News story: Motorola to drop Linux from handsets - Linux

This is a discussion on News story: Motorola to drop Linux from handsets - Linux ; Linonut did eloquently scribble: > * spike1@freenet.co.uk peremptorily fired off this memo: >> We live in more enlightened times, now... >> Or most of us do. Science has advanced to the point in can explain most of >> the mysteries ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: News story: Motorola to drop Linux from handsets

  1. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux from handsets

    Linonut did eloquently scribble:
    > * spike1@freenet.co.uk peremptorily fired off this memo:


    >> We live in more enlightened times, now...
    >> Or most of us do. Science has advanced to the point in can explain most of
    >> the mysteries previously attributed to divine intervention.


    > Nah. We still live in a "demon-haunted world".


    >> But at least if hell does exist, it has all the good musicians.


    > That would be sig material!


    > How about this one:


    > The Devil uses a Windows PC.


    If he did exist, he might be evil but he's not stupid.

    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
    | in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
    | Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  2. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux fromhandsets

    On Feb 15, 3:29*am, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
    > Now who's nitpicking? 16th, 17th? so the **** what? what's 60 years in the
    > scheme of things?


    So you were wrong. A true man would admit this, but you're a nitpick
    prick.

    >
    > Oh... and... didn't you say he died at 50?
    > Now who's being a fantasist? I suggest you take your own advice and try
    > wiki-ing before spouting crap. He died aged 39.
    >


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal. I was off by 11 years.
    Note he suffered from ill health all his life, even before his
    conversion, so you cannot blame Christianity for his early death. But
    we can blame athiesm if the beer truck gets you, Andrew. So better
    hurry and repent. Hell is a long time.

    > It's still the case that even if you weren't executed for admitting your
    > atheism, you probably wouldn't survive long as an outcast from society.
    >
    > And guess what... as I'm FROM northern europe, I tend to consider that
    > point of view before ITALY or SPAIN.
    >


    Yes, right. Just what I said. Northern Italy was actually more
    christian than the south during the renaissance. Move on, nit.

    > > Explain infinity then bozo. *

    >
    > Infinity, an inconvenient mathematical concept that makes things tricky.
    > Think of a number, there's always one large.
    > Think of a really small number, there's always one smaller...
    >
    > Infinity is an abstraction. Meaning limitless there is no concrete
    > definition.
    >


    Idiot. That's not what I meant. Your brain is so small.

    > Is space infinite? Astrophysicists don't believe so.'


    You haven't kept up--the universe is expanding, even with dark
    matter. What a clown you are--ignorant clown blowhard windbag.

    > > What lies beyond our universe? *

    >
    > Who can say? In our 4 dimentional spacetime, there is only our universe.
    > If you start going into higher dimensions, there may be alternate timelines
    > in which every other possibly outcome of a choice plays out or entirely
    > different realities unimaginable by humans...


    Finally you attempt to answer, and come up with a curious metaphysical
    model of 4-D space with alternate universes. L. Ron Hubbard, founder
    of Scientology, would be pleased with this speculative claptrap. OK,
    I see an alternate universe: you switching to Windows OS, and loving
    it. Still believe in four dimensions, nutter?

    > > and how big your ego is (posting your true identity in your .sig file is
    > > but one indication of that).

    >
    > Riiiiiight...
    >


    Admission noted.

    > So now we get slammed for hiding behind pseudonyms and slammed for choosing
    > to use our real names... Is there any way we can win against such arguments?
    >


    Yeah, stop posting with your real name, nutter.

    > You'd be wanting hell then...
    > That's where most of the great minds will undoubtably end up if the rules of
    > your precious preachers were to be believed.


    No, there's purgatory for them. You'll end up in hell with Hitler and
    cannibal Jeffrey Dalmer as your bunkmates. Enjoy! They'll play music
    using you--Jeff plays a mean 'skin flute' I've heard--musick, he eats
    it up.

    > I hope you realise you just blashphemed by the way...
    > I'm not sure how your "one true god" would react to having his name used in
    > vein, placing another god before him and using a corrupt evil individual
    > such as bill gates as a yardstick...


    I see your parents or wards of the state raised you with some
    Christian morality--your only saving grace. Repent, idiot, before the
    beer truck gets you. Time is running out.

    RL

  3. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux from handsets

    Tattoo Vampire wrote:

    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> RL

    >
    > Why did you lie in your OP, asshole?


    OoooH! Dopez99 is gonna burn!
    "Burn, baby, burn!
    Burn, baby, burn!"

    --
    Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
    Linux systems: PCLOS 2007, Mandrake One 2008,
    Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
    -- On 64bit systems --

  4. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux from handsets

    spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

    >raylopez99 did eloquently scribble:
    >> No, I think I'm turning you. I can feel it in your tentative,
    >> pleading emails.

    >
    >Resorting to deceit now too? Naughty. Your so called god frowns on that
    >kinda thing.
    >
    >Note to all other readers of this thread: I have never and WILL never sink
    >so low as to e-mail this idiot.


    A Wintroll is lying? Stop the presses!


  5. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux from handsets

    Linonut wrote:

    >How about this one:
    >
    > The Devil uses a Windows PC.


    Don't sell him short. He also started the world's most successful
    software company.


  6. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux from handsets

    chrisv did eloquently scribble:
    > spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:


    >>raylopez99 did eloquently scribble:
    >>> No, I think I'm turning you. I can feel it in your tentative,
    >>> pleading emails.

    >>
    >>Resorting to deceit now too? Naughty. Your so called god frowns on that
    >>kinda thing.
    >>
    >>Note to all other readers of this thread: I have never and WILL never sink
    >>so low as to e-mail this idiot.


    > A Wintroll is lying? Stop the presses!


    I know. Shocking isn't it, from one so pious.

    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  7. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux from handsets

    * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>How about this one:
    >>
    >> The Devil uses a Windows PC.

    >
    > Don't sell him short. He also started the world's most successful
    > software company.


    IBM?

    --
    It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver.
    -- Niccolo Machiavelli

  8. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux from handsets

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:07:04 -0800 (PST),
    raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Feb 14, 4:37*pm, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> No, pascal's wager only makes sense if you apply it to *one* deity.
    >> Unless you were planning on spending all your time evenly dividing your
    >> "worship" between the possible gods. Even the most dimwitted of deities
    >> would notice that.
    >>

    >
    > Not true. Pascal's wager as originally stated by Pascal did not even
    > mention the non-existance of god--it just pointed out the benefits of
    > belief.


    Belief in which god? Zeus? Odin? YHWH? that's a major failing of
    Pascal's wager/ In order for it to work, you have to pretend to believe
    (and worship) *all* gods.

    > But simple logic (which you lack) will tell you that if there
    > exist 100 gods, and you pray to one of them, then you have a 1% chance
    > of getting to heaven if that god exists. But if you pray to none of
    > them, you have a 0% chance. 1% is > 0%, so Pascal's wager is logical.


    Except that assumes that you randomly choose which of the nine billion
    names of god to worship. Which you aren't doing. So you're % chance of
    being right, according to several mythos, is about 1 in 9xe9, oops.



    >
    > Somehow I have a feeling you'll fail to even grasp that fact (1 > 0)
    > so I'm signing off this thread for now.
    >


    Yeah, I figured you'd slink away.

    We haven't even gotten to exposing some of the *other* flaws in Pascal's
    wager. Like the chance of a *negative* outcome from worshiping the
    "wrong" god. You have a much higher chance of picking a god that would
    piss off the rest, and since the odds are you picked the "wrong" god are
    much higher than the odds that you picked the "wrong" god, *and* the
    negative results of doing same are *worse* in most cases than simply
    being an unbeliever in whatever mystical being you "chose".

    So yeah,I expect you to slink away, tail between your legs, as you go
    and google more defenses of Pascal's silly wager.





    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHtcbad90bcYOAWPYRApEgAJ4jfEVdAtAgGmxyepOmrF 9oY2jlnwCgm4jm
    QjLuS6OQ0sci+2K7AU+ZClA=
    =LNvH
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Any nitwit can claim to understand computers. Many do.

  9. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux fromhandsets

    On Feb 15, 12:07 pm, Jim Richardson wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:07:04 -0800 (PST),
    >
    > raylopez99 wrote:
    > > On Feb 14, 4:37 pm, Jim Richardson wrote:
    > >> No,pascal's wageronly makes sense if you apply it to *one* deity.
    > >> Unless you were planning on spending all your time evenly dividing your
    > >> "worship" between the possible gods. Even the most dimwitted of deities
    > >> would notice that.

    >
    > > Not true. Pascal's wageras originally stated by Pascal did not even
    > > mention the non-existance of god--it just pointed out the benefits of
    > > belief.

    >
    > Belief in which god? Zeus? Odin? YHWH? that's a major failing ofPascal's wager/ In order for it to work, you have to pretend to believe
    > (and worship) *all* gods.
    >
    > > But simple logic (which you lack) will tell you that if there
    > > exist 100 gods, and you pray to one of them, then you have a 1% chance
    > > of getting to heaven if that god exists. But if you pray to none of
    > > them, you have a 0% chance. 1% is > 0%, soPascal's wageris logical.

    >
    > Except that assumes that you randomly choose which of the nine billion
    > names of god to worship. Which you aren't doing. So you're % chance of
    > being right, according to several mythos, is about 1 in 9xe9, oops.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Somehow I have a feeling you'll fail to even grasp that fact (1 > 0)
    > > so I'm signing off this thread for now.

    >
    > Yeah, I figured you'd slink away.
    >
    > We haven't even gotten to exposing some of the *other* flaws inPascal'swager. Like the chance of a *negative* outcome from worshiping the
    > "wrong" god. You have a much higher chance of picking a god that would
    > piss off the rest, and since the odds are you picked the "wrong" god are
    > much higher than the odds that you picked the "wrong" god, *and* the
    > negative results of doing same are *worse* in most cases than simply
    > being an unbeliever in whatever mystical being you "chose".
    >
    > So yeah,I expect you to slink away, tail between your legs, as you go
    > and google more defenses of Pascal's silly wager.
    >
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
    >
    > iD8DBQFHtcbad90bcYOAWPYRApEgAJ4jfEVdAtAgGmxyepOmrF 9oY2jlnwCgm4jm
    > QjLuS6OQ0sci+2K7AU+ZClA=
    > =LNvH
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    >
    > --
    > Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    > Any nitwit can claim to understand computers. Many do.


    There is Pascal's Wager and a countering Atheist's Wager which points
    out that there are an infinite possible number of gods so worship of
    any one is almost sure to be the wrong one (and if there's a God who
    punishes worshiping the wrong one, you're in deep doodoo....) I prefer
    the PanDeist's wager, which just says that their might be a God and
    there might not, but if there is one we should assume that it is
    whichever God matches up with all the scientific evidence we have
    about the nature of life and the Universe, in other words PanDeism.

  10. Re: News story: Raylopez lies about Motorola dropping Linux fromhandsets

    On Feb 17, 2:28*pm, Krum wrote:
    > There is Pascal's Wager and a countering Atheist's Wager which points
    > out that there are an infinite possible number of gods so worship of
    > any one is almost sure to be the wrong one (and if there's a God who
    > punishes worshiping the wrong one, you're in deep doodoo....) I prefer
    > the PanDeist's wager, which just says that their might be a God and
    > there might not, but if there is one we should assume that it is
    > whichever God matches up with all the scientific evidence we have
    > about the nature of life and the Universe, in other words PanDeism.


    Well Krum you're smarter most of the atheist posters in this thread.
    They're going straight to hell while you'll be sent to purgatory, a
    much better bet. And they use Linux. Going to hell; using linux.
    Not sure which is worse.

    RL

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4