The operative phrase in that sentence is "considered by Christians or Jews", not "to be a deity." It's not saying that a deity is a deity. It's saying that a deity is anything that Christians or Jews consider to be a deity. That would be a limited subset of all deities.
Even the old testament doesn't really seem to me to imply the actual existence of other gods, it seems to merely accept that many believe that other gods exist.
"The Jews and Christians don't because their god is the biggest, not the only."
I never said a deity is a god or vice versa. When he asked me to define a deity, I merely pointed out that my definition is irrelevant, and what matters is what a Christian or Jew would consider a deity to be. That's completely different.
Lucifer was an angel, not a god. That he fell from grace does not make him a god, unless you can show me some Christian or Jewish source that says that it does.
Sorry, but I can't accept a couple out-of-context quotes as evidence of Christian acknowledgement of the existance of other gods. The Bible says that Lucifer was an angel. Christians believe that God is "the god of this world." I think your quote is either very much out of context, or is not meant to be taken literally (as is the case with much of the Bible). The same goes for the quote about humans as gods. Angels and demons are not gods either. At least I've never found any Christian reference that considers them to be gods.
That was a commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." I don't see it as an acknowledgement of other gods, but rather an acknowledgement that some believe that other gods exist, and that Christianity won't tolerate the worship of these other gods "over" the Christian god. If the work of Christian missionaries is any guide, Christians do attempt to halt the worship of any other god regardless of whether he's held in higher regard than God or not. It all seems quite subjective and still doesn't specifically acknowledge the existance of other gods as the original post said.
For my purposes, a deity would be anything/anyone considered by Christians or Jews to be a god, as that is what the original post said. I have never heard of angels being considered gods by anyone. As for number 3, that's hardly acknowledgement of another god. I'm talking specifics here. Do Christians or Jews acknowledge the existance of any other gods, regardless of stature?
Everything else even remotely related to computers has gotten drastically cheaper over the years. Everything except Microsoft's software. It has actually gotten more expensive. Gee... I wonder why that is... could it be... monopoly?!
I can do a search for "warez" right now and probably come up with at least a million sites. These guys are so full of shit it should be criminal. They are deliberately misleading people about this issue. So, is anyone standing up to call them on it? Who has the clout to be heard there?
I just dug this game out again a few days ago and was looking forward to playing again. Then I found out I was missing Disc 2. Aaargh!! Now this story shows up just to rub salt in my wound.:(
Their situation might not remain quite so rosey though. There are already accusations coming to light, now that everybody is paying attention to accounting practices, that Microsoft has been doing some SERIOUSLY screwy accounting. I can't find the link at the moment, but I was heard about it on NPR a couple days ago. Similar accusations were raised a couple years ago, but Microsoft managed to push through those unscathed. Not sure that they'll manage so well this time.
I'll be waiting a couple of months for everyone to figure out how buggy it is before I decide whether to give it a try or not. Given their track record, this is not a game to rush out and buy. Let the fanboys be the guinea pigs and wait for reviews and news on bugs and patches.
As for oxygen in the carbon nanotube interior - there is no oxygen in the interior, as these were described as closed (capped) carbon nanotubes, which are formed under inert (non-oxygen) atmospheres.
This is what the article said: (emphasis mine)
The initial popping noise is generated by the heating of the oxygen inside and between the tubes, which causes a shock wave.
Then after that it says:
When the researchers tried the experiment in the absence of oxygen they found that the tubes were transformed into different nanoscopic shapes, some reminiscent of cone-shaped "nanohorns".
The goal of anti-trust laws is to restore competition. This can't but help competitors because they will regain access to the relevant market(s). So the whole issue of whether it helps Microsoft's competitors or not is completely beside the point.
They told me that it wouldn't send any information about me back to the company. They also said that DivX discs would have the same quality and features as DVDs. And it took me several minutes to get them to even admit that I wouldn't be able to view a disc that I had previously watched if I took it to someone else's place to watch. They kept trying to refer to the unlocked discs when I specifically told them I wasn't talking about the unlocked discs. Unlocking a DivX disc was going to be at least as expensive as buying a regular DVD and therefore made no sense.
Damn people lets be honest here while MS may not have been technically inovated but they have executed much better than the open source communicty and in the end have a better product. ITS NOT CAUSE MS MAKES YOU.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and obviously little to no knowledge of how MS got where they are today.
Then I guess the author of that app is just a moron. He says he's trying to prove a point to the Ad-Aware people, but he's completely missed the point himself. People install Ad-Aware because they want the service that it provides, which is deleting the kinds of programs that they have decided that they don't want on their computer. This guy uninstalled a program that they DID want on their computer, and he did it without giving them the option not to, aside from simply not using his app.
Slashdot Mirror
The operative phrase in that sentence is "considered by Christians or Jews", not "to be a deity." It's not saying that a deity is a deity. It's saying that a deity is anything that Christians or Jews consider to be a deity . That would be a limited subset of all deities.
Even the old testament doesn't really seem to me to imply the actual existence of other gods, it seems to merely accept that many believe that other gods exist.
It's not circular. The original post said:"
"The Jews and Christians don't because their god is the biggest, not the only."
I never said a deity is a god or vice versa. When he asked me to define a deity, I merely pointed out that my definition is irrelevant, and what matters is what a Christian or Jew would consider a deity to be. That's completely different.
Lucifer was an angel, not a god. That he fell from grace does not make him a god, unless you can show me some Christian or Jewish source that says that it does.
Sorry, but I can't accept a couple out-of-context quotes as evidence of Christian acknowledgement of the existance of other gods. The Bible says that Lucifer was an angel. Christians believe that God is "the god of this world." I think your quote is either very much out of context, or is not meant to be taken literally (as is the case with much of the Bible). The same goes for the quote about humans as gods. Angels and demons are not gods either. At least I've never found any Christian reference that considers them to be gods.
That was a commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." I don't see it as an acknowledgement of other gods, but rather an acknowledgement that some believe that other gods exist, and that Christianity won't tolerate the worship of these other gods "over" the Christian god. If the work of Christian missionaries is any guide, Christians do attempt to halt the worship of any other god regardless of whether he's held in higher regard than God or not. It all seems quite subjective and still doesn't specifically acknowledge the existance of other gods as the original post said.
For my purposes, a deity would be anything/anyone considered by Christians or Jews to be a god, as that is what the original post said. I have never heard of angels being considered gods by anyone. As for number 3, that's hardly acknowledgement of another god. I'm talking specifics here. Do Christians or Jews acknowledge the existance of any other gods, regardless of stature?
That doesn't acknowledge another god. That simply acknowledges that the heathens believed there was another god.
Apparently he had to study quite hard to become the lying weasel he is today.
Everything else even remotely related to computers has gotten drastically cheaper over the years. Everything except Microsoft's software. It has actually gotten more expensive. Gee... I wonder why that is... could it be... monopoly?!
I can do a search for "warez" right now and probably come up with at least a million sites. These guys are so full of shit it should be criminal. They are deliberately misleading people about this issue. So, is anyone standing up to call them on it? Who has the clout to be heard there?
The Jews and Christians don't because their god is the biggest, not the only.
Show me one place where Christians or Jews acknowledge the possible existance of any god but their own.
I just dug this game out again a few days ago and was looking forward to playing again. Then I found out I was missing Disc 2. Aaargh!! Now this story shows up just to rub salt in my wound. :(
Their situation might not remain quite so rosey though. There are already accusations coming to light, now that everybody is paying attention to accounting practices, that Microsoft has been doing some SERIOUSLY screwy accounting. I can't find the link at the moment, but I was heard about it on NPR a couple days ago. Similar accusations were raised a couple years ago, but Microsoft managed to push through those unscathed. Not sure that they'll manage so well this time.
I think Bill is a tool. Steve too.
I'll be waiting a couple of months for everyone to figure out how buggy it is before I decide whether to give it a try or not. Given their track record, this is not a game to rush out and buy. Let the fanboys be the guinea pigs and wait for reviews and news on bugs and patches.
As for oxygen in the carbon nanotube interior - there is no oxygen in the interior, as these were described as closed (capped) carbon nanotubes, which are formed under inert (non-oxygen) atmospheres.
This is what the article said: (emphasis mine)
The initial popping noise is generated by the heating of the oxygen inside and between the tubes, which causes a shock wave.
Then after that it says:
When the researchers tried the experiment in the absence of oxygen they found that the tubes were transformed into different nanoscopic shapes, some reminiscent of cone-shaped "nanohorns".
14 mph feels a lot different when riding a bike or a segway than it does when riding in a car.
Yep. They were wrong.
It's easier to control than a bike. If you're an expert cyclist, perhaps you could achieve similar control, but it won't be the case for most people.
Bikes aren't nearly as easily controlled as the Segway. Segway is simply safer for sidewalk use than a bicycle.
The goal of anti-trust laws is to restore competition. This can't but help competitors because they will regain access to the relevant market(s). So the whole issue of whether it helps Microsoft's competitors or not is completely beside the point.
They told me that it wouldn't send any information about me back to the company. They also said that DivX discs would have the same quality and features as DVDs. And it took me several minutes to get them to even admit that I wouldn't be able to view a disc that I had previously watched if I took it to someone else's place to watch. They kept trying to refer to the unlocked discs when I specifically told them I wasn't talking about the unlocked discs. Unlocking a DivX disc was going to be at least as expensive as buying a regular DVD and therefore made no sense.
Damn people lets be honest here while MS may not have been technically inovated but they have executed much better than the open source communicty and in the end have a better product. ITS NOT CAUSE MS MAKES YOU.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and obviously little to no knowledge of how MS got where they are today.
Then I guess the author of that app is just a moron. He says he's trying to prove a point to the Ad-Aware people, but he's completely missed the point himself. People install Ad-Aware because they want the service that it provides, which is deleting the kinds of programs that they have decided that they don't want on their computer. This guy uninstalled a program that they DID want on their computer, and he did it without giving them the option not to, aside from simply not using his app.