully customized machines. You know, the type you build from scavenged parts or really cheap ones you find somewhere. 5/10 times, you will not be able to complete the installation or stuff will not work. This is because linux, while it works extremely well for systems it has been tested on and drivers have been written for specific hardware, when confronted by stuff it has never seen or wasn't configured for, it will break. I see this on a weekly basis. I'm not making this up. Windows will install on anything. But just like linux, if somebody wrote a half assed driver, then rubbish will not work.

There have been many companies that have attempted switching a lot of their stuff over from windows based pc's to linux. I remember one article in particular, they found that their costs had switched from that of software acquisistion to maintenance. Instead of having a few guys to manage the system, the had to ramp up the number of people needed to manage the linux machines, IT problems took longer to handle because even though these guys probaby had more linux knowledge and experience than you, and more than I will ever have in my life, they still couldn't fix things as fast as they could diagnose and fix windows problems.

Like i've said, right now, windows dominants for significant reason. Maybe in the next ten years, linux people would have seen past their heads enough to take care of the real issues holding them back, instead of pretending that they've gotten it right.

Eddy Tells:
see christain fighting over definition of God

you surprised?

xkape:
@allonym
u have obviously made up your mind and will not be confused by the facts
GOd can't control your life and your will because he meant u to be exactly like him eventually. Do u have children?, do u control them. If your child decides to become a junky, it is his choise

If my child decides to be a junky, as long as there is life in my body, I will work to cure him his idiotic ways. What is your point? That is definitely not the response of God. If God was in my position, then the child will be a junky, game over.

xkape:
why are u angry at God? why don't u embrace his love instead of questioning his motives. I wrote in the post that everyone will be given a fair choise eventualy. this might be your own chance. the facts have been presented to u with as little relegious clutter as i can manage, u can choose to hold on fanatically to your beleif or open your mind. the truth is never afraid of reason or scrutiny. I am not explaining things from your beliefs, just from what the bible says of itself

What makes you think I'm angry at God? I don't think I said that. I'm not angry at Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. Wouldn't stop me from calling them idiots.

xkape:
Besides, if you're right and there is no God, i will loose nothing but if i am right, think of the consequences for u

Riiight. . . So, why should I be convinced by you and more than the person who claims aliens are taking over the world. If i'm right, and there are no aliens, then we would lose nothing. If that guy is right, think of the consequences. Just because there are bad consequences if you are right, doesn't mean I should follow your ideas. I'm not saying you are as crazy as the person claiming aliens are taking over the world, but you can see why that is a weak argument for me coming over to your side.

If I walk into a discussion between two people, persons A and B, and they are arguing about whether person C just gave birth.

Of course, person C is not available to settle this.

Person A cannot adequately prove person C gave birth.

Person B cannot adequately prove person C didn't give birth.

What conclusion can I draw. NONE. I cannot determine whether person C gave birth or not. So, I could either flip a coin and choose one, or I could choose the one with the most probability of being true. Statistically, it is more likely that a person has not given birth, than to do so. Therefore, if I wanted to satisfy my desire to know the outcome, without ever having the opportunity to meet person C, even assuming that this person exists, and not some fictional, imaginary, or metaphysical character, then I'd have to agree with person B based on the only reliable and logical evidence available.

babymine:
Puh-lease just leave these pastors alone! Haba! Are they accountable to you or to God?

Actually, yes, pastors are accountable to the members of their church. Unlike the Levites in the bible who were chosen as the priests by God, pastors are chosen to head a church by. . , church members. With the Levites, you had no choice, and it was God who took care of them when they went wrong (like Samuel's sons). Now, since we took on the responsibility of vetting these people before allowing them to assume leadership over us, we also have the responsibility to make sure the authority we give them is not abused.

I don't see how you cannot care if a pastor is misusing the finances of the church or his influence. Do you not realize that pastors are major role models for many people and can set the tone for acceptable behavior? How can you teach your child not to be materialistic when the pastor acquires a new mercedes every six months? How do you teach your teenage son to be chaste when the pastor is pinching every other single woman's butt? How can you complain about the corruption in the nigerian government, and yet you continue to support the corrupt pastor instead of making an example of him?

wow, you've blown me away too

wow. . . 144,000 as opposed to 140,000. You're really blowing me away!

Seun:
Most men are very emotional. The problem is that they are conditioned express their frustrations using explosive anger rather than crying or seeking support which is like an admission of helplessness. This may be why women generally live much longer than men despite the fact that it's a "man's world". Stoic people don't live long.

Personally, I don't cry because no-one is going to comfort me if I cry. So I'd rather fight the world than cry!

Personally, I think its better not to care. Some poeple don't think this is possible and will accuse you of bottling up your feelings. . .of course, if you truely apply this philosophy, you wouldn't care about that either.

Or. . be a lot more selective in the things you allow yourself to care about. For example, most men are easily able to not care about breaking nails, lassie getting killed, etc. Need to extend that to more things. .

The credit card business is one of the few where you are rewarded for screwing the customer as much as possible and the customer is not expected to complain or given few legal resources to protect themselves.

Of course, prostitution is the easy other example, and not only can customers not protect themselves under the law, they are doubly screwed if they attempt to use the law to obtain restitution from unscrupulous prostitutes.

lol . . as a woman or as yourself. . . identity crises?

These things are so weird, from a strict expense vs income look, the USA probably should be the poorest nation in the world.

I suppose that intimidate is not the correct word. . .you're trying to overwhelm me with bullshit.

Here is an example:

This is what I said:

allonym:
On the contrary, it seems most of the Christians here are ignorant of their faith. Why should I expect you to be any different. You sure have not shown me you're any more educated than most others here. I like your generalizations about Christians, you are one of those who when they hear Jehovah's Witnessess say that on 140K people are going to heaven, your response is, they must not be christians.

This is your response to that statement:

welborn:
Excuse me allonym, with all due respect I don't expect you at any level of intelligence to descend so low in your carping. I challenge that barefaced falsity you've just posted and request you to show where I've ever made generalizations about Christians, or subscribed to the Jehovah Witness teachings, or where I stated that 'they must not be christians', or that only 140k are going to heaven. This is a classic example of the sort of misrepresentation that I talked about in my rejoinders. As far as you don't misrepresent anyone or their faith, a good discussion is possible; as long as you miss the point and resort to making untrue statements, you don't make any sense.

I never said you were a Jehovah witness. . . obviously, you don't know too much about their beliefs, its the Jehovah Witness who believe in a fixed number going to heaven.

You would claim I have misrepresented someone or their faith if I ever made a statement where I expressed what I thought about the person or their faith and the person decided to disagree with me. I'm betting you're about to cite this as an example of me mispresenting you. , go ahead. . . prove me. . .RIGHT. . hahaha.

I'm tiring of this conversation with you. For now, I'll only respond to the really interesting parts of what you have to say. Try to excite me, ok?