Slashdot Mirror

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

This is a call to arm, sent out to all sensible /.ers. PLEASE, DO NOT embed senseless links within your story submission. It goes against the ethics of every data purist out there to have to mouse over words like "interesting" and "debate", carefully examining the status bar URL, to find out WTF that link points to. Enough already.

The flower you link to is called Amorphophallus titanum, try a litteral translation.

You mean, a littoral translation? A. Titanum is native to the tropics; I don't think it would do well by the shore.

Atheism cannot be a "religious" stance by definition:
religious - 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

Hmmm... but it could be considered a religion.
religion - 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Many people I have met that consider themselves athiest are as interested in actively pursuing their principle as many christians, hence this whole thread. Many atheists consider teaching christian topics in schools, or mentioning God in the pledge of allegiance immoral and dedicate a significant amount of time, effort and money to stopping the outrage.

Sounds like a religion to me.

In the presidential election, I think of the electorates as the officers or representatives responsible to us. Granted, their "term" is awfully short, but we vote for them nonetheless. We don't vote for the president, we vote for the electorates (our representatives), who then are responsible for voting for the president.

I think you need to get out a dictionary and find out what irony means.

And the moz guys built google into firefox already.

Which raises a question; now that google is a big corporate advertising concern, is hardcoding google into firefox, etc, really ethical? Maybe ethical isn't the word I want, but for all the bitching about choice around here... Maybe I want to choose something other than google? Can you do that in firefox?

Definition of Documentary

documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Er, what's ironic about about?

From Reference.com's search for 'irony':

# Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).

There are more ways to use irony than simply "The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning." One of my favorites, and a technique I employ quite often, is Socratic irony: "Profession of ignorance and of willingness to learn as one interrogates another on the meaning of a term."

Don't forget "situational" or "dramatic" irony, either.

Er, what's ironic about about?

From Reference.com's search for 'irony':

# Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).

There are more ways to use irony than simply "The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning." One of my favorites, and a technique I employ quite often, is Socratic irony: "Profession of ignorance and of willingness to learn as one interrogates another on the meaning of a term."

Don't forget "situational" or "dramatic" irony, either.

documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Did you miss the part about editorializing?

I'll admit that Fox is biased, but disagree that it is deceptive. I do agree that if it were deceptive, that it could constitute propaganda due to its scope.

c'mon, people, that doesn't even look right for chrissake! how can you misspell a simple word like that?

Yeah, I didn't think of the true meaning of the word...

It was taught as pary of my Mythology class.

And, for some reason that upset people... go figure.

[BTW: It's beck and call (not 'beckon call')]

So the question is, then: are beliefs and belief systems identical with religions?

I submit to you that they are not. Dictionary.com, at least, agrees with me, calling a religion a "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" as the lead definition. The closest thing there that could be used to refer to atheism is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion," which does not refer to atheism as I understand it.

I brought up the point because I used to be Christian myself, and heard many times the argument that atheism is "just another religion." I believed it then, but I do not now.

Just because when they made the law they were reacting against an event doesn't make them reactionary. Reactionaries generally react against change. While you may dispute whether this was progress or not, it was at least an attempt to change\fix a problem.

As opposed to pro-government hysteria, such as what you get anytime your turn on a TV news broadcast?

Ain't it odd that behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic only comes from the anti-government side, and you never, ever, not once, hear from any news outlet anything about pro-government hysteria?

Might I suggest a name for these things? Multifunctional Phones, or Multi-phones for short. Or, if you really want to, Mones. ;-) Heck, they're started to get that size with all of the extra stuff thrown in, anyway...

...not ironic.

It's a good thing that people like you are publishing essays considering your substantial knowledge of the English language. Note: This last statement is an example of ironic sarcasm.

...not ironic.

It's a good thing that people like you are publishing essays considering your substantial knowledge of the English language. Note: This last statement is an example of ironic sarcasm.

Wow, you compared GWBush to Stalin? You give me a call when GWBush kills 20 million of his own people in purges. Or failing that get a clue. Here's a start

Actually, the grandparent was looking for the word "populace", derived from the Latin populus. Damn homonyms.

As in incite. Simple error, anyone could make it, really.

Only as long as he's tried in a Kangaroo Court!

proponent

Yet another Slashdot 'expert'! You get your doctorate out of a cracker jack box?

Point by point:

I don't know what country you're from, but around here, multimillionaire corporate executives are not in the habit of buying groceries at the corner store, shopping with the plebeians at Wal-Mart, or hunkering down in a common park.

No, they buy Ralph Lauren clothes from local stores, Cadillac or Lincoln limousines (or an occasional Mercedes built in Arkansas), build fabulous houses using local labor, have local design firms decorate them with furniture from the Carolinas, have hired servants shop at the local market for them, et cetera -- all of which requires spending money in the US. Sure they import things, but American importers, shipping companies, brokers, et cetera manage to make a buck there, and the cycle continues. Even flying to Europe keeps US pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, cab drivers, janitors, toll takers, road workers, aircraft mechanics, airport vendors, and aircraft companies with their myriad employees in business.

they very much tend to horde the majority of their money

IIRC, hoarding is illegal (I assume you mean 'hoard ' and not 'horde'). The only way to actually hoard your money would be to buy a giant vault Scrooge McDuck style. In actuality, the incredibly wealthy wind up investing in companies or venture capital firms, where it goes to pay salaries at internet startups, or at the very least, by putting their money in the bank, which then gets invested by the bank in home mortgages, which buy houses built by local labor, or business loans which pay salaries. Either way, someone winds up with that money. The only thing the rich people get is more stuff, which had to be paid for, which allowed someone to pay the rent.

all payed for by tax dollars that are shouldered largely not by this highly strange executive of yours

You really need to get your facts straight. The top 1% of wage earners pay out over 30% of the total tax burden. The top 20% of wage earners pay over 80% of the total tax burden. Link here. Often, due to the Earned Income Tax Credit, the poorest tax payers actually have a negative tax rate due to the Earned Income Tax Credit (that one came in handy when I was in college).


I'd suggest, then, that you spend less time idealizing things in terms of this poor approximation of macroeconomics that is the 'trickle-down' theory, and more time thinking about how things tend to play out in the real world.

And I'd suggest learning something about a subject before you go spewing out flawed pseudo-academic dreck. To Wikipedia with you!

Yet another Slashdot 'expert'! You get your doctorate out of a cracker jack box?

Point by point:

I don't know what country you're from, but around here, multimillionaire corporate executives are not in the habit of buying groceries at the corner store, shopping with the plebeians at Wal-Mart, or hunkering down in a common park.

No, they buy Ralph Lauren clothes from local stores, Cadillac or Lincoln limousines (or an occasional Mercedes built in Arkansas), build fabulous houses using local labor, have local design firms decorate them with furniture from the Carolinas, have hired servants shop at the local market for them, et cetera -- all of which requires spending money in the US. Sure they import things, but American importers, shipping companies, brokers, et cetera manage to make a buck there, and the cycle continues. Even flying to Europe keeps US pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, cab drivers, janitors, toll takers, road workers, aircraft mechanics, airport vendors, and aircraft companies with their myriad employees in business.

they very much tend to horde the majority of their money

IIRC, hoarding is illegal (I assume you mean 'hoard ' and not 'horde'). The only way to actually hoard your money would be to buy a giant vault Scrooge McDuck style. In actuality, the incredibly wealthy wind up investing in companies or venture capital firms, where it goes to pay salaries at internet startups, or at the very least, by putting their money in the bank, which then gets invested by the bank in home mortgages, which buy houses built by local labor, or business loans which pay salaries. Either way, someone winds up with that money. The only thing the rich people get is more stuff, which had to be paid for, which allowed someone to pay the rent.

all payed for by tax dollars that are shouldered largely not by this highly strange executive of yours

You really need to get your facts straight. The top 1% of wage earners pay out over 30% of the total tax burden. The top 20% of wage earners pay over 80% of the total tax burden. Link here. Often, due to the Earned Income Tax Credit, the poorest tax payers actually have a negative tax rate due to the Earned Income Tax Credit (that one came in handy when I was in college).


I'd suggest, then, that you spend less time idealizing things in terms of this poor approximation of macroeconomics that is the 'trickle-down' theory, and more time thinking about how things tend to play out in the real world.

And I'd suggest learning something about a subject before you go spewing out flawed pseudo-academic dreck. To Wikipedia with you!

Commas are used to delimit groups of three digits for numbers with more than four digits. But please, don't bereave me

This is the internet, not the wild west. Nobody's going to bereave you over a minor dispute. Too much effort.

using GPS would be more akin to say aparental moderating device on yoru pc that lets you know what yoru children are doing online or if they say thay are going to billy's house, calling billy's mom and making sure they are there.

using GPS would be more akin to say aparental moderating device on yoru pc that lets you know what yoru children are doing online or if they say thay are going to billy's house, calling billy's mom and making sure they are there.

You left out what I believe is the original meaning.

religious - 3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious

I think the language has evolved so that the word now applies most often to beliefs in deities, but in the original meaning, it could apply to a staunch belief in no deity, which some would describe as atheism.

At the risk of agreeing with someone twice modded Troll, I also believe that most atheists are making a belief of the nonexistence of God. I'm an agnostic, because I take a scientific view. There is no evidence of God, so I can't believe in that, and no evidence that God doesn't exist so I can't bellieve in that either. It's a theory that can not yet be proven or disproven. We could argue about the many "proofs". Feel free to believe what you like. There are no right or wrong answers in philosophy. Here's an old joke:

Dean of Arts & Sciences: I appreciate the cuts the math department has made, but finances are tight and you'll need to cut back some more.
Dean of the Math Department: But we've already cut back to the point we only have paper, pencils and erasers.
Dean of Arts & Sciences: Yes, that's good, but your colleagues in the Philosophy Department are doing very well without erasers.

My working definitions:
Atheism - A belief in the nonexistence of God.
Agnosticism - A nonbelief in the existence of God.

It's a subtle distinction, but I bet most agnostics would think it's an important distinction.

I believe we are arguing semantics. I get along just fine with most atheists, even the ones who preach and try to convert me to atheism.

It's been humorously said that an agnostic is just an atheist who lacks conviction in his beliefs. I think that's essentially true.

Repent! Accept secular humanism as your personal savior or be cast into the pit and forever perish in the lake of fire and eternal... oh, nevermind.

I've got karma to burn, and I fully expect to waste some on this post. I'd be goofy to expect otherwise. That's the price to be paid for participating in a /. discussion of God.

Computer viruses as an example, good idea!

Someone who will disregard any possibility of there being a god, even if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist.

Someone who will disregard any possibility of there being a god, even if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist.

Here's the Britannica Online's discussion of libertarianism. Here's the Wikipedia discussion of libertarianism. Both encylopedia's mention Ayn Rand -- which is appropriate, given that her ideas overlap very much with libertarianism -- but do not mention that Rand was not and did not consider herself a libertarian. Wikipedia has a lengthy discussion of the topic, which I would consider a good introduction for a college-student; Britannica's introduction to the topic might suffice for a five-year old. In fact, Britannica's "discussion" of libertarianism is barely more informative than a dictionary-definition of libertarianism.

I have an old collection of Britannica's in my closet, collecting dust. I consider them a depricated tool that are only of use to children. To adults, they are barely more useful than dictionary-definitions, and one will find more comprehensive information from Wikipedia, or simply a well-informed web-search.

One individual, in a debate with me online, even claimed that since an economist (Murray Rothbard) wasn't mentioned in the Britannica, his work wasn't worth reading. This is the kind of idiocy that these biased depricated encylopedia's furnish. Childish thinking among adults. Encylopedia's, including Wikipedia, are a useful introduction to ideas. They do not cover all important ideas, and -- even Wikipedia, certainly Britannica -- offer depricated and flawed overviews of ideas, masking the complexity in a field.

I regard atheism as a religious belief that there is no god.

Atheism cannot be a "religious" stance by definition:

religious - 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

No god or deity = not religious. It could be a state of belief, as opposed to a state of concept or idea (the chief difference between ideas and beliefs is that ideas change according to new empirical evidence, beliefs do not), but your attempt to equivocate the atheistic stance by purely semantic means does nothing to enhance the debate...it only muddies the waters of the debate.

I would also argue against those who say atheism is not a religion. It is a religion, and has the set of gods {} (the empty set), whereas agnosticism does not define the set of gods.

I fully understand what you're saying here, but the definition I provided above clearly says that the set of deities must include at least one. Therefore your own statement here shows the fallacy of engaging in a semantic argument--you weren't able to write a short post without contradicting yourself.

I point this out because it's so easy to discuss philosohpical topics such as these and descend into an uninteresting semantic debate about what we ought to call things rather than what things are. If you reply to this post and insist that you're going to change the definition of the term religious or atheist to suit your needs, that does nothing to convince others of your point; though they may even choose to adopt your non-standard definitions, there's no way of ascertaining whether they've grasped your underlying point. The hope in most semantic attacks is that the change in wording will simply find its way into the subtext of future conversations and change people's minds that way. Sort of an underhanded approach, which is why I personally detest such attacks by language. Political correctness is a great example of what I'm talking about.

So, I'll address the point underlying all your wordplay...that might get us somewhere. Is it possible, do you think, that atheists might be divided into two categories: those that hold atheism as an idea and those that hold it as a belief? The idea atheists might very well hold that there is no god, but this is not incontrovertible fact...much in the way one "believes" in a scientific theory. For instance, I "believe" in Newton's model of gravity--but only insofar as it has been shown to correspond with nature. Should I need to move into the realm addressed by General Relativity, then I would not "believe" in Newton's model for that purpose. Do I think that Einstein's model is "true"? Well, no, of course not...the model hasn't shown that it corresponds exactly to reality in every situation (I'm not sure how it could meet such a high standard, either).

So, one might be atheistic in this sense. A subtle difference between a scientific theory and holding atheism in the same way, however, exists and must be addressed. And this difference is embodied by your statement:

Someone who will disregard any possibility of there being a god, even if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist.

This statement is absurd. It is silly to judge what someone would do or think in the presence of a condition that is simply impossible. In this case, "if he were given a logical proof that a god must exist" is the impossible condition. No one who has done any study of philosophy or religion would accept this as something that could actually come to pass--in other words, it is not in the set of things that could occur in this universe.

So, pinning your argument that atheism is a belief system much like religion on this statement is a major flaw in your reasoning. I might say your belief that hippogriffs do not exist is flawed because you are so prej

Populist? Are you suggesting that science fiction excludes populism? Or did you just pick the wrong word? (If you didn't, I think you're at least right in calling Star Wars populist.)

Populist

Sorry Mr Spelling Nazi, I clearly meant expertise. How terrible of me.

You must learn, grasshopper: karma, posthumously