I have to ask, how can you justify athiesm? Isn't it at least [very small non-zero percent] possible that there might possibly be a god of some sort, even if it's not even close to what is preached by the standard religions?
I haven't been able to come up with a proof that 100% proved god dosen't exist, so how can I say with certainty that he does not. Is there a rebutal to this that I am unaware of?
Atheism isn't a claim of certainty that no gods exist (though some do make this claim -- usually based on a limited defintion of the term "god.") It is an absence of a belief the existence of gods. In my specific case, it is not the relatively few gods in whose existence I actively disbelieve that makes me an atheist; it is the infinite pantheon in whose existence I don't positively believe. Sure, there might be some god hiding in some gap somewhere, but I see no reason to think so. And in the meantime, I'll live my life exactly as if no gods exist.
Was this really sponsored my Microsoft? Is there proof of that?
Well, some other karma-whore posted a link to this wired story which points out that while both MS & ADTI refused to comment on whether or not MS sponsored the study, MS did admit to "provid[ing] funds" to the ADTI. <sarcasm>Of course, I don't think two upstanding organizations like MS & ADTI would stoop to a quid pro quo arrangement of the type that has been suggested by the cynics at slashdot and wired.</sarcasm>
As part of my career I am responsible for filtering valid email addresses from gigabytes of online data, and I can testify that this kind of data mining is arduous and thankless.
So, I'm guessing that it might cut into your industry's profits if the U.S. followed the E.U.'s lead.
Don't forget that First Amendment issues are raised when discussion about banning marketing mail (electronic or snail) is raised. In the US we are bound by the Constitution wheteher we like it or not and regardless of its consequences; it's a double-edged sword that needs to be handled very carefully. The spammers know this and are going to this argument as long as they can.
If every email they send costs me money, it is not a first amendment issue. I do not have to pay to provide them a forum. Money may be considered speech when it belongs to the speaker, but not when it belongs to the audience.
This is the famous mistranslation of a the Russian proverb: "The spirit is weak but the flesh is willing." The translation was Russian > English, not English > Russian > English.
I have heard both English>Russian>English and Russian>English, and since, like the supposed "Out of sight, Out of Mind">"Blind and insane" mistranslation story, this story is not true, it doesn't really matter. I heard the English>Russian>English first, but that was the late '70s -- probably the Russian>English version was first. Even so, it doesn't make much sense. The Russian word for "spirit" in that context is likely "" (soul, sounds like duck) or " " (character, sounds similar to the English) rather than "" (spirit, specific to (industrial?) alcohol) or "" (vodka.) Of course, the Russian->English dictionary could have been bad, but that wouldn't really have been a problem with machine translation.
For the background on that story and machine translation in general, see this Economist article
Linked to a doubleclick ad for me;-) I was able to find an articles containing the quote at the Economist (requires registration and payment) and it notes that the story is apocryphal.
One characteristic (but apocryphal) tale tells of an American military system designed to translate Russian into English, which is said to have rendered the famous Russian saying "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" into "The vodka is good but the meat is rotten."
Actually, if you haven't agreed to the EULA, you can do whatever you like with the software within the limits of copyright law.
Does it also mean, if I strip a GPL'd piece of software of the GNU license that I don't have to abide by it either?
Yes. You then revert to standard copyright law, which prohibits redistribution of the software. You may still use the GPLed software. The difference between the GPL and almost all commercial EULAs is that the former grants you rights that you don't normally have under copyright law; while the latter attempts to take away rights you would otherwise have under traditional copyright law.
Wouldn't a
real atheist not give two donkey butts about the church?
An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of any gods. They are quite aware that Churches exist and have influence in the real world whether or not any gods exist. So, to answer your question, it is perfectly consistent for an atheist to care about the actions of a Church.
Wouldn't they
especially never write scenes involving an actual god in their books?
Pullman was offended by the theology of Lewis. Theology causes people to act in the real world regardless of the actual existence of the object of that theology. Criticizing the theology from with (as was done by Twain in _Letters From Earth_) is a valid way of criticizing the theology, and possibly changing the way people behave.
I'm just fuzzy on him writing about a "revealed god" in his books.
It's fiction. Lot's of authors who don't believe in ghosts write ghost stories. OK, he has a purpose here -- to illustrate the flaws in one particular theology which he viewed as "life hating."
An interesting article by the author of the trilogy can be found here. I looked for it on the Guardian site, but couldn't find it. Anyhow, in the above, he says of the basic message of _The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe_, that "...it's propaganda in the service of a life-hating ideology. But that's par for the course. Death is better than life; boys are better than girls; light-coloured people are better than dark-coloured people; and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it."
I remember hearing him say in an interview that the Trilogy was his response to the Narnia series -- he intended the message to be that life is good, joy is good and a girl can be a hero. Oh, and authoritarian life-hating religion is bad.
I enjoyed the Trilogy myself, as did my wife, but we can't figure out why it was called "His Dark Materials." Just being dense, I'm sure.
Great leaps forward happen when enough young scientists (not bound to the previous theory, since they didn't build their career on it) find enough data that doesn't 'fit' with the current theory.
True. But these young whipper-snappers tend to publish enough details about the method of collecting such anomolous data so that others can add to it. Claiming to have found such data but failing to publish the method for collecting it has never lead to a paradigm shift. And irreproducable results seem to be what we have here.
That said, a reproducable effect that contradicts current theory is a valid scientific discovery even without the discoverer proposing an alternate theory. Finding new questions is just as valuable as finding (always tenative) answers.
Thanks. I did not realize that tilting was a formal term in jousting. I always assumed it was merely descriptive. My "at" was incorrect as well.
...well, you have sort of half a point. On the one hand, the usage is common and we're never really going to get people to stop using it. On the other hand, the usage is stupid and was invented solely to create evil connotations for the crime of copyright infringement, since that by itself is, well, boring. The word was adopted wholy for its emotional baggage, which makes no actual sense in the way it's used.
I don't believe you. If this really was the intent, then those evil corporations weren't using marketting departments. Pirates, like the mafia, have a mixed image in the English speaking world. They are as least as likely to be viewed as romantic heros or Robin Hood types as they are as the murderous thugs they were. And "copyright infringement" has a weighty lawyerly feel.
So I rather hope we all keep "tilting at windmills" and pointing out how cynical and manipulative the choice of "piracy" was. And no, "piracy" is not significantly easier to say or use than "infringement"; it's just sexier.
Sure, it's sexier. That really doesn't support your claim that its usage is promoted by those wishing to demonize infingement. And I disagree that "infringement" rolls off of the tongue as easily as piracy. That hard "g" in the middle breaks up the flow, in my opinion.
I know it's been used for a long while to denote non-licenced radio transmission. And it's been used for at least 25 years to denote software copyright infingement. So, I don't really buy the assertion that the copyright cartel invented the term (or even promotes it) in order to demonize copyright infingement. I think it just as likely that those doing the infringing to used the term to romanticize what they were doing. But you've already schooled me on jousting terminology, so I am open to correction here.
Merriam-Webster also gives the following definition for piracy:
Main Entry:
piracy
Function: noun
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
See definition 3. It's been used that way for a while now. Usually it's pretty easy to use context to determine which definition is intended by the author. English has many words which mean different things in different contexts. And piracy is plain easier to say that "copyright infringement." Keep tipping at windmills, though.
You're talking about Microsoft. I'm talking about Dell, and have been the entire time (re-read my posts if this somehow escaped you). Dell has every right to spread out its costs for Windows across *all* PCs, even those that don't come with Windows. They are under no obligation whatsoever to cut a break to people who don't want the OS.
Ah. You're right. Then I change my answer to The Clayton Act:
"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited...."
From the Court's Finding of Fact in US v. Microsoft, section H 64:
An aspect of Microsoft's pricing behavior that, while not tending to prove monopoly power, is consistent with it is the fact that the firm charges different OEMs different prices for Windows, depending on the degree to which the individual OEMs comply with Microsoft's wishes. Among the five largest OEMs, Gateway and IBM, which in various ways have resisted Microsoft's efforts to enlist them in its efforts to preserve the applications barrier to entry, pay higher prices than Compaq, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard, which have pursued less contentious relationships with Microsoft.
Yeah, I know I'm posting 3 hours later and no one will read it, but this is a particular peeve of mine.
Microsoft is another vendor, not a f*cking government. If only n-1 Dell customers want Windows, they have no business charging that last customer for Windows.
They have every right to do so. If you think otherwise, please point out the legislation that supports your assertion.
The Clayton Act. Microsoft is "discriminat[ing] in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality... where the effect of such discrimination [is to] lessen competition...."
To wit, they are charging the OEMs a lower price if said OEMs pay by total units sold as opposed to paying by total numbers of units sold with a Microsoft operating system installed, thus increasing costs to units sold with other operating systems. Microsoft has a 85% marketshare. This means that any OEM can either charge 85% of their potential customers more (and they will go elsewhere) or they can charge that 15% of their potential customers who choose not to install a Microsoft OS more. Now, since hardware has a razor thin profit margin, volume sales are important. OEMs can't afford to offend 85% of their potential customer base (or even to push them towards other manufacturers) This all has the effect of discouraging sales of computers with non-Microsoft OSes installed. In other words, the effect price discrimination is to lessen competition.
Just like your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, one could could argue that your freedom to copy data ends when it's someone else's data.
True, but pre-DMCA copyright law already made it illegal to copy protected works. To continue your analogy, swinging my fist beyond the end of your nose is covered by assault and related laws. The equivalent of the SSSCA would be a law requiring that all arms be restrained in some fashon in order to prevent them swinging fists into anybody's nose (not to mention that MicroCuffs has patented all arm restraint methods.) This law, and the attitude that created it are fundamentally flawed.
I bet most people here are more interested in whether or not they will still be able to rip those rented DVDs.
I'm most interested in keeping general purpose computers legal.
If someone is capable of claiming "rights" on some physical artifact that they created then why shouldn't someone be able to claim rights on some non-physical artifact that they created as well?
If that someone charges me for access to that physical or non-physical artifact, then I should have some rights to the use of that artifact. With respect to non-physical artifacts, I have the right to, among other things, make an archival copy. The DMCA, and IIANM, this WIPO treaty proposal make the tools that would allow me to excercise my rights illegal. The DMCA and this WIPO proposal don't make it a crime to violate copyright (existing copyright law does that) but it makes exercising fair use rights illegal if the form in which the non-physical artifact is distributed puts even a nominal barrier up to fair use.
Patent & Copyright are irrelevant to reverse engineering issues. Patent prevents you from using the idea, copyright prevents duplication (except for fair use.) Neither prevent you from playing with a thing you've bought to determine how it's made, they just restrict what you can do with that knowledge.
But that's what is being discussed. The people who were prosecuted under the DMCA were distributing information that could be used to circumvent copy protection (or "a mechanism for protecting copyright", or whatever you want to call it).
But distributing information that could be used to violate copyright is not a violation of copyright in and of itself. Which is why they needed a brand new law (the DMCA) to make reverse engineering of "effective" copy protection schemes illegal. It isn't illegal in any other context. Not copyright. Not patent.
I think corporate income tax should be abolished...
Fuck that!As long as these entities are considered "Natural Persons" with all of the rights of actual persons, as opposed to mere organizations with priveledges granted because of the value that they add, they should be subject to every possible responsibility to which actual natural persons are subject, including taxes.
Having some tools is illegal in some cases. Try carrying (in the U.S.) some of those tools described in the MIT Guide to Lock Picking without being a licensed locksmith and you will find out quickly enough. So, it would have been better for the MPAA lawyer to have described it as a digital lockpick rather than a digital crowbar. Joe Sixpack has a legitimate use for a crowbar.
Of course, the two most important points in the whole DeCSS/DMCA mess are that (i) I have a legitimate use for DeCSS, in that I would like to play DVDs on my non Win/MacOS Box; and (ii) CSS does not prevent those seeking to violate copyright from making copies of DVDs anyway.
I guess you never got to Austin or you would have had a different impression.
I do get to Austin on occasion, and enjoy it very much. There's a lot to like about Texas to balance that which I dislike, but I don't let my Texas kin know that. I have to keep needling them or they will get an unrealistic picture of their home state.
OT -- my mom's favorite joke:
Three men get stuck in an elevator during a power outage and begin talking. Some time into the conversation one of the men says to another "You went to Harvard, didn't you?" The other man responds "Yes, I did. How did you know?" The first man says "Your accent. Unmistakable." The second man then says to the first "You went to MIT, didn't you?" "Why, yes, I did. How did you know?" he responds. "I recognized you from a picture in a journal article." The two men then turn and say to the third "And you went to Texas A&M, didn't you?" He responds "Yes, I did. How did you know?" "We saw your class ring when you were picking your nose."
This lowers Texas on the list of "states to move to" when my lease runs out.
What do you mean? The bill hasn't passed.
What does he mean ``lowers Texas on the list of "states to move to?"''
WTF was Texas doing on such a list in the first place?
Everything's bigger in Texas - the hair, the drawl, the delusion that Texas isn't a state full of pig-ignorant rednecks with unjustified superiority complexes.
Slashdot Mirror
-Craig
-Craig
-Craig
-Craig
-Craig
I should have known; it's a Bible quote. Matthew 26:41 " , ."
See the full verse in
here.
-Craig
-Craig
-Craig
An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of any gods. They are quite aware that Churches exist and have influence in the real world whether or not any gods exist. So, to answer your question, it is perfectly consistent for an atheist to care about the actions of a Church.Pullman was offended by the theology of Lewis. Theology causes people to act in the real world regardless of the actual existence of the object of that theology. Criticizing the theology from with (as was done by Twain in _Letters From Earth_) is a valid way of criticizing the theology, and possibly changing the way people behave.It's fiction. Lot's of authors who don't believe in ghosts write ghost stories. OK, he has a purpose here -- to illustrate the flaws in one particular theology which he viewed as "life hating."
-Craig
An interesting article by the author of the trilogy can be found here. I looked for it on the Guardian site, but couldn't find it. Anyhow, in the above, he says of the basic message of _The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe_, that "...it's propaganda in the service of a life-hating ideology. But that's par for the course. Death is better than life; boys are better than girls; light-coloured people are better than dark-coloured people; and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it."
I remember hearing him say in an interview that the Trilogy was his response to the Narnia series -- he intended the message to be that life is good, joy is good and a girl can be a hero. Oh, and authoritarian life-hating religion is bad.
I enjoyed the Trilogy myself, as did my wife, but we can't figure out why it was called "His Dark Materials." Just being dense, I'm sure.
-Craig
That said, a reproducable effect that contradicts current theory is a valid scientific discovery even without the discoverer proposing an alternate theory. Finding new questions is just as valuable as finding (always tenative) answers.
-Craig
Thanks. I did not realize that tilting was a formal term in jousting. I always assumed it was merely descriptive. My "at" was incorrect as well.
I don't believe you. If this really was the intent, then those evil corporations weren't using marketting departments. Pirates, like the mafia, have a mixed image in the English speaking world. They are as least as likely to be viewed as romantic heros or Robin Hood types as they are as the murderous thugs they were. And "copyright infringement" has a weighty lawyerly feel.
So I rather hope we all keep "tilting at windmills" and pointing out how cynical and manipulative the choice of "piracy" was. And no, "piracy" is not significantly easier to say or use than "infringement"; it's just sexier.
Sure, it's sexier. That really doesn't support your claim that its usage is promoted by those wishing to demonize infingement. And I disagree that "infringement" rolls off of the tongue as easily as piracy. That hard "g" in the middle breaks up the flow, in my opinion.
I know it's been used for a long while to denote non-licenced radio transmission. And it's been used for at least 25 years to denote software copyright infingement. So, I don't really buy the assertion that the copyright cartel invented the term (or even promotes it) in order to demonize copyright infingement. I think it just as likely that those doing the infringing to used the term to romanticize what they were doing. But you've already schooled me on jousting terminology, so I am open to correction here.
-Craig
-Craig
-Craig
-Craig
True, but pre-DMCA copyright law already made it illegal to copy protected works. To continue your analogy, swinging my fist beyond the end of your nose is covered by assault and related laws. The equivalent of the SSSCA would be a law requiring that all arms be restrained in some fashon in order to prevent them swinging fists into anybody's nose (not to mention that MicroCuffs has patented all arm restraint methods.) This law, and the attitude that created it are fundamentally flawed.
I'm most interested in keeping general purpose computers legal.
-Craig
If that someone charges me for access to that physical or non-physical artifact, then I should have some rights to the use of that artifact. With respect to non-physical artifacts, I have the right to, among other things, make an archival copy. The DMCA, and IIANM, this WIPO treaty proposal make the tools that would allow me to excercise my rights illegal. The DMCA and this WIPO proposal don't make it a crime to violate copyright (existing copyright law does that) but it makes exercising fair use rights illegal if the form in which the non-physical artifact is distributed puts even a nominal barrier up to fair use.
-Craig
But distributing information that could be used to violate copyright is not a violation of copyright in and of itself. Which is why they needed a brand new law (the DMCA) to make reverse engineering of "effective" copy protection schemes illegal. It isn't illegal in any other context. Not copyright. Not patent.
-Craig
-Craig
--
...on the other hand, no open source development team would probably give you the 'paperclip'... ;-)
Well, you've obviously not seen Vigor, yet. As Evil as any M$ Paperclip.
--
There is a video of it linked here (http://www.theelectricchair.com/videos.htm for the goatsephobes.) Cheers, Craig
--
Having some tools is illegal in some cases. Try carrying (in the U.S.) some of those tools described in the MIT Guide to Lock Picking without being a licensed locksmith and you will find out quickly enough. So, it would have been better for the MPAA lawyer to have described it as a digital lockpick rather than a digital crowbar. Joe Sixpack has a legitimate use for a crowbar.
Of course, the two most important points in the whole DeCSS/DMCA mess are that (i) I have a legitimate use for DeCSS, in that I would like to play DVDs on my non Win/MacOS Box; and (ii) CSS does not prevent those seeking to violate copyright from making copies of DVDs anyway.
Cheers,
Craig
--
I do get to Austin on occasion, and enjoy it very much. There's a lot to like about Texas to balance that which I dislike, but I don't let my Texas kin know that. I have to keep needling them or they will get an unrealistic picture of their home state.
OT -- my mom's favorite joke:
-Craig
--
What does he mean ``lowers Texas on the list of "states to move to?"''
WTF was Texas doing on such a list in the first place?
Everything's bigger in Texas - the hair, the drawl, the delusion that Texas isn't a state full of pig-ignorant rednecks with unjustified superiority complexes.
-Craig (formerly of Schulenburg, TX)
--