No, that's what makes the endless attempts by Corporations to make a succesful DRM system the fool's errand that it is.
DRM without specialized hardware is flawed in theory, not just in practice. Even with something like TCPA, I don't believe it is impossible to circumvent, just much more difficult because the required information to break it is hidden away in the hardware.
Where I work we also have a very Citrix server farm running on Windows 2000/2003. That and IIS are definatly the two big apps on Windows. All told we probably have about 3 times more windows servers then Unix/Linux/VMS servers. The real important stuff is of course still on Unix and VMS.
Because there's so few regular tasks you should be doing by TSing into the server, the 2-connection limit shouldn't *be* a problem. Think of it as incentive to do it The Right Way.
I build and configure servers for clients. When the server is still new it is not uncommon for a couple application or database admins to be on the machine setting things up. If they need someone to tweak file permissions or some such thing, then we are already over our limit. If it is really so rare that three people need to login, then what does MS gain in charging more for it?
You'd be wrong. SCO OpenServer, at least, only allows 5 (I think, might be less) simultaneous logins unless you buy more "CALs".
I stand corrected.
Thinking like that is what has resulted in the dearth of good, intuitive, easy to use admin tools for unix (in general) and Linux (in particular).
There are some things that I prefer the GUI for, such as the Veritas Enterprise Administrator for setting up volumes, but for everything else I do in the time it takes to launch a GUI, I could have run a command and been off to lunch already. For desktop Linux you definatly need simple GUI commands for begginers to use, but on a server most things I can't see how a GUI would be an improvement. For example, I find setting up multiple NIC's on Windows to be horribly tedious compared to doing the same thing in Solaris.
Ah, good call. Their remote access solution is, out of the box, purposefully encumbered to prompt the user to Buy More Stuff. Bad design by mistake is a curse for most software engineers, but bad design by intention seems to be Microsoft's Tao of Making Money.
Amen to that! I hate the utterly pathetic two client limit for mstsc. I constantly am running into that problem, trying to log onto a server to do some work and being locked out because two people are already on it. I have to revert to the slow and annoying remote console access. If someone already happens to be on the console then I am stuck waiting till someone lets me in.
Why do people put up with crap like that? This is supposed to be a server OS. If any of the other systems in our data center (Solaris, VMS, Linux, HP-UX) had a limit like that I'm certain they wouldn't be in our data center for long. I'm willing to bet that even SCO, that paragon of proprietary and evil software, doesn't dare cripple their OS as such (I could be wrong, I've never had the pleasure of working with SCO Unix).
Either way, using a GUI for admin work is pretty lame in and of itself. For 99% of admin work, the command line is the fastest and most convienient way to get things done and a GUI just acts as a big, tedious anchor holding you back.
I'm fairly sure that Jews for Jesus is different from the Messianic Judaism you describe. I've been to Baptist churches where representatives from Jews for Jesus were guest speaking (that could be argument enough considering Baptists tendancy to not welcome other religions in their services). Jews for Jesus is made up of people of Jewish descent who are Christians. They do not consider Judiasm their religion, though they do typically celebrate Jewish holidays. I think (this is where I'm just guessing) that they view Judiasm as a subset of Christianity.
I entirely, agree, I would love to see the end of riders, but first you need to establish what exactly constitutes a rider. Anything can be tacked onto a bill. A relevant addendum, something that is semi-relevent, or something that obviously has nothing to do with the original bill. If you made riders illegal you would have to be able to decided when something crossed that line and this would leave you open to endless bickering from both sides.
As nice as it would be, I don't know that it would be a practical thing to outlaw.
Using (if a then b) and (if b then c) then (if a then c)
I assure you my boolean logic skills don't need the refreshing. I'm quite certain what I'm saying is not violating any logic:)
The real question is what triggers the inputs. Most likely, other neurons, but then we keep tracing it further and further back and either we end up with some kind of cycle routine (assuming we remove the external inputs of the sensory system) or we have to admit that we just don't know.
I don't think there reallys is a question about what triggers the inputs. You don't need to trace back a chain of neurons or anything, just randomly sample a large number of neuron's. If they all are triggered by inputs from other neurons, then you found your answer. Of course, neuron's can be triggered by sensory nerves as well. If this was not the case, our mind's wouldn't develop very far.
Even your last statement: In order to have fre will, you need neurons to be triggered... shows a cause and effect.
By all means I am not arguing against cause and effect. I whole heartedly agree that neurons act exclusively on measurable triggers.
Unless what you are really suggesting is that we don't have free will and everything is pre-destined on how we will act/react.
Bingo! I am a believer in the reductionist cognitive theory's. I've read arguments against it (e.g. The Emperor's New Mind, Roger Penrose) but they have never been convincing. Based on everything I've heard about the workings of the brain, our thoughts are solely based on the very complex, but theoretically predictable, interactions of neuron's in our brain. The state of the neuron's at any given time are a result of our biological development, past states (i.e. memories) and sensory inputs. I was extremely skeptical of that idea when I first heard it, I really wanted to believe we were more then just elaborate biological computers, however the more I read and understood the argument the more I agreed with it. Douglas Hofstadter is a great proponent of the idea and author of some absolutly fascinating books, Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid and The Minds I, the latter being the book that changed my views on the subject. I highly recommend them to anyone interested in how our minds work. Also give Penrose's book a look, it's always good to get a dissenting view on things.
I hope that helps to clarify my postion, I think you may have been confused thinking I was trying to reconcile the idea of free will with the behaviour of neuron's in our brain.
Thank you for the clarification. Also thank you for making the distinction between atheist and agnostic. As an agnostic, I am endlessly frustrated by friends who after hours of discussing our beliefs still fall back to "So, you're saying you don't believe in god?"
I do question your distinction between something that always was and our universe which appears to have had a beginning 15 billion years ago. Many current theory's suggest that the big bang may not have been the first of its kind. These theory's suggest that the big bang may have been proceeded by the universe collapsing in on itself. Another more current theory is M-Brane theory where it is supposed that the big bang could have been caused by the collision of two branes. Both of these ideas suggest that our universe may not have come from nothing but it's current incarnation is just another chapter in an eternal cycle.
Your primary arguement is almost faultless, although I would have to say that the belief in a fantastically unfathomable universe + a fantastically unfathomable god is less credulous then the belief in a fantastically unfathomable universe alone. Believing in this crazy universe itself strains logic, but the damn thing just won't go away.
If free will works as you describe, then it is still dependent on the neuron's acting as you describe, therefore free will is still part of the cause (neuron firing) and effect (choice made).
How do you figure? If neuron's act as I describe, then there is no room for free will because in theory neuron's work just as mechanically as logic gates in a computer. In a AND gate, if two inputs are recieved, an output is triggered. Likewise in a neuron, if N inputs are recieved (where N is that particular neuron's threshold) then an output is triggered. In order to have free will, you need neurons to be triggered (and hence thoughts though) by something other then the automatic stimulation by other neurons.
No, you stated that universe can exist without cause because of free will.
That was actually the OP, not me. Regardless I can try and elaborate on what I believe to be his argument. What I think the OP was getting at is not that the universe exists because of free will. What he is saying is that what we call free will requires something in the brain to behave in a non-deterministic manner. If neuron's behave as we typically believe them to as simple biological switches (when inputs on a given neuron reach a certain threshold an output is triggered) then as complex as our behaviour may appear, free will must be no more then an illusion. Our behaviour is determined entirely by the state of our neuron's at a given time, which is determined by all our past experiences. Complex, but inarguably deterministic.
Anyhow, the point being that if we assume free will to be true (as most creationists do) then we also must assume that other things in the universe can happen without cause. Thus if things can happen in the universe without cause, why not the universe itself?
I think that's his argument. To put it more simply, he is trying to take two axiom's of creationist theory and showing them to be contradictory. If a creator is required, then free will is impossible and if free will exists then a creator is not required. Interesting argument, IMHO.
Sorry, this is incorrect. Just because the outcome of an event cannot be predicted, does not mean it did not have a cause. The meaning of "randomness" is unpredictability, not noncausality. I challenge you to cite me a single noncausal event studied in physics (or any science for that matter, but physics is the most likely place you would find one if it exists). I myself made the mistake of believing randomness and causality were mutually exclusive when, in fact, they are not.
Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of complexity theory. I myself would like to believe that the world is deterministic at it's deepest levels, however this is by no means a certainty by modern physics. The deeper theorists dig the universe appears to get more random, not less. Virtual particles appear from seemingly nothing and then disappear again without a trace. At the lowest meaningful levels it is postulated that time and space have none of the linearity that we percieve at higher levels. Will we eventually find our universe to be the clockwork world idealized by Newton? Maybe. But let's be realistic, we're nowhere near that today.
Einstein had trouble accepting quantum physics because of its apparent non-local effects (faster than light signalling between particles) which contradicted his theories of relativity.
I don't believe entaglement is what he was referring to when he said that "God does not play dice with the universe".
Indeed, the 'creative force' would be the cause of the big bang itself.
By the explanation given in the link I included, the creative force is not described as causing the big bang, they sound to be one and the same.
Hatcher (the originator of the proof), apparently goes on in his book to demonstrate that the god he proved was also "all good", "all knowing", etc. but I haven't read it, so don't take my word for it.
Again, from the one who posted the proof (i have not read the book either, though I would certainly be interested)
"Definition: god: the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe."
Where did you get this def'n? If you got it from those Bah'ai handouts, it's completely irrelevant. Hatcher's god as laid out in my post has no such attributes; there is no ruler, ultimate power, or ultimate wisdom proven anywhere. Hatcher does go on about the nature of god in his book, but that is irrelevant to this proof.
The poster confirms what you say that later in his book Hatcher goes more indepth about the nature of god, but he doesn't say what the nature is. Also, whatever he explains later in the book will need entirely new (and seeminly contradictory) proofs as this proof portray's a creator that is no more then a sudden big, er, explosion of "creative" energy from which he and the universe originated. It is said he has no other attributes at all which based on that proof, somewhat rules out an "all good" or "all knowing" creative force.
You argue that it may be possible that a creator was not created because "outside the Universe, it is possible for an entity to simply exist without cause".
Where then does the universe exist? More importantly, where did the big bang exist? If we assume that the big bang created the universe, then we can not say that the big bang existed within the universe. The big bang must exist within that which is outside the universe. Therefore, by your argument, if it is possible that a creator came into existance without cause, it is just as likely that the big bang could have came into existance without cause.
Argument II: The same argument can just as easily be made without relying on a big bang (we're trying to simplify like good scientists. Occam would be proud).
Where then does the universe exist? It would be absurd to say that the universe exists within the universe. The universe itself then must exist within that which is outside the universe (just as we don't think of ourselves as existing in space, but the earth itself certainly does). Therefore, by your argument, if it is possible that a creator came into existance without cause, it is just as likely that the universe could have came into existance without cause.
Ask any physicist whether there are non-causal events; you will receive a resounding 'no'. Ask them to prove it, and you'll get funny looks.
That is not correct. Previous to quantum mechanics this was true and is exactly why Einstein was so reluctant to accept it. However, these days no legitimate physicist doubts quantum mechanics or the fact that many quantum effects are perfectly random, i.e. they have no cause.
Ok now, getting past that, if you read the notes the original poster himself clarified that what was proved was not a god as is described by Christianity or most any other faith, it is merely a "creative" force that did nothing other then create itself and the universe and does nothing else. No explanation is given how this very limited definition of god is anything more then the big bang.
Even if this is a valid logical proof, it doesn't appear to accomplish much of anything.
Ummm, for free will to apply, doesn't there have to be an entity to excercise that free will? If there has to be such entity, then doesn't that still imply a cause (the entity excercising their free will) to the effect?
That doesn't cut it. You say that an entity exercising fee will is the cause for a action based in free will. However, you get into an infinite recursion problem. What caused them to exercise their free will? Free will?
Or an uncreated creator. Either way there has to be someone/something that does not owe its existence to someone/something else.
You are missing the point, what do you contribute by positing the existance of an uncreated creator? What logical gap is filled by assuming the creator who was not himself created? Nothing. Hence we invoke Occam's Razor and assume there is no creator until we find something that can't be explained without it.
A billion deaths is certainly a terrible tragedy, but EVERYONE dying is inestimatibly worse.
Exactly who would it be worse for? Several billion people dying would be a far greater tragedy then everyone dying simply because if everyone died no one would be left to mourne us. We were there, now we aren't. The universe goes on.
No, there are some things that are for damn sure artificial limitations. My definition of an artificial limitation is when the designer goes the extra mile to insure incompatibility. In other words, if it takes more effort to make your product incompatible then to make it compatible, it is an artificial limitation. Something like designing a DRM system to tack on top of otherwise standard mp3's so that other people can't use them, or region coding where only certain DVD players can play certain DVD's, those are artificial limitations and company's are greedy assholes for employing them.
With all due respect, the electoral system doesn't encourage a thing. Your argument would work if Democarat's in New York decided to turn into Republicans so that they would get more attention in the next election. Of course that would never happen because, it would be a just plain foolish thing to do.
As other's have pointed out the electoral system fails to accomplish what it was designed to do because instead of candidates ignoring the least populated states they are now ignoring anything that isn't a swing state. That means many, many states of all sizes get ignored instead of just a few small ones.
It was a nice experiment, but it failed. Time to ditch it.
I have my disks mirrored, which gives me a warm feeling knowing I'm protected from a disk failure, but I'm still worried that one hairbrained "rm -rf tmp/" could ruin my day. If only I had a cheap and easy way to make regular backups aside from the mirroing, I'd sleep better at night.
And Thers even a technology to come in after Perpindicular recording has ran out of steam called laser assisted recording, where a very weak lazer heats up a tiny spot on the drive, making it much easier to record.
That's good, I agree that television watching is generally a huge waste of time. However, you can't ignore the fact that the majority of the population gets most of their information and entertainment from tv. Because of that I would guess that television is the single biggest influence on American thought.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's what makes the endless attempts by Corporations to make a succesful DRM system the fool's errand that it is.
DRM without specialized hardware is flawed in theory, not just in practice. Even with something like TCPA, I don't believe it is impossible to circumvent, just much more difficult because the required information to break it is hidden away in the hardware.
Where I work we also have a very Citrix server farm running on Windows 2000/2003. That and IIS are definatly the two big apps on Windows. All told we probably have about 3 times more windows servers then Unix/Linux/VMS servers. The real important stuff is of course still on Unix and VMS.
Because there's so few regular tasks you should be doing by TSing into the server, the 2-connection limit shouldn't *be* a problem. Think of it as incentive to do it The Right Way.
I build and configure servers for clients. When the server is still new it is not uncommon for a couple application or database admins to be on the machine setting things up. If they need someone to tweak file permissions or some such thing, then we are already over our limit. If it is really so rare that three people need to login, then what does MS gain in charging more for it?
You'd be wrong. SCO OpenServer, at least, only allows 5 (I think, might be less) simultaneous logins unless you buy more "CALs".
I stand corrected.
Thinking like that is what has resulted in the dearth of good, intuitive, easy to use admin tools for unix (in general) and Linux (in particular).
There are some things that I prefer the GUI for, such as the Veritas Enterprise Administrator for setting up volumes, but for everything else I do in the time it takes to launch a GUI, I could have run a command and been off to lunch already. For desktop Linux you definatly need simple GUI commands for begginers to use, but on a server most things I can't see how a GUI would be an improvement. For example, I find setting up multiple NIC's on Windows to be horribly tedious compared to doing the same thing in Solaris.
Ah, good call. Their remote access solution is, out of the box, purposefully encumbered to prompt the user to Buy More Stuff. Bad design by mistake is a curse for most software engineers, but bad design by intention seems to be Microsoft's Tao of Making Money.
Amen to that! I hate the utterly pathetic two client limit for mstsc. I constantly am running into that problem, trying to log onto a server to do some work and being locked out because two people are already on it. I have to revert to the slow and annoying remote console access. If someone already happens to be on the console then I am stuck waiting till someone lets me in.
Why do people put up with crap like that? This is supposed to be a server OS. If any of the other systems in our data center (Solaris, VMS, Linux, HP-UX) had a limit like that I'm certain they wouldn't be in our data center for long. I'm willing to bet that even SCO, that paragon of proprietary and evil software, doesn't dare cripple their OS as such (I could be wrong, I've never had the pleasure of working with SCO Unix).
Either way, using a GUI for admin work is pretty lame in and of itself. For 99% of admin work, the command line is the fastest and most convienient way to get things done and a GUI just acts as a big, tedious anchor holding you back.
Dude, google reads every web page. That's what search engines are all about.
</smartass>
Speaking as a non-American, you really need to get over your "the sky is falling" attitude just because you're not winning everything.
Easy for you to say. Try living with Bush and his shills in Congress running your country. Seriously. It's not so easy.
I'm fairly sure that Jews for Jesus is different from the Messianic Judaism you describe. I've been to Baptist churches where representatives from Jews for Jesus were guest speaking (that could be argument enough considering Baptists tendancy to not welcome other religions in their services). Jews for Jesus is made up of people of Jewish descent who are Christians. They do not consider Judiasm their religion, though they do typically celebrate Jewish holidays. I think (this is where I'm just guessing) that they view Judiasm as a subset of Christianity.
The FAQ from their website may be of interest.
I entirely, agree, I would love to see the end of riders, but first you need to establish what exactly constitutes a rider. Anything can be tacked onto a bill. A relevant addendum, something that is semi-relevent, or something that obviously has nothing to do with the original bill. If you made riders illegal you would have to be able to decided when something crossed that line and this would leave you open to endless bickering from both sides.
As nice as it would be, I don't know that it would be a practical thing to outlaw.
Using (if a then b) and (if b then c) then (if a then c)
:)
I assure you my boolean logic skills don't need the refreshing. I'm quite certain what I'm saying is not violating any logic
The real question is what triggers the inputs. Most likely, other neurons, but then we keep tracing it further and further back and either we end up with some kind of cycle routine (assuming we remove the external inputs of the sensory system) or we have to admit that we just don't know.
I don't think there reallys is a question about what triggers the inputs. You don't need to trace back a chain of neurons or anything, just randomly sample a large number of neuron's. If they all are triggered by inputs from other neurons, then you found your answer. Of course, neuron's can be triggered by sensory nerves as well. If this was not the case, our mind's wouldn't develop very far.
Even your last statement: In order to have fre will, you need neurons to be triggered... shows a cause and effect.
By all means I am not arguing against cause and effect. I whole heartedly agree that neurons act exclusively on measurable triggers.
Unless what you are really suggesting is that we don't have free will and everything is pre-destined on how we will act/react.
Bingo! I am a believer in the reductionist cognitive theory's. I've read arguments against it (e.g. The Emperor's New Mind, Roger Penrose) but they have never been convincing. Based on everything I've heard about the workings of the brain, our thoughts are solely based on the very complex, but theoretically predictable, interactions of neuron's in our brain. The state of the neuron's at any given time are a result of our biological development, past states (i.e. memories) and sensory inputs. I was extremely skeptical of that idea when I first heard it, I really wanted to believe we were more then just elaborate biological computers, however the more I read and understood the argument the more I agreed with it. Douglas Hofstadter is a great proponent of the idea and author of some absolutly fascinating books, Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid and The Minds I, the latter being the book that changed my views on the subject. I highly recommend them to anyone interested in how our minds work. Also give Penrose's book a look, it's always good to get a dissenting view on things.
I hope that helps to clarify my postion, I think you may have been confused thinking I was trying to reconcile the idea of free will with the behaviour of neuron's in our brain.
Thank you for the clarification. Also thank you for making the distinction between atheist and agnostic. As an agnostic, I am endlessly frustrated by friends who after hours of discussing our beliefs still fall back to "So, you're saying you don't believe in god?"
I do question your distinction between something that always was and our universe which appears to have had a beginning 15 billion years ago. Many current theory's suggest that the big bang may not have been the first of its kind. These theory's suggest that the big bang may have been proceeded by the universe collapsing in on itself. Another more current theory is M-Brane theory where it is supposed that the big bang could have been caused by the collision of two branes. Both of these ideas suggest that our universe may not have come from nothing but it's current incarnation is just another chapter in an eternal cycle.
Your primary arguement is almost faultless, although I would have to say that the belief in a fantastically unfathomable universe + a fantastically unfathomable god is less credulous then the belief in a fantastically unfathomable universe alone. Believing in this crazy universe itself strains logic, but the damn thing just won't go away.
If free will works as you describe, then it is still dependent on the neuron's acting as you describe, therefore free will is still part of the cause (neuron firing) and effect (choice made).
How do you figure? If neuron's act as I describe, then there is no room for free will because in theory neuron's work just as mechanically as logic gates in a computer. In a AND gate, if two inputs are recieved, an output is triggered. Likewise in a neuron, if N inputs are recieved (where N is that particular neuron's threshold) then an output is triggered. In order to have free will, you need neurons to be triggered (and hence thoughts though) by something other then the automatic stimulation by other neurons.
No, you stated that universe can exist without cause because of free will.
That was actually the OP, not me. Regardless I can try and elaborate on what I believe to be his argument. What I think the OP was getting at is not that the universe exists because of free will. What he is saying is that what we call free will requires something in the brain to behave in a non-deterministic manner. If neuron's behave as we typically believe them to as simple biological switches (when inputs on a given neuron reach a certain threshold an output is triggered) then as complex as our behaviour may appear, free will must be no more then an illusion. Our behaviour is determined entirely by the state of our neuron's at a given time, which is determined by all our past experiences. Complex, but inarguably deterministic.
Anyhow, the point being that if we assume free will to be true (as most creationists do) then we also must assume that other things in the universe can happen without cause. Thus if things can happen in the universe without cause, why not the universe itself?
I think that's his argument. To put it more simply, he is trying to take two axiom's of creationist theory and showing them to be contradictory. If a creator is required, then free will is impossible and if free will exists then a creator is not required. Interesting argument, IMHO.
Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of complexity theory. I myself would like to believe that the world is deterministic at it's deepest levels, however this is by no means a certainty by modern physics. The deeper theorists dig the universe appears to get more random, not less. Virtual particles appear from seemingly nothing and then disappear again without a trace. At the lowest meaningful levels it is postulated that time and space have none of the linearity that we percieve at higher levels. Will we eventually find our universe to be the clockwork world idealized by Newton? Maybe. But let's be realistic, we're nowhere near that today.
Einstein had trouble accepting quantum physics because of its apparent non-local effects (faster than light signalling between particles) which contradicted his theories of relativity.
I don't believe entaglement is what he was referring to when he said that "God does not play dice with the universe".
Indeed, the 'creative force' would be the cause of the big bang itself.
By the explanation given in the link I included, the creative force is not described as causing the big bang, they sound to be one and the same.
Hatcher (the originator of the proof), apparently goes on in his book to demonstrate that the god he proved was also "all good", "all knowing", etc. but I haven't read it, so don't take my word for it.
Again, from the one who posted the proof (i have not read the book either, though I would certainly be interested)
The poster confirms what you say that later in his book Hatcher goes more indepth about the nature of god, but he doesn't say what the nature is. Also, whatever he explains later in the book will need entirely new (and seeminly contradictory) proofs as this proof portray's a creator that is no more then a sudden big, er, explosion of "creative" energy from which he and the universe originated. It is said he has no other attributes at all which based on that proof, somewhat rules out an "all good" or "all knowing" creative force.
You argue that it may be possible that a creator was not created because "outside the Universe, it is possible for an entity to simply exist without cause".
Where then does the universe exist? More importantly, where did the big bang exist? If we assume that the big bang created the universe, then we can not say that the big bang existed within the universe. The big bang must exist within that which is outside the universe. Therefore, by your argument, if it is possible that a creator came into existance without cause, it is just as likely that the big bang could have came into existance without cause.
Argument II:
The same argument can just as easily be made without relying on a big bang (we're trying to simplify like good scientists. Occam would be proud).
Where then does the universe exist? It would be absurd to say that the universe exists within the universe. The universe itself then must exist within that which is outside the universe (just as we don't think of ourselves as existing in space, but the earth itself certainly does). Therefore, by your argument, if it is possible that a creator came into existance without cause, it is just as likely that the universe could have came into existance without cause.
Ask any physicist whether there are non-causal events; you will receive a resounding 'no'. Ask them to prove it, and you'll get funny looks.
That is not correct. Previous to quantum mechanics this was true and is exactly why Einstein was so reluctant to accept it. However, these days no legitimate physicist doubts quantum mechanics or the fact that many quantum effects are perfectly random, i.e. they have no cause.
Ok now, getting past that, if you read the notes the original poster himself clarified that what was proved was not a god as is described by Christianity or most any other faith, it is merely a "creative" force that did nothing other then create itself and the universe and does nothing else. No explanation is given how this very limited definition of god is anything more then the big bang.
Even if this is a valid logical proof, it doesn't appear to accomplish much of anything.
Ummm, for free will to apply, doesn't there have to be an entity to excercise that free will? If there has to be such entity, then doesn't that still imply a cause (the entity excercising their free will) to the effect?
That doesn't cut it. You say that an entity exercising fee will is the cause for a action based in free will. However, you get into an infinite recursion problem. What caused them to exercise their free will? Free will?
Or an uncreated creator. Either way there has to be someone/something that does not owe its existence to someone/something else.
You are missing the point, what do you contribute by positing the existance of an uncreated creator? What logical gap is filled by assuming the creator who was not himself created? Nothing. Hence we invoke Occam's Razor and assume there is no creator until we find something that can't be explained without it.
A billion deaths is certainly a terrible tragedy, but EVERYONE dying is inestimatibly worse.
Exactly who would it be worse for? Several billion people dying would be a far greater tragedy then everyone dying simply because if everyone died no one would be left to mourne us. We were there, now we aren't. The universe goes on.
...a musical version of Trainspotting starring Andy Dick
holy crap that's brilliant! you have a link to the torrent?
(sometimes i don't even know if i'm serious or not)
Korobeiniki is the name you are looking for. It was also covered by the band Ozma.
No, there are some things that are for damn sure artificial limitations. My definition of an artificial limitation is when the designer goes the extra mile to insure incompatibility. In other words, if it takes more effort to make your product incompatible then to make it compatible, it is an artificial limitation. Something like designing a DRM system to tack on top of otherwise standard mp3's so that other people can't use them, or region coding where only certain DVD players can play certain DVD's, those are artificial limitations and company's are greedy assholes for employing them.
With all due respect, the electoral system doesn't encourage a thing. Your argument would work if Democarat's in New York decided to turn into Republicans so that they would get more attention in the next election. Of course that would never happen because, it would be a just plain foolish thing to do.
As other's have pointed out the electoral system fails to accomplish what it was designed to do because instead of candidates ignoring the least populated states they are now ignoring anything that isn't a swing state. That means many, many states of all sizes get ignored instead of just a few small ones.
It was a nice experiment, but it failed. Time to ditch it.
I have my disks mirrored, which gives me a warm feeling knowing I'm protected from a disk failure, but I'm still worried that one hairbrained "rm -rf tmp /" could ruin my day. If only I had a cheap and easy way to make regular backups aside from the mirroing, I'd sleep better at night.
And Thers even a technology to come in after Perpindicular recording has ran out of steam called laser assisted recording, where a very weak lazer heats up a tiny spot on the drive, making it much easier to record.
How is that any different from the old MO drives?
Not at my house it doesn't.
That's good, I agree that television watching is generally a huge waste of time. However, you can't ignore the fact that the majority of the population gets most of their information and entertainment from tv. Because of that I would guess that television is the single biggest influence on American thought.