I askded if he was being obtuse because he lumped me, agnostic, in with the Theists when he said, no declared, "Theists always say this and it is complete and utter tripe."
So in addition to "what he says" differing from what I say in the ways I have describe in the previous post, they also differ in that I'm NOT a "Theist" but I'm one of those people that does have a problem understanding the "difference" he proposes.
I have been maligned by this pinhead.
You have the definition of agnostic and atheist wrong, as well (and don't use Wikipedia for your defs because some jackass has spoiled it on this issue.)
it's butt, not "but", and it's existence, not "existance".
Additionally, you are equating things that aren't equal. I'm saying something equivalent to:
Less than zero is different from Less than or equal to zero"
whereas you are equating them in your false contention that "Disbelief in the existance of God(s) and a lack of belief in the existance of God(s) amounts to precisely the same thing". They are not at all the same thing logically, and until you can recognize that you will be unable to either see the truth behind my assertion or call yourself fit to converse on the topic.
Atheists believe there is no god. That's it, end of discussion. Any additional sophistry, any hemming and hawing, puts into the argument puts it into the realm of our wishy-washy agnosticism.
Theists always say this and it is complete and utter tripe. It's in the basic definition: atheism. It's not a belief in 0 gods, it is a lack of belief in gods. Theists have a great difficulty in understanding the difference.
Are you being purposely obtuse? I'm an agnostic and I've always thought atheism was a disbelief in the existence of god(s).
Quit trying to reform atheism.
You are also in denial: there is a whole world (i.e., centuries) of thought developed around the notion of atheism. Huxley called it one way (my way) and the Christian Establishment lumped us agnostics in with the atheists. You are following their path, only your intent is different: the reformation of atheism.
I think it would be nice if we could all agree on our definitions of atheism and agnosticism.
I'm coming in pretty late to this discussion, I know, and others have already made very good points in an effort to distinguish the essential difference between agnosticism and atheism, but let me just add my $0.02 to the kitty:
atheism has long been held as a stance in opposition to theism and is definable as a belief system. As someone already pointed out, it is a simple negation of the belief.
Agnosticism takes a neutral stance and, as Huxley has so adequately described, abjures from statements that are unknowable.
The "weak atheism" is, to me, a revisionist effort of atheists that have over time become aware of the weakness inherent to a strong stance against the existence of god but are too stubborn minded to simply change adjectives. Who knows, maybe they just don't want to give up a nice domain name or something.
The Supreme Court, which has the tradition of judicial review, which allows it to overturn laws they see as unconstituional.
The problem is that the supreme court is taking a conservative and selectively pro-corporate stance against judicial review of powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.
Congress has limited powers to grant copyrights, however the Supreme court has chosen to interpret that to mean that it may not interfere at all.
This is a war on the Information Commons, not piracy. They want to remove your ability to read a book twice, and similar rights you've always enjoyed. They are trying to lock up the exchange of information.
Please, who gives a damn about the so-called pirates (stupid phrase, anyway).
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
100% of the energy consumed in your CPU is converted to heat, not just "most of it".
Are you not forgetting the decrease in entropy requires energy?
Yes, I am at the top layer of the technology protocol stack.
Then you are in a different layer (and it's not the top in the metaphorical sense I think I clearly implied.)
He's answering questions as to why CA chose to open Ingres, and why they chose to allocate $1M to pay contributors.
Recycling, miniaturization
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
I think these are interesting problems.
We (USA) don't even have a proper, standardized way to recycle our heavy metal batteries, so at least here I think there is uneven development in energy concerns. The DOE should get off its neutral ass and start defining an infrastructure if they want to do that.
Miniaturization (safe!) would be a provocative field of research as well.
Why should he pander to the lowest common denominator?
The problem comes when legislators and interested readers aren't aware of all the peripheral meanings and the implications that words take on in a legal context. Inducement, for example, has extremely broad scope in terms of what is an actionable act according to the (proposed) new law.
It appears at first blush the copyright office wishes to mitigate liability for corporations without providing similar clear language for p2p users.
When that is the case it becomes evident that the mere invocation of the word inducement compels the inclusion of at least a paragraph of explanatory text to expose all the subtleties implicit in the law.
And here we are, seemingly "pandering to the lowest common denominator", burdened by shades of meaning that aren't evident in the straight dictionary meaning of the word, but necessary to its understanding. IMHO, this exposes the inutility of the word for discussion.
It's not about government control, it's about recourse.
wtf do you call the FTC declaring anything illegal? Are you broken?
There are technological means to blocking popups. We don't need the corporate^Wgovernment bureaucracy and inefficiencies proposed here. This is a scary precedent, and requires you the programmer/websiteDesigner to go through complicated processes to ensure your design is functioning within the laws.
You mean like how the market was going down the toilet at the end of the Clinton years
Yeah, they started going down near the end of Nov. 2000, right about when Shrub stole the election from the disenfranchise blacks in Florida (and all of us?)
When Shrub said something like "we'll see how the 'New Economy' does now"?
Slashdot Mirror
I askded if he was being obtuse because he lumped me, agnostic, in with the Theists when he said, no declared, "Theists always say this and it is complete and utter tripe."
So in addition to "what he says" differing from what I say in the ways I have describe in the previous post, they also differ in that I'm NOT a "Theist" but I'm one of those people that does have a problem understanding the "difference" he proposes.
I have been maligned by this pinhead.
You have the definition of agnostic and atheist wrong, as well (and don't use Wikipedia for your defs because some jackass has spoiled it on this issue.)
Additionally, you are equating things that aren't equal. I'm saying something equivalent to:whereas you are equating them in your false contention that "Disbelief in the existance of God(s) and a lack of belief in the existance of God(s) amounts to precisely the same thing". They are not at all the same thing logically, and until you can recognize that you will be unable to either see the truth behind my assertion or call yourself fit to converse on the topic.
Atheists believe there is no god. That's it, end of discussion. Any additional sophistry, any hemming and hawing, puts into the argument puts it into the realm of our wishy-washy agnosticism.
Theists always say this and it is complete and utter tripe. It's in the basic definition: atheism. It's not a belief in 0 gods, it is a lack of belief in gods. Theists have a great difficulty in understanding the difference.
Are you being purposely obtuse? I'm an agnostic and I've always thought atheism was a disbelief in the existence of god(s).
Quit trying to reform atheism.
You are also in denial: there is a whole world (i.e., centuries) of thought developed around the notion of atheism. Huxley called it one way (my way) and the Christian Establishment lumped us agnostics in with the atheists. You are following their path, only your intent is different: the reformation of atheism.
I think it would be nice if we could all agree on our definitions of atheism and agnosticism.
I'm coming in pretty late to this discussion, I know, and others have already made very good points in an effort to distinguish the essential difference between agnosticism and atheism, but let me just add my $0.02 to the kitty:
atheism has long been held as a stance in opposition to theism and is definable as a belief system. As someone already pointed out, it is a simple negation of the belief.
Agnosticism takes a neutral stance and, as Huxley has so adequately described, abjures from statements that are unknowable.
The "weak atheism" is, to me, a revisionist effort of atheists that have over time become aware of the weakness inherent to a strong stance against the existence of god but are too stubborn minded to simply change adjectives. Who knows, maybe they just don't want to give up a nice domain name or something.
The Supreme Court, which has the tradition of judicial review, which allows it to overturn laws they see as unconstituional.
The problem is that the supreme court is taking a conservative and selectively pro-corporate stance against judicial review of powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.
Congress has limited powers to grant copyrights, however the Supreme court has chosen to interpret that to mean that it may not interfere at all.
[blather]...piracy will continue...[blather]
Talk about NOT getting the point of his post!
This is a war on the Information Commons, not piracy. They want to remove your ability to read a book twice, and similar rights you've always enjoyed. They are trying to lock up the exchange of information.
Please, who gives a damn about the so-called pirates (stupid phrase, anyway).
100% of the energy consumed in your CPU is converted to heat, not just "most of it".
Are you not forgetting the decrease in entropy requires energy?
That's like saying the primary purpose of computer-based games is to collect cheat codes and use them to win the game.
Loser.
already taken.
Yes, I am at the top layer of the technology protocol stack.
Then you are in a different layer (and it's not the top in the metaphorical sense I think I clearly implied.)
He's answering questions as to why CA chose to open Ingres, and why they chose to allocate $1M to pay contributors.
I think these are interesting problems.
We (USA) don't even have a proper, standardized way to recycle our heavy metal batteries, so at least here I think there is uneven development in energy concerns. The DOE should get off its neutral ass and start defining an infrastructure if they want to do that.
Miniaturization (safe!) would be a provocative field of research as well.
Dude, he was answering questions as to why opening Ingres was an advantage. That's his problem space.
His answer:
Innovation! Innovation! Innovation! Innovation!
Chief Architect of CA's Linux Technology Group
I think you are still on a completely different layer of the protocol stack from application architecture.
Why should he pander to the lowest common denominator?
The problem comes when legislators and interested readers aren't aware of all the peripheral meanings and the implications that words take on in a legal context. Inducement, for example, has extremely broad scope in terms of what is an actionable act according to the (proposed) new law.
It appears at first blush the copyright office wishes to mitigate liability for corporations without providing similar clear language for p2p users.
When that is the case it becomes evident that the mere invocation of the word inducement compels the inclusion of at least a paragraph of explanatory text to expose all the subtleties implicit in the law.
And here we are, seemingly "pandering to the lowest common denominator", burdened by shades of meaning that aren't evident in the straight dictionary meaning of the word, but necessary to its understanding. IMHO, this exposes the inutility of the word for discussion.
You must not have noticed how Hollywood did everything in its power to divorce itself from Moore and Fahrenheit 911.
It's an important movie, I urge you to pirate a copy or whatever (to avoid having to give a liberal your dime), but see it!
Actually, it was a very small point. Quite singular in that respect, I might add.
I know what you mean.
However, NPR is contesting some of those accusations of bias.
OMG, I linked to some Randian toe-kisser! God forgive me!
Welcome to the Government of Men.
Unfortunately, the Judges appear to be with Them.
Oh goodness, I hope that trend continues into November. Please.
in between lawsuits it still puts out a product called UnixWare
You'd think it'd be rock-solid and bug free after so many releases!
How did this get marked insightful?
It's not about government control, it's about recourse.
wtf do you call the FTC declaring anything illegal? Are you broken?
There are technological means to blocking popups. We don't need the corporate^Wgovernment bureaucracy and inefficiencies proposed here. This is a scary precedent, and requires you the programmer/websiteDesigner to go through complicated processes to ensure your design is functioning within the laws.
hmm, take a look at Bush's Wild Ride:
f &z =l&q=l&c=
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^IXIC&t=my&l=of
(that fourth crevice on the front of the precipice is 9/11)
ps. Hey George, stuff that in your trunk and snort it, you f**kwad coke head.
You mean like how the market was going down the toilet at the end of the Clinton years
Yeah, they started going down near the end of Nov. 2000, right about when Shrub stole the election from the disenfranchise blacks in Florida (and all of us?)
When Shrub said something like "we'll see how the 'New Economy' does now"?
I agree with that... although I don't remember, is it instruction set differences?