It's complete and utter crap. It's amazing to me that people like this are allowed to exist outside of a jail cell. It's even more amazing to look at all the/.ers who speculate on how they'll use all that storage space that they'll be buying any time now.
I remember EXACTLY what you're talking about. That holographic credit-card-sized-media drive was a front page story on MacWeek shortly after I started my first job. I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I kept that issue of MacWeek for a couple of years, thinking that the damned thing was going to arrive "soon". The bright side was that it taught me a valuable lesson about the utility of being a skeptic.
I'm not the litigious type, but I wouldn't mind seeing scammers like this sued into the ground.
Dude, don't even waste cycles thinking about the thing, it's all snake oil. The article is full of technical errors and it's obvious that these guys are scam artists looking to run away with someone's seed capital.
But by saying that he doesn't care if people ignore the copyright, isn't that changing the contract that he has with people who use the song. Kind of like the way that the GPL changes copyright by spelling out a different agreement.
If the US Govt changes copyright law again, does that mean that the GPL has to follow suit?
Thank you. Prejudice based upon skin color, religion, gender... those are unethical. Prejudice based upon well established safety metrics are just plain smart.
Yeah, you read/hear about people who kill each other by accident while hunting, but the real problem with guns is when people decide to use them maliciously.
However, I'm not worried about malicious use of sport aircraft as much as the accidental problems that are inevitable due to the difficulty of learning how to fly competently.
There was no need to make it any easier to get certified. Less expensive would be nice, but not easier in any other sense.
Pilots (which I assume you are) need to take their superiority complex down a notch. Really, you're no better than anyone else, on the ground or the sky.
I beg to differ. I would argue that anyone who can pass his private pilot training is statistically less likely to kill himself and others while piloting an airplane. In that sense, pilots are "better". If you're talking about "better" in some other context, go play that game with someone else since you're obviously trolling.
And getting your license may not be "really that difficult", but it's also not really that affordable either.
I'm all for making it more affordable. Making it substantially less safe is not the right solution to that problem.
What's to stop you from using a sport pilot license to fly a Cessna 150? I didn't see anywhwere in the specs where something like this would be prohibited.
Prediction in the context we're using it is knowing what will happen in the future. A prediction is normally a "statement" telling of foreknowledge -- but for the purposes of this discussion, the two are equivalent.
You tell me... how are they different?
No. He had foreknowledge that you would _choose_ to be an atheist for a certain period of time.
I write software for a living. Programs are my "creations". If I write a program that I know will crash at a given point in time, I don't say that my program "chose" to crash. I made it that way, I knew it was going to happen. I can play word-games about "free will" all day long, but that would be in direct denial of the facts.
oh thou poster to this day-old Slashdot thread! Nobody left here but us chickens...
I'm just having discussions with people, not whoring for attention or karma. How old the discussion is or who else can see our cleverness isn't really relevant to me.
Just what we need, a bunch of fucking idiots in the sky who are too stupid/undedicated/uncoordinated to get a normal pilot's license.
Getting your pilot's license isn't really that difficult, did they really need to dumb it down?
Haven't we learned anything from our clogged and dangerous highways? We don't need a sky full of people using cell phones, putting on makeup, reading the morning newspaper... Flying is serious business for you and for anyone whom you may run into on the ground.
One of the things I like about flying is that "in general", pilots really care about what the fuck they're doing, how they're doing it, etc. Sure, no one is perfect, and you'll always see people in any aspect of life behaving like an idiot... shit, we all do it.
But the difference between the focus of general aviation pilots and bozos on the highway is like night and day.
Foreknowledge isn't "prediction", it's foreknowledge. God isn't bound by our linear view of time.
Prediction IS foreknowledge. What kind of word game are you trying to play?
Druid phrased the problem quite well, but let me try to see if you can follow these steps:
1. God had a choice to create the universe however he wanted to. He's God, right?
2. God had foreknowledge that I would become (and most likely die) an atheist.
3. Atheists suffer eternal torment in Hell.
Therefore, God created the universe that he knew would result in my eventual eternal torment in Hell. Better to not ever have created me than to create me so he could punish me forever.
Re:Semi-serious?
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I was indoctrinated into Catholicism when I was young and became fervently "born again" when I was a teenager. It wasn't until I was in my twenties that my love for logic was able to overcome my natural fear of death and my useless love of a god who just wasn't there.
Although my parents didn't know any better, I've always felt betrayed for being taught to trust in something that should have been so obviously false to anyone who took the time to study it critically.
You're probably better of for never having wasted the energy on trusting in a god in the first place.
Sinning IS evil. How many links to the concepts of Sin and Evil do you want me to produce to prove that point?
It's kind of silly for a mere mortal to say that God did something wrong.
It's kind of silly for a mere mortal to say that Vishnu/Allah/Santa Claus/Superman did something wrong.
That's effectively what I see when you write something like that. Shit's all made up. You can pretend a "God" is as smart and right as you want, but when the only representation of "His" word that we have is a horribly flawed book, it doesn't leave us much to go on but to assume that "He" or your beliefs are horribly flawed as well.
Re:But they didn't know the difference
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Damnit! Don't apply logic to a story from the Bible. You'll force some "Biblical Scholar" to tell us how we're completely misunderstanding the thing because we don't speak/read ancient pig latin.
Oh, one of my favorite games to play: "The Bible is obviously contradictory in so many ways to itself and my religious beliefs that even the enormous latitude afforded me by the English language aren't enough to get out of some serious problems -- so I have to try to manipulate an old little-known language so that I can somehow sleep at night".
Yeah, that's a fun one.
Even with your definition of Tam of "fulfilling one's duties", Noah and Job has been referred to by God as being good people worthy of his favor. Trying to redefine Christian's own interpretations of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic is lame in the extreme.
So, apart from all of these word games over "perfect" that you have to so tortuously go through to preserve your belief system, let's get down to another aspect of moral perfection... being able to get into heaven to be with "God". Obviously, "God" felt that some were perfect enough to get into heaven without the help of Jayyyzusss. Remember Enoch?
But Christians say that people cannot EVER BE PERFECT because of Original Sin(tm).
It doesn't matter how Noah or Zacharias or Elisabeth or Job died. The fact that they were said to be "perfect" at any time in their lives is an utter indictment of the concept of Original Sin. Perfect People
If you want to look at the status of people when they ended their lives on this Earth, you can always look at the story of Enoch, whom God felt was good enough to take directly into heaven without dying.
Hey, if you don't want to take the Bible literally, we can spend days discussing how the "resurrection" can be looked at metaphorically.
As soon as you open the door to try to give yourself a bunch of wiggle room, you utterly doom any attempts to have the Bible prove something supernatural occurred thousands of years ago. It becomes just another primitive set of writings by a primitive set of people willing ot believe anything in an age long before Science.
I have the most respect for those who attempt to take the Bible literally. Their motives and base reasoning for what they believe in is the most pure... they're completely wrong like you are, but they make a better start at it.:)
Re:Semi-serious?
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But you haven't, and won't. Only one man ever did.
I wish you people would ready our own god damned book:
Gen. 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
Job 1:8 "...my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" (Job 2:3)
Gen. 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."
Luke 1:5-6 "In the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abia: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.(RSV)
Nope, 'twas disobedience.
Disobedience from a couple of innocent beings who were never taught about good and evil?
Disobedience that warranted damning them and billions of their children to eternal torment?
I hate to be critical, since I love all this space elevator stuff, but your web page says "coming soon" on the space challenge portion.
Your organization can't slap together a web page to describe the contest, but it expects people to meet your challenge "intended to be difficult"?
Don't announce stuff like this until you're ready to follow through with it. Otherwise, you destroy the credibility of your organization and risk damaging the credibility of other organizations trying to make progress with their own programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Not long. Not long at all.
Worse yet, spammers will put random innocent web sites in spam just to poison the process.
They'll do it. It's an obvious way to get ISPs to stop blocking web sites.
It's complete and utter crap. It's amazing to me that people like this are allowed to exist outside of a jail cell. It's even more amazing to look at all the /.ers who speculate on how they'll use all that storage space that they'll be buying any time now.
Your first thought was the correct one. It's a hoax, and if anyone wants to lay $1000 on that, I'm in for that action.
I remember EXACTLY what you're talking about. That holographic credit-card-sized-media drive was a front page story on MacWeek shortly after I started my first job. I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I kept that issue of MacWeek for a couple of years, thinking that the damned thing was going to arrive "soon". The bright side was that it taught me a valuable lesson about the utility of being a skeptic.
I'm not the litigious type, but I wouldn't mind seeing scammers like this sued into the ground.
Don't hold your breath. These guys are scammers looking for suckers with seed capital.
Dude, don't even waste cycles thinking about the thing, it's all snake oil. The article is full of technical errors and it's obvious that these guys are scam artists looking to run away with someone's seed capital.
Well that fucking proves it, I guess. Case closed... we can all go home now that you have proven Java's light weightedness, leaving no room for doubt.
But by saying that he doesn't care if people ignore the copyright, isn't that changing the contract that he has with people who use the song. Kind of like the way that the GPL changes copyright by spelling out a different agreement.
If the US Govt changes copyright law again, does that mean that the GPL has to follow suit?
No, Santa Clause makes it all happen. I have as much proof as you do.
Thank you. Prejudice based upon skin color, religion, gender... those are unethical. Prejudice based upon well established safety metrics are just plain smart.
Yeah, you read/hear about people who kill each other by accident while hunting, but the real problem with guns is when people decide to use them maliciously.
However, I'm not worried about malicious use of sport aircraft as much as the accidental problems that are inevitable due to the difficulty of learning how to fly competently.
There was no need to make it any easier to get certified. Less expensive would be nice, but not easier in any other sense.
Pilots (which I assume you are) need to take their superiority complex down a notch. Really, you're no better than anyone else, on the ground or the sky.
I beg to differ. I would argue that anyone who can pass his private pilot training is statistically less likely to kill himself and others while piloting an airplane. In that sense, pilots are "better". If you're talking about "better" in some other context, go play that game with someone else since you're obviously trolling.
And getting your license may not be "really that difficult", but it's also not really that affordable either.
I'm all for making it more affordable. Making it substantially less safe is not the right solution to that problem.
What's to stop you from using a sport pilot license to fly a Cessna 150? I didn't see anywhwere in the specs where something like this would be prohibited.
Prediction in the context we're using it is knowing what will happen in the future. A prediction is normally a "statement" telling of foreknowledge -- but for the purposes of this discussion, the two are equivalent.
You tell me... how are they different?
No. He had foreknowledge that you would _choose_ to be an atheist for a certain period of time.
I write software for a living. Programs are my "creations". If I write a program that I know will crash at a given point in time, I don't say that my program "chose" to crash. I made it that way, I knew it was going to happen. I can play word-games about "free will" all day long, but that would be in direct denial of the facts.
oh thou poster to this day-old Slashdot thread! Nobody left here but us chickens...
I'm just having discussions with people, not whoring for attention or karma. How old the discussion is or who else can see our cleverness isn't really relevant to me.
Just what we need, a bunch of fucking idiots in the sky who are too stupid/undedicated/uncoordinated to get a normal pilot's license.
Getting your pilot's license isn't really that difficult, did they really need to dumb it down?
Haven't we learned anything from our clogged and dangerous highways? We don't need a sky full of people using cell phones, putting on makeup, reading the morning newspaper... Flying is serious business for you and for anyone whom you may run into on the ground.
One of the things I like about flying is that "in general", pilots really care about what the fuck they're doing, how they're doing it, etc. Sure, no one is perfect, and you'll always see people in any aspect of life behaving like an idiot... shit, we all do it.
But the difference between the focus of general aviation pilots and bozos on the highway is like night and day.
Very very disappointing.
> it means that free will is illusory:
Foreknowledge isn't "prediction", it's foreknowledge. God isn't bound by our linear view of time.
Prediction IS foreknowledge. What kind of word game are you trying to play?
Druid phrased the problem quite well, but let me try to see if you can follow these steps:
1. God had a choice to create the universe however he wanted to. He's God, right?
2. God had foreknowledge that I would become (and most likely die) an atheist.
3. Atheists suffer eternal torment in Hell.
Therefore, God created the universe that he knew would result in my eventual eternal torment in Hell. Better to not ever have created me than to create me so he could punish me forever.
I was indoctrinated into Catholicism when I was young and became fervently "born again" when I was a teenager. It wasn't until I was in my twenties that my love for logic was able to overcome my natural fear of death and my useless love of a god who just wasn't there.
Although my parents didn't know any better, I've always felt betrayed for being taught to trust in something that should have been so obviously false to anyone who took the time to study it critically.
You're probably better of for never having wasted the energy on trusting in a god in the first place.
Sinning IS evil. How many links to the concepts of Sin and Evil do you want me to produce to prove that point?
It's kind of silly for a mere mortal to say that God did something wrong.
It's kind of silly for a mere mortal to say that Vishnu/Allah/Santa Claus/Superman did something wrong.
That's effectively what I see when you write something like that. Shit's all made up. You can pretend a "God" is as smart and right as you want, but when the only representation of "His" word that we have is a horribly flawed book, it doesn't leave us much to go on but to assume that "He" or your beliefs are horribly flawed as well.
Damnit! Don't apply logic to a story from the Bible. You'll force some "Biblical Scholar" to tell us how we're completely misunderstanding the thing because we don't speak/read ancient pig latin.
Oh, one of my favorite games to play: "The Bible is obviously contradictory in so many ways to itself and my religious beliefs that even the enormous latitude afforded me by the English language aren't enough to get out of some serious problems -- so I have to try to manipulate an old little-known language so that I can somehow sleep at night".
Yeah, that's a fun one.
Even with your definition of Tam of "fulfilling one's duties", Noah and Job has been referred to by God as being good people worthy of his favor. Trying to redefine Christian's own interpretations of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic is lame in the extreme.
So, apart from all of these word games over "perfect" that you have to so tortuously go through to preserve your belief system, let's get down to another aspect of moral perfection... being able to get into heaven to be with "God". Obviously, "God" felt that some were perfect enough to get into heaven without the help of Jayyyzusss. Remember Enoch?
But Christians say that people cannot EVER BE PERFECT because of Original Sin(tm).
It doesn't matter how Noah or Zacharias or Elisabeth or Job died. The fact that they were said to be "perfect" at any time in their lives is an utter indictment of the concept of Original Sin. Perfect People
If you want to look at the status of people when they ended their lives on this Earth, you can always look at the story of Enoch, whom God felt was good enough to take directly into heaven without dying.
Hey, if you don't want to take the Bible literally, we can spend days discussing how the "resurrection" can be looked at metaphorically.
:)
As soon as you open the door to try to give yourself a bunch of wiggle room, you utterly doom any attempts to have the Bible prove something supernatural occurred thousands of years ago. It becomes just another primitive set of writings by a primitive set of people willing ot believe anything in an age long before Science.
I have the most respect for those who attempt to take the Bible literally. Their motives and base reasoning for what they believe in is the most pure... they're completely wrong like you are, but they make a better start at it.
I wish you people would ready our own god damned book:
Nope, 'twas disobedience.
Disobedience from a couple of innocent beings who were never taught about good and evil?
Disobedience that warranted damning them and billions of their children to eternal torment?
What a cool god you have!
Some data on the faulty logic of "original sin"
I hate to be critical, since I love all this space elevator stuff, but your web page says "coming soon" on the space challenge portion.
Your organization can't slap together a web page to describe the contest, but it expects people to meet your challenge "intended to be difficult"?
Don't announce stuff like this until you're ready to follow through with it. Otherwise, you destroy the credibility of your organization and risk damaging the credibility of other organizations trying to make progress with their own programs.
If the kid is smart,...
I think he's already proven he's not, doncha think?