Slashdot Mirror

Entry Word: gigantic
Function: adjective
Text: Synonyms HUGE, colossal, cyclopean, elephantine, enormous,
gargantuan, immense, mammoth, monstrous, prodigious
Related Word hulking, stupendous

Main Entry: 1 crock
Pronunciation: 'kräk
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English crocc; akin to Middle
High German kruche crock
Date: before 12th century
1 : a thick earthenware pot or jar

Main Entry: 1 shit
Pronunciation: 'shit, interjectionally also 'shE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: (assumed) Middle English, from Old English scite; akin to
Old English -scItan to defecate
Date: circa 1585
1 usually vulgar : EXCREMENT

Yeah, I guess we could let that one slide...

hilltop

And another thing: Is Microsoft trying to say that it (the corporation) is, or should be, terrified of viruses? This seems completely at odds with their historical nonchalance on the subject. Perhaps this conversion to a "state of intense fear" is a step in the right direction. Right?

Lets remind ourselves what the word actually means. Merriam Webster defines it as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion , and the pertinent definition of terror it gives is violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands [insurrection and revolutionary terror]

Computer viruses are of course nowhere near this. But since there will now be special rules for "terrorism", it is not surprising to see everyone scrambling to get classified as a terrorist victim. We've seen it before with people trying to get classified as disaster victims, minority members, or any other form of state sanctioned victimhood. It's just how people are.

The pressure will be to get every form of non trivial crime defined as terrorism, and morally equal to killing 7000 people with hijacked airplanes.

Nope! They traded the formula for transparent aluminum for a bunch of giant, thick Plexiglas panes. They did use the Plexiglas for the tank walls in the baby warbird. "It'll take years to develop..." although how he could see it would be transparent by looking at a rotating molecule I don't know...

The plural of "virus" is "viruses." See Merriam Webster's article on it here.

Do you think that being nasty to the person on the phone (ie. call-centre-galley-slave)

You need to spend some time with a dictionary. I don't think you have a good grasp of the meaning of the word slave.

"This is a major new recognition of the social value of free software and open source."

I hadn't even heard of the Takeda Prize until this article. If someone like me, who it very up to date on technology doesn't have the slightest clue about what the Takeda Prize means, or what it would be for, how can you call it major recognition? If nobody knows about it, it isn't major. There aren't exactly a half-billion people rearranging their dinner schedules to catch the Takeda Prize.

Which leads me to another point; This is the first annual Takeda Prize. Again, I ask, how is this "major recognition"? This isn't the Nobel Prize, which is 100 years old and internationally recognized. This isn't even the Pulitzer Prize, which ANYONE can enter.

Yes, I realize that the Nobel Prize was once new, and it takes time. I just don't see it as major recognition.

BTW: I won this year's First Annual Nimrod Prize for Outstanding Slashdot Commentary. This is a major new recognition of the social value of LDOPA1's digital literature.

See my point?

Moderators: This isn't Flamebait, it's textual criticism. There is a difference.

Your definitions are at variance with normal use. Webster's (who even know both common meanings of hacker) agrees that an agnostic's answer is "don't know" while an atheist's answer is "definitely not".

Your definitions are at variance with normal use. Webster's (who even know both common meanings of hacker) agrees that an agnostic's answer is "don't know" while an atheist's answer is "definitely not".

Your definitions are at variance with normal use. Webster's (who even know both common meanings of hacker) agrees that an agnostic's answer is "don't know" while an atheist's answer is "definitely not".

Your definitions are at variance with normal use. Webster's (who even know both common meanings of hacker) agrees that an agnostic's answer is "don't know" while an atheist's answer is "definitely not".

The vast majority of Free Software advocates are exactly that - advocates. They aren't developing code, they aren't reading the source to make improvements.

Do you think that creating code under a Free Software license is not a high form of advocacy?

Free Software isn't about anything philosophical. It's about software and being able to share it to build upon itself. After that, it doesn't matter.

That's what we call an oxymoron. Whenever you say "It's about" then you are in the realm of philosophy.

Aside from some work in the HURD, RMS isn't a software developer anymore. He has become a philosopher, trying like Socrates to convert others to his way of thinking.

I didn't think RMS worked on the HURD, I could be wrong. Socrates was a teacher. Anyone who has an idea they feel will help their common man has a duty to try and convert others.

The coders have the right to make the names and use them however they please. The philosophers are only being hypocritical by making any attempt at changing that.

Linux called his kernel Linus. The "philosophers" have never tried to change that. They want they operating system based on the Linux kernel, which includes a myriad of other software packages, to be called GNU/Linux.

And hypocritical in what way?

Linux doesn't owe GNU anything. The GNU project gave Linux a tiny stepladder. But Linux gave GNU a Saturn V Rocket.

Who knows. Personally, I think we have to thank the creators of the copper wire along which the bits flow. It's more complicate than "Linux helped GNU! GNU was a loser before Linux!". Much more complicated.

Really though, I go to a modest-sized community college b/c I can't afford anything much. Why should I be curesed into not learning because of my financial situation. I'll definatly be looking into this... I mean, even if there's no degree or whatever, I'm still learning, and that's what's important anyway.

Some might point out that you haven't taken advantage of this web-based learning tool... but I won't....

I am having trouble with the word curesed. I'm not sure if you mean "cursed" or "coerced" (gramatically coerced works better). At any rate, you shouldn't let money be a limiting factor. It's often only a matter of priorities. What do you spend money on? Games? Fast food? Movies? Add it all up and you'll be surprised what it looks like annualized. Some people just like Big Macs and Cokes more than something they bemoan a lack of finances for.

If you're bright enough to go to a place like MIT, finances can be worked out. You may have to "cram" a four year degree into six or eight years by laying out a semester here and there to accumulate more funds. There's more scholarship money out there than you can shake a stick at, some specializing in nearly every kind of sub-group you can think of ($1,500.00 for left-handed eskimos with post-nasal-drip? They probably have a scholarship!).

Webster's says pyü-'a-l&p (ü as in "loot", & is the neutral vowel) which matches what people in Seattle say.

You're confusing Asia minor (peninsula in the Mediterranean, part of Turkey, not many camels) with Central Asia there...

Just see what Merriam-Webster says about Aluminium.

Englebart was no doubt years ahead of his time but email as we know it is traced back to Tomlinson.

As the article about Ray Tomlinson says:
Like a number of then existing electronic message programs, the oldest dating from the early 1960s, SNDMSG only worked locally; it was designed to allow the exchange of messages between users who shared the same machine. Such users could create a text file and deliver it to a designated "mail box."

Tomlinson's achievement seems to have been "transferring files among linked computers at remote sites within ARPANET", that is creating users' mail boxes accessable over ARPNET, which did not exist as such before 1968.

As Englebart describes the system: "Each individual has private file space, and the group has community space, on a high-speed disc with a capacity of 96 million characters." The system therefore doesn't appear to be the network environment that Tomlinson was working in.

Englebart's list of Pioneering Firsts is said to include "integrated hypermedia email" but the term email may be an anachronism in this context.

Websters says that it's e-mail. Oxford English Dictionary spells it both ways (e-mail and email).

I personally like 'e-mail', since phonetically 'email' could be pronounced EH-mail.

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

I understood what the original point was supposed to be, except it makes no sense considering in the case of the enigma having a back door in it would have been in turing's interest you silly wanker.

No, the post makes no sense to YOU because as Looge said, you didn't understand the original post.

Turing's first reaction to learning of a backdoor in Enigma would be absolute joy. The next thing he would have said would have been "I hope nobody on our side is stupid enough to have a back door on any of our codes".

Hey mr. thesaurus why don't you shut the fuck before i make you drink my dick's effluent ok fag.

In addition, by ascribing the moniker "mr. thesaurus" to Looge and your ungainly use of effluent you merely evince your own paltry erudition. Your scatological articulation, your ineffectual condescension, and your gratuitous use of "fag" all attest that you sir, are a cretin

The only thing I can see is that he's trying to cash in on the paranoia of record companies, making a buck without actually solving any problems.

The recording industry wants to make it harder for consumers to directly copy CDs, but one of the hurdles is that any barriers to copying must be "backwards compatible"--meaning the new technologies would have to work on old CD players that don't screen pirated material and vice versa. What is SunnComm doing to overcome this problem?
What we do is we own hundreds and hundreds of CD players dating back to 1983 and forward. [What you do is you do huh?]...That's how we ensure that what we build today will work on CD players from 20 years ago.

Speaking obviously isn't this guy's forte. But the real question is, what are they doing to ensure that the CDs play in modern CD players, which may contain CD-ROM drives?

What kind of initiatives are you undertaking to prevent consumer backlash?
By allowing the consumers all the fair-use opportunities they had prior to having the protection on the disc itself. That's how we do it.

Pronunciation: 'dü 'it, d&(-w) &t
- do it : to have sexual intercourse

Have you ever used Napster?
Yes, I have. I've used Napster, and both my kids have used Napster...I (also) smoked once but I didn't inhale...I've tried to explain to my kids how wrong this is.

What?? I can't tell if he's being serious or trying to be funny. And if so, was he kidding about using napster or weed? Or both? It's file sharing sir. It's not inherently right or wrong.

Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away. If somebody can show me that I'm wrong, I'll be out of this business in two days. But I don't think that I'm wrong.

No, it really doesn't. Take a lesson from the software industry. It's not at all difficult to copy or distribute most software electronically, yet Bill Gates has managed to become the wealthiest man in the world. If that's not proof, I don't know what is. You can post your resignation here, thanks.

Could someone be sent to jail for doing nothing more than browsing a web-page?

Highly unlikely. The district attorney pointed out a defense in a press release in response to public concern about the case:
A suspect's intent, the amount of loss occasioned by the behavior, and the context of the alleged offense are among many factors that are within the scope of the investigation and weighed in such prosecutorial decisions. Only after all these standards and issues have been considered would the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma prosecute an individual for a criminal offense.

Federal DAs are reluctant to prosecute unless there is a high probability of conviction and a low probability of reversal on appeal.

it seems like cops are getting overzealous in prosecuting tech "crimes"

Mostly one sees complaints about the light sentences hacker receive when the putative damages are in the $billions. These sentences can hardly be an incentive for police to pursue what you call "tech crimes".

Log files of virtually any Web servers will indicate thousands of attempts at hacking. In terms of sheer quantity it must be the most common crime by far. I'd like to see a little more zealousness in pursuing these jerks.

This is quite a salient point. In my very humble opinion, it seems to me that Government, Religion etc are in the business of controlling information and forming the way you think.

If you need any proof of this, remember that the government is now saying that they will not provide proof of Osama Bin Laden's involvement to other countries because the proof is "classified" (aka, a "Secret"). I would bet that they are using some form of encryption to keep prying eyes out. I don't believe there is any backdoor to their system so that we can check out this "proof" for ourselves. Does anyone know of one? I'm also quite sure that they don't have anybody checking the information to make sure that it doesn't contain plans to assasinate the president and overthrow the government. The FBI databases could be used to coordinate a coup.

Don't they report to us? Aren't we entitled to see this proof for ourselves before the government uses our money to finance a Crusade? Before you get your undies in a twist, face it. This is a Crusade. It happens to be that this Crusade is directed at a very select subset of the Muslim population, but it is a Crusade none-the-less.

Back to my point: Some religions tell you that there are things you can't read or listen to because they are sinful. What they really mean is that what you might actually hear or read something that will make you think for yourself and quite possibly deviate from what they've taught you.

I find it amusing that some people are horrified at some of the Taliban's (Yahoo Links and News) doctrines and don't even blink when they tell their kids that they can't listen to Ozzy Osbourne because it's a sin. In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, the Taliban's particular interpretation of Islam and the Holy Qur'an prohibits women to teach, read, attend school or hold down a job.

This is quite a salient point. In my very humble opinion, it seems to me that Government, Religion etc are in the business of controlling information and forming the way you think.

If you need any proof of this, remember that the government is now saying that they will not provide proof of Osama Bin Laden's involvement to other countries because the proof is "classified" (aka, a "Secret"). I would bet that they are using some form of encryption to keep prying eyes out. I don't believe there is any backdoor to their system so that we can check out this "proof" for ourselves. Does anyone know of one? I'm also quite sure that they don't have anybody checking the information to make sure that it doesn't contain plans to assasinate the president and overthrow the government. The FBI databases could be used to coordinate a coup.

Don't they report to us? Aren't we entitled to see this proof for ourselves before the government uses our money to finance a Crusade? Before you get your undies in a twist, face it. This is a Crusade. It happens to be that this Crusade is directed at a very select subset of the Muslim population, but it is a Crusade none-the-less.

Back to my point: Some religions tell you that there are things you can't read or listen to because they are sinful. What they really mean is that what you might actually hear or read something that will make you think for yourself and quite possibly deviate from what they've taught you.

I find it amusing that some people are horrified at some of the Taliban's (Yahoo Links and News) doctrines and don't even blink when they tell their kids that they can't listen to Ozzy Osbourne because it's a sin. In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, the Taliban's particular interpretation of Islam and the Holy Qur'an prohibits women to teach, read, attend school or hold down a job.

This is quite a salient point. In my very humble opinion, it seems to me that Government, Religion etc are in the business of controlling information and forming the way you think.

If you need any proof of this, remember that the government is now saying that they will not provide proof of Osama Bin Laden's involvement to other countries because the proof is "classified" (aka, a "Secret"). I would bet that they are using some form of encryption to keep prying eyes out. I don't believe there is any backdoor to their system so that we can check out this "proof" for ourselves. Does anyone know of one? I'm also quite sure that they don't have anybody checking the information to make sure that it doesn't contain plans to assasinate the president and overthrow the government. The FBI databases could be used to coordinate a coup.

Don't they report to us? Aren't we entitled to see this proof for ourselves before the government uses our money to finance a Crusade? Before you get your undies in a twist, face it. This is a Crusade. It happens to be that this Crusade is directed at a very select subset of the Muslim population, but it is a Crusade none-the-less.

Back to my point: Some religions tell you that there are things you can't read or listen to because they are sinful. What they really mean is that what you might actually hear or read something that will make you think for yourself and quite possibly deviate from what they've taught you.

I find it amusing that some people are horrified at some of the Taliban's (Yahoo Links and News) doctrines and don't even blink when they tell their kids that they can't listen to Ozzy Osbourne because it's a sin. In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, the Taliban's particular interpretation of Islam and the Holy Qur'an prohibits women to teach, read, attend school or hold down a job.

2 : a polyhedron having for its base a polygon and for faces triangles with a common vertex -- see VOLUME table

The one morbid effect our democracy might have on Bin Laden would be to lead him to conclude that all Americans are ultimately responsible for what our government does, since it's power ultimately rests in us.

Strategically, the neat separation of combatants and non-combatants ended with the industrial revolution. The strength of an army is based on the capacity of the country to keep it supplied with materiel. The result is that to hit an army's supply lines, you ultimately have to hit civilian targets. This theory is the basis of strategic bombing and nuclear deterence.

Morally, if citizens decide to put their soldiers at risk, why should they be any less at risk than the officers who command the soldiers?

Although, there's no longer any moral difference between combatants and noncombatants in democracies, you can still make the case that there is a distinction in dictatorships like Afghanistan and Iraq where the population has no control over its leaders.

Air power has made the notion of a neat front line and a remote battle field obsolete anyway. International terrorism is a natural evolution of that sensibility.

a libertarian anarchist. That is like a Zionist Nazi. Anarchy is would allow a rich or physically powerful individual to hurt someone 'weaker' because he/she willed it. ...

From Webster:
anarchism
1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2:the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

The best example of this type of thinking was best expressed in the part of a post which stated "Religious people can act in a manner which is rational, but that isn't the same thing as *being* rational. You seem to forget that religion is predicated upon an epistemological tenet that is at direct odds with logic and rationality. No matter how much you try to rationalize your "faith" it can never be rational. Hmmm... [Being sarcastic for the moment] Assuming you are using the definition of "predicated" as equalling 'the basis for') Try this link to the Merriam Webster online dictionary, which states that epistemology is "the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity", circa 1856. So "religion" -- which has existed for thousands of years-- is predicated upon the tenets of a system of thought for a word less than 150 years old....

Look at your statement that "faith can never be rational", yet scientists have "faith" of sorts in claiming that they understand "the truth" until a better theory is proposed which lowers the cognitive dissonance which they feel as they attempt to comprehend and project their understanding on the observed reality around them. By extension then, I could argue that scientists cannot be considered to be rational because what they believe at any given time is a moving target.

However, I make no such argument, because reason and rationality are not diametrically opposed to all beliefs everywhere, but are opposed to things which can be proven to be "not true". For example, it has been substantially proven that most diseases are the result of microbial infections, not "acts of God", therefore it is not reasonable or rational to assume otherwise. Therefore, my reference to "scientists" was not to buck up my argument by saying "other smart people think like I do...", but to point out that even in the scientific community, the jury is still out, because there are leading researchers in nearly all fields of study which dispute the existence of God and other equally qualified, leading researchers in those same fields who find the existence of God to be as equally evidenced by some of the same data. (damn-- wish I was at home with enough spare time to collect all the URLs and book titles which I've read that argue these points better than I do...) So is my pointing out the existence of both viewpoints in fact "shameful" or just honest acknowledgement?

The discussion about the "law of identity" was interesting, because as far as I can tell, nothing in it precludes an object from having certain properties as a result of design. In other words, without arguing for a specific religious viewpoint, I can point out logically that the statements that "all order is derived from the shear(sic) fact of existence" and "The universe has order, because it exists" do not exclude the distinct possibility that some or all of that order in the universe may exist in a somewhat stable manner because that is how it was designed." For example, wouldn't it make more sense in terms of the idea of "natural selection" for the evolutionary ladder to have included more possibilities for cross-species or even "cross sub-species" reproduction? Instead, most crosses up until recently have been genetic dead ends (mules are sterile, etc.). What I am calling the more recent "crosses" are mostly in the realm of bioengineering, in which the mutation was designed by scientists who only succeed after alot of experimentation before which their design(s) did not work. (Round-up Ready soybeans, etc.)

The assumption that I depend on negating the negation --"God exists because I can point out that no-one has proved that he doesn't" to prove that I or other people with religious beliefs are rational is your construction, not mine. Instead, my statement is that in order to be considered fully rational, the non-believer must be able successfully attack every experience of any religious person at any point in history (including my own) with a credible, "more likely to be true explanation" for those experiences than that given by the person relating the experience, because if even one religious experience is left standing with a more credible, rational explanation, then belief cannot be used as a disqualification from a person's inclusion in the group of people purported to be "rational beings".

So...my guess is that the collective objections to my post are that I haven't provided my own personal experiences and logical reasonings based on those experiences so that they can be so attacked. [Is that what y'all are fishing for? Perhaps I should and will, but in another forum, at another time. If so, fix the email address and send me an email address offline, so that when I do you can take your best shots...] In this forum of news about things that matter, hoever, I conclude by stating that I do not push my beliefs on you or anyone else. I merely state that I can hold those beliefs and continue to be as equally rational and reasonable human being as those of you who so loudly trumpet yout own disbelief(s) as evidence of your own perceived superiority.

For those who don't know that often words have more than one meaning(e.g. people who insist on using a lower case 'a' to initiate their spelling of American).

Main Entry: maudlin
Pronunciation: 'mod-l&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of Mary Magdalene; from her depiction as a weeping penitent
Date: 1509
1 : drunk enough to be emotionally silly
2 : weakly and effusively sentimental

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

i did look up the words 'terrorism' and 'war' on the Merriam Webster Online dictionary.

WAR is defined as 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

TERRORISM is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion and if you then link to the word terror:

terror : 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

hmmm.... to me flying a commercial airliner full of innocent people into a huge, populated, symbol of american commerce DOES fit the definition of terror, in which the definition of terrorism follows, and this systematic use of terror has/will create a hostility towards whomever is responsible, and i believe most americans have felt antangonized.....
just my view into those definitions

i did look up the words 'terrorism' and 'war' on the Merriam Webster Online dictionary.

WAR is defined as 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

TERRORISM is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion and if you then link to the word terror:

terror : 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

hmmm.... to me flying a commercial airliner full of innocent people into a huge, populated, symbol of american commerce DOES fit the definition of terror, in which the definition of terrorism follows, and this systematic use of terror has/will create a hostility towards whomever is responsible, and i believe most americans have felt antangonized.....
just my view into those definitions

i did look up the words 'terrorism' and 'war' on the Merriam Webster Online dictionary.

WAR is defined as 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

TERRORISM is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion and if you then link to the word terror:

terror : 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

hmmm.... to me flying a commercial airliner full of innocent people into a huge, populated, symbol of american commerce DOES fit the definition of terror, in which the definition of terrorism follows, and this systematic use of terror has/will create a hostility towards whomever is responsible, and i believe most americans have felt antangonized.....
just my view into those definitions

i did look up the words 'terrorism' and 'war' on the Merriam Webster Online dictionary.

WAR is defined as 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

TERRORISM is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion and if you then link to the word terror:

terror : 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

hmmm.... to me flying a commercial airliner full of innocent people into a huge, populated, symbol of american commerce DOES fit the definition of terror, in which the definition of terrorism follows, and this systematic use of terror has/will create a hostility towards whomever is responsible, and i believe most americans have felt antangonized.....
just my view into those definitions

your comment, in parentheses was this:

(The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)

That, as I mentioned before, was NOT my comment, merely a tangential fact, which I found interesting, and decided to include.

But to keep things pedantic, let's look up the definition of comment. I'll use Merriam-Webster as my source, so there will hopefully be no conflict.

comment

1 : COMMENTARY

2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing

3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude b : a judgment expressed indirectly

Hopefully I won't need to explain why a simple digression does not fall into any of those categories, but I will if you push the issue. But we'll move on for now.

The comment implies that the designer who did "sign off on it" had no idea what he was doing, because a plane did happen to crash into the tower and it did collapse.

Funny, I don't recall implying anything. Perhaps what you meant was that you inferred, and incorrectly so, as I have a tendency, when writing, to craft my sentences to read exactly as I intend to convey information, because so much is lost in the written word that is conveyed through tone and body language in normal conversation. What I meant was that the WTC towers were designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them, and that I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen.

If I were to read your comment without reading the link, I would've thought that the designer, contractor, whoever, was either ignorant, or negligent. Neither of which was the case.

I would have almost preferred your reading my comment, without reading the link, and not have made assumptions about what I mean when I write it out in plain english. And again, what you think is your problem not mine.

It was a side-note which implied incorrect information, which is why I felt the need to correct you, or the implication of your statement, as the case may be.

There you go again, laying blame on me for implying something that you inferred.

Maybe you should try to be less anxious to jump to the conclusion that everyone is a pedantic twity asshole without which slashdot would cease to exist.

Maybe you should be less anxious to prove it.

And for the record, my actual comment was totally wrong anyhow, as will be realized soon when they lift the blackout on information about the 5th plane. Feel free to try again at that time.

-Tommy

your comment, in parentheses was this:

(The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)

That, as I mentioned before, was NOT my comment, merely a tangential fact, which I found interesting, and decided to include.

But to keep things pedantic, let's look up the definition of comment. I'll use Merriam-Webster as my source, so there will hopefully be no conflict.

comment

1 : COMMENTARY

2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing

3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude b : a judgment expressed indirectly

Hopefully I won't need to explain why a simple digression does not fall into any of those categories, but I will if you push the issue. But we'll move on for now.

The comment implies that the designer who did "sign off on it" had no idea what he was doing, because a plane did happen to crash into the tower and it did collapse.

Funny, I don't recall implying anything. Perhaps what you meant was that you inferred, and incorrectly so, as I have a tendency, when writing, to craft my sentences to read exactly as I intend to convey information, because so much is lost in the written word that is conveyed through tone and body language in normal conversation. What I meant was that the WTC towers were designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them, and that I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen.

If I were to read your comment without reading the link, I would've thought that the designer, contractor, whoever, was either ignorant, or negligent. Neither of which was the case.

I would have almost preferred your reading my comment, without reading the link, and not have made assumptions about what I mean when I write it out in plain english. And again, what you think is your problem not mine.

It was a side-note which implied incorrect information, which is why I felt the need to correct you, or the implication of your statement, as the case may be.

There you go again, laying blame on me for implying something that you inferred.

Maybe you should try to be less anxious to jump to the conclusion that everyone is a pedantic twity asshole without which slashdot would cease to exist.

Maybe you should be less anxious to prove it.

And for the record, my actual comment was totally wrong anyhow, as will be realized soon when they lift the blackout on information about the 5th plane. Feel free to try again at that time.

-Tommy

your comment, in parentheses was this:

(The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)

That, as I mentioned before, was NOT my comment, merely a tangential fact, which I found interesting, and decided to include.

But to keep things pedantic, let's look up the definition of comment. I'll use Merriam-Webster as my source, so there will hopefully be no conflict.

comment

1 : COMMENTARY

2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing

3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude b : a judgment expressed indirectly

Hopefully I won't need to explain why a simple digression does not fall into any of those categories, but I will if you push the issue. But we'll move on for now.

The comment implies that the designer who did "sign off on it" had no idea what he was doing, because a plane did happen to crash into the tower and it did collapse.

Funny, I don't recall implying anything. Perhaps what you meant was that you inferred, and incorrectly so, as I have a tendency, when writing, to craft my sentences to read exactly as I intend to convey information, because so much is lost in the written word that is conveyed through tone and body language in normal conversation. What I meant was that the WTC towers were designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them, and that I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen.

If I were to read your comment without reading the link, I would've thought that the designer, contractor, whoever, was either ignorant, or negligent. Neither of which was the case.

I would have almost preferred your reading my comment, without reading the link, and not have made assumptions about what I mean when I write it out in plain english. And again, what you think is your problem not mine.

It was a side-note which implied incorrect information, which is why I felt the need to correct you, or the implication of your statement, as the case may be.

There you go again, laying blame on me for implying something that you inferred.

Maybe you should try to be less anxious to jump to the conclusion that everyone is a pedantic twity asshole without which slashdot would cease to exist.

Maybe you should be less anxious to prove it.

And for the record, my actual comment was totally wrong anyhow, as will be realized soon when they lift the blackout on information about the 5th plane. Feel free to try again at that time.

-Tommy