The placebo effect has long been known. It doesn't mean that sugar pills are real medicine. It just means that if you can trick your mind into believing something, it can sometimes have positive effects. If believing that the universe is a shared hallucination helps some people sleep at night, it still wouldn't make their belief valid. If you can't demonstrate something and get predictable specific results, then it is an unknown. To pretend it isn't is to delude yourself, regardless of whether it has positive side-effects or not. I'm sure many insane people are perfectly happy living in whatever world their mind has created for them.
LOL! Christians have never been "let down" because they consider everything that happens to be the will of God. It would be similar to a physicist theorizing "I predict that if I do something, something may or may not happen." You can't lose!
Those facts, true or not, do nothing to prove or disprove religion.
That's exactly my point. And since you can't prove or disprove those positions, it just doesn't make sense to believe in them. Doing so is irrational. Admitting that we don't know is the honest and rational approach.
It's similar to the UFO debate. Some people fervently believe that aliens exist and visit our planet regularly. Now they can't prove this, but neither can we prove that they're wrong. Yet these people are generally regarded with much skepticism, if not outright contempt. What's the difference here? Well, offhand, I'd say that the difference is the fact that religion is quite useful to those that can control it and they've had at least a couple thousand years to make people believe it, often by threat of torture or death. It's only in the last couple hundred years that some religions have become more civilized. Now that religion is thoroughly entrenched, they can afford to be that way. Even today though, you'll see many abuses.
In the fiorst form of the statement, you are saying "I don't know, but either could be right." The second form says something along the lines of "I don't know, but both are wrong."
Both cases lead to agnosticism, albeit different forms thereof. I happen to be of the former viewpoint, and your statemtnt lends itself to the latter. I yield that your viewpoint is as good as mine.
I think what I was saying is that I feel that people who feel strongly that God either does or does not exist are deluding themselves since there is no proof, or indeed anything more than circumstantial evidence, of either position. So I'm saying that the only truly credible position to take is one that admits that we don't have any way to know the answer at this point.
After all, after everything is said and done, you can't DISPROVE God; absence of proof is not proof of absence. Since you can't disprove it, you have to take into account that God is possible. Belief in God is just as credible -- not more than, and not less than (and that's the key point) -- as my belief that God does not actually exist, and is in fact a creation of our own minds.
I disagree. Belief in the existence or non-existence of God are equally incredible. The only honest and credible path is to admit that we really don't know and have no real evidence to support either side. That happens to be the reason that I'm agnostic.
No, the RIAA is evil for purchasing laws to extend the timespan and scope of copyright to the detriment of society as a whole. That's reason enough to hate them. Throw in the fact that they're a pack of filthy liars who spout off about how they are concerned that artists are being harmed when they do more to rip off artists than all the world's pirates combined is just gravy for the hate train.
I've been using MusicMatch.com for the last few months. For about 60 bucks a year, I can listen to as much music as I want. Granted it's only available to me at home and work (or wherever I happen to have access to a computer that I can install the software on), but for me it works well. There are limitations to it, caused almost entirely by legislation targeted at radio and web-radio stations, but it's good enough. I can buy MP3s there as well, but at $1 per song, it's really not worth it to me. I don't see myself buying CDs again anytime soon.
Now that I think about it, and this ties in with the earlier story about the broadcast flag, I don't spend much time watching TV anymore, and I haven't had cable TV (or indeed any TV) for the last 2 years. I go to a friend's house or to a bar sometimes to watch basketball games, but that's about it. Wonder what kind of legislation they'll try to cook up to get money out of me in the future?
That's why its ridiculous to claim that focusing on other crime is "detracting from the search for Osama bin Laden." Their jobs consist of more than that.
It's not ridiculous. It's just oversimplified. However, he still has a point. The more areas we try to crack down on, the more thinly the resources are spread. That's simple economics. Cracking down on porn would seem like a rather worthless thing to do in the overall scheme of things, given the number of much bigger problems we have to deal with currently.
Yes, you're most likely just trolling, but just in case some people don't realize why you're wrong, I figured I should point it out anyway. It's not a philisophical point. It's a very practical point. If Microsoft has a patent on it, then open source software and Microsoft competitors can't adhere to the standard without facing the posibility of lawsuits or large licensing fees. Maybe not right away, but whenever Microsoft feels it would benefit them most (read: after it becomes widely accepted and implemented).
His point was to actually find a job before you start complaining, not just start looking and then start complaining. I think that would be a wise idea.
Even the FBI has become involved. It says music piracy has become its third priority behind terrorism and counter-intelligence. A number of US Congress members who rely on the entertainment industry for campaign funds lobbied the FBI to spend more money hunting file-sharers and CD burners. So now CDs in the US carry FBI stickers warning of fines of $250,000 or five years in prison.
I sincerely hope they aren't expending much effort on chasing down teenagers with cablemodems. Given the fuckups at the FBI in the past several years, I would think that they have their hands full just trying to keep the citizens of this country from being killed. Unfortunately, I am never surprised at what money can buy these days.
Depends on what your needs are. If you need to be able to exchange the presentation docs with other people in your company, then again, Keynote is not even in the running. Unless you can convince your entire organization and probably your clients to switch to Macs. Even Apple can't do that and they have more incentive than anyone else.
I probably wouldn't include that either if I were them. Might draw attention and people might decide that something should be done about it. (which really should have been the result of the anti-trust trial, but alas...)
I just finished KoTOR for the first time a couple days ago. HK-47 was my favorite character:) The translations were great and I just loved his occaisional interjections and overall attitude. After I install my new motherboard and reload, I'm going to play it again and go evil this time >:>
Every aspect and function that windows and all its software serve have been replicated in one form or another. In almost ALL of those, there even exists a free version.
First of all, you're wrong about that. Yes, there are other operating systems, and there are other office suites, but they aren't compatible with what 95% of the population is using now, so using them can keep you from being able to effectively exchange information with almost everybody. It's called network effects. The more people use a certain format or protocol, the more important it becomes for others to use it as well in order to be able to communicate effectively with all others.
I think its arguable that MS has a monopoly. The only definition I've seen thus far is "concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few".
If you've read all about how the Sherman Act came to be, then I find it hard to believe that that's the best definition for monopoly that you can come up with. Regardless, the definition we're working with here is simply any company that controls the vast majority of a market and for whom there is little or no competition and/or other products available in the market are not perfect substitutes (and due to network effects, people need perfect substitutes when it comes to software). Microsoft doesn't price its products based on competition. It prices them at a level that is considered optimal for its profits. Since competition isn't a factor (because other products are not perfect substitutes) these prices are much higher than they would be in a competitive market.
My point to all of this, so its made clear, isn't that MS is doing right or wrong, or that its ethical, its that I believe the gov't should NOT interfere.
Maybe you should write to your congresscritters and ask them to work on repealing anti-trust laws then. Until such time as that happens though, monopolization is still illegal and any company engaging in such practices should be punished.
Slashdot Mirror
The placebo effect has long been known. It doesn't mean that sugar pills are real medicine. It just means that if you can trick your mind into believing something, it can sometimes have positive effects. If believing that the universe is a shared hallucination helps some people sleep at night, it still wouldn't make their belief valid. If you can't demonstrate something and get predictable specific results, then it is an unknown. To pretend it isn't is to delude yourself, regardless of whether it has positive side-effects or not. I'm sure many insane people are perfectly happy living in whatever world their mind has created for them.
By your logic, any belief by anyone anywhere is perfectly valid. Interesting world you live in.
LOL! Christians have never been "let down" because they consider everything that happens to be the will of God. It would be similar to a physicist theorizing "I predict that if I do something, something may or may not happen." You can't lose!
Hah. So now you're comparing the evidence for the existence to God to the evidence for mathematical theory?! I think you're supporting my case now :)
Those facts, true or not, do nothing to prove or disprove religion.
That's exactly my point. And since you can't prove or disprove those positions, it just doesn't make sense to believe in them. Doing so is irrational. Admitting that we don't know is the honest and rational approach.
It's similar to the UFO debate. Some people fervently believe that aliens exist and visit our planet regularly. Now they can't prove this, but neither can we prove that they're wrong. Yet these people are generally regarded with much skepticism, if not outright contempt. What's the difference here? Well, offhand, I'd say that the difference is the fact that religion is quite useful to those that can control it and they've had at least a couple thousand years to make people believe it, often by threat of torture or death. It's only in the last couple hundred years that some religions have become more civilized. Now that religion is thoroughly entrenched, they can afford to be that way. Even today though, you'll see many abuses.
In the fiorst form of the statement, you are saying "I don't know, but either could be right." The second form says something along the lines of "I don't know, but both are wrong."
Both cases lead to agnosticism, albeit different forms thereof. I happen to be of the former viewpoint, and your statemtnt lends itself to the latter. I yield that your viewpoint is as good as mine.
I think what I was saying is that I feel that people who feel strongly that God either does or does not exist are deluding themselves since there is no proof, or indeed anything more than circumstantial evidence, of either position. So I'm saying that the only truly credible position to take is one that admits that we don't have any way to know the answer at this point.
After all, after everything is said and done, you can't DISPROVE God; absence of proof is not proof of absence. Since you can't disprove it, you have to take into account that God is possible. Belief in God is just as credible -- not more than, and not less than (and that's the key point) -- as my belief that God does not actually exist, and is in fact a creation of our own minds.
I disagree. Belief in the existence or non-existence of God are equally incredible. The only honest and credible path is to admit that we really don't know and have no real evidence to support either side. That happens to be the reason that I'm agnostic.
No, the RIAA is evil for purchasing laws to extend the timespan and scope of copyright to the detriment of society as a whole. That's reason enough to hate them. Throw in the fact that they're a pack of filthy liars who spout off about how they are concerned that artists are being harmed when they do more to rip off artists than all the world's pirates combined is just gravy for the hate train.
I've been using MusicMatch.com for the last few months. For about 60 bucks a year, I can listen to as much music as I want. Granted it's only available to me at home and work (or wherever I happen to have access to a computer that I can install the software on), but for me it works well. There are limitations to it, caused almost entirely by legislation targeted at radio and web-radio stations, but it's good enough. I can buy MP3s there as well, but at $1 per song, it's really not worth it to me. I don't see myself buying CDs again anytime soon.
Now that I think about it, and this ties in with the earlier story about the broadcast flag, I don't spend much time watching TV anymore, and I haven't had cable TV (or indeed any TV) for the last 2 years. I go to a friend's house or to a bar sometimes to watch basketball games, but that's about it. Wonder what kind of legislation they'll try to cook up to get money out of me in the future?
Actually, I take that back. It probably would be good for a MiSTing at least, although I'm not sure I could even sit through it again even then.
Even sadder to think about how long they'll "own" the copyright to (for instance) the recent movie, "League of ExtraOrdinary Gentlemen"
:)
In the case of that particular movie, they're actually doing us a favor, but I see your point anyway
That's why its ridiculous to claim that focusing on other crime is "detracting from the search for Osama bin Laden." Their jobs consist of more than that.
It's not ridiculous. It's just oversimplified. However, he still has a point. The more areas we try to crack down on, the more thinly the resources are spread. That's simple economics. Cracking down on porn would seem like a rather worthless thing to do in the overall scheme of things, given the number of much bigger problems we have to deal with currently.
Yes, you're most likely just trolling, but just in case some people don't realize why you're wrong, I figured I should point it out anyway. It's not a philisophical point. It's a very practical point. If Microsoft has a patent on it, then open source software and Microsoft competitors can't adhere to the standard without facing the posibility of lawsuits or large licensing fees. Maybe not right away, but whenever Microsoft feels it would benefit them most (read: after it becomes widely accepted and implemented).
Sounds like Larry Flynt should be heading up that department.
COBOL is still a pain to read and even more of a pain to write. After taking 2 COBOL courses in college, I never *EVER* want to deal with it again.
His point was to actually find a job before you start complaining, not just start looking and then start complaining. I think that would be a wise idea.
Impressive. Looks just like Slashdot :)
hmm... wouldn't he have to be kidnapped before someone invents a time machine?
Even the FBI has become involved. It says music piracy has become its third priority behind terrorism and counter-intelligence. A number of US Congress members who rely on the entertainment industry for campaign funds lobbied the FBI to spend more money hunting file-sharers and CD burners. So now CDs in the US carry FBI stickers warning of fines of $250,000 or five years in prison.
I sincerely hope they aren't expending much effort on chasing down teenagers with cablemodems. Given the fuckups at the FBI in the past several years, I would think that they have their hands full just trying to keep the citizens of this country from being killed. Unfortunately, I am never surprised at what money can buy these days.
Depends on what your needs are. If you need to be able to exchange the presentation docs with other people in your company, then again, Keynote is not even in the running. Unless you can convince your entire organization and probably your clients to switch to Macs. Even Apple can't do that and they have more incentive than anyone else.
I probably wouldn't include that either if I were them. Might draw attention and people might decide that something should be done about it. (which really should have been the result of the anti-trust trial, but alas...)
I just finished KoTOR for the first time a couple days ago. HK-47 was my favorite character :) The translations were great and I just loved his occaisional interjections and overall attitude. After I install my new motherboard and reload, I'm going to play it again and go evil this time >:>
If ~95% of home and work computers can't run it, then it's really not any competition for PowerPoint either, is it?
Every aspect and function that windows and all its software serve have been replicated in one form or another. In almost ALL of those, there even exists a free version.
First of all, you're wrong about that. Yes, there are other operating systems, and there are other office suites, but they aren't compatible with what 95% of the population is using now, so using them can keep you from being able to effectively exchange information with almost everybody. It's called network effects. The more people use a certain format or protocol, the more important it becomes for others to use it as well in order to be able to communicate effectively with all others.
I think its arguable that MS has a monopoly. The only definition I've seen thus far is "concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few".
If you've read all about how the Sherman Act came to be, then I find it hard to believe that that's the best definition for monopoly that you can come up with. Regardless, the definition we're working with here is simply any company that controls the vast majority of a market and for whom there is little or no competition and/or other products available in the market are not perfect substitutes (and due to network effects, people need perfect substitutes when it comes to software). Microsoft doesn't price its products based on competition. It prices them at a level that is considered optimal for its profits. Since competition isn't a factor (because other products are not perfect substitutes) these prices are much higher than they would be in a competitive market.
My point to all of this, so its made clear, isn't that MS is doing right or wrong, or that its ethical, its that I believe the gov't should NOT interfere.
Maybe you should write to your congresscritters and ask them to work on repealing anti-trust laws then. Until such time as that happens though, monopolization is still illegal and any company engaging in such practices should be punished.