In some cases the persecution was specifically in the name of atheism. For example, the carvings of Buddha in the Cave of 1000 Buddhas in China were smashed because they wanted to obliterate all evidence of China's religious past. The cave remains a tourist attraction, of course, because the "Smarts" didn't think to take flashlights when attacking a cave, so plenty of the carvings survived in the depths of the cave.
The variety in Christianity seems to be considerably more than the variety in atheism.
[snip]
But aside from God exists and Jesus came to save us, I don't think you'll find any statement all Christians will agree with.
So Christans are united by "God exists" and atheists are united by "God doesn't exist". Christians are further united by "Jesus came to save us", but there's no comparable uniting force in atheism. Er, am I missing something here? Surely that means that there is more variety in atheism?
Skepticism, rationality, or reason! The three cornerstones of atheism.
A lot of the Christians I know will be quite startled to find themselves atheist on your definition! For what it's worth, I think your claim is claptrap because skepticism, rationality and reason will lead to agnosticism, not atheism. An atheist claims to know, which is a shortfall in skepticism and possibly in rationality.
There's a tabletop RPG called Credo that is somewhat along those lines. It was produced in response to just such complaints about the lack of religious standards in games. I once managed to get a Sunday School group playing it.
And I gave you evidence, although the fact that you think that one case of the system working correctly is evidence that it isn't open to abuse, and the fact that you don't seem to grasp the difference between evidence and proof, makes me wonder whether you'll be able to understand it.
"Simpler, sure. Completely ineffective though"
I think A. C. Clarke would disargee.
I think Arthur C. Clarke understood the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 errors. This being News for Nerds I assumed you would too. Sorry.
I gave an example of a just application of the law, can you give an example of an unjust case or are you just waving your hands? As far as I understand it the UK laws are similar to Aussie laws, the defendant must show why they believe the accusation to be true. This does not mean I can't print a derogatory opinion, it means I can't fabricate evidence and make baseless accusations without risking a law suit. In otherwords, it's simply extending the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" into the fourth estate.
Pretty much all civilised countries have libel laws that work well for the affluent when they have genuinely been libelled. The problem is for the less affluent person wrongly accused of libel. Actual cases are, of course, difficult to cite because they are by their nature disputed. But the fact that the UK is a destination for libel tourism does suggest that either it's easier to win a case here than elsewhere or that damages will be higher. Of course, we might be an outlier because we're leading the way to a better future, but for those of us who believe in free exchange of ideas it does look rather more as if something is seriously wrong.
"Just don't go to England. Extradition doesn't apply to civil law."
Wouldn't it be simpler not to publish deliberate and harmfull porky-pies about people?
Simpler, sure. Completely ineffective though. The big problem with UK libel law is the way it makes the UK a haven for those who want to gag perfectly true statements.
Some of us are put off by the fact that it is deliberately designed to be annoying. I hold the admin password on my kids' Vista laptop, and I can confirm that they suceeded completely.
The thing is that nobody had heard about Bing before MS.
I had. She's a friend of our family. "Bing" is a fairly common Chinese given name. And, come to think of it, lots of people have heard of Bing Crosby. I think that would be significant if this were about copyright, but as this is about a trademark I suspect it isn't.
It's still a great field with good salary, sane work hours and prospects for advancements. It's just not as compelling as during dot com boom. Women should stop making excuses and go into any good field they like.
Most women have stopped making excuses and are going into whatever field they like. Which usually isn't IT. Which pisses off the political control freaks who want them to want what men want, and lets those with a chip on their shoulder pretend that there's a problem.
And the reply is "I'm sorry, the account is locked". My wife had this -- it took her about 5 years to close one of her accounts because the bank refused to unlock it.
Shillings and pence went out in 1971, accompanied by a merry tune by The Scaffold, so that would have been a bit limiting on cards issued in the 1980s.
Not in the UK, where this story is relevant. No banks in the UK charge ATM fees for anyone with a bank that is part of the Link network.
That's changing, though. Although I understand that the UK banks are not permitted to charge ATM fees, the companies that install and run the private ATMs are typically wholly-owned subsidiaries of the banks. So when there is as decision to install an ATM, the next choice is "Shall we do this for free or shall we get our subsid to do it and make a profit?" Guess which way that decision usually goes!
That would cause huge problems for house purchase in the UK because of the delays it would cause at each link in the chain. Instead, it's usual to pay with a banker's draft, which is the bank's own cheque. I bet they carry on even after personal cheques have gone.
None of the major stores in the UK have accepted cheques for years. The issue is for clubs, small traders and so on. I really don't want to send my daughter to school with £80 cash in her satchel for a school trip, but I don't know of any schools around here set up to accept payment as anything but cash or cheque.
Did you read the summary? I've never met anyone who had a problem understanding the London underground map.
I have. I live in London, so perhaps I'm more likely than the average slashdotter to meet them. And more critically, when people are studying the Tube map they're not having to make tactical driving decisions at the same time, and the station they're looking for isn't in the process of flashing past. It's a false analogy. My wife can understand the map on her GPS -- she just has an unnerving habit of stopping in the middle of a traffic roundabout (gyratory) so she can interpret it. Not an issue when she's interpreting the Tube map.
Slashdot Mirror
In some cases the persecution was specifically in the name of atheism. For example, the carvings of Buddha in the Cave of 1000 Buddhas in China were smashed because they wanted to obliterate all evidence of China's religious past. The cave remains a tourist attraction, of course, because the "Smarts" didn't think to take flashlights when attacking a cave, so plenty of the carvings survived in the depths of the cave.
The variety in Christianity seems to be considerably more than the variety in atheism.
[snip]
But aside from God exists and Jesus came to save us, I don't think you'll find any statement all Christians will agree with.
So Christans are united by "God exists" and atheists are united by "God doesn't exist". Christians are further united by "Jesus came to save us", but there's no comparable uniting force in atheism. Er, am I missing something here? Surely that means that there is more variety in atheism?
Skepticism, rationality, or reason! The three cornerstones of atheism.
A lot of the Christians I know will be quite startled to find themselves atheist on your definition! For what it's worth, I think your claim is claptrap because skepticism, rationality and reason will lead to agnosticism, not atheism. An atheist claims to know, which is a shortfall in skepticism and possibly in rationality.
There's a tabletop RPG called Credo that is somewhat along those lines. It was produced in response to just such complaints about the lack of religious standards in games. I once managed to get a Sunday School group playing it.
Somebody didn't get any party invites?
And I gave you evidence, although the fact that you think that one case of the system working correctly is evidence that it isn't open to abuse, and the fact that you don't seem to grasp the difference between evidence and proof, makes me wonder whether you'll be able to understand it.
I'm not afraid my boss will find out... I'm worried my mother will.
I doubt your (or anyone's) mother would be fazed. She got to be your mother somehow, remember.
"Simpler, sure. Completely ineffective though" I think A. C. Clarke would disargee.
I think Arthur C. Clarke understood the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 errors. This being News for Nerds I assumed you would too. Sorry.
I gave an example of a just application of the law, can you give an example of an unjust case or are you just waving your hands? As far as I understand it the UK laws are similar to Aussie laws, the defendant must show why they believe the accusation to be true. This does not mean I can't print a derogatory opinion, it means I can't fabricate evidence and make baseless accusations without risking a law suit. In otherwords, it's simply extending the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" into the fourth estate.
Pretty much all civilised countries have libel laws that work well for the affluent when they have genuinely been libelled. The problem is for the less affluent person wrongly accused of libel. Actual cases are, of course, difficult to cite because they are by their nature disputed. But the fact that the UK is a destination for libel tourism does suggest that either it's easier to win a case here than elsewhere or that damages will be higher. Of course, we might be an outlier because we're leading the way to a better future, but for those of us who believe in free exchange of ideas it does look rather more as if something is seriously wrong.
"Just don't go to England. Extradition doesn't apply to civil law." Wouldn't it be simpler not to publish deliberate and harmfull porky-pies about people?
Simpler, sure. Completely ineffective though. The big problem with UK libel law is the way it makes the UK a haven for those who want to gag perfectly true statements.
Some of us are put off by the fact that it is deliberately designed to be annoying. I hold the admin password on my kids' Vista laptop, and I can confirm that they suceeded completely.
The thing is that nobody had heard about Bing before MS.
I had. She's a friend of our family. "Bing" is a fairly common Chinese given name. And, come to think of it, lots of people have heard of Bing Crosby. I think that would be significant if this were about copyright, but as this is about a trademark I suspect it isn't.
It's still a great field with good salary, sane work hours and prospects for advancements. It's just not as compelling as during dot com boom. Women should stop making excuses and go into any good field they like.
Most women have stopped making excuses and are going into whatever field they like. Which usually isn't IT. Which pisses off the political control freaks who want them to want what men want, and lets those with a chip on their shoulder pretend that there's a problem.
Granted, but they're different pence!
Either way, I bet nobody waited around for a personal cheque to clear.
And the reply is "I'm sorry, the account is locked". My wife had this -- it took her about 5 years to close one of her accounts because the bank refused to unlock it.
Most importantly, who the hell would trust a car-value cheque? If it bounces, the seller is down a LOT of money.
You've not seen my car, have you?
If retailers hate cheques so much, why do they bother to keep accepting them.
They don't. You'll be hard-pressed to find a retailer in the UK that accepts cheques.
Shillings and pence went out in 1971, accompanied by a merry tune by The Scaffold, so that would have been a bit limiting on cards issued in the 1980s.
Retail isn't the issue. The reason there is an issue is your attitude that retail is all there is.
Not in the UK, where this story is relevant. No banks in the UK charge ATM fees for anyone with a bank that is part of the Link network.
That's changing, though. Although I understand that the UK banks are not permitted to charge ATM fees, the companies that install and run the private ATMs are typically wholly-owned subsidiaries of the banks. So when there is as decision to install an ATM, the next choice is "Shall we do this for free or shall we get our subsid to do it and make a profit?" Guess which way that decision usually goes!
That would cause huge problems for house purchase in the UK because of the delays it would cause at each link in the chain. Instead, it's usual to pay with a banker's draft, which is the bank's own cheque. I bet they carry on even after personal cheques have gone.
None of the major stores in the UK have accepted cheques for years. The issue is for clubs, small traders and so on. I really don't want to send my daughter to school with £80 cash in her satchel for a school trip, but I don't know of any schools around here set up to accept payment as anything but cash or cheque.
It was messy, and all that perfectly good tea went to waste.
We never sent our good tea to America!
Did you read the summary? I've never met anyone who had a problem understanding the London underground map.
I have. I live in London, so perhaps I'm more likely than the average slashdotter to meet them. And more critically, when people are studying the Tube map they're not having to make tactical driving decisions at the same time, and the station they're looking for isn't in the process of flashing past. It's a false analogy. My wife can understand the map on her GPS -- she just has an unnerving habit of stopping in the middle of a traffic roundabout (gyratory) so she can interpret it. Not an issue when she's interpreting the Tube map.
Yeah, simple intesections are -- well -- simple. Unfortunately, not all intersections are simple.