vacri
Joined 16 years ago
Karma
17,701
Submissions
9,767
Member since
Nov 12
-------
Small business sysadmin.
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 9 years ago
> But we can agree that it's not the nature of a corporation to pay more taxes than necessary?
Think Different.
Comment · 9 years ago
Future generations will really appreciate that plugged shaft!
Comment · 9 years ago
The first rule is that you don't break userspace, not that you don't make mistakes. Commits go through a process before being put into the kernel, and if yours is going to break userspace, it won't get in, so don't expect it to. You can make mistakes, but if they're found, you're expected not to say "well, commit it anyway". It's not the mistake that the violation of the rule, but the cavalier attitude.
Comment · 9 years ago
You need to work in a wider variety of workplaces, if you genuinely believe that. Perhaps put another way: were Jobs or Ballmer ever escorted out for their obnoxious behaviours?
Comment · 9 years ago
The connection has timed out
The server at www.haproxy.com is taking too long to respond.
Not the best advert for a high availability proxy...
Comment · 9 years ago
Well, here you offer a prime example of the power of religion: you are being wilfully ignorant because you don't want something to be a certain way.
You won't be satisfied unless the actual word 'literal' appears? It appears in the first paragraph of the Stercoranism link, and again in the second paragraph.
"the 9th century Carolingian theologian Paschasius Radbertus... wrote an influential tract around 832 upholding the literal interpretation of Christ in the Eucharist". He supported the literal change, but said that the holy bits dissolved before becoming poo.
Comment · 9 years ago
... the very first paragraph after the table of contents?
If you check out the Middle Ages section, it shows that the theological debate that it wasn't physical alteration started... at a date that is closer to us than the birth of jesus.
Check out Stercoranism [1] as well (which contributed to the above debate), whose whole basis is that the doctrine of physical change must lead towards normal digestive processes happening, and wondering if this turns the eucharist into, literally, holy shit.
At the end of that article is a bit of modern apologia stating that christ probably leaves as soon as the cracker hits your stomach ('but nobody knows precisely when'[2]). :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stercoranism
[2] god does, after all, move in mysterious ways...
Comment · 9 years ago
> No one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh. Your taste buds would tell you otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
Plenty of people have believed it historically. Scroll down to the Catholic section and you'll see some of the mental gymnastics I talked about to claim it in modern times.
Protestants don't believe in literal transubstantiation; I'd say they probably trust their taste-buds more, but then again, compare Protestant/Anglo-German food against Catholic/Franco-Italo-Spanish food :)
> "questions that have no answer". They have more perhaps retreated to "god of the gaps"
I don't personally see a difference between these terms - they both mean claiming to have an answer for something that is unanswerable. If you have an answer for which the only proof is basically "just trust me", then it's not much of an answer. Russell's Teapot is a pretty clear example of this.