I think it's you who are splitting hairs. Software/movie/music piracy is piracy; acquiring your warez via "file sharing" vs. the old-school methods doesn't make it anything else. It's still got the look, demeanor and distinctive quack. File sharing is simply the latest technological tool that allows you to trade warez. The net result is the same.
No, pirates take over. If you pirate a web site, you hack it and take control away from its legitimate owner. That's akin to taking over a ship.
If you copy a ship design and make your own without taking anything away except the edge of exclusivity, it's not akin to piracy.
You know, words do evolve in meaning over time. Trying to win an argument through etymological fallacy only proves your level of desperation. Piracy still means attacking boats http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4584878.stm Actual pirates still kill real people, still really steal real cargo.
Trying to sow FUD about file sharing through this etymological fallacy only proves the *AA's level of desperation, and your defense of their crimes against language only proves you're a tool. "piracy" applied to file sharing is the same as a godwin: it's making a mountain out of a molehill.
Exactly. The idea that 1.2 million people downloaded Radiohead's latest is not believable given historical sales data for the band. You mean given that since historically they've sold more than that for most of their albums means that they shouldn't sell as much for this one, which they offer for less than any previous album?
The person to whom you are replying is correct (in my view), in that atheism is the absence of belief, NOT an active, positive disbelief in god(s). A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm
I don't fucking care what some idiot used the word to mean in the past. It's greek for "no god", not "no belief". Fuck, there's truth, and error in the world, and error might be human, but stop believing things that are not true. If you can't tell if it's true or not, fine, but when you have proof you're in error: Stop.
And what the hell is this crap? When asked what their religion is, many Agnostics will reply "Agnostic." Since so many Agnostics regard this as their religion, we have a policy of capitalizing the term out of respect, as we do for all religions on this web site. This is not often seen on the Internet, but we feel that it is appropriate.
Agnostics don't regard this as their religion, it's shorthand for "none, leave me alone and don't try to convert me". Stop reading that site, it's written by people for whom logic happens to other people.
Atheism doesn't mean "lack of belief for specific gods", it means "belief that no gods exists".
I don't have a positive believe that no gods exist. That's, strictly speaking, a logically untenable assertion (though to the same extent as asserting that no unicorns exist). But I do lack a belief in god(s). I just see no reason to believe in them, or him, or her, whatever. The distinction may seem trivial, but you have to be careful lest someone say "aha! you're making an assertion and you have to defend it!" I'm not making assertions, only saying that I see no reason to believe in God. Congratulations, you're agnostic!
Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims--particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality--is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience. Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people
Spinoza and others have been called atheist, though they believed in something they called God. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.
The devil's in the details;-)
Atheism doesn't mean "lack of belief for specific gods", it means "belief that no gods exists". If you use the word incorrectly, people will not understand what you mean. Your confusion might stem from an ironic use of the word "god", but two wrongs don't make a right. Using god as a metaphor is one thing, but shifting that metaphor to use give a different meaning to 'atheist' is not a wise move.
There is an atheist 'god': it's the sum total of the universal laws and events, not a conscious entity with intentions and desires. Mostly, it's a word used to talk in the presence of monotheistic deist so they don't jump down your throat, so they listen to your scientific explanations of natural phenomenon without interrupting you to turn the conversation into a rant about their preferred flavor of religious dogma.
>>> Religion is like the appendix, it was useful at some point in our evolution, but for modern man, it's more likely to kill you than to do anything for you.
If you genuinely mean religion is useless.. then yes as a Christian I agree. Christ himself despised blank religion, true faith brings action and transformation. Religion brings rule following, guilt and selfish living.
Anyway. Did you know that the appendix is currently considered to be used as a bootstrap for your digestive system. It harbours bacteria in the event of diseases that flush out bacteria from your gut. It was even reported on Slashdot with a link to http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html. Yes, and I made a glib comment about it too. It harbors bacteria, good or bad, and it sometimes inflames, bursts and kills you. If you have it removed, you live fine.
Something that *might* help you recover bacteria or *might* kill you is not useful or needed. If you need a fresh dose of digestive bacteria, just french somebody, or grab a yogurt.
Just as something that *might* ease your anxiety over our mortality or *might* make you more anxious about hell, or lead to other people stoning/torturing/burning/censoring you isn't useful.
And in one way or another, we're all atheists. Is the world worse off because people don't believe in Thor anymore? Atheism is "no gods at all", not "just some gods I was conditioned to believe in as a kid and not the others".
Societies may have "invented" the notion of religion because religion led to ethics, which led to less killing of their neighbors. ONE swear word would get you stoned to death (with stones) in a strictly judeo-christian religious society. Religion does not mean "less killing", it means killing for strictly defined, arbitrary reasons.
Christians don't kill you. Don't threaten you. http://www.google.com/search?q=abortion+clinic+bombings It's not specifically about evolution, yet, but give it time, they'll be back to witch hunting and the Spanish inquisition will turn up when you least expect it.
If it is a "survival tool", it's the survival tool of a few at the expense of the many. Religion is like the appendix, it was useful at some point in our evolution, but for modern man, it's more likely to kill you than to do anything for you.
Obviously your robot's kill switch works the wrong way around, as it killed your modem (a machine) instead of you. It's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature:)
I disagree, the off switch was working fine too;) They should have had a dead man sw... er. A cutoff switch! Um.. a termination switch.. argh! I give up. We can eliminate all this confusion by giving all robots a Kill switch that 2 settings, 'Humans' and 'Machines'. Thank god they provide those option! Ok now... I'm human, so I'll use the "human" killswitch and..[NO CARRIER]
The biggest concern seems to be finding the glitches in the system instead of reconsidering automated arms altogether.
As with most automated technologies it will make some mistakes, but less than a human on average. The friendly fire rate for most militaries is no where near perfect. Ah-hem... STOP GIVING METHAMPHETAMINES TO YOUR SOLDIERS.
Why doesn't the auther "just move the decimal point and change the prefix"? The articles should mention megameters and gigameters. What, are those units too difficult for the whole metric-using world to comprehend? If so, than shut up about metric's supposed superiority to imperial in that regard. Because it obviously does not exist. Yes, the lack of vocabulary of the general public PROVES that base 10 math isn't easier to do than base 6!
This is not robots gone crazy. This is just a software glitch (or perhaps hardware failure) from an outdated system. And the difference you imagine exists here is... what, exactly?
Their fucking site needs some obscure bullshit app from Microsoft to work, too
Uhh, what part of the site is that exactly? I've never had a problem using Firefox to watch TDS vids. Friends of mine watch them on their Macs. I would also assume that the site works just fine under Linux...
The part that makes a link to go download a bit of microsoft.net-integretated plug-in to watch. You DID notice the part about redirection starting at a given date, right? You,re offering me evidence that since tuesday, noonn, you haven't heard of it?
Uhhh, yeah, I'm all about "sticking it to the man" too and I get rather pissed off when media outfits try to use DRM to lock down content that I've paid for, but what exactly is the problem with this?
Try to access it from Canada, and you'll see what the problem is: As of noon today [10/17/2007], Canadian visitors to Comedy Central's website will now be redirected to thecomedynetwork.ca Their fucking site needs some obscure bullshit app from Microsoft to work, too. It's bad enough they're trying to keep me away from the sites I want to visit, but they just had to have it use some non-standard crap too, just to add insult to injury.
People think that old stone churches were always gray and foreboding buildings, when historically they were colorful, but that context was lost through erosion of the pigments.
Then why, historically, have they been illustrated as being nearly monochrome? That alone suggest that they weren't historically colorful, and that if they were it was for a brief time only. Have they? I can't readily recall any ancient illustrations of churches... You got any?
oh i enjoyed it when i saw it.. although i think i got more amussement out of the people videotaping it than i did the painting..
they don't let you get close enought to it to proppery appreciate it.. infact when i was there you had to be 20+ feet away from it.. and it was sitting in thi huge almost valut thing with a window.. kinda pointless in my mind.. far more exciting things to see there.. 20 feet? Yikes, it's worse than I thought... then again, they do have a bit of a theft problem with that one. But I guess if you still enjoyed it, you're not "most people"... good for you;-)
I'm sure there's far more fascinating things to see all over the Louvre, but it's one of those things, you just HAVE to go do that. It's like visiting New York and not going to the top of the Empire State building, it's anathema.
Thanks for your post. It made me realize just how much people are not interested in the actual work, but the sentimental value and charm of old worn things. Thinking of these works in pristine condition as being of greater historical value took me a few moments. Thanks. Hey, no problem! Glad I made someone think of something from a different perspective. For extra fun, next time a baby boomer tells you they liked the original Batman better than the new ones, tell them you too liked the black and white one where he fights an evil Japanese scientist and his nuclear cannon;-) I like to inform them that the first one they saw was a parody, not the original. Context is crucial to all things.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's you who are splitting hairs. Software/movie/music piracy is piracy; acquiring your warez via "file sharing" vs. the old-school methods doesn't make it anything else. It's still got the look, demeanor and distinctive quack. File sharing is simply the latest technological tool that allows you to trade warez. The net result is the same.
No, pirates take over. If you pirate a web site, you hack it and take control away from its legitimate owner.That's akin to taking over a ship.
If you copy a ship design and make your own without taking anything away except the edge of exclusivity, it's not akin to piracy.
Actual pirates still kill real people, still really steal real cargo.
Trying to sow FUD about file sharing through this etymological fallacy only proves the *AA's level of desperation, and your defense of their crimes against language only proves you're a tool. "piracy" applied to file sharing is the same as a godwin: it's making a mountain out of a molehill.
How does that make sense?
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm
I don't fucking care what some idiot used the word to mean in the past. It's greek for "no god", not "no belief". Fuck, there's truth, and error in the world, and error might be human, but stop believing things that are not true. If you can't tell if it's true or not, fine, but when you have proof you're in error: Stop.
And what the hell is this crap? When asked what their religion is, many Agnostics will reply "Agnostic." Since so many Agnostics regard this as their religion, we have a policy of capitalizing the term out of respect, as we do for all religions on this web site. This is not often seen on the Internet, but we feel that it is appropriate.
Agnostics don't regard this as their religion, it's shorthand for "none, leave me alone and don't try to convert me". Stop reading that site, it's written by people for whom logic happens to other people.
I don't have a positive believe that no gods exist. That's, strictly speaking, a logically untenable assertion (though to the same extent as asserting that no unicorns exist). But I do lack a belief in god(s). I just see no reason to believe in them, or him, or her, whatever. The distinction may seem trivial, but you have to be careful lest someone say "aha! you're making an assertion and you have to defend it!" I'm not making assertions, only saying that I see no reason to believe in God. Congratulations, you're agnostic!
Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims--particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality--is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.
Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people
The devil's in the details
Atheism doesn't mean "lack of belief for specific gods", it means "belief that no gods exists".
If you use the word incorrectly, people will not understand what you mean. Your confusion might stem from an ironic use of the word "god", but two wrongs don't make a right. Using god as a metaphor is one thing, but shifting that metaphor to use give a different meaning to 'atheist' is not a wise move.
There is an atheist 'god': it's the sum total of the universal laws and events, not a conscious entity with intentions and desires. Mostly, it's a word used to talk in the presence of monotheistic deist so they don't jump down your throat, so they listen to your scientific explanations of natural phenomenon without interrupting you to turn the conversation into a rant about their preferred flavor of religious dogma.
If you genuinely mean religion is useless
Anyway. Did you know that the appendix is currently considered to be used as a bootstrap for your digestive system. It harbours bacteria in the event of diseases that flush out bacteria from your gut. It was even reported on Slashdot with a link to http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
Something that *might* help you recover bacteria or *might* kill you is not useful or needed. If you need a fresh dose of digestive bacteria, just french somebody, or grab a yogurt.
Just as something that *might* ease your anxiety over our mortality or *might* make you more anxious about hell, or lead to other people stoning/torturing/burning/censoring you isn't useful.
I stand by my comparison.
Religion does not mean "less killing", it means killing for strictly defined, arbitrary reasons.
It's not specifically about evolution, yet, but give it time, they'll be back to witch hunting and the Spanish inquisition will turn up when you least expect it.
As with most automated technologies it will make some mistakes, but less than a human on average. The friendly fire rate for most militaries is no where near perfect. Ah-hem... STOP GIVING METHAMPHETAMINES TO YOUR SOLDIERS.
0. A robot must know it is a robot. Law 0: A robot may not injure humanity nor allow humanity to come to harm.
Knowing your place is not a law, it's the subject of "Robot dreams"(spoilers).
Your argument is embigenly cromulent.
Uhh, what part of the site is that exactly? I've never had a problem using Firefox to watch TDS vids. Friends of mine watch them on their Macs. I would also assume that the site works just fine under Linux...
The part that makes a link to go download a bit of microsoftYou DID notice the part about redirection starting at a given date, right? You,re offering me evidence that since tuesday, noonn, you haven't heard of it?
Uhhh, yeah, I'm all about "sticking it to the man" too and I get rather pissed off when media outfits try to use DRM to lock down content that I've paid for, but what exactly is the problem with this?
Try to access it from Canada, and you'll see what the problem is: As of noon today [10/17/2007], Canadian visitors to Comedy Central's website will now be redirected to thecomedynetwork.caTheir fucking site needs some obscure bullshit app from Microsoft to work, too. It's bad enough they're trying to keep me away from the sites I want to visit, but they just had to have it use some non-standard crap too, just to add insult to injury.
Then why, historically, have they been illustrated as being nearly monochrome? That alone suggest that they weren't historically colorful, and that if they were it was for a brief time only. Have they? I can't readily recall any ancient illustrations of churches... You got any?
they don't let you get close enought to it to proppery appreciate it.. infact when i was there you had to be 20+ feet away from it.. and it was sitting in thi huge almost valut thing with a window.. kinda pointless in my mind.. far more exciting things to see there.. 20 feet? Yikes, it's worse than I thought... then again, they do have a bit of a theft problem with that one.
But I guess if you still enjoyed it, you're not "most people"... good for you
I'm sure there's far more fascinating things to see all over the Louvre, but it's one of those things, you just HAVE to go do that. It's like visiting New York and not going to the top of the Empire State building, it's anathema.
For extra fun, next time a baby boomer tells you they liked the original Batman better than the new ones, tell them you too liked the black and white one where he fights an evil Japanese scientist and his nuclear cannon
I like to inform them that the first one they saw was a parody, not the original. Context is crucial to all things.